EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES
DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES Motivation in Education Desmond H. Elsworth (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-234-7 The Reading Literacy of U.S. FourthGrade Students in an International Context Justin Baer, Stéphane Baldi, Kaylin Ayotte,Patricia J. Gree and Daniel McGrath 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-138-3 Teacher Qualifications and Kindergartners’ Achievements Cassandra M. Guarino, Laura S. Hamilton, J.R. Lockwood, Amy H. Rathbun and Elvira Germino Hausken 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-180-2 Effects of Family Literacy Interventions on Children's Acquisition of Reading Ana Carolina Pena (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-236-6 Nutrition Education and Change Beatra F. Realine (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-983-4
Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America Rainer D. Ivanov 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-582-9 Evaluating Online Learning: Challenges and Strategies for Success Arthur T. Weston (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-107-9
Learning in the Network Society and the Digitized School Rune Krumsvik (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-172-7 Rural Education in the 21st Century Christine M.E. Frisiras (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-966-7 IT- Based Project Change Management System Faisal Manzoor Arain and Low Sui Pheng 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-148-2 Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-615-4 Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60876-543-0 (Online Book) Mentoring: Program Development, Relationships and Outcomes Michael I. Keel (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-287-3 Mentoring: Program Development, Relationships and Outcomes Michael I. Keel 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60876-727-4 (Online Book)
Enhancing Prospects of LongerTerm Sustainability of Cross-Cultural INSET Initiatives in China Chunmei Yan 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-615-9 Multimedia in Education and Special Education Onan Demir and Cari Celik 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-073-7 PCK and Teaching Innovations Syh-Jong Jang 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-147-5 Academic Administration: A Quest for Better Management and Leadership in Higher Education Sheying Chen (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-732-3 New Research in Education: Adult, Medical and Vocational Edmondo Balistrieri and Giustino DeNino (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-873-3
Approaches to Early Childhood and Elementary Education Francis Wardle 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-643-2
Recent Trends in Education Borislav Kuzmanović and Adelina Cuevas (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-795-8 Expanding Teaching and Learning Horizons in Economic Education Franklin G. Mixon, Jr. and Richard J. Cebula 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-971-6 Challenges of Quality Education in Sub-Saharan African Countries Daniel Namusonge Sifuna and Nobuhide Sawamura 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-509-1 Developments in Higher Education Mary Lee Albertson (Editor) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES
DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
MARY LEE ALBERTSON EDITOR
Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York
Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Developments in higher education / Mary Lee Albertson, editor. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-61324-338-1 (eBook) 1. Education, Higher. I. Albertson, Mary Lee. LB2325.D47 2009 378--dc22 2009034042
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York
CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
ix Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials: The Role of Visual Literacy and Predominate Learning Modality Arianne Rourke Deconstructing Interteaching: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of Its Parts? Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
1
37
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies? Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
59
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education Raija Hämäläinen
81
Investigating the Demand for Higher Education: The Effect of Social, Economic, Institutional and Personal Variables Maria Eliophotou Menon
101
A Review of Strategies for Supporting Reflection in Online Learning Environments Ting-ling Lai and Susan M. Land
119
Internet Virtual and Remote Control Interface for Robotics Education Carlos A. Jara, Francisco A. Candelas and Fernando Torres
135
Prospective Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in English Language Teaching: Implications for Teacher Education in Hong Kong David W. Chan, Eunice L. Y. Tang, John C. K. Lee and Cecilia K. W. Chun
155
viii Chapter 9
Contents Anthropology of Education: 30 Years of Experience in China Qi Jinyu
169
Chapter 10
Assessment and Enhancement of Oral Care Self-Efficacy Manabu Morita, Naoki Kakudate, Itsuo Chiba and Masamitsu Kawanami
183
Chapter 11
Peer Evaluation: Strategies and Tactics Beatriz Peña, Juan A. Piñuela, Judith Redoli and Rafael Mompo
197
Chapter 12
Educating Medical Students About Pregnant Women with Drug Addiction Disorders Brittany B. Albright and William F. Rayburn
Index
209 215
PREFACE This new and important book presents the latest research from around the globe on the developments in higher education in areas such as interteaching, the socio-economic demand for higher education, improving visual teaching materials, online learning, anthropology of education, etc. The phenomenal expansion of higher education systems in the second half of the twentieth century has resulted in an interest in the factors influencing the decision of young people to pursue tertiary education. The demand for higher education is commonly considered to be subject to a great number of influences, the most important of which fall under the following categories of variables: social/familial, psychological/individual, economic/occupational, and structural/institutional. Chapter 1 - Many researchers in education have expressed the importance of developing visual literacy skills in students with general consensus that “as teachers we should concentrate and exploit the visual sense through the nurturing and development of visual literacy”. It is also acknowledged that in the elearning multimedia world of the 21st century students “need to be able to think critically about and manipulate visual information and make solid interpretation of its meaning”. The occurrence of high levels of visual literacy among undergraduate design students is a reasonable assumption but there was to date limited evidence to support this notion. Furthermore, a preponderance of visually inclined learners among undergraduate design students also seemed a reasonable assumption but was also hypothetical. Gaining an understanding of visual literacy levels and predominant learning styles among undergraduate design students provides teachers with the opportunity to assess and adapt their teaching strategies to the learning environment. As Hawk and Shah testifies that faculties “are likely to reach only some students in a given course if they assume that all students learn the same way or that one teaching approach will connect with all students.” Teachers both in the humanities as well as science-based disciplines in higher education rely heavily on using visual material to explain complex concepts to students. It is often presumed that students have reasonable levels of visual literacy skills to comprehend these visual examples as well as that students are predominately visual or auditory learners hence the heavy reliance on the use of lectures in higher education. Current research by Rourke and O’Connor has investigated the visual literacy levels and dominant learning style modalities of undergraduate design students where high levels of visual literacy and a predominance of visually-inclined learners was assumed. Their research discovered that these assumptions were not supported by the data and that in fact there was also a high incidence of kinaesthetic learners, a learning style hardly catered for in the teaching methods and learning activities
x
Mary Lee Albertson
employed. The importance of these findings and the recommendations proposed will be discussed in terms of improving the use of visual material in higher education in order to facilitate the long term retention of learning. Chapter 2 - Interteaching is a theoretically-based teaching method with an emerging empirical base. Interteaching stands in contrast to traditional lecture-based educational methods by shifting responsibility for engagement with material away from instructors and onto students. This is accomplished through the use of preparation guides, in class discussion and interteaching reports, and clarifying lectures, three components which include educational techniques known to be effective for promoting student learning and engagement. In this chapter we present the current empirical literature on interteaching. We then deconstruct interteaching and review the literature to explore why the three components of interteaching - preparation guides, in class discussion and interteaching report, and clarifying lectures - promote student engagement and learning. Drawing upon our own research on the use of interteaching we then contrast key findings from the literature review with student perceptions and experiences of interteaching across several upper level undergraduate psychology courses. Although the theoretical basis of each component may explain why interteaching contributes to student engagement and learning, we argue that the emergent properties of all interteaching components in combination provide benefits that go beyond those derived from the individual parts. Suggestions for how to integrate interteaching into undergraduate courses and tips for developing material and for using this teaching method are discussed. Chapter 3 - One of the fundamental problems facing initial teacher training is the development of effective training programmes to raise the quality of teaching and tackle the demands that trainees will meet when they enter the profession. Our perspective adopts a constructivist approach, whereby understanding the working conceptions and knowledge of trainees, and developing these over the course of their university studies, enables us to improve the impact of initial training on professional practice. This chapter presents a summary of various studies we have conducted into initial university training at Nursery, Primary and Secondary levels within the area of the Social Sciences over the last ten years. A common theme is the analysis of prospective teachers’ pedagogic content knowledge in respect of areas which we consider essential for their professional development, such as history, heritage and society, both contemporary and historical. The studies foreground the trainees’ predominating professional knowledge with respect to their scientific, pedagogical and curricular conceptions in the field of the Social Sciences, and this enables us to detect obstacles to the structuring of professional knowledge in keeping with the principles that we consider desirable for the training of reflective, critical and innovative teachers. Chapter 4 - This chapter explores pedagogical design in facilitating computer-supported collaborative learning in the light of two cases in higher education contexts. This study addresses two major aims: To elaborate different theoretical guidelines for the design of pedagogical core ideas of scripted tasks, which support the development of cognitive, social, developmental, or motivational aspects of learning; and to examine whether the groups followed the theoretical core ideas of the scripts and how groups’ activities varied between collaborative Group A and non-collaborative Group B despite apparently similar instructional
Preface
xi
support. Finally, we will discuss the main reasons behind different qualities of collaboration. On the basis of the challenges raised from the study, future prospects will be drawn. Chapter 5 - The chapter investigates the main influences on the private demand for higher education, through an investigation of the decision of young people to select higher education over employment at the end of their secondary education. It is based on a survey of 611 secondary school seniors which took place in Cyprus, a small Mediterranean country and a member of the European Union. The methodology employs both quantitative and qualitative methods for the analysis of the survey data. Four categories of variables reported to be important as demand-influencing factors in the literature were examined, namely, social, economic, institutional and individual/personal factors. According to the findings, the most important influences on the student’s decision to pursue higher education were the following: the student’s ability, the student’s gender, personal/psychological and economic considerations. Higher ability students and female students were found to be more likely to pursue higher education. This was also the case for students who placed emphasis on personal and economic considerations in the pursuit of higher studies. This chapter compares the findings to those of an earlier study of the topic in the same country, and discusses the implications of the findings for higher education policy. Chapter 6 - Reflection is essential to deep learning and problem solving. Recently, as online courses have become available for residential students on college campuses, it is often challenging for online instructors to foster reflection. From a socio-cultural perspective, reflection is developed through social interaction and semiotic mediation. Students need to be given opportunities to review their own and others’ mental processes and to use techniques such as writing or verbal reports to organize and revise thoughts. In addition, students also need guidance in reflection; without guidance, reflection can become self-referential, inward looking and superficial, and lead to aimless retrospective thinking. This paper reviews strategies for supporting reflection in online environments, primarily focusing on journaling / blogging and small group asynchronous discussion. We discuss how these strategies support reflection, and survey studies that investigate the effectives of the two strategies. We also provide suggestions for guidance and evaluation of reflection with online learning environments. Chapter 7 - Experiments allow students to develop a deep understanding of theoretical lessons. Thus, the role of experimentation is a key concept in the education world, mainly in science and engineering disciplines. However, problems such as expensive equipment and limited time, prevent teachers having sufficient educational platforms for student experimentation. With the development of Internet technology, educational institutions have been expanding the available resources for practical learning thanks to Web-based experimentation, which represents an essential issue in the development of e-learning solutions in the current education paradigm. Nowadays, one of the most important weblearning resources is the virtual and remote laboratory, which allows access to experimentation environments at any time, at any place. Its interactivity encourages students to play a more active role in the e-learning process and provides them with realistic hands-on experience. Robotics is an essential topic in the current technological world, and robotic systems have accomplished an explosive growth in the last few years. Consequently, educators have to provide students practical environments to improve their robotic experience. For this reason,
xii
Mary Lee Albertson
the research group to which authors belong have developed a virtual and remote laboratory for training and learning in Robotics called RobUALab.ejs (http://robualab.eps.ua.es). This system allows users to simulate and test positioning commands for a robot by means of a virtual environment with augmented reality support, as well as execute high-level commands in a real remote robot through the Internet. The application has been developed using Java, which allowed a full portability and an interactive graphical user interface. The most important aspect of the system presented is that it collects many interesting features such as a complete robot and world simulation, a very realistic 3D graphical environment, robot dynamics, programming, remote power, lightning and robot control, augmented and virtual reality, which are not found together in any free software like this. This e-learning platform is being used in the course “Robot and Sensorial Systems” in the Computer Science degree at the University of Alicante. In addition, this system belongs to a network composed of different virtual and remote laboratories from Spanish universities called “AutomatL@bs” (http://lab.dia.uned.es./automatlab). The main goal of this project is to provide a collaborative environment based in eMersion where students and teachers from different universities of Spain can experiment with real equipment and share experimental results. Chapter 8 - Self-efficacy beliefs regarding the teaching of English language in reading, writing, listening, and speaking were assessed in a sample of 55 prospective Chinese teachers who were trained to teach English as a second language in Hong Kong. These teachers reported that their sense of self-efficacy in teaching speaking and writing seemed to go together, whereas their sense of self-efficacy in teaching reading emerged as relatively distinct. Prospective teachers with teaching-practice experience did report significantly higher scores on self-efficacy in teaching speaking-writing than those without teaching-practice experience. Implications of the findings for efforts to enhance teaching performance through enhancing teaching self-efficacy are discussed. The use of information technology such as blog-based teaching portfolio is suggested to provide an avenue through which prospective teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs could be closely examined to provide insights into the changes of self-efficacy in relation to teaching effectiveness. Chapter 9 - In this chapter, the study of the past 30 years (1978 ~ 2008) in China’s education course to be sort of anthropological research, focusing on education and anthropology disciplines interdisciplinary, cross-study experience in China. This article been concerned about the development of education in the academic disciplines of anthropology source and the development history of the anthropology of education in China, combined with our local practice in the course of the problems that exist in the future, as well as the development of the topics to be explored deeper. Chapter 10 - Success in achieving good periodontal health depends on whether or not periodontal disease patients can properly adhere to treatment. These patients need effective interventions to improve their adherence to oral hygiene instruction and periodontal treatment. Tentative evidence from low-quality studies indicates that psychological approaches to modifying behavior patterns can improve oral hygiene-related behavior. Accordingly, psychological models should be used in studies aimed at establishing effective interventions to improve oral health-related behavior. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s confidence in determining, "how well they can take necessary action to producing certain results." In clinical practice, self-efficacy refers to "how certain a patient feels about their ability to take necessary action to improve the indicators and
Preface
xiii
maintenance of their health." Medical clinical practice has focused on the function of selfefficacy as a factor antecedent to behavior modification, much as the symptoms of diabetes and other chronic diseases improve through enhanced self-efficacy. Based on these concepts, it is assumed that the prognosis for a patient with periodontitis can be improved by assessing, first the proficiency of their self-efficacy, subsequently providing psycho-educational instruction suitable to each patient, and ultimately promoting behavioral change for oral-care. A task-specific self-efficacy scale for self-care (SESS) for periodontal disease patients was developed. The SESS predicted improvement in self-care and the continuation of consistent and sound periodontal treatment. Self-efficacy belief is constructed from four principal sources of information, performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. ‘Performance accomplishment’ is based on an individual's personal accomplishments. ‘Vicarious experience’ is gained by observing others perform activities successfully. ‘Verbal persuasion’ refers to activities in which people are led through suggestion, to believe they can cope successfully with specific tasks. ‘Physiological and affective states’ are an individual's physiological or emotional states which influence selfefficacy judgment. Self-efficacy can be enhanced by effectively exploiting these four sources. The authors developed a periodontitis patient's education program that employs a six-step method to enhance self-efficacy for improved oral care, and then reported on its effectiveness. This chapter introduces the current study’s results concerning the application of the selfefficacy theory in periodontitis patient education, together with findings clarified by other researchers. Chapter 11 - In recent years, those in the education field have been involved in a substantial change: We are going from teacher-centered to student-centered education, from passive to active learning. There is a great emphasis on actively involving students in the learning process, hoping that they construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences. Due to this great turn, evaluation techniques are also changing: First, we need to measure the distance students are going through, then we assess learning, and finally, we evaluate results in terms of setting criteria. The more viewpoints we have in this process, the better will be the evaluation that will result. Evaluation is also suddenly focused on involving learners in the process, mainly through peer and self evaluation. Some advantages in using learners as evaluators are clear: They are the audience for whom the teaching is intended, and they are in a good position to evaluate the impact of the teaching on their own learning. Peer evaluation is an evaluation technique where each student takes their partner's assignment and gives a critical feedback. Depending on its nature, the student may also correct grammar mistakes or problem-solving inaccuracies. Students will receive valid feedback from their peers only if teachers previously establish an evaluation criterion and structure the activity very carefully. Peers are in a great position to judge their colleagues’ work, since they have worked on the same assignment. The question we now have to answer is: Are students reliable judgers? Are their reactions useful? How can we measure the effectiveness of peer evaluation? Chapter 12 - Objective: For the past four academic years (July 2004 to June 2008), we evaluated the educational value to medical students of attending a special prenatal clinic for women seeking rehabilitation for drug addiction. This report reviews our students’ collective
xiv
Mary Lee Albertson
experience and offers recommendations for expanding their awareness about treating this select group of patients. Study Design: A total of 294 students were consecutively assigned either to attend (study group) or not to attend (control group) a weekly prenatal clinic designed specifically for women rehabilitating from substance use. Each anonymously answered a survey regarding his/her comfort levels and attitudes at the beginning and end of their third-year obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Results: Students who attended the clinic reported that they became less judgmental and more comfortable in talking with drug and alcohol-addicted patients. In contrast, the control group saw these patients in the hospital only and became less comfortable in talking with them, less aware about prenatal management of substance use, and less aware about on-going counseling sessions. The students’ written comments led us to update a handout about drug addiction during pregnancy, create a learning experience at a drug rehabilitation residence for pregnant women, and survey graduates about the long-term value of this brief clinical practicum. Conclusion: Medical students benefited by attending a special prenatal clinic by learning about the challenges and complexities faced by pregnant women struggling with drug addiction rehabilitation. Interacting with these patients outside the hospital offers students an improved awareness about drug eradication beyond understanding the medical aspects of their pregnancy.
In: Developments in Higher Education Editor: Mary Lee Albertson
ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
EXAMINING WAYS TO IMPROVE VISUAL TEACHING MATERIALS: THE ROLE OF VISUAL LITERACY AND PREDOMINATE LEARNING MODALITY Arianne Rourke The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Zena O’Connor The University of Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT Many researchers in education have expressed the importance of developing visual literacy skills in students (Levie, 1978; Sless, 1984; Seels, 1994; Rakes, 1999; Romice, 2000) with general consensus that “as teachers we should concentrate and exploit the visual sense through the nurturing and development of visual literacy” (Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997, p.287). It is also acknowledged that in the elearning multimedia world of the 21st century students “need to be able to think critically about and manipulate visual information and make solid interpretation of its meaning” (Rakes, 1999, p.14). The occurrence of high levels of visual literacy among undergraduate design students is a reasonable assumption but there was to date limited evidence to support this notion. Furthermore, a preponderance of visually inclined learners among undergraduate design students also seemed a reasonable assumption but was also hypothetical. Gaining an understanding of visual literacy levels and predominant learning styles among undergraduate design students provides teachers with the opportunity to assess and adapt their teaching strategies to the learning environment. As Hawk and Shah testifies (2007) that faculties “are likely to reach only some students in a given course if they assume that all students learn the same way or that one teaching approach will connect with all students” (p.2). Teachers both in the humanities as well as science-based disciplines in higher education rely heavily on using visual material to explain complex concepts to students. It is often presumed that students have reasonable levels of visual literacy skills to comprehend these visual examples as well as that students are predominately visual or auditory learners hence the heavy reliance on the use of lectures in higher education. Current research by Rourke and O’Connor (2008) has investigated the visual literacy
2
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor levels and dominant learning style modalities of undergraduate design students where high levels of visual literacy and a predominance of visually-inclined learners was assumed. Their research discovered that these assumptions were not supported by the data and that in fact there was also a high incidence of kinaesthetic learners, a learning style hardly catered for in the teaching methods and learning activities employed. The importance of these findings and the recommendations proposed will be discussed in terms of improving the use of visual material in higher education in order to facilitate the long term retention of learning.
INTRODUCTION In higher education where the curriculum is not as prescriptive as primary or secondary education, the course material used to teach even the same discipline can vary enormously. The teaching methods used to teach this material tends to rely on each academics’ experience, knowledge and understanding of the various teaching methods that can be employed as well as their own comfort factor in adopting them. Many academics are employed on the basis of their academic qualifications, research and teaching experience with less emphasis being placed on having acquired formal higher education teacher training. As a result they often begin by teaching how they were taught or experimenting with various teaching methods. Hawk and Shah (2007) have suggested that “most faculty in higher education initially adopt a teaching style that merges (firstly), the ways they prefer to learn (and secondly) approaches to teaching they saw as effective for their own learning in their higher education programs” (p.1). As a result bad habits can persist for years, particularly in the use of visual material, which is often seen as an appendage to a lecture even being used superficially to take the focus off the speaker. This chapter focuses on revaluating the educational purpose for integrating visual material into teaching and learning activities in higher education and discusses the author’s recent research into visual literacy and learning styles. It argues that academics should be aware of their student’s dominant learning style and visual literacy levels so that when they use visual material in teaching they make an informed decision about which teaching method and learning activity to utilize. For as Hawk and Shah (2007) suggested faculties “are likely to reach only some of the students in a given course if they assume that all students learn the same way or that one teaching approach will connect with all students” (p.2). When it comes to using visual material to illustrate a point, as the disciplinary focus or to reinforce the concepts presented in a lecture, it is difficult to find suggestions or evidence to support the selection of a particular teaching method to support each student’s individual learning style. It is however widely acknowledged in the literature the importance of developing student’s visual literacy skills (Levie, 1978; Sless, 1984; Seels, 1994; Rakes, 1999; Romice, 2000) with general belief that “as teachers we should concentrate and exploit the visual sense through the nurturing and development of visual literacy” (Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997, p.287). There has been a number of early studies that have examined the encoding and retrieval of information from pictures (Friedman & Bourne, 1976; Kunen, Green & Waterman, 1979; Mandler & Johnson, 1976; Mandler & Ritchey, 1977). With the premise that if this skill is developed students will ‘see’ what we as educators want them to ‘see’ hence learn what we want them to learn, the onus being on the student’s ability to learn
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
3
these skills. Many academics cannot agree on what visual literacy skills are or how they should be taught, hence this has become a highly neglected area in higher education. According to Bleed (2005) visual literacy provides educators with “an opportunity to connect with learners and enhance the quality of their learning”, he believes that: “visual literacy deserves a significant focus in higher education” (p.10). However, in some domains visual material is considered almost irrelevant, for example Schonborn and Anderson (2006) suggested that the “pedagogical importance of visual literacy and visualization in the education of biochemists has been ignored for far too long” (p101). In order to explain this area further it is necessary to investigate what the literature says about visual literacy and in particular what this means to how educators use visual material to promote student learning in higher education. Understanding both the visual literacy levels as well as the predominant learning styles of students provides a basis for improving visual material in higher education. The following section provides a review of the literature relating to both visual literacy and predominant learning styles. This is followed by a description of the methodology and the results of a study that focused on visual literacy levels as well as predominant learning styles among higher education design students. Finally, suggestions are provided for improving the use of visual material for promoting learning in higher education.
WHAT IS VISUAL LITERACY AND HOW DO WE TEACH IT? In generic terms, visual literacy has been defined as the ability to read visuals. It is also considered to be a universal attribute that is developed through acquiring a set of principles used for reading visual form (Boughton, 1986). The International Visual Literacy Association, an organization dedicated to the research, study and publication of visual literacy material, use the following extract from Fransecky and Debes, (1972) to define visual literacy as: "a group of vision competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visual actions, objects, and/or symbols, natural or man-made, that are [encountered] in [the] environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, [we are] able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, [we are] able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communications" (p. 7).
Fransecky and Debes (1972) statement above might assist us towards explaining broadly what a visually literate person is capable of doing but provides few clues as to how as educators we can go about trying to develop these skills in our students. In fact there has been some scepticism from the psychological and linguistics research tradition about the concept that one must be taught to see and that we can teach this skill (Cassidy & Knowlton, 1983). The premise was put forward that how “can we teach a competency in which there are no identifiable elements or identifiable rules?” (Cassidy & Knowlton, 1983, p.72).
4
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
Broadly speaking it can be agreed upon that to be visually literate one has to develop the ability to ‘read’ and comprehend what is seen, and have the ability to generate material that has to be seen to be understood (Wileman, 1980). Similarly Giorgis, Johnson, Bonomo & Colbert (1999), defined visual literacy as the “ability to construct meaning from visual images” (p.146). For the viewer to find meaning for example in an art image or design object, they need to comprehend basic elements of a universal visual language. Visual literacy is the semantics branch of linguistics, which encompasses not only the reading of visual forms but also the ability to place meaning onto the visual image. Boughton in 1986 described two types of visual literacy. Firstly, visual (artistic) literacy, where the focus is confined to the study of art and secondly, visual (aesthetic) literacy where the visual world is studied through the framework of various theories of aesthetics, where aesthetics is regarded as the appreciation of beauty. This narrow disciplinary focus assists with teaching visual literacy skills to art and design students however for other disciplines such as science both artistic and aesthetic visual literacy are irrelevant as the focus is on comprehending the key concepts or processes that the diagram, illustration, graph etc. are illustrating. In many cases visuals are used to replace words so their ability to communicate this information in visual form is paramount. Demystifying the process of comprehending these visual images relies heavily on the educator’s ability to explain each element or symbol represented. As Cunliffe (1992) suggested when discussing reading expressive images, a visually literate person has “a working knowledge of symbols” (p.149) and can distinguish visual subtleties. In order to be relevant to our 21st century student, the skills required to become a visually literate person need to be conceivable in practice, relative to the visual world, not only within the disciplinary context, but also within daily life. According to Kintgen (1988) the aim of visual literacy is to explain semiotic systems that provide meaning to the visual world as well as to enable people to use those systems for effective communication. The term semiotics comes from the fields of linguistics and anthropology. Semiotics provides an alternate means of conveying meaning as opposed to words in written or verbal language. Semiotics is the systematic study of signs and symbols to represent written language such as a road sign that communicates the road rules via universally recognisable symbols. According to Raney (1999), claiming pictures are similar in kind to words is equivalent to saying that to be visually literate is to see and understand the visual world in general, rather than to comprehend pictures based on an authorized body of knowledge. As educators we need to develop students comprehension skills of visual material just as we are committed to developing their verbal and written skills within the discipline. There are also autonomous models of visual literacy that apply the term to comprehension of the visual world in general, such as that of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) who claim that “visual literacy will begin to be a matter of survival in the workplace” (p.3), where visual information technology is prevalent. As educators we need to acknowledge that in the e-learning multimedia world of the 21st century students “need to be able to think critically about and manipulate visual information and make solid interpretation of its meaning” (Rakes, 1999, p.14), it can not be taken for granted that students already have an innate ability to do this, this skill needs to be taught and practiced. An early study by Lockhart, Craik and Jocoby (1976) suggested that the visual presentation of words (typeface, size, colour etc), does not influence the meaning which the words convey, for they found that readers had remembered semantic meaning not structural information such as presentation of the text. Similar to verbal language, visual forms are also
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
5
coded in syntax, roughly equivalent to spoken communication (Boughton, 1986). Dondis (1973) took the basic elements, namely dot, line, shape, direction, tone, colour, texture, dimension, scale and movement and compared these to linguistic grammar and syntax to provide a similarity. The purpose of comparing visual elements to language structures is an attempt to make visual communication transparent and easy to comprehend. Instructional design should follow this ‘user friendly’ philosophy breaking down the process of understanding the visual material by providing information on a ‘need to know’ basis scaffolding the learning process so that simple concepts are dealt with first, repeated, then practiced and tested before moving on to more complex issues. According to Koroscik (1982), who studied the complexities of visual art processing specifically in relation to the characteristics of pictorial information processing, prior knowledge, the amount of time allocated to studying the artwork, and the level of the task demanded, all affected student’s ability to learn visual material. Koroscik (1982) study also found that remembering information was influenced by the length of time that was spent viewing the art examples, as other studies indicate (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Koroscik (1982) claims that participants who had 4.5 minutes to respond to an artwork remembered significantly more than those given 1.5 minutes. This result may seam obvious, but what was interesting was that the type of information that was remembered did not differ significantly, with structural information (or formal qualities) remembered before semantic information (its meaning). Koroscik (1982) suggested that as a result of the need to provide longer viewing times for effective learning, that “one might question the traditional practice of displaying large collections of artworks to students in slide presentations. Students might be better served if classroom viewing activities provided for the detailed examination of a smaller number of artworks” (p.21). Across the disciplines educators should endeavour to provide students with visual instructional material that keeps written information to a minimum and uses the structural information wisely to assist towards comprehending the examples rather than for effect.
THE BALANCING ACT BETWEEN THE VISUAL , VERBAL AND WRITTEN When presenting visual material to students in higher education commonly as educators we feel obliged to explain them, add our opinion of them and ask questions about them after all what are we being paid to do? Providing ‘quiet time’ for students to contemplate a visual example may seam an obvious thing to do but so often as educators we feel obliged to use them to verbally reinforce or illustrate a point. Some studies have in fact found however, that asking students the appropriate questions about the visual examples can enhance their learning. For example a study by Adler (1993) found that asking students ‘why’ or ‘what’ questions about pictures was useful. In Adler’s (1993) experiment participants were given different directions to assist them in processing representational pictures of water safety and rescue in order to examine their effects on student’s recall of text information. In this study Adler (1993) found that participants who were asked to elaborate via ‘what’ and ‘why’ questioning on the representational pictures had a better recall of the text information than participants given no explicit directions at all, some explicit directions (e.g. ‘How many
6
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
objects are in the picture?’) and semantic elaboration (e.g. ‘Specifically, how does the picture relate to the text’). In contrast, in the discipline of science, Iding (1997) discovered that asking students questions on scientific diagrams in a textbook was not beneficial to learning. In this study questions were either used to replace the figure captions on the illustrations or were placed directly into the text. Iding (1997) placed her findings in cognitive load theory terms stating that: “questions about illustrations might cause cognitive resources to be unnecessarily and deleteriously expended in the text-diagram integration process” (p.22). Weidenmann (1989) argued that ‘good pictures fail’ for pictures are often viewed as ‘easy’ material in textbooks so learners usually only examine them superficially. Hence studies such as those conducted by Mayer (1989) and Mayer and Gallini (1990) have investigated extensively the usefulness of adjunct illustrations to text and found that this method was an effective tool for facilitating students’ understanding of scientific explanation. Levin and Mayer (1993) found that the more complex the text the more useful illustrations become. Mayer and Gallini (1990) have also suggested that where learners were inexperienced in the content domain, illustrations were an effective tool for learning difficult material. Similarly, Schoborn and Anderson (2006) assert that “visualisation is an essential skill for all students and biochemists studying and researching the molecular and cellular biosciences” (p.94). They provided impelling evidence for modifying visual teaching material and ten guidelines for promoting visualisation and visual literacy among students. Feldman (1986) said that a passive viewer cannot react to visual images with critical understanding and “to be visually illiterate is to be ‘un-free’ in the sense that the individual is a victim of the persuasive devices, or rhetoric of visual communication” (Boughton quotes Feldman, 1986, p.135). Feldman (1986) said that a passive viewer cannot react to visual images with critical understanding and “to be visually illiterate is to be ‘un-free’ in the sense that the individual is a victim of the persuasive devices, or rhetoric of visual communication” (Boughton quotes Feldman, 1986, p.135). This may apply to the critiquing of art or design images however in other disciplines where interpretations are limited and objectivity comes into play students need firstly to learn the rhetoric of the discipline before more creative thinking can be applied. Ausburn and Ausburn (1978) found that the “superficiality of pupils’ comprehension of much of what they view, suggests that higher order visual literacy skills do not develop unless they are identified and taught” (p.288). As educators we need to specifically draw student’s attention to what we want them to remember of each visual example while allowing for the fact that they can become distracted or even overwhelmed by the complexity of the image. Any visual material used for instruction needs to be therefore reduced in complexity particularly for novices learning new material thus emphasizing the information they need to remember. A ‘less is more’ approach works particularly well when presenting students with graphs, figures or diagrams. Even with complex art or design images, as educators we need to direct the student’s attention towards studying specifics in order to limit the amount of information they have to deal with in the limited capacity of their short-term or working memory. When it comes to art and design Feinstein (1982) suggested that in order to represent an image pictorially one must have “some knowledge of the visual symbol systems, its vocabulary, concept, conventions, and some technical skills to manipulate art material” (p.46). All this acquired knowledge and experience combines together in the visually literate
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
7
individual. One of the roles of the art and design educator is to teach the skill and knowledge of reading visual images. One way of achieving this is too reduce the complexity of visual images as mentioned but also to provide easy access to the language. Students need to be taught the disciplinary language used to describe the visual example along side developing their own interpretations and understandings. Learning does not happen in a vacuum, past knowledge and experience comes into play in the learning process. As educators we need to facilitate the connection between what students already know along side what new information they need to learn. Students should be provided with experiences in education to promote visual literacy skills so that the messages in visuals can be critically read and understood for there is the belief that pictures are “surpassing text in their ability to record, transmit, and create new knowledge” (Blystone, 1992, p.1). This may be so for the visually literate student, however there are many students who are not predominately visual learners who find it extremely difficult to understand and remember information presented only in visual form, which will be discussed in detail later.
THE BALANCING ACT BETWEEN WHAT TO LEAVE AND WHAT TO REMOVE Deciding as educators what to present to students and what to leave out is often a balancing act, particularly whether to use a combination of visual, verbal or written instruction or to simple use a discovery learning approach. Since the 1960’s, discovery learning, an exploratory-based procedure has been widely promoted as an effective teaching methodology and learning strategy (Ausubel, 1961; Bruner, 1966; Cronbach, 1966; Wittrock, 1966). Discovery learning assumes that the process of problem-solving search is beneficial to learning. Intervention from the teacher is only recommended in discovery learning when assistance is needed in the search process. The concept behind discovery learning is that learning techniques should promote active knowledge construction as opposed to passive knowledge reception (Sweller, 1999; Tuovinen & Sweller 1999). According to Sweller (1988) ‘learning by doing’ is a problem-solving strategy that is largely unrelated to the cognitive process of schema acquisition. Schemas or information networks consist of concepts that are building blocks of knowledge in a hierarchical network of lower order or less complex information units to higher order or more complex information units. Cognitive load theory assumes that some learning environments impose a higher information processing load on limited working memory resources because they do not take into account its limited capacity for storing, processing and retrieving information (Sweller, 2003). It suggests that many instructional procedures impose a heavy cognitive load not because of the intrinsic nature of the material being learnt but because of the way the material is presented or activities that are required of the learner (Bobis, Sweller & Cooper, 1993). This theory addresses the fact that the primary function of learning is schema construction and automation and that the process of learning may be jeopardized if some of the limited resources of working memory are not directly related to schema construction and automation (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen & Sweller, 2001). When processing “schemas
8
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
reduce cognitive load by permitting us to ignore most of the information impinging on our senses” (Sweller & Chandler, 1994, p.187). Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller (1998) hypothesised that information should be structured to eliminate any avoidable load on working memory and that the appropriate type of structure may depend on the learner’s level of expertise. When diagrams and text are used in instructional material they found that the less expert learners required this information to be physically integrated. When instructional material physically integrates diagrams and text, the novice learner does not need to mentally integrate the material so split-attention is avoided and the load on working memory is reduced. “The split-attention effect provides one example of the consequences of inappropriate cognitive activities caused by poor instructional design” (Chandler & Sweller, 1992, p.233). There are also many other studies on the adverse effects that split-attention has on learning instruction (Sweller, Chandler, Tiernery & Cooper, 1990; Tarmizi & Sweller, 1988; Ward & Sweller, 1990; Mousavi, Low & Sweller, 1995). For the experienced learners, the Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller (1998) study found that the same diagram was intelligible without the text. For the more expert learner who had previous knowledge of the material, the elimination of redundant text rather than the integration of the text with diagrams reduced cognitive load. The redundancy effect occurs when redundant material is eliminated which results in a better performance than when the redundant material is retained (e.g Bobis, Sweller & Cooper, 1993; Chandler & Sweller, 1991; 1996; Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapangco, 1996).
VISUAL LITERACY AND MEMORY According to Solso (2003) the first stage in perceiving art is largely independent of conscious control and we all ‘see’ essentially the same elements of shapes, colours, and patterns as well as organization of forms. The second stage in comprehending art is ‘directed perception’ where one’s personal history and knowledge provides an insight into the artwork. Schnotz (2002) has stated that picture comprehension was “based on a specific interplay between visual perception and higher order cognitive processing” (p.110). According to Schnotz (2002), in picture comprehension the viewer “constructs multiple mental representations” (p.105). These include a ‘surface structure’ representation that corresponds to the visual image of the picture in the viewer’s mind. Then the viewer constructs through semantic processing a ‘mental model’ that represents the content seen in the picture on the basis of common structural characteristics between the picture and its referential content. Mental models are not attached to specific sensory modalities; they are essentially indistinguishable from schemas. A mental model from a picture is abstracted, so it contains less information than the corresponding visual image and irrelevant pictorial details included in the visual image are omitted from the mental model. Mental models of course can contain more information than the corresponding visual image as it includes prior knowledge not included in the visual perception. According to Arnheim, (1969) visual “knowledge acquired in the past helps not only in detecting the nature of an object or action appearing in a visual field; it also assigns the present object a place in the system of things” (p.90). Another mental representation that the viewer constructs for comprehension of a picture that Schnotz (2002) suggested is the ‘propositional’ or descriptive representation.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
9
Propositional representations include information that is read from the model, which is encoded in the format of symbolic representation or descriptions in language form (Chafe, 1994). According to Baddeley, (1992) there is a continuous interaction between the propositional representation and the mental model. Another mental representation constructed by the viewer to assist with visual comprehension is the ‘communication level’, which represents the practical context of the pictorial communication and finally the ‘genre level’ represents knowledge about the class of pictures and their corresponding functions (Schnotz, 2002). Schnotz (2002) stated that the perceptual images created in picture comprehension are sensory specific because they link to visual modality and semantic processing is needed to understand a picture as opposed to just perceiving it. According to Kosslyn (1994) the proximity of these images to perception relates to the notion that visual images and visual perceptions are based on the same cognitive mechanism. Ullman (1984) stated that in perceptual processing, domain specific information is selected from cognitive schemata, which is then visually organized through automated visual routines. A number of studies have investigated ‘visual sketchpads’, which are the viewer’s mental representation of a visual perception of a picture in the imagery part of working memory (e.g. Baddeley, 1992, Sims & Hegarty, 1997). Schnotz (2002) argued that when text processing occurs first before visual processing, most of the capacity of working memory is used leaving little capacity for processing the related pictures. Schnotz (2002) also suggested that a visual image or mental model constructed only from text is likely to differ from the picture presented afterwards, which can interfere with the comprehension of the picture. So according to Schnotz (2002) processing the picture first requires little space in working memory which has a limited capacity, thus leaving enough space for processing text. Schnotz’s (2002) theory could not be applied to the visually complex images of art and design, hence simplifying and physically combining visuals and text would be a more effective method. Mentally combining multiple pieces of information can result in less efficient attainment of information than if the learner was presented the same material in a physically integrated form as previously explained (Mousavi, Low & Sweller, 1995). There is also the argument that working memory capacity may be extended by a dual mode presentation of information. It is easier to learn information, according to Cooper (1998) “when some of the information is presented visually and the remainder of the information is presented auditorily than it is when all of the information is presented through a single sense” (p.5). Potter (1976; 1993) suggested that when many visuals are shown in rapid continuous presentation, unrelated pictures are momentarily comprehended then immediately forgotten. Potter (1993) argued that although pictures are ‘grasped’, conceptual processing initiated by the next new picture in the sequence interrupts consolidation in memory. Potter (1999) hypothesised that when a stimulus is identified, it’s meaning is rapidly activated and maintained briefly in conceptual short-term memory. CSTM is a processing and memory system that is, according to Potter (1999), different from visual (iconic) memory, conventional short-term memory and long-term memory in three respects: firstly, the rapidity with which the stimuli reaches a meaningful level of representation; secondly, the rapid structuring of these representations and thirdly, immediate forgetting of information that is not structured or otherwise consolidated.
10
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
Structuring in CSTM ranges from grouping of visuals based on meaning to the more complex semantic interpretation. “Organizing or structuring of new stimuli enhances memory of them” (Potter, 1999, p.13). Intraub (1999) conducted a series of experiments that tested recognition memory under a variety of time limits. She discovered that as long as viewers were given some time between pictorial presentations, there was good recognition memory for briefly glimpsed pictures. The aforementioned studies provide evidence to support the objective that in art education when multiple pictures are presented adequate time should be provided so that the viewer has sufficient time to absorb the pictorial detail. According to Solso (2003) ‘prototypes’ can be used in art to assist with the recognition of the central visual characteristics of the work. Solso (2003) discussed “prototypes as the abstractions of stimuli against which patterns are judged” stating that “it is possible, and far more economical, to store impressions that embody the most frequently experienced features of a class of objects” (p.230). He suggested that to conceptualise art and understand the classification of art periods and individual artists’ styles, the process of forming cognitive categories in the form of both personal and knowledge schemata is the predominate way art knowledge is stored in long-term memory. According to Solso (2003), from the experience of viewing a typical exemplar of an art period, the viewer forms a general impression of the style, so when another work of the period is viewed it can be immediately ‘recognized’ as belonging to the same period as the ‘prototype’. Solso (2003) stated that: “the formation of a prototypical memory is accomplished through perception of features that are recombined in memory” (p.233). In order for educators to use visual exemplars effectively, it “requires sufficient understanding of how the human cognitive systems interacts” (Schnotz, 2002, p.114) with the visual stimuli. A number of studies have ascertained that instructional design that includes both verbal and pictorial information should be presented in a coherent manner with some semantic overlap (e.g. Carney & Levin, 2002; Mayer & Gallini, 1990). Well-designed instructional material should provide interconnection between verbal and visual information so that they enter working memory simultaneously (Schnotz, 2002). One method that assists with this process is the use of semantic cues, which can facilitate transfer by assisting the viewer in finding connections between the artwork’s characteristics and the viewer’s prior knowledge (Koroscik, Short, Stavropoulos & Fortin, 1992).
SEMANTIC CUES AND MEMORY RETRIEVAL There has been a number of studies on reading comprehension that have demonstrated that readers often examine the surrounding text for semantic cues (Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Carnine, Kameenui & Coyle, 1984). A study by Warren and Horne (1982) discovered that students’ comprehension of pictures could be influenced by contextual cues. In order to make use of their cognitive resources, learners must find meaningful connections between their existing knowledge and whatever they are attempting to understand as discussed previously (Prawat, 1989). Instructional design used in the disciplines of art and design, that includes semantic cues to assist students to make appropriate links between their previous knowledge and the material to be learnt, can assist with memory retrieval.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
11
Koroscik, Short, Stavropoulos and Fortin (1992) hypothesised that verbal cues might assist students to connect the characteristics of an artwork with their own previously acquired domain specific knowledge. Their study investigated the contextual variables that influenced the comprehension of a work of art. This study used verbal contextual conditions of cues and non-cues to demonstrate whether students required explicit verbal prompts to discover relationships among works of art. Using both a multiple-choice matching test and an openended writing task, the results showed that verbal cues prompt students to elaborate on possible art meanings. Koroscik, et al. (1992), found that student’s who were provided with an art context, scrutinize the artworks for common features to discover comparative relationships between the artworks. They also found that students who were given verbal cues synthesized their ideas better and constructed more elaborate meanings about the artworks, than those who were not cued. The students who were given the verbal cues also had fewer misunderstandings about the artworks. The students who were not given the verbal cues used broader search strategies, which proved to be a less effective approach than the teacher directed method. There is some evidence that retrieval cues are important for recall and it has been discovered that these cues should be present when the material is first presented to the learner (e.g. Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Tulving & Osler, 1968). Semantic cues direct the viewer’s attention to key ideas, which can assist with retrieval of information from long-term memory by linking prior knowledge to information that needs to be learnt. “We achieve understanding of the world through actively finding meaning which we test against our existing schemata” (Cunliffe, 1992, p.143). The semantic cue maybe used to infer a metaphor in art and design and the role of the educator is to use semantic cues to provide better access to the meaning of the work and eliminate confusions and misunderstandings. According to Feinstein (1982), the use of metaphors in art urges the viewer to look beyond the literal meaning of the work in order to generate associations and deeper levels of meaning. “The metaphoric process reorganizes and vivifies; it paradoxically condenses and expands; it synthesizes often disparate meanings” (p.45). Langer (1957) philosophised that to understand experience, one must first abstract it and transform the experience into symbols. Metaphor in art has a symbol-making function which is where a decision is made that one thing shall stand for another (Ortony, 1975; Feinstein, 1982). According to Cunliffe (1992), all “works of art symbolise. There are no works of art without symbols. Some will denote or represent. Others will express or exemplify” (p.150). Symbols are invented when a group of people agree that an object, event or idea, shall stand for another. Symbols are therefore dependant on context and culture. When symbols are created in art and design, a transformation has taken place. Through symbolic transformation the viewer attempts to comprehend, construct and convey artistic meaning (Feinstein, 1982). According to Cunliffe (1992), what “is required when reading and making works of art is to try to understand the visual code that is being used and how this relates to the purpose or function of the work of art” (p.149). Koroscik, et al. (1992) suggested that educators “should provide comparative contexts and explicit verbal cues when depth of understanding is preferred over breadth” (p.163). They also recommended, as previously mentioned, that educators should not expect students to discover meaningful or accurate ideas about an artwork without teacher direction and input. Koroscik, et al. (1992) advocated that if effective search strategies are used, but the students lack the domain specific knowledge, then they will have difficulty comprehending the
12
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
artwork. The Koroscik, et al. (1992) study concluded that educators should base art comparisons on key ideas that have some connection to students’ existing knowledge. As Cunliffe (1992) stated: “finding ways for students to acquire new schemata should be seen as the purpose of art education” (p.145), and providing access to comprehending pictures via semantic cues is one method of demystifying the complex images of art and design which should assist the learner to acquire schemas. Semantic cues can be used in other disciplinary areas where the visual example requires further verbal explanation that cannot be frugally represented by visual form alone. In order to effectively use semantic cues either verbally or in written form, educators need to have some knowledge of what differentiates a novice learner from an art expert as well as all the levels in between, which will be discussed in the next section. Across the disciplines tertiary educators need to consider adapting their teaching methods and instructional material to take into account different student’s levels of understanding of the key concepts being taught, which can varying widely particularly when it comes to learning via visual examples which as previously mentioned, could advantage the visual learner.
EXPERT-NOVICE DIFFERENCES IN UNDERSTANDING VISUAL MATERIAL The use of the term ‘literacy’ in visual literacy suggests that comprehending visual material is an active process that takes time. It takes time, visual literacy skills and domain specific knowledge, to develop the expertise required to fully understand and appreciate the visual arts. Chase and Simon (1973) in their influential theory on chess expertise proposed that it takes ten years to become an expert in a domain specific area such as chess. It also takes deliberate practice to become an expert (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Ericsson & Charness, 1994). Ericsson (1996) suggested that in the arts, a panel of experts or judges, rank the quality of individual performances or special achievements and the highest level of achievement is having the artefact, such as a painting, recognized as a masterpiece or a major creative innovation. Bloom (1985) suggested that the training of expert performers could be classified into three phases. The first phase is where individuals are introduced to systematic practice in the domain. In the second phase, teachers present the novices with basic training tasks and they guide them towards focusing their attention on the critical aspects of the task in order to make specific changes and corrections. During this process, the teacher monitors their performance and provides feedback. As the complexity of the task increases, so does the practice task and goal. According to Bloom (1985), in phase three, some individuals have reached the point where they have made the decision to commit full-time to the domain and make it their professional career. At this point they are able to monitor their own performance. Ericsson, Krampe and Heizmann (1993) added a fourth phase to Bloom’s (1985) three phases for training expert performance. In the fourth phase, according to Ericsson, et al. (1993), the primary goal is to make a substantial personal creative contribution to the domain. In this phase, experts redefine the current boundaries of a domain of expertise. This expert performance view preserves the notion that training is a necessary prerequisite to major innovation (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, 1996).
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
13
In order to develop expertise in the disciplines of art and design, educators need to first assist students in acquiring the skills needed to comprehend relevant examples of art and design. Educators should provide learning opportunities that assist the learner to assimilate their prior knowledge to any new knowledge in order to promote schema acquisition that can assist with comprehension. Studies in art education have found that comprehension of art is reliant on both the nature of the visual stimulus and the viewer’s cognitive structures or existing knowledge (Koroscik, 1982; Koroscik, Desmond & Brandon, 1985). According to the constructive theorist DiSibio (1982), comprehension is a cognitive process that requires the activation of an individual’s prior knowledge. Koroscik, Desmond and Brandon (1985), have suggested that comprehending art involves a complex interplay between encoding its formal qualities and its semantic characteristics, as indicated previously. According to Raney (1999), critical understanding, that most experts possess, requires guided study and discussion and ‘informed judgement’. Raney (1999) suggested that there were three kinds of visual literacy that can be applied to art education. The first identified was ‘perceptual sensitivity’ which is the perception all sighted people have which can be sharpened by education. A second kind of visual literacy, Raney (1999) identified was ‘cultural habit’, where people are predisposed to see in certain ways, which varies according to what they have been exposed to. The third kind of visual literacy, which has to do with ‘critical knowledge’, includes “knowledge of the ways the visual images have been used throughout history, awareness of different kind of intentionality, of how an image, object or event is put together to offer a particular experience” (p.45). An art expert can comprehend most art without difficulty, as they have developed a high level of perceptual sensitivities, have had direct experience with a variety of art within a variety of contexts and they have acquired critical knowledge of art history and theory. Prawat (1989) suggested that it was important that educators consider both the structure of the discipline as well as the cognitive structure of expert learners in that particular discipline. According to Prawat (1989) students should be provided with the concepts and principles that are most likely to promote domain specific expert competence. Expert performance is acquired gradually. In order for students to improve their performance in an art related discipline, they will depend on the teacher’s ability to provide a series of simple training tasks that the students can successfully master by repetition, while being provided with feedback and instruction (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993).
RECOGNIZING STUDENTS DIFFERENT VISUAL LITERACY LEVELS Learners with fairly low visual literacy levels usually have a limited grasp of the disciplinary language required to describe a visual example (Koroscik et al. (1992). They can however recognize the formal (structural) qualities of a visual image, which is expressed using basic descriptive language (Koroscik, 1982). These learners have difficulty comprehending visual subtleties or as Raney (1999) would suggest lack ‘perceptual sensitivity’ hence they provide superficial answers to questions as well as irrelevant observational points about visual examples. Learners with a low level of visual literacy have
14
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
difficulty decoding or interpreting visual messages successfully and also to encode or compose meaningful visual messages that visual literate persons are able to do according to Ausburn and Ausburn (1978). They can require longer viewing time to study most visual material (Koroscik, 1982). These learners require repeat focused instruction about the visual image in order to improve their visual comprehension skills as these learners often loose focus and are easily distracted if the main points to be learnt are not made obvious to them. Learners who have developed further in their visual literacy skills from the level described previously, usually have developed some appropriate disciplinary language and are able to pick up some semantic (meaning) information (Kintgen, 1988) from the visual example as well as have the ability to describe a given images visual subtleties. These learners are able to provide textbook answer to questions about the visual example and have the ability to focus on relevant details of a visual image. They require minimal instruction to perform a task that involves comprehending visual images and are able to see relevant similarities as well as differences between visual images when comparing them. They have acquired the ability to connect new knowledge to past knowledge that was acquired from focused domain specific study (Prawat, 1989). When analyzing a visual example, learners with medium level visual literacy skills are able to provide a variety of viewpoints about the visual example as well as see relevant points beyond those that may seam obvious. These learners can discriminate and interpret well a visual image (Rakes, 1999) after they have received instruction. Learners with high visual literacy skills are usually high achievers in their final year of study or Postgraduate students who have studied a visual discipline. They have a solid understanding of the disciplinary language of the discipline (Rakes, 1999) and are adept at applying the appropriate language to the situation. Learners with high visual literacy skills have developed comprehension skills to a high level, and have developed “higher order cognitive processing” (Schnotz, 2002) skills. These learners have a highly analytical understanding of the visual subtleties in images and have acquired “a knowledge of visual symbol systems” (Feinstein, 1982, p.46). They are able to add to the existing knowledge of the subject in an innovative manner with minimal instruction. These learners are quick to recognize the significance of both the similarities and differences between visual images and they usually have developed a high level of appreciation and aesthetic awareness. Not only can these learners problem-solve and think critically (Fleming & Levie, 1993) about visual information they also have a solid interpretation of the visual images meaning (Rakes, 1999). Many students may never reach this level of expertise having survived the higher education system cruising at the lowest level or still achieving well using a medium level of visual literacy skill that most tasks in higher education require although achievement levels are higher in specialized disciplines that train visual thinkers.
LEARNING STYLE MODELS DEFINED Learning is a complex human process and a range of theories and models exist that attempt to describe and explain this phenomenon. The term learning style, which is generally considered to comprise cognitive styles, instructional preferences and learning strategies, has
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
15
been defined as “an individual’s characteristic and preferred ways of gathering, organising, and thinking about information” (Fleming, 2001, p.1). Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences suggests that a range of influences and factors impact on the learning experience, and the complexity of leaning is reflected in the diversity of current learning theories and models. A systematic review of learning style models conducted in 2004 identified 71 learning style models, which have evolved in the UK, USA and Western Europe (Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004). These models, which have emerged across diverse fields including psychology, education, sociology and business studies, can be further categorised into three sub-categories: pedagogical, theoretical and commercial. Underpinning each learning style model is a marginally different set of assumptions as well as varying definitions of key constructs, prompting Coffield et al (2004) to note that a unified definition of learning style is lacking within the literature. Subcategories of learning style models include the following. a. b. c. d. e.
Learning styles related to genetic or constitutionally based factors; Learning styles linked to cognitive features and structures; Learning styles as a component of stable personality types; Learning styles that reflect flexibly stable learning preferences; Learning approaches, strategies and orientations (Coffield et al, 2004).
Within each of these sub-categories, learning style models tend to have a different focus with some resting on ideas relating to cognitive functioning while others focussing on personality traits or intellectual abilities. Learning style models also tend to vary in terms of predicted stability; that is, whether the learning style remains fixed over time or whether it evolves and changes.
KEY LEARNING STYLE MODELS Of the 71 learning style models reviewed by Coffield et al (2004), thirteen were identified as key learning style models. These met specific selection criteria that included whether the learning style model was influential or potentially influential; whether the inherent claims were supported by empirical evidence; whether the link between learning style model and students’ learning was supported by empirical evidence and whether the model had broad implications for pedagogy. The key learning style models identified by Coffield et al (2004) are as follows. a) Genetic and constitutionally based factors learning style models: 1. Gregorc’s mind styles model and style delineator ; 2. The Dunn and Dunn model; b) Cognitive structures based learning style models: 3. Riding’s model of cognitive style and Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA);
16
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor c) Stable personality types: 4. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI); 5. Apter’s reversal theory of motivational styles, Motivational Style Profile (MSP); 6. Jackson’s Learning Style Profiler (LSP); d) Flexibly stable learning preferences: 7. Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI); 8. Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ); 9. The Hermann ‘whole brain’ model and the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI); 10. Allinson and Hayes’ Cognitive Style Index (CSI); e) Learning approaches and strategies: 11. Entwistle’s approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST); 12. Vermunt’s frameworks for classifying learning styles and his Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS); 13. Sternberg’s theory of thinking styles and his Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI).
In addition to providing a theoretical framework of the learning process, each of the key learning style models feature an assessment or measurement instrument that includes various learning style descriptors, measures and assessment outcomes. In their comprehensive review of key learning style models, Coffield et al (2004) also provide a thorough examination of each of these measurement instruments which includes an assessment of the measurement instrument and assessment process in terms of reliability and validity as well empirical evidence of pedagogical impact.
VAK AND VARK LEARNING MODALITY-SPECIFIC MODELS In addition to the assessment instruments of the thirteen key learning style models discussed above, a number of modality-specific questionnaires exist. These focus on assessing or measuring modality-specific strengths and weakness in terms of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic processing that are considered to influence the learning process (Coffield et al, 2004; Rourke et al, 2002). For example, the VARK questionnaire, developed by Fleming (2001) provides a measure of visual, auditory, read/write and kinaesthetic modalities. Fleming’s findings suggest that 41% of participants, who completed the questionnaire online, have single style preferences; 27% two preferences, 9% three and 21% had a preference for all styles. Similarly, the self-administered VAK test devised by Chislett and Chapman (2005) has been used to assess students’ predominant learning style in terms of three modalities: visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. The VAK test “deals with perceptual modes. It focuses on the different ways we take in and give out information. The only perceptual modes, or senses, it does not address are taste and smell” (Hawk & Shah, 2007, p.6). An additional benefit of the VAK test is that as it can be self-administered, allowing participants to complete the
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
17
questionnaire and then score themselves thereby gaining an indication of the strengths and weaknesses across the three learning modalities.
LEARNING STYLE MODELS: IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS AND LEARNERS An understanding about students’ learning styles is critical for educators in terms of developing learning programs that are productive and effective for all students. However, during the design and development of learning programs, educators often make the “assumption that learners exhibit uniformity in the ways in which they process and organise information (cognitive styles), in their predispositions towards particular learning formats and media (instructional preferences) and the conscious actions employed to deal with demands of specific learning situations (learning strategies)” (Sadler-Smith, 2004, p.395). An understanding about individual learning styles is also crucial from the learner’s perspective as research indicates that high student performance occurs in learning activities that match student’s learning style (Fleming, 2001). According to Sadler-Smith and Smith (2004), a key element in the learning process “lies in the individual becoming aware of her or his preferred style. This depends upon the opportunity being made available for an individual to learn about their own style, but also the predisposition of the learner to be motivated to become self-aware and to behave in flexible and different ways when circumstances demand it” (Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004, p.407). A number of objections have been raised in regard to learning styles and the first of these has to do with criticism of specific aspects or features of learning style models and/or measurement instruments. Another key objection relates to the quantitative nature of learning style models and measurement instruments, with detractors suggesting that a quantitative approach is inappropriate and espousing a qualitative approach instead. The commercialisation of some learning style models and measurement instruments has also provided cause for objection, as has the prominence accorded to learning style models by some practitioners. Despite these objections, learning style models and measurement instruments provide a useful insight for educators when developing teaching and learning programmes.
VISUAL LITERACY AND LEARNING STYLE MODALITIES STUDY Research Aim The study focused on two key aims: firstly to examine levels of visual literacy among undergraduate design students; secondly to identify the predominant learning modality among undergraduate design students in relation to the categories of visual learners, auditory learners and kinaesthetic learners. The occurrence of high visual literacy levels among undergraduate design students is a reasonable assumption but remains an untested hypothesis. In addition, a preponderance of visually inclined learners among undergraduate design students also seems
18
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
a reasonable assumption but is also hypothetical. Gaining an understanding of visual literacy levels and predominant learning styles among undergraduate design students will provide teachers with the opportunity to modify and match their teaching strategies to the learning environment. Therefore, the hypotheses of this study were: firstly that visual literacy levels are relatively high and stable among undergraduate design students; secondly that the predominant learning modality among undergraduate design students is the visual learning modality; and thirdly that undergraduate design students tend to exhibit both high levels of visual literacy and score highly in relation to predominantly visual learning modality. For the purpose of this study Ausburn and Ausburn’s (1978) definition of visual literacy has been adopted, which suggested that visuals have their own vocabulary, grammer and syntax and that a visually literate person should be able to decode (interpret) visual messages successfully and to encode (compose) meaningful visual messages. A predominately qualitative approach or an approach that acknowledges a wider hermeneutical perspective may appear appropriate for this study. However, the research design reflected a somewhat narrow hermeneutical perspective to mirror the design curriculum and teaching stratagies common in higher education in New South Wales, Australia (Rourke & O’Connor, 2009).
Research Design A quasi-experimental research design in which qualitative procedures coupled with quantitative analysis was used in the study. Two separate qualitative procedures, the F-sort and Q-sort procedure, were used in a controlled classroom situation and the results were quantitatively analysed. The test was kept specifically short in duration for a number of reasons. Firstly, the length and duration of testing procedures are considered to impact the reliability and veracity of test outcomes, and the maximum recommended number of questions or evaluations within a given questionnaire should be around fifty (Heise, 1970). Measurement instruments that include more than fifty questions are considered to contribute to participant-fatigue, thereby impacting negatively on the reliability of results.
Test 1 – Identifying Predominant Learning Modality The self-administered VAK test devised by Chislett and Chapman (2005) was used to assess participant’s predominant learning style by assessing their strengths and weaknesses in relation to visual, auditory and kinaesthetic modalities. This test was selected as it could be self-administered and scored by participants, thereby providing data for this study as well as useful information for participants regarding their predominant learning modality. In addition, the VAK test is of relatively short duration and was applied in an attempt to minimise and/or avoid participant-fatigue.
Test 2 – Assessing Visual Literacy Q-sort and F-sort procedures were used to assess visual literacy levels among the participant group. The Q-sort technique, developed by Stephenson in the 1930s, elicits
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
19
perceptions and judgments of a subjective nature by directing participants to sort visual stimuli using categories defined by the researcher (Amin, 2000; Stephenson, 1953). The Fsort technique is a modification of the Q-sort technique and allows participants to define their own categories without direction from the researcher when sorting visual stimuli (Miller, Wiley & Wolfe, 1986). This methodology combines a qualitative approach with quantitative data analysis and is considered an effective tool for capturing patterns of subjective responses to a set of visual stimuli (Amin, 2000; Brown, 1986).
Stimulus Sampling Process The visual stimulus sampling approach used in this study, adopted from Schroeder (1988) and Wohlwill (1977), involved collecting a large set of digital photographic images that illustrated examples of the historical design styles of the Arts and Crafts movement, Art Nouveau, Art Deco and Bauhaus. Studies investigating the use of visuals in learning have expressed the importance of testing participants using: 1) material similar to their course material, and 2) that links into the course objectives (Szabo, Dwyer & DeMelo, 1981). The visual stimulus used in this study meets both of these criteria. A total of 62 images were collected and these were assessed using the nominal group consensus technique using the evaluation criteria below. • • • •
•
The photograph featured an example of the built environment, a textile design, or a furniture design; The image represented one of the four selected historical design styles (Art and Crafts movement, Art Nouveau, Art Deco and Bauhaus); The image was of good photographic quality with clear and unimpeded features and a simple white (or colour consistent) background; The image could be manipulated using computer software to remove distracting elements; maintain and/or adjust consistency of ambient lighting across all images; and to maintain and/or adjust consistency of background colour and effect across all images; The image was copyright cleared and available for use in this research project.
Nominal group consensus technique is one of a number of techniques used to gain consensus in respect to research materials and visual stimuli. Unlike the Delphi technique, which uses a panel of experts, the nominal group consensus technique comprises a group of people considered to have relevant knowledge or experience specific to the aims of a research study (Campbell and Cantrill, 2001; Keeney, Hasson & McKenna, 2001). This technique was selected over the Delphi technique due to convenience. The nominal group, which included the two primary researchers of this study each of whom held doctorate qualifications in design, selected a final set of 12 digital photographic images for use in the study. Generic code numbers were used to identify the visual stimuli. The selection of visual material also was chosen to take into account ‘prototypes’ used to teach design history. According to Solso (2003) ‘prototypes’ can be used in art to assist with the recognition of the central visual characteristics of the work. Futhermore, prototypes were described “as the abstractions of stimuli against which patterns are judged”, Solso (2003) stated that “it is possible, and far
20
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
more economoical, to store impressions that embody the most frequently experienced features of a class of objects (p.230).
Procedure All students who participated in the study were provided with a questionnaire and a set of visual stimuli in a well-lit classroom situation and were directed to self-administer the questionnaire. The questionnaire included a ‘Participant Information’ section; a 30 question VAK test; an ‘F-sort’ section and a ‘Q-sort’ section, and participants were directed to complete each section in serial order. The study proceeded under the supervision of the researchers and the resulting data was collected and bundled for subsequent data analysis. The Participant Information questionnaire included questions relating to a limited range of personal information such as age, gender and previous education. The F-sort questionnaire required participants to sort through the visual stimuli and arrange the images into groupings according to their own categories. Once sorted, participants were then required to record the sorted visual stimuli, using code numbers, under their own category headings on the instruction form. The participants were then directed to complete the Q-sort questionnaire. This questionnaire required participants to sort the visual stimuli again and group them under the headings of Arts and Crafts movement, Art Nouveau, Art Deco and Bauhaus.
Participants and Sample Size The participants for this study were drawn from first year undergraduate design students from the College of Fine Art (The University of New South Wales) and the total sample size was 178. Of the sample group, 71% were between 17 and 20 years of age; 26% were between 21 and 30 years of age and 3% were aged 30 or more of these participants 72% were female and 28% were male. Of the sample group, 62% had studied Art at high school level and 13% had studied Design and Technology at high school level. The remaining 25% had not studied Art or Design related subjects at high school level.
Data Analysis: F-Sort Results The data collected from the study was input into statistical software in two large batches and the results were analysed using descriptive statistics as follows. The F-sort task required participants to sort the visual stimuli into categories using headings that they created themselves. Just over half the participant group (51.4%) categorised the images according using object type descriptors (such as “furniture, textile, building”). Of the remaining participants, 17.7% created categories based on relatively common design category descriptors (such as “Modern; Post-modern” or “Modern, Medieval, Organic, Oriental”). Almost 10% (9.7%) formulated categories based on shape, pattern and/or colour descriptors (such as “Geometric, Floral, Green, Grey”). Nearly 9% (8.6%) of the participant group sorted the images using categories that represented a mixture of object type/design category descriptors such as “Chairs, Exteriors, Art” and “Postmodern, Brown organic, Modern
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
21
geometric, Old-fashioned, Intricate patterns”. A small group of participants (8.0%) created groups of images but did not provide any form of category headings or descriptions; while a smaller group (1.7) categorised the images into a large range of multiple groups with multiple headings. Finally, only 2.9% of participants sorted the images into categories that matched the categories devised by the researchers. Results of the F-sort task are illustrated in the following graph.
Q-Sort Results A relatively small percentage (5.6%) of the participant group achieved a ‘4 of 4 correct’ score’ by correctly identified all twelve images representing the four design styles used in the study (Arts and Crafts, Art Nouveau, Art Deco and Bauhaus). A smaller group (3.4%) achieved a ‘3 of 4 correct’ score by correctly identifying all images within three of the four design styles, and 10.7% scored ‘2 of 4 correct’ by correctly identifying images within two of the four design styles. Of the remaining participants, 21.3% achieved a ‘1 of 4 correct’ score and over half of the participant group (57.3%) were unable to correctly sort the images into any of the four design styles. A small group of participants (2.2%) indicated on their questionnaires that they were not familiar at all with the design style categories used in this study and were not able to sort the images at all. The results are illustrated in the following graph.
22
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
Of the images correctly identified by 5.6% of the participant group, the Art Deco style achieved the highest correctly-sorted score (26.4%), followed by the Bauhaus style (18.0%) and the Art Nouveau style (17.8%). The Arts and Crafts Movement style achieved the least correctly-sorted score (15.7%), as per the following graph.
These results indicate that the first hypothesis of this study (that visual literacy levels among undergraduate design students are relatively high and stable) should be rejected. Visual literacy levels among undergraduate design students was found to be low with only 2.9% achieving a high score on the F-sort task and 5.6% achieving a high score on the Q-sort task. Levels of stability in visual literacy levels among undergraduate design students will be determined in subsequent studies.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
23
Predominant Learning Modality Of the participant group, 40.8% identified their predominant learning modality as visual, 24.7% as auditory and 34.5% as kinaesthetic as per the following graph. Over 90% of the participant group indicated mixed preferences and not a single style preference. However, the scores indicated that primary learning modality preferences dominated considerably over participants’ other preferences.
These results indicate that the second hypothesis of this study (that the predominant learning modality among undergraduate design students is the visual learning modality) should be conditionally accepted. While the visual learning modality scores were high, the scores for the kinaesthetic and auditory learning modalities were also relatively high with the visual learning modality only 15% higher than scores for the kinaesthetic learning modality.
Patterns of Similarity and Difference: Visual Literacy Levels and Learning Modality The following graph illustrates the patterns of similarity and difference between visual literacy levels and predominant learning modality of the participant group. Among those participants who achieved a 100% correct score in the key Q-sort visual literacy test, visual learners were only marginally above auditory and kinaesthetic learners: the scores being 6, 5 and 4 out of a total of 178 respectively. No pattern or trend emerged that indicated that any of the predominant learning modalities were any better or worse in terms of visual literacy. Except that a surprisingly large proportion of predominantly visual learners scored very poorly in the Q-sort visual literacy test compared with auditory and kinaesthetic learners. Auditory learners’ results were relatively stable across the Q-sort scores, while kinaesthetic learners also scored poorly in the Q-sort visual literacy test.
24
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
These results indicate that the third hypothesis of the study (that undergraduate design students tend to exhibit both high levels of visual literacy and score highly in relation to predominantly visual learning modality) should be rejected. The actual number of visual learners who scored 100% correct across all four design styles was only 6, as compared to 5 auditory learners and 4 kinaesthetic learners. In addition, the bulk of visual learners scored remarkably poorly in the Q-sort visual literacy test.
STUDY CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION These results provide some evidence to support the recommendation that teachers in higher education should not take for granted that just because they are teaching a visually dominant discipline to predominately visual learners, that these learners will necessarily have the visual literacy skills needed to comprehend visual examples used in instruction. It is an essential feature of cognition that the learner is provided with activities and instruction that allows them to create meaning from their observations, the participants in this study in the majority of cases, lacked the schemas to make the necessary connections. As this study has demonstrated even predominately visual learners experience difficulty comprehending the link between a visual example and the associated language that needs to be learnt. As Schnotz (2002) proposes, “it is not enough that learners possess the cognitive schemata of everyday knowledge required for understanding pictorial illustrations” (p.116), they need also to have acquired domain specific prior knowledge and the skills to apply it. Superficial observational points were received from students lacking visual literacy skills. These students tended to rely on visual type-form (recognition schemata) rather than associations that identify individual representations that required having the skill to recognize relevancy and the prior knowledge to put what they had identified into appropriate language.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
25
As a result of these findings it is suggested that educators in higher education need to develop both teaching and learning methods and presentation techniques for not just their student cohort’s predominant learning style but also develop methods for teaching the student’s who demonstrate other learning styles particularly for kinaesthetic learning styles. It is imperative that learners in higher education are provided with instruction and activities that promote the skill of receiving, understanding and reacting to visual information, so the quality or effectiveness of communication is improved and the subtlety of the messages can be further developed (Morgan & Welton, 1992). There needs to be a connection between the learners cognitive style and the mode of presentation used in instruction, as McKay (1999) has argued, performance is likely to be reduced where this is not present. Yet as these findings have demonstrated, even visual learners are struggling whom one would expect would have a relatively higher visual literacy skill levels than auditory or kinaesthetic learners. They are not as this study demonstrates, necessarily learning more than the other students with auditory and kinaesthetic learning styles. It does not make sense then to continue in visual dominant disciplines to bombard students with masses of complex visual imagery while using teaching methods that favour the dominant group of visual learners. Consequently using “a few well chosen and well executed illustrations can economically and powerfully convey a wealth of meaning” (Knupfer, 1993, p.150). DePorter (1992) suggested when discussing learning styles that one of the basic problems was that “many people don’t even realise they are favouring one-way or the other, because nothing external tells them they’re any different from anyone else” (p.114). It then becomes important that not only are students aware of their preferred learning style but educators in higher education provide a variety of learning instruction and activities to cater for their learners needs. One of the major outcomes of this study has been to recognise this oversight and to consider instructional methods that could be employed to improve student learning of visual material across each learning style modality. In the following section teaching and learning methods will be suggested to assist towards improving the use of visual material to facilitate student learning.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING STUDENTS LEARNING OF VISUAL MATERIAL These suggestions are aimed at promoting student learning across each of the learning styles and are based on teaching a novice learner as in the case of this study, a topic, concept or process in higher education using visual material. The objective for using these learning activities in teaching is to increase the learner’s visual literacy skills, irrespective of the disciplinary focus. Szabo, Dwyer and DeMelo (1981) in their study that tested two different modes of instruction effectiveness (visualized and nonvisualized) they discovered that: “students receiving the visualized instruction achieved significantly higher mean scores on all criterion measures” (p.184). They recommended that: “Visualization, if used to complement verbal instruction by presenting redundant information visually, is a viable instructional variable for improving student learning” (p.184) reinforcing the important role visuals can play as learning instruction. This approach has particular relevance in light of the results of
26
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
the study discussed above wherein the largest proportion of the participant group identified their predominant learning modality as visual. There has also been emphasis placed in education on the important role practice plays in the learning process. Repeating the use of the same visual images in a variety of learning activities and teaching contexts can be beneficial towards enhancing student’s visual literacy skills. Cassidy and Knowlton (1983) suggested that one “becomes literate through conscious and deliberate effort; the proficiency is not simple acquired as is the case with speech….‘literacy’ implies learning” (p.69). What is commonly considered ‘literacy’ according to Hobbs (1997) is “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a variety of forms” (p.7). As has been previously mentioned, many novice learners however, have limited disciplinary language to express (analyze, evaluate, and communicate) appropriately what they see in a visual example regardless of the amount of times they have spend viewing the image. If a learner has been identified as adopting a predominately auditory style of learning they would benefit from a discussion about the meanings of the language that needs to be learnt in connection with the visual example. Whereas kinaesthetic learners would find it more beneficial to engage in ‘hands-on’ activities that physically engage the learner through actions with the disciplinary language and associated visual example. The visual learner tends to absorb information more efficiently if the visual example is presented with the text in an integrated manner such as in concept maps and cartoons. Role play also suits learners who are identified as predominantly kinaesthetic learners and, in the study discussed above, the second largest proportion of the participant group were identified as predominantly kinaesthetic learners. Learners with low visual literacy levels have no difficulty recognizing the formal or structural qualities of a visual image. Auditory style learners absorb information well when it is spoken in a clear concise manner. In this case presenting in a lecture format the obvious links between the formal qualities and the semantic or meaning qualities would benefit these learners. The kinaesthetic style learners need to be given learning activities that allow them to become actively engaged with the material to be learnt using their senses of sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing. These learners find learning via group activities using actual objects and working models as well as working in laboratories and attending field trips an effective way of learning. In order to promote a less superficial reading of visual material kinaesthetic learners need to become actively engaged in the learning process through ‘experiencing’ the new knowledge to be learnt. For the visual style learner working on concept mapping where formal qualities and the more indepth meaning qualities are linked could assist towards graphically explaining the required concept, process or theory that needs to be learnt. Across all the learning styles when engaging the learning in hands-on activities with visual material, limiting the quantity of auditory and written input from the instructor and in the teaching materials used can be advantageous. As previously mentioned, due to the limited capacity of the learner’s working memory, the novice learner when learning new material can find multimodal presentations and activities overwhelming. Instructors could reduce the cognitive load involved in processing visual material in working memory for the novice learner of new material by integrating where possible words and images and by avoiding irrelevant cognitive activities. An irrelevant cognitive activity is any activity not directly related to schema acquisition and automation (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). As previously mentioned, the process of having to mentally integrate two or more separate pieces of
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
27
information at once can cause split-attention for the learner, resulting in a heavy working memory load, which has a negative effect on learning. Another area of visual learning that educators need to nurture and encourage is developing student’s ability to decipher the visual subtleties imbedded in visual images, graphs, tables, maps or any other visual material being used in teaching. It is often these less obvious visual details that provide meaning to the image and assist in explaining specific themes, issues or concepts that need to be learnt. The auditory learner needs to be trained to efficiently and effectively pick up these visual subtleties through engaged focused listening. Instructors can assist with this objective by sign posting during lectures the important points that need to be remembered about each visual example through vocal emphasis. These semantic cues in the form of changes in tone and level of voice in a lecture can assist towards signaling to the learner any important points that need to be remembered. As previously discussed in detail, semantic cues can assist the learner also to make links between their previous knowledge and the material to be learnt and with memory retrieval. Severini (1967) discussed the cue-summation theory where the principle of learning is that “learning is increased as the number of available cues or stimuli is increased” (p.237). However, effective use of pauses or ‘contemplation time’ in teaching while showing visual stimulus, can encourage students to think further about the points being raised as well as can be used as a useful teaching method for engaging the audience’s attention. Repetition of the main points or a recap on what has been said in a lecture can assist learners across all the learning styles, for the auditory learner this provides reinforcement of the main points to be learnt; the kinaesthetic learner and the visual learner benefit from this repetition to structure and correct the accuracy of their note-taking. For the kinaesthetic learner the action of note-taking keeps them engage and physically active. For the visual learner repetition in the lecture not only assists them in recording accurate notes for later study but also towards adding appropriate visual emphasizes to their note-taking (such as arrows, underlining, drawings, circling words etc), which can assist with later recall and revision. An economic use of well placed symbols, colours or codes if thoughtfully used in both teaching and note-taking, can combine multiple disconnected elements into one element. This could reduce the cognitive load for the less experienced learner as it assists towards avoiding the split-attention effect previously discussed. For the more experienced learner who had previous knowledge of the material, the elimination of redundant text rather than the integration of the text with diagrams reduced cognitive load. The auditory learners can benefit from taping a lecture then listening and perhaps transcribing the main emphasized points afterwards. They also benefit from being encouraged to engage in collaborative discussion groups with fellow students where they revisit the main points of the lecture. Group activities that utilize visuals examples that encapsulate a number of the main points to be learnt can be a useful instructional tool for focusing group discussion towards the points that need to be remembered, a learning activity that could benefit all learning styles. While auditory learners may represent the smallest proportion of the participant group of the study discussed above (just under 25% of the group), given such a proportion, it is imperative that teaching styles are utilized that also adequately address auditory learners. A ‘less is more’ approach to using visual material in teaching where fewer visual examples are used to explain more than one concept or point can be effective. Not only could the learner benefit from less talking in lectures and more contemplation time as previously
28
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
mentioned, they could also find it advantageous if only a limited number of words were used to describe obvious points about each visual example. An early study by Holliday, Brunner and Donais (1977) suggested “that the display of visuals in text may result in the reader’s paying more attention to one cue and less to another, resulting in reduced effectiveness of visuals” (p.185), reversing this approach when teaching visual disciplines it is the words that distract from the visual image. As even novice learners can see and describe ‘the obvious’, what educators need to do is to provide learning activities that encourage the learner to delve deeper into the meaning of the visual example and to connect this new knowledge and understanding to their previous knowledge and understandings. In order to obtain the student’s perspective on the material being learnt, a useful exercise for students to do is to rank in order of importance what they think are the top five factors that they need to learn about the visual example. This can assist with future revision of course material and future planning on what emphasis needs to be made on the visual material to direct the learner to what needs to be learnt. If as “teachers we are not gaining insight into the nature of our students’ learning, then we are not teaching properly. The teacher’s enquiry into their students’ learning is not only a valuable form of educational enquiry, it is also the most valuable approach to teaching” (Rowland, 2000, p.8). Many novice learners when presented with the visual material tend to provide superficial observational points as they lacked the knowledge and understanding to comprehend what they see and have limited disciplinary language to communicate. In lectures the auditory style learner will be listening for phrases such as ‘you need to remember’; ‘this is an important point’ or ‘concentrate on this section’. When such phrases are used wisely for only a few key points about the visual example then relevant information is more likely to be recorded and remembered. Overuse can cause the auditory style learner to ‘switch-off’ as they become overwhelmed by the magnitude of detail to be learnt. Visual style learners can benefit from creating their own images (pictures, graphs, maps, flow charts, diagrams etc.) as this encourages them to apply their own personal meaning to the image linking their past knowledge and understanding to the new material to be learnt. Research has suggested that enhanced learning and retention is promoted when visual material is used in teaching (Dwyer & Baker, 2001; Carney & Levin; 2002). It has been suggested, “that a use of a variety of teaching and learning approaches has the potential to enhance the learning and performance for a wider range of adult students” (Hawk & Shah, 2007, p.2). Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) suggested as previously mentioned, that visual communication is becoming less the domain of specialists and has become more the domain of public communication, they stated that: “visual literacy will begin to be a matter of survival especially in the workplace” (p.2-3). Improving student’s visual literacy skills is a graduate attribute that is rarely catered for in higher education even though it is an essential skill students’ will need in many of their future professions in the technological world of the 21st century. Future research will be exploring further the connection between a learner’s visually literacy skill levels and their predominate learning style modalities in order to investigate further ways of improving the use of visual material in teaching in higher education.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
29
REFERENCES Adler, C. (1993). ‘Directed picture processing: The effects for learners on recall of related text’. PhD thesis, University of South Florida. Allinson, C. & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119-135. Amin, Z. (2000). Q methodology – A journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singapore Medical Journal, 41 (8), pp. 410-414. Apter, M., Mallows, R. & Williams, S. (1998). The development of the Motivational Style Profile. Personality and Individual Differences, 24 (1), 7-18. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual Thinking. California: University of California Press. Ausburn, L. & Ausburn, F. (1978). Visual literacy: Background, theory and practice. PLET, 15 (40), 291-297. Ausubel, D.P. (1961). Learning by discovery: Rationale and mystique. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 45, 18-58. Avgerinou, M. & Ericson, J. (1997). A review of the concept of Visual Literacy, British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (4), 280-291. Baddeley, A.D. (2001). Is working memory still working. American Psychologist, 56 (11), 851-64. Bleed, R. (2005). Visual Literacy in Higher Education, Educause Learning Initiative, Maricopa Community College, Mesa. Brown, S.R. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In W.B. Berry and M.S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientists: Advances and applications in research methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.)(1985). Developing talent in young people. Ballantine: New York. Blystone, R. (1992). Visual Literacy. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 1 (3), 1-3. Bobis, J., Sweller, J. & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in primary -school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3 (1), 1-21. Boughton, D. (1986). Visual Literacy: Implications for cultural understanding through Art Education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 5 (1&2), 125-142. Bransford, J. & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726. Bruner, J.S. (1966). Some elements of discovery. In Shulman, L.S., Keislar, E.R. (Eds.) Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 101-113), Chicago: Rand McNally. Campbell, S.M. & Cantrill, J.A. (2001) Consensus methods in prescribing research. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 26, pp. 5-14. Carney, R.N. & Levin, J.R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve student’s learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14 (1), March, 5-26. Carnine, D., Kameenui, E.J. & Coyle, G. (1984). Utilization of contextual information in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words. Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 188204. Cassidy, M.F. & Knowlton, J.Q. (1983). Visual literacy: a failed metaphor? ECTJ, 31(2), 6790.
30
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
Chafe, W.L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chase, W.G. & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4) 293-332. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151-170. Chislett, V. & Chapman, A. (2005). VAK learning styles self-assessment questionnaire. Retrieved from http://ww.businessballs.com. Accessed on 10 February 2008. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Cooper, G. (1998). Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW. http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/education/CLT-NET-AUG-97. Accessed on 19 February 2008. Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 (6), 671-684. Cronbach, L.J. (1966). The logic of experiments on discovery. In Shulman, L.S., Keislar, E.R. (Eds.) Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 76-92), Chicago: Rand McNally. Cunliffe, L. (1992). Why a Theory of Symbols is Necessary for Teaching Art. Journal of Art and Design Education, 11 (2), 143-153. DePorter, B. (1992). Quantum Learning: Unleashing the Genius in You, New York: Dell Publishing. DiSibio, M. (1982). Memory for disconnected discourse: A constructivist view. Review of Educational Research, 52 (2), 149-174. Dondis, D.A. (1973). A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Dwyer, F. & Baker, R. (2001). A systematic meta-analytic assessment of the instructional effects of varied visuals on different types of educational objectives. In Griffen, R.E., Williams, V.S. & Lees, J. (Eds.) Exploring the visual future: art, design, science and technology, (pp.129-134). Blacksburg, VA: The International Visual Literacy Association. Entwistle, N.J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J.F. Forrest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives. New York: Garland. Ericsson, K. (Ed.) (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. Ericsson, K.A. & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49 (8), 725-747. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T.H. & Heizmann, (1993). The origins and development of high ability. Chicester: Wiley. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R.T.H. & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100 (3), 363-406. Feldman, E.B. (1976). Visual literacy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10 (3/4), 197-200. Feinstein, H. (1982). Meaning and Visual Metaphor. Studies in Art Education, 23 (2), 45-55.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
31
Fleming, N.D. (2001). Teaching and Learning styles: VARK strategies, Christchurch, New Zealand: ND Flemming. Fleming, N.D. & Levie, W.H. (Eds.) (1993). Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication. Fransecky, R.B. & Debes, J.L. (1972). Visual Literacy: A Way to Teach - A Way to Learn. Washington: Association for Educational Communication and Technology. Friedman, A. & Bourne, L.E. (1976). Encoding the levels of information in pictures and words. Journal of Educational Psychology: General, 105 (2), 169-190. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Giorgis, C., Johnson, N.J., Bonomo, A. & Colbert, C. (1999). Visual Literacy. Reading Teacher, 53 (2), 146-153. Gregorc, A.F. (1982). Gergorc Style Delineator: Development, technical and administration manual. Columbia, CT: Gergorc Associates Inc. Hawk, T.F. & Shah, A.J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-18. Heise, D.R. (1970). The semantic differential and attitude research. In G. Summers (Ed.) Attitude measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Hermann, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hobbs, R. (1997). Literacy for the information age, Flood, J.; Brice Heath, S. & Lapp, D. (Eds.) The Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Art, (7-14); New York: John Wiley & Sons. Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning style helper’s guide. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications Ltd. Holliday, W.G., Brunner, L.L & Donais, E.L. (1977). Differential cognitive and affective responses to flow diagrams in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (14), 129-134. Iding, M.K. (1997). Can questions facilitate learning from illustrated science texts? Reading Psychology,18, 1-29. Intraub, H. (1999). Understanding and remembering briefly glimpsed pictures. In Coltheart, V. (Ed.), Fleeting Memories, Cognition of Brief Visual Stimuli’ (pp.47-70). Cambridge: MIT Press. Jackson, C. (2002). Manual of the Learning Styles Profiler. Retrieved from www.psipress.co.uk Accessed on 15 March 2008. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40 (1), 1-17. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J. & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 579588. Keeney, S., Hasson, F. & McKenna, H.P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 195-200. Kintgen, E. (1988). Literacy, Literacy. Visible Language, 22 (2/3), 149-168. Knupfer, P. (1993) From text to television: Hermeneutic textualism and the challenge of visual technology in the teaching of history, Verbo-Visual literacy: understanding and Applying New Educational Communication Media Technologies. Selected readings from
32
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
the Syposium of the International Visual Literacy Association, Delphi, Greece, June 25th-29th. Kolb, D.A. (1999). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Version 3. Boston, MA: Hay Group. Koroscik, J.S. (1982). ‘The effects of prior knowledge, presentation time and task demands on visual processing. Studies in Art Education, 23 (3), 13-22. Koroscik, J.S., Desmond K.K. & Brandon, S. M. (1985). The effects of verbal contextual information in processing visual arts. Studies in Art Education, 27 (1), 12-33. Koroscik, J.S., Short, G., Stavropoulos, C. & Fortin, S. (1992). Framework for Understanding Art: The Function of Comparative Art Context and Verbal Cues. Studies in Art Education, 33 (3), 154-164. Kosslyn, S.M. (1994). Image and Brain, the resolution of imagery debate. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Kunen, S., Green, D. & Waterman, D. (1979). Spread of encoding effects within the nonverbal visual domain. Journal of Educational Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5 (6), 574-584. Langer, S. (1957). Problems of art. New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons. Levie, (1978) A prospectus for instructional research on visual literacy, ECTJ, 26(1) Spring, 25-36. Levin, J.R. & Mayer, R.E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B.K., Woodward, A. & Brinkley, M. (Eds.), Learning from Textbooks (pp. 95-113), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lockhart, R.S., Craik, F.I.M. & Jacoby, L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall. In Brown, J. (Ed.), The arts, cognition, and basic skills, St Louis: Cemrel. Mandler, J.M. & Johnson, N.S. (1976). Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. Journal of Educational Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2 (5), 529-540. Mandler, J.M. & Ritchey, G.H. (1977). Long-term memory for pictures. Journal of Educational Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3 (4), 386-396. Mayer, R.E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (2), 240-246. Mayer, R., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R. & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (1), 64-73. Mayer, R.E. & Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 715-726. McKay, E. (1999). An investigation of text-based instructional materials enhanced with graphics, Educational Psychology, Sept. 19(3). 323-335. Miller, D.M., Wiley, D.E. & Wolfe, R.G. (1986). Categorisation methodology: An approach to the collection and analysis of certain classes of qualitative information. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21 (2), pp. 135-167. Morgan, J. & Welton, P. (1992). See what I mean?: An introduction to visual communication, New York: Routledge. Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R. & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2), 319-334.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials
33
Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1998). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Perkins, D.N. & Salomon, G (1988). Teaching for Transfer. Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 22-32. Potter, M.C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 509-522. Potter, M.C. (1993). Very short-term conceptual memory’, Memory and Cognition. 21, 156161. Potter, M.C. (1999). Understanding sentences and scenes: The role of conceptual short-term memory. In Coltheart, V. (Ed.), ‘Fleeting Memories, Cognition of Brief Visual Stimuli’ (pp.13-46). Cambridge: MIT Press. Prawat, R.S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge strategies and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59 (1), 1-41. Rakes, G.C. (1999). Teaching visual literacy in a multimedia age, TechTrends, 43(4), 14-18. Raney, K. (1999). Visual Literacy and the Art Curriculum. Journal of Art & Design Education, 18 (1), 42-47. Riding, R. (1998). Cognitive Styles Analysis – Research applications. Birmingham: Learning and Training Technology. Romice, O. (2000). New developments in and reflections on, the use of visual literacy and environmental evaluation for the participation of community groups in design, GeoJournal, 51, 311-319. Rourke, A.J. & O’Connor, Z. (in press). Look before you leap: Testing some assumptions on visual literacy and predominant learning modalities of of undergraduate design students in Australia and New Zealand. The International Journal of Learning, Vol 16. Rourke, A. J. & O’Connor, Z. (2008). I can see it but I don’t understand it!: Investigating visual literacy skills and learning styles in Higher Education design history students. International Journal of the Humanities, 6, 1-10. Rourke, B.P., Ahmand, S.A., Collins, D.W., Hayman-Abello, B.A., Hayman-Abello, S.E. & Warriner, E.M. (2002). Child clinical/pediatric neuropsychology: Some recent advances. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 309-339. Rowland, (2000). The Enquiring University Teacher, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University press. Sadler-Smith, E. & Smith, P.J. (2004) Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 395-412. Schnotz, W. (2002). ‘Towards an Integrated view of learning from text and visual display’, Educational Psychology Review, 14 (1), March, 101-120. Schonborn, K.J. & Anderson, T. R. (2006). The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34,2, 94-102. Schroeder, H.W. (1988). Visual impact of hillside development: Comparison of measurements derived from aerial and ground-level photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 119-126.
34
Arianne Rourke and Zena O’Connor
Seels, B.A. (1994). ‘Visual Literacy: the definition problem’. In Moore, D.M. & Dwyer, F.M. (Eds.) Visual Literacy; a Spectrum of Visual Learning, Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publication. Severin, W. J. (1967). ‘Another look at cue summation’, AV Communication Review, 15, 233245. Sims, V.K. & Hegarty, M. (1997). ‘Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: evidence from dual task studies’, Memory and Cognition, 25, 321-332. Sless, D. (1977). ‘Visual Thinking in Education’, A Journal of South Australian Education, 4 (2), 4-9. Schnotz, W. (2002). ‘Towards an Integrated view of learning from text and visual display’, Educational Psychology Review, 14 (1), March, 101-120. Solso, R.L. (2003). The Psychology of Art and the Evolution of the Conscious Brain, Cambridge: MIT Press. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sternberg, R.J. (1999). Thinking styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257-285. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design, Australian Education Review, 43, 1-15. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture in Ross, B. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 215-266), Academic Press: San Diego. Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn, Cognition and Instruction, 12 (3), 185-233. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P. & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material, Journal of Educational Psychology: General, 119, 176-192. Szabo, M.; Dwyer, F.M. & DeMelo, H. (1981). Visual Testing – Visual Literacy’s Second Dimension, ECTJ, 29 (3), 177-187. Tarmizi, R. & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem-solving’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 424-436. Tulving, E. & Osler, S. (1968). Effectiveness of retrieval cues in memory for words, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 593-601. Tuovinen, J. & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 334-341. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines, Cognition, 18 (1/3), 97-159. Vermunt, J. D. (1994). Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS) in higher education. Tilburg: University of Tilburg. Warren, L.R. & Horne, J.W. (1982). What does naming a picture do? Effects of prior picture naming on recognition of identical and same-name alternatives, Memory and Cognition, 10 (2), 167-175. Weidenmann, B. (1989). When good pictures fail: An information-processing approach to the effect of illustrations, in H. Mandl & J.R. Levin (Eds.) Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures (pp. 157-171), Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wileman, R.E. (1980). Visual Thinking. New York: Hasting House. Wittrock, M. (1966). The learning-by-discovery hypothesis in L.S. Shulman & E.R. Keislar (Eds.) Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 33-75), Chicago: Rand McNally.
Examining Ways to Improve Visual Teaching Materials Wohlwill, J.F. (1977). Visual assessment of an urban riverfront. Unpublished manuscript.
35
In: Developments in Higher Education Editor: Mary Lee Albertson
ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 2
DECONSTRUCTING INTERTEACHING: IS THE WHOLE GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone Department of Psychology; University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT Interteaching is a theoretically-based teaching method with an emerging empirical base. Interteaching stands in contrast to traditional lecture-based educational methods by shifting responsibility for engagement with material away from instructors and onto students. This is accomplished through the use of preparation guides, in class discussion and interteaching reports, and clarifying lectures, three components which include educational techniques known to be effective for promoting student learning and engagement. In this chapter we present the current empirical literature on interteaching. We then deconstruct interteaching and review the literature to explore why the three components of interteaching - preparation guides, in class discussion and interteaching report, and clarifying lectures - promote student engagement and learning. Drawing upon our own research on the use of interteaching we then contrast key findings from the literature review with student perceptions and experiences of interteaching across several upper level undergraduate psychology courses. Although the theoretical basis of each component may explain why interteaching contributes to student engagement and learning, we argue that the emergent properties of all interteaching components in combination provide benefits that go beyond those derived from the individual parts. Suggestions for how to integrate interteaching into undergraduate courses and tips for developing material and for using this teaching method are discussed.
38
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone “I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.” Albert Einstein “The best teacher is the one who suggests rather than dogmatizes, and inspires his listener with the wish to teach himself.” Edward Bulwer-Lytton
INTRODUCTION Research on educational outcomes has demonstrated that effective teaching methods typically accomplish a variety of goals. They tend to promote student engagement in their own learning, increase time that students spent on-task, allow instructors to obtain timely feedback from students, and are generally enjoyable for students and instructors. Authors such as Benjamin (1991) and Miserandino (1998) argue that teaching should be directed towards “active learning”: stimulating student motivation, thereby increasing engagement with knowledge and its acquisition, application, manipulation, and transformation. Proponents of this perspective argue that passive educational methods, such as the excessive reliance upon the canonical lecture-based approach, provide many disadvantages in terms of learning and retention of material. The less than adequate characteristics of traditional lecture-based educational methods are well established (McKeachie & Hofer, 1999). Student passivity results in little time being spent in deep processing of material, limiting understanding and connection of new learning to existing knowledge. Infrequent exposures, perhaps occurring only during lecture and immediately prior to examination, produces insufficient rehearsal periods to promote retention. Lecture results in little studentto-instructor interaction, making it difficult for instructors to obtain timely feedback and thereby correct errors in understanding. Furthermore, lecture is often experienced by instructors and students alike as dry, dull, and uninspiring. In contrast, research on learning and memory demonstrates that factors such as frequent and deep processing of material, awareness of progress in learning, desire to learn, and monitoring of learning effectiveness are associated with better learning outcomes (Pintrich, Brown, & Weinstein, 1994). A variety of educational methods have been devised which address the limitations of lecture-based methods. The intent of this chapter is not to review the range of approaches, or the methods by which lecture might be improved to enhance learning. In this chapter we describe a teaching method which was designed to embody many of the characteristics associated with the modern educational agenda. After introducing interteaching as a teaching method that can enhance student learning and engagement, we review current empirical research on the use of interteaching. We then deconstruct interteaching into its three key components, and consider the literature on analogous methods, and present illustrative findings from on our own use of this method in undergraduate courses. We conclude with a discussion of why interteaching may be effective and provide insight regarding the effective use of, and development of materials to support interteaching, based on our own experiences with this method.
Deconstructing Interteaching
39
INTRODUCING “INTERTEACHING” Interteaching (Boyce & Hineline, 2002) is a recently developed teaching approach. This teaching methods is derived from wedding educational methods drawn from behavioural instruction (Keller, 1968), cooperative learning (Halpern, 2004), and reciprocal peer tutoring (Griffin & Griffin, 1998). Boyce and Hineline (2002) developed the approach in an effort to make Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction (PSI; 1968), a behaviourally informed approach to education, more acceptable in the context of traditional classroom based didactic practices. Keller developed the PSI to address what he perceived to be inefficiencies associated with the lecture format. To do so, he applied operant conditioning principles to education. The PSI approach involves organizing course material into units which are organized in order of importance. Students complete assignments and exams for each unit, and are expected to master the information in each unit - they do not move on to the next unit until they perform at a desired performance threshold on the test for each unit. Students move through the course material at their own pace. Thus, some may complete the units quickly, while others may require longer. Proctors who have previously mastered the course material assist with tutoring and marking of assignments. Optional lectures and demonstrations are offered later in the course to enhance student motivation. The instructor’s role is to design and oversee the course, devise tests, and provide optional lectures. In this model, the instructor is viewed as facilitating learning rather than as imparting knowledge. Research on PSI has demonstrated that, indeed, the method results in superior learning. For example, in a review paper Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns (1990) reported that students instructed via PSI outperformed those instructed by a variety of other methods (e.g., traditional lecture, computer-based instruction) on common final exams. Despite these advantages, PSI instructional methods have decreased in popularity in recent decades. The reasons for this are many, but tend to center around several themes (Eyre, 2007). Many instructors find the method cumbersome in practice – preparation, development of multiple tests, and training and supervision of proctors can be time-intensive. Secondly, critics of the approach argue that instructors need to be engaged directly with students in order to be “teaching”. Thirdly, self-pacing makes it challenging to provide coverage of the same course material to all students, and is also associated with problems with student procrastination. Finally, teaching to mastery tends to lead to uniformly high grade distributions (Ainsworth, 1979). Interteaching attempts to resolve these difficulties in a variety of manners. First, practitioners of interteaching apply many of the principles of PSI within the structure of the typical, term-based university classroom. However, whereas interteaching retains the emphasis upon students’ responsibility for learning, the roles of self-pacing and mastery are de-emphasized in favor of encouraging student engagement and the provision of multiple rich exposures to course material. The initial expectation for exposure to and learning of course material is transferred to students. While interteaching continues to emphasize instructor preparation much like PSI, it also includes an increased role for instructor lecture as a complement to student motivated learning. Only after students have read and grappled with the material individually and in peer-to-peer discussions does the instructor provide lectures which are focused upon addressing student questions and areas of conceptual difficulty. Thus
40
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
the role of the instructor is that of guiding learning, promoting student engagement, facilitating peer discussion of material, providing a framework for acquiring knowledge, and facilitating the comprehension of challenging information (Saville, 2006). It is the mutual exchange of information between well prepared peers which Boyce and Hineline (2002) emphasize in their definition of interteaching as, “A mutually probing, mutually informing conversation between two people” (p. 215).
INTERTEACHING: THE METHODS A brief description of the procedures used in interteaching are presented in this paragraph, after which each component of the model is presented in greater detail. To prepare for a course which incorporates interteaching, the instructor selects study materials (e.g., readings) and creates preparation guides. The guides consist of assigned readings and questions which are crafted to promote student discussion and understanding of material. Students complete the readings and prepare to answer the questions on the guide prior to class. In class, students discuss the guide in pairs for a majority of the class time. During discussion, the instructor circulates to answer questions and provoke further discussion. Following discussion, students complete an interteaching report, upon which they ask questions about difficult material and request further information. Based upon interactions with students during class and the information on these reports, the instructor prepares a clarifying lecture. The following class begins with this focused lecture, following which students commence with discussing the next guide.
Course Preparation Interteaching begins with selection of readings and the construction of preparation guides by the instructor. Thus, from the outset, course preparation in terms of selecting materials and planning class sessions is similar to the preparation of many traditional courses. What differs perhaps from many courses is the level of detail needed to prepare a set of questions which will fruitfully promote the goals of interteaching both in advance of class and during in-class discussions. The guides consist of questions which ideally assist students in engaging with and comprehending the course material to be covered during the upcoming class session. Successful guides contain a balance of questions that emphasize key knowledge and also provide questions which require manipulation and transformation of information. For example, if guides contain a majority of factually based question, students are likely to see little advantage to in-class discussion, because the facts can be readily accesses in the readings. Alternately, providing too many higher-order, conceptual questions, which often have no single correct answer, can be frustrating to students. Hence accessible questions, which facilitate students’ sense of efficacy, and other more challenging analytical and critical questions which require student collaboration to effectively navigate, are both desirable. Bloom’s (1984) cognitive taxonomy of question types provides a useful scheme for devising a range of questions.
Deconstructing Interteaching
41
The preparation guide is a central feature of interteaching. Well designed guides promote student discussion and stimulate students to engage with material. Thus, the guide on a whole must be simultaneously accessible and challenging. It is critical to understand not just which questions may result in good discussion, but how the questions calibrate the instructor to what students know. Well constructed guides promote excellent in-class discussion amongst students, and presumably enhance student interest in material. On the other hand, poorly constructed guides can inhibit discussion. Developing guides requires careful selection of readings and balancing of different types of questions which promote different types of engagement with course material. This essential component of the methods is treated in greater detail later in this chapter.
Applying the Method The typical sequence for class sessions includes several steps, the details of which are presented in the following sections. In the first class the instructor introduces the teaching method, and provides a course outline and the initial preparation guide. The way in which the method is introduced to students is important. The approach is unfamiliar to most students, and they may be apprehensive in participating. The instructor has various tools which may help to “sell” the method. This includes the empirical evidence in support of enhanced learning (discussed below), presenting the conceptual rationale for the method, and in particular noting that that a majority of the students surveyed indicate finding the approach equally or more interesting and enjoyable than lecture alone. Developing a supportive culture in the classroom which normalizes the components of the methods is quite helpful.
Pre-Class Student Preparation Students complete the assigned readings and prepare to discuss responses to the guide questions prior to each class. It is helpful to provide students advice as to what constitutes adequate preparation. Students frequently struggle with deciding how much of their time to spend preparing. We have found that recommending that students complete the readings and come prepared with notes regarding the answers to guide questions is sufficient.
At the Start of Class Though not a component of the original interteaching model, our students have frequently commented that they prefer receiving an introduction to the topic before engaging in discussion. Thus, instructors may add what we have come to term an “orienting lecture” to the procedure. This consists of a 5-10 minute introduction of the topic in broad terms. This appears to prime students to discuss the topic of the day. We also find this useful for the purpose of invoking the class – it makes clear when this portion of the class has started, and thereby ensures that formal discussion is taken more seriously by students.
42
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
In-Class Discussion Students then discuss the questions on the guide. During discussion, students work in pairs or small groups. This model requires that students participate in a different discussion pair in each class period. This rotation of group memberships is derived from the behavioral approach, and is thought to enhance accountability among peers, and reduce the likelihood of social loafing should individuals remain in the same group over time. In practice, we have varied both the size of groups as well as the frequency of switching groups. However, smaller groups (4 or fewer students) and switching with reasonable frequency (i.e., at least every third session) does appear necessary to facilitating effective discussions. The majority of the class time is devoted to discussion, during which the instructor circulates amongst the groups. The instructor’s task is to encourage discussion and answer questions. This provides a unique opportunity for instructors to receive immediate feedback about both student comprehension and the quality of the readings and guides. This allows the instructor to promptly intervene in order to correct a student’s understanding, both during discussion and during the clarifying lecture that will follow.
Interteaching Reports After discussion, students complete an interteaching report. In this report students provide the name of their discussion partner(s), and an assessment of the quality of the discussion. They then report upon the topics about which they continue to have questions. Specifically, they indicate the questions with which they are struggling, and the reasons they are encountering difficulties. Students may also be asked to identify relevant areas of personal interest and about which they would like to know more. This report serves a variety of functions. It allows the instructor to gain a sampling of students’ comprehension of the material as covered by each questions. Moreover, written reports provide a method for students to raise their questions if they are otherwise reluctant to discuss concerns directly with the instructor. Finally, in courses which are too large for the instructor to meet with everyone in the class period, the report becomes a method for students to ask questions and have a personal needs-based influence on the following lecture.
Clarifying Lectures After the class, the instructor draws upon the interteaching reports and information obtained while circulating in class to prepare a clarifying lecture. This lecture is held at the start of the next class. As it follows from prior discussion and is based upon student feedback, this lecture is more likely to be experienced by students as relevant and interesting. This lecture is not intended to cover all of the relevant material from the readings. Instead, the talk focuses upon conceptually challenging areas and on addressing students’ questions, with the goal of correcting errors and facilitating understanding. The instructor may choose to emphasize additional points that students typically struggle with in the course. This also provides an opportunity to pepper in additional information about topics that students find interesting.
Deconstructing Interteaching
43
Evaluation Boyce & Hineline (2002) make recommendations regarding examinations. They state that exam content should be closely tied to preparation guides. Thus, mastery of key material is emphasized through the questions presented on guides and is reinforced through testing. The authors also recommend that exams be frequent, so that students have multiple opportunities to obtain feedback on their progress, as well as to improve their marks. An additional component of the model involves a concept termed quality points. Students are not evaluated for the quality of their preparation or discussion. However, in the formal interteaching model, students can gain higher test scores if they and their study partner get the same exam questions correct. In other words, for example, two students discuss Guide A together. On the examination, 8 questions are drawn from the material on Guide A. For any of these questions that both of the students get correct, they gain an additional point towards the exam grade. This is intended to reinforce effective preparation and discussion – if students arrive prepared and discuss effectively, presumably they will learn more (i.e., broader coverage and in more depth). In this way, this method of evaluation reinforces the elements of preparation and discussion which are thought to contribute the most to learning. To encourage active participation, a portion of course credit may also be assigned to attendance at in-class discussion. While this may be useful in promoting student discussion, it seems to us to be less consistent with the model to award points for the quality of student preparation. It is more important that students are focused upon acquiring information, than upon getting the correct answers to the preparation questions. If they engage in the methods, they will arrive at accurate responses, and by a route which promotes greater retention and understanding.
RESEARCH ON INTERTEACHING Outcome evidence for interteaching is promising. Research with small samples has provided empirical evidence that is supportive of the method. In an experimental study (Saville, Zinn, & Elliott, 2005), participants took part in a 45 minute laboratory session during which they were randomized to learning about a short article via interteaching, lecture, reading, or were placed in a control group (no exposure to the article). At testing one week later, participants in the interteaching group answered more questions correctly (74%) than the remaining groups, which did not significantly differ (from 51% to 60%). This represented a large effect favoring interteaching over lecture (Cohen’s d = .90). Two subsequent studies (Saville, Zinn, Neef, Van Norman, & Ferreri, 2006) examined the effects of interteaching in the classroom. The first study involved 35 MA level graduate students enrolled in an 8-week course on promoting transition from school to adult roles. Half of the class sessions were delivered using interteaching, and the other half using lecture. Quizzes were administered at the start of each class, related to material from the preceding class. Examination of quiz scores revealed a large statistical advantage for interteaching over lecture (Cohen’s d = 1.91), and average scores for interteaching sessions were consistently higher than those for lecture sessions. The second study used a similar alternating treatments design with two sections of undergraduate psychology research methods (Ns 12 and 19
44
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
respectively). The course was divided into 6 units, and the two sections alternated such that for each unit one group received interteaching while the other received lecture for the same course material. In each subsequent unit the teaching method was switched. Students were tested following each unit, and the final exam was designed so that questions were linked to the content of each class session. Across units, interteaching consistently outperformed lecture, with 81% of participants scoring higher following interteaching than lecture. On the final exam, 76% of interteaching based questions were answered correctly, as compared with 69.5% of lecture based questions. Interteaching is also designed to be more enjoyable than lecture. In all of the studies noted above, a majority of students also expressed preferring interteaching over lecture. Another study examined the application of interteaching to larger undergraduate classes. Scoboria and Pascual-Leone (In press) employed a variant of interteaching model in two large courses in undergraduate abnormal psychology (Ns = 60 and 120). They found that grades on a standardized writing assignment were significantly greater following interteaching as compared with two prior offerings of the same course. Furthermore, attendance at interteaching discussion sessions was consistently associated with improved performance on writing assignments, and less consistently associated with exam grades, after statically controlling for student’s academic ability (using grade point average) and student enthusiasm for the teaching methods that were employed. Because most students preferred interteaching to lecture alone, the authors suggested that interteaching appears to be an equally effective, and perhaps superior, approach to teaching undergraduate courses.
DECONSTRUCTING INTERTEACHING Although limited, the research on the effectiveness of interteaching is promising. An additional approach to understanding the effectiveness of interteaching for promoting student learning and engagement is to examine the research related to the components of interteaching and why each may facilitate effective learning. In the following sections we deconstruct interteaching into its three main components and review the research on their potential for enhancing student learning.
Preparation Guides Recall that the preparation guide consists of questions which help the student identify key material, and think in analytical, critical, and applied ways about the material presented in the readings. As a central component of interteaching the preparation guide has several key functions with respect to enhancing learning. These include serving as a prompt for students to prepare in advance of the lecture, and initiating active and reflective involvement with the course material. A necessary pre-requisite for answering the questions on the preparation guide is that the readings assigned to the guide are completed first, and therefore before class. For example, a survey of 1,058 students from 14 colleges and universities found that coming to class having completed the readings was linked to positive learning outcomes including higher grades and
Deconstructing Interteaching
45
critical thinking (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006). The importance of preparing in advance for class has led some to suggest that the 2-hour rule is needed for students to learn. That is, for every hour of classroom time it is necessary for students to spend two hours outside of class preparing to facilitate student learning (Kuh, 2003). Although this may seem somewhat obvious, a recent study suggests that a number of students do not put in the recommended study time. A survey of over 380,000 undergraduates randomly sampled from 722 higher education institutions in the U. S. found that only one out of five students reported that they frequently came to class having completed the readings (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008). Requiring the completion of preparation guides may be one way to promote timely completion of the course readings. After the readings have been completed students must then start to actively reflect on the readings to answer the preparation guide questions. Although the level of engagement does depend on the nature of the questions included in the preparation guide, even the most basic, factual type questions require that students find where in the readings the answers may appear and that they actively write out those answers. Of course, with questions that require more complex integration of the readings, the completion of the preparation guide can help initiate more in depth processing of the material than what might be achieved by passive reading alone. Evidence from several studies examining analogous pre-lecture activities indicates that this type of preparation is an effective means of enhancing student learning and performance, especially when linked to evaluation. In one study, 162 upper level undergraduates received either pre-lecture quizzes or no quiz (Narloch, Garbin, & Turnage, 2006). Compared to the those in the no quiz group, students in the pre-lecture quiz group asked a greater number of high level questions during class (according to Bloom’s taxonomy of knowledge levels), reported spending more time preparing for class, and paced their studying throughout the term. They also performed better on both multiple choice and essay exam questions. Moreover, there is evidence that writing rather than just thinking about topics prior to discussion can enhance learning. In a very large introductory psychology class (N = 978) students were randomly assigned to either a writing or a thinking condition, and presented with a discussion topic (Drabick, Weisberg, Paul, & Bubier, 2007). Prior to the group discussions, the students wrote or thought about the discussion topic for 10 minutes. The brief written assignments were, however, not graded. Students in the writing condition attended class more frequently and performed better on the factual and conceptual multiple-choice examination questions which were based on the discussion topic. These findings suggests that brief written, ungraded assignments that prepare students for discussion (similar to preparation guides), are an effective means of enhancing both factual and conceptual learning. Finally, the effectiveness of guiding questions for student learning was tested in a study of 113 introductory psychology students (Lawson, Bodle, & McDonough, 2007). Students were assigned to one of four conditions in which they watched a video without taking notes, took notes, thought about guiding questions, or wrote answers to guiding questions. Following the video they answered a quiz with half of the questions related to the guiding questions. Although there was no difference in the performance on the questions that were unrelated to the guiding questions, students who wrote answers to the guiding questions outperformed the students in the other conditions on the quiz questions that were related to the guiding questions. Because the students did not have time to review the notes they took before the quiz the authors suggested that better performance on the quiz by the writing group
46
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
was facilitated by the actual act of writing, which enhanced mental encoding of the information, and provided focus for the key concepts. These findings replicate and extend those of a previous study (Lawson, Bodle, Houlette, & Haubner, 2006), which also found enhanced quiz performance on questions related to guiding questions among students who answered guiding questions versus those who simply watched the video.
Interteaching Discussion and Report Aside from the purposes and benefits outlined above, the preparation guides also serve to prepare students for engaging in small group discussions. The interteaching discussions provide students an opportunity to work actively and collaboratively with their peers to refine and/or correct their answers to the preparation guide questions, as well as compare their perspectives to those of other students. In addition, the discussion session provides direct contact with the instructor who circulates to encourage discussion and monitors the understanding of the material. The small group discussions that involve sharing and elaboration of answers to the preparation guide can be broadly viewed as a form of active learning, a method with an established record for enhancing learning (Cherney, 2008; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). More specifically, the interteaching discussion is an instance of collaborative learning as it involves the reviewing and sharing of answers to the questions through peer interaction. Staarman, Krol, and Meijden (2005) conceptualize collaborative learning from a cognitive elaboration approach (Webb, 1991), and propose that the potential benefits from this method arise from the active processing of information that occurs during peer interaction. For example, students actively process information when they provide detailed explanations of their answers, give examples to illustrate, explain concepts to peers, or specifically argue for or against a particular answer. Accordingly, developing shared meaning, explicit comparisons of different perspectives, and co-constructing new knowledge via collaborative resolution of conflicting viewpoints each contribute to the process of elaboration (Staarman et al., 2005). Several studies suggest that verbalization plays a critical role in this process, and that positive learning outcomes are associated with elaborated verbal responses but not with simply providing the answer without elaboration (Webb, 1991). When a student is asked to elaborate or explain their answer by their peers, the material must be clarified, reorganized, and presented in a way that makes the relevant information understood better, not just to the peers, but also by the student who is explaining. This type of elaborative verbalization has been found to result in greater reflection, re-organization, awareness, differentiation, and expansion of the student’s knowledge (Van Boxtel, van der Linden, & Kanselaar, 2000). Providing students with the opportunity to discuss and elaborate on the answers to their preparation guide through small group discussions does not guarantee that an ideal form of peer interaction that facilitates cognitive elaboration and therefore enhanced learning will occur. Indeed, Staarman and colleagues (2005) mapped the types of verbal interactions that occurred across several different peer-to-peer collaborative learning settings with a focus on the occurrence of beneficial interactions (i.e., those that involved providing elaborative information, asking complex questions, asking verification questions, referring to prior knowledge, and accepting or rejecting statements with elaboration). The frequency of the beneficial interactions was lower than interactions that did not involve elaboration, suggesting
Deconstructing Interteaching
47
that further steps may be needed to ensure that student interactions lead to the elaboration of knowledge. During the discussion session the instructor circulates to monitor the quality of student exchanges regarding the preparation guide material. This provides the instructor with an opportunity to enhance less than productive student discussions by seeding them with questions to promote fruitful elaboration of the preparation guide answers. In addition, monitoring the discussion groups provides students with direct contact to the instructor who can provide immediate feedback, something that may be especially important for large classes. Research with both first year and senior undergraduates indicates that receiving prompt feedback and contact are key markers of student engagement (Carini et al., 2006). Interteaching discussion groups also highlight the importance of social participation for learning. Aside from facilitating cognitive elaboration of knowledge, the small discussion groups offer an opportunity to socially interact with their peers. This can foster respect for different points of view and teach the value of teamwork and collaboration. McDermitt (in Murphy, 1999) suggests that social participation is essential for learning: Learning is in the conditions that bring people together and organize a point of contact that allows for particular pieces of information to take on a relevance; without the points of contact, without the system of relevancies, there is no learning, and there is little memory. Learning does not belong to individual persons, but to the various conversations of which they are a part (p. 17).
Nonetheless, Boud, Cohen, and Sampson (1999) have noted that collaborative learning tends to be considered less as an approach to further a broad educational agenda, and more so as an instructional strategy for achieving immediate learning goals. Increasingly, there is an emphasis on equipping graduates with a range of skills to encourage lifelong learning. To this end, Candy et al. (1994) have proposed that peer-assisted and self-directed learning are one of five characteristics of teaching methods that foster life-long learning because they facilitate the development of reflection and critical self-awareness. The final activity in the interteaching discussion period is the completion of the discussion report. This report facilitates reflection about which questions from the interteaching preparation guide they did and did not fully understand and were not clarified during the peer discussion period. Students can also identify areas that they wish had been covered in the preparation guide. The report also serves to provide feedback to the instructor about areas of focus for the clarifying lectures. Research on the effectiveness of comparable activities indicates that the interteaching report may also be a means to promote deeper thinking about course material. Across ten different classes, Carroll (2001) investigated the effect of having students write questions about what they did not know about the course content. Students reported that the technique helped them to view the course content in different ways, understand the limitations of the text, and relate their current knowledge to previously learned material. Such questioning may promote both analyzing and reflection which can facilitate deeper processing of the course material. Similarly, a study of 107 introductory psychology students tested the effectiveness of a 4-question reflective learning technique (Dietz-Uhler & Lanter, 2009). Following an active learning exercise, students received the four questions either before or after a quiz about the activity. Among the four questions was one which prompted students to question
48
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
what they had learned from the activity and what they may still be wondering about. Students were also instructed to not simply state that they had no questions. Those who completed the four questions prior to the quiz scored significantly higher than students who completed the questions after the quiz. They also reported that answering the questions helped them think more deeply about the material and were effective in encouraging them to consider what they still needed to know.
Clarifying Lectures Following the in-class discussion period, a clarifying lecture is delivered as the final component of the interteaching method. This lecture is designed to correct errors, facilitate understanding of more difficult material, and add additional information about topics in which students expressed interest. In contrast to traditional lectures which tend to promote passive learning, the clarifying lecture provides a direct link to the interteaching discussion by addressing student areas of concern from the discussion. Several studies suggest that memory for course content and course performance is better for active learning techniques than for lecture alone (Cherney, 2008; Lake, 2000; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). Other educators have argued that the lecture method can enhance learning because of its flexibility and versatility. For example, Barbetta & Scaruppa (1995) cite several advantages of the lecture method, noting that it allows instructors to probe for student understanding and adjust the lecture accordingly on the spot. The clarifying lecture is designed to respond to student feedback provided from the interteaching report. In this respect it doubles the opportunity to provide feedback by probing for the effectiveness of the material presented for clarification. Although the clarifying lecture is somewhat unique to interteaching, it does share some characteristics with the guided notes lecture. Guided notes are an outline of the material to be covered in the lecture that include prompts for writing key points presented (Austin, Gilbert, Thibeault, Carr, & Bailey, 2002). The preparation guide in interteaching similarly highlights key points and content areas that are then covered in more depth during the clarifying lecture. Empirical work examining the effects of guided notes with college students indicates that this technique enhances recall of lecture material over time and is generally perceived by students as being beneficial. Guided notes were used during more than half of the scheduled classes over a single term on a random schedule, and student recall for lecture content was assessed with a brief quiz at the end of the lecture period. In the guided notes condition, the notes were made available before the lecture, and in the no notes condition the lecture was presented without the notes. The mean quiz scores and average number of in-class student responses in the guided notes classes were higher than those without the guided notes, indicating that the guided notes enhanced learning and encouraged class participation (Austin et al., 2002). In addition, students had positive perceptions about the use of the guided notes and were almost unanimous in agreeing that the notes allowed them more time to think and comment about the lecture content.
Deconstructing Interteaching
49
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF INTERTEACHING Our literature review of the effectiveness of the key components of interteaching highlighted some of the evidence for the effectiveness of each by examining research on analogous methods. This deconstruction suggests that the preparation guide, interteaching discussion and report, and the clarifying lecture can each enhance student learning by encouraging students to actively engage with the course material in several different ways. But one should also consider whether these benefits are consistent with the student’s experience of interteaching. Research comparing student and faculty perceptions of the qualities of effective teaching has shown that there is a high level of agreement on the main qualities, but there are still some notable differences (Buskist, Sikorski, Buckley, & Saville, 2002; Schaeffer, Epting, Zinn, & Buskist, 2003). In the following section we contrast some of the key findings revealed from the literature review with student perceptions and experiences with interteaching. The comments presented are from students across several different undergraduate upper level psychology courses in abnormal (Ns = 58, 118) and health psychology (Ns = 36, 122). Each participant is identified by a unique numeric code to help identify comments that are made by the same student while maintaining their anonymity. Students completed brief surveys about their experience with interteaching at the end of the term, which included open-ended question about their experience with the teaching method. All students received extra course credit for their participation and gave informed consent to collect their data. We offer these comments not as evidence for the benefits highlighted in the literature review, but as a means to illustrate and perhaps extend these points from the students’ perspectives. Furthermore, although not all students saw the interteaching process as beneficial, the majority did see some benefit to this method and its individual components. The selected comments are therefore those which cite the benefits of interteaching.
Student Perceptions of Preparation Guides In line with the suggestion that the preparation guide provides an impetus for encouraging timely course reading and preparation before class, students generally perceived that this component of interteaching helped them keep up with the course readings. One student referring to the preparation guides commented, “It is very effective in motivating me to do all the readings and questions before class, and to learn the course material more thoroughly” (137). Another student responded, “Completing the Prep Guides before class helped me to keep on top of my readings and not fall behind (especially in the shorter, summer session)” (104). The advanced preparation required for the guides also served to discourage procrastination: “It helps me keep on track with readings. Normally I wait until the last minute to do readings, but the prep guides helped me stay on top of the readings” (125). Yet another student noted the motivational value of the preparation guides despite the extra work it required: “It seems like a lot of work for each chapter, but it motivates me to do the work on time and prevents me from falling behind with course material” (112). Students also viewed the preparation encouraged by the guides as having other related learning benefits. One student noted how the preparation guide enhanced comprehension of
50
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
the lecture: “It’s an excellent way to make the student prepare the lesson and the topic and read the chapter before the lecture which makes the lecture more clear” (132). Some students also noted that the preparation guides enhanced their learning of the material. For example, one student commented, “It is very effective in motivating me to do all the readings and questions before class, and to learn the course material more thoroughly” (137). An additional benefit of the preparation guide as identified in the literature review involved its use for preparing students for exams. This, of course, depends on the extent to which the instructor has linked the preparation guide content to the course exams and quizzes. Two of the courses in which we surveyed students did include exam questions which were taken directly, or slightly modified, from those on the preparation guides. Several students appreciated the links between the preparation guides and the exams: One of which noted, “Between class notes, prep guides and readings, I felt very prepared when it came to studying for exams” (234). Another student stated that the advanced preparation needed for the preparation guide also helped with exam preparation by encouraging paced studying of the course material: “I really like doing prep guides. I’ve done them in another course and I found it helped with my overall understanding of the material, and allows you to actually prepare ahead of time for exams, so you’re not attempting to learn big chunks of information at one time” (127).
Others found that the focused nature of the preparation guides helped them to identify key areas of the course content which in turn facilitated better studying. For example a student stated that the guide: “provides good review to study for exam by knowing what material the prof finds important” (179). Consistent with the literature linking activities analogous to the preparation guide with better exam performance, another student noted: “This is my second class with interteaching. I am not an extremely strong student and have to study and try very hard. Prep guides and lectures has, I believe, increased my grade for both classes” (201).
Student Perceptions of Interteaching Discussion and Report The key benefits of the interteaching discussion identified in the literature review included those also linked to collaborative learning, including active processing of information and the elaboration of existing knowledge that occurs through verbal discussion. Students commented on the benefits they saw from this collaborative learning approach, noting the benefits of discussion for learning the course material. For example: “It was helpful to hear other students' comments and experiences about certain topics because personal experiences stay in one's mind for longer time than does dry information” (136). Students also enjoyed being exposed to different perspectives through the interteaching discussions. As one student commented, “The different people I worked with had great ideas and gave me different perspectives that I probably wouldn’t have seen on my own” (113). The value of the discussions for promoting elaboration of knowledge was also noted: “I like the small group discussions because it provides me with the ability to clarify questions that I
Deconstructing Interteaching
51
have after reading the textbook, and it helps me to develop my answers more thoroughly” (232). The importance of social participation for learning was also acknowledged by students. Many saw the interteaching discussion as a means to promote collaborative learning. One student noted: “I found this method useful because we were able to collaborate with our peers and clarify any ambiguities we had about the questions. If the teacher was unavailable, another student would be there to help” (117). Some students also enjoyed the act of working with peers towards a mutual goal: “I think it is a good idea because it forces a student to make connections with others in the course. Also you can ask questions if there are areas in which you find challenging and realize others feel the same, and work together to understand” (158). An additional benefit noted by students was the effect that the interteaching discussion had on their comfort level for interacting with the professor. As one student notes, “I really enjoyed interteaching with other students and felt able to discuss more with the professor” (191).
Student Perceptions of the Clarifying Lecture Although fewer students commented on the benefits of the clarifying lecture, those comments that did indicate benefits were consistent with the literature review. Given in the context of the entire interteaching method, students viewed the clarifying lectures as qualitatively distinct from the standard lecture format and in this respect clarifying lectures were regarded as more interesting: “It was nice to have a break from the traditional lectures we receive. The change even made the lecture more interesting because my attention span was much greater” (247). The purpose of the clarifying lecture was also noted by some: “I found interteaching to be very beneficial. It allowed me to stay on top of the readings. Also, having a lecture following [discussion] was great because it answered any questions we might have had and cleared up any concepts” (114). Other students found that in addition to clarifying information the lectures also served to reinforce and supplement what they had learned in the other interteaching components: “I feel the lectures following the prep guide reinforces what we learned by looking in the text, and added to what we missed or didn’t discuss in our groups” (113).
GETTING STARTED: TIPS FOR WRITING THE PREPARATION GUIDE One issue that has not been sufficiently explored in the literature is how to best develop a set of preparation guides. In some sense, the entire pedagogical method is hinged on the development of study questions; making the thoughtful development of preparation guides the sine qua none of this approach. As suggested, at the most basic level, the purpose of a study guide is to direct students to content in readings and provide a self-administered “check” for comprehension and breadth. For this reason, when considering questions to include in a guide it is critical to evaluate to what extent questions are able to sensitively and
52
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
quickly inform the instructor as to what students have understood or not. This can then help to appropriately calibrate the level of the lecture and discussion that follow. Another, important purpose of preparation guides is to herald in good discussion. Classroom discussions are intended to bring students collaboratively together to further explore course content. Thus, in the end, the quality of questions in preparation guides will play a strong hand in influencing the quality of discussion that ensues. This is particularly relevant, given the generally pervasive challenge faced by instructors wishing to generate fruitful and involved discussions in their classrooms. So, although a basic set of preparation guide questions may be sufficient to provide students with direction in the assigned readings, a carefully crafted set of questions could be a useful tool to inspire independent and lively discussion within a class. Examining sets of questions and their usefulness in generating discussion has led us to consider a working framework for deliberately developing a few distinct types of questions in the hopes of facilitating good discussion. We outline some of these ideas below.
Beginner Questions: Facts and Definitions First, study questions about facts and definitions provide basic direction for students doing assigned reading. These are often the most obvious questions about content and one way of thinking about them is that they are similar to what one might have on a quiz. The line of questioning in inquiries about facts and definition should provide basic direction to students on which are the important key ideas in the readings. In anticipation of a discussion, these entry level questions should cover information that is essentially prerequisite to deeper or applied understanding of the material at hand. Finally, in keeping with the quiz-like quality of this kind of study guide question, it will usually be desirable (and feasible) for the instructor to gives the “correct” answers to these at end of discussion period. In this way, students who may have more difficulty can often use these questions to check their basic understanding prior to the clarifying lecture. Although by no means exhaustive, a few examples of this type of question follow: • • •
•
Domain questions: Asking a series of factual questions elaborating a specific domain. Definitions: Asking students for a description of key ideas or formal definitions. Sort information into groups - or - Find the exception: Requiring the classification of available information according to criteria outlined in the readings. The “wild goose chase” question: Sometimes it is useful to confront students with a question for which there is no single/correct answer because it helps them confirm the limits of their knowledge.
In short, when preparing an optimal study guide it is wise to include a certain number of these questions to keep students on track. Although questions about facts and definition facilitate a basic understanding of the course content and are generally easy for the instructor to produce, they tend not to be very fruitful when it comes to generating discussion later on. For that purpose one will have to include more advanced questions.
Deconstructing Interteaching
53
Advanced Questions: Conceptual and Applied A second type of question should also be included to deliberately seed future discussion. Conceptual and applied questions are generally more complex and their answers should not be easily available from the readings. These questions should require students to manipulate the content in new ways, which will eventually form the targets of discussion. Again, although not intended to be exhaustive, we list a few examples for this type of question, which we have found useful in our teaching: •
•
• •
•
•
Devil’s advocate: In questions like this the student is encouraged to take a critical view of the course material. For example, one may ask about the advantages or disadvantages of adopting a given perspective. Developmental/historical process question: Student are asked to integrate information together and provide a reflection on the inspiration or origins of an idea. Some specific examples of this type of question which seem to be particularly useful might be: “What is the process by which this happens?”- or “How/why did this come to be?” Examine assumptions: This type of question asks students to consider the strengths and limitations of a given concept/approach/method. Play expert: This is really a variation on the “examine assumptions” question and asks students to give their “informed/expert opinion” on some issue and to provide supporting arguments. For example, one may ask: “Do you think that the field might be biased in a particular way? What is your evidence?” Assess the translation - or - Compare and contrast: This type of question requires students to take factual and definitional information and then to evaluate whether it is being well represented or not. For example, a question might ask: “How does this concept/model/theory relate to that case example?” Or, “In what ways are these concepts a product of that theoretical perspective?” Find a metaphor: This kind of question asks students to find a suitable metaphor to capture a given idea, in this type of question students are asked to hypothesize and think more creatively in order to represent an overarching principle or concept.
When developing and choosing these kinds of questions for the preparation guide in the hopes of generating discussion it may be wise to also consider the role a question might play in a group setting. Although conceptual and applied questions encourage each student to think more deeply, another notion is required for questions to translate smoothly into a group discussion.
Questions that Generate Discussion: Convergent vs. Divergent Depending on how they are couched, conceptual and applied questions can also be thought of as ultimately reflecting two sub-types of questions, and these have very important implications for any discussion that is intended to follow. Given that more thought provoking questions often have multiple possible answers, instructors should consider whether the
54
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
conceptual or applied question is likely to facilitate convergent or divergent answers within a group and within the class. Convergent questions, for example, may ask a student to find some instance in her or his personal experience that relates to or exemplifies a given idea (i.e., “apply or interpret your life using this idea”). This type of applied question is useful in that it can help make content relevant to student’s everyday life, but all instantiations that students generate will exemplify the concept at hand. Similarly, in the find a metaphor question mentioned above, although all student answers will be different, if they are suitable, they will be recognized by fellow classmates as capturing a similar meaning, making this a convergent question. Discussion based on questions like this is likely to yield a better understanding of commonalities and themes. However, other conceptual and applied questions tend to facilitate divergent answers. Divergent questions may be very open-ended and given an opportunity for individual differences in perspective to become apparent, lending emphasis to those differences. Such a question, for example, may ask a student to take a given concept or idea and apply it to his or her personal life (i.e., “find a way to use this idea, apply this idea to your life”). Although applied questions of this kind can be very useful for learning, discussion based on these questions are likely to produce divergent answers as each student personalizes the concept at hand. Consequentially, divergent questions will be useful if the instructor wishes to lead discussion into issues of personal bias, assumptions, and differences in perspective. In short, questions about the application of concepts can ask students either about the range of ways in which a concept applies or about which conditions of applicability that might produce a given finding or effect. Notice that the former will likely produce divergent answers among students, while the latter will likely produce convergent answers.
IS THE WHOLE GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? The literature review and representative student comments provide support for the value of each of the interteaching components for enhancing student learning and engagement. The preparation guides can motivate advanced preparation for the lecture, encourage active processing of the readings, and help focus studying on key concepts and principles. The interteaching discussion provides an arena for collaborative learning which facilitates deeper processing of the course material through elaboration, reflection, and the development of critical thinking. The clarifying lecture provides further opportunities for learning by reinforcing previously discussed material and clarifying any concepts identified by students in the discussion reports. Although each component on its own may individually contribute to student learning and engagement, we would argue that the emergent properties of all interteaching components in combination provide benefits that go beyond those derived from the individual parts. In other words, interteaching is effective not just because of the summed benefits from the preparation guide, discussion session, and clarifying lecture. The key components of this method are designed to build on the benefits of each, thereby resulting in performance improvements that are superior to those from the individual components alone. For example, a recent study by Saville (2006) found that preparation coupled with in-class discussion is a key component in these performance gains. Students who were provided preparation guides but did not engage
Deconstructing Interteaching
55
in discussion did not show performance gains, while students who completed guides and inclass discussion did show improved performance. The multiple exposures and rehearsal with the material that students receive through the variety of methods incorporated within interteaching may be one reason for the effectiveness of interteaching as a whole. Rather than touching upon material twice (once during lecture, and once when studying, sometimes cramming, for the exam), interteaching provides students with the opportunity to encounter material four times (initial reading, in-class discussion, clarifying lecture, and when studying for the exam). This type of repeated exposure facilitates deeper processing of the material, not just through repetition but also by providing a variety of ways for students to engage with the course material. Students must not only rehearse and organize the material so that they can understand it (while completing the preparation guides), but they must be able to communicate their understanding to peers by elaborating on their answers (in the discussion groups). Transforming knowledge so that it can be expressed to another person helps to crystallize that information in memory (Webb, 1991). Other benefits include the opportunity to practice communication skills with a variety of peers and learning how to give and receive effective feedback. Providing feedback to the instructor about what was and was not understood via the discussion report requires reflecting on one’s own understanding of the material which can further facilitate learning (Carroll, 2001; Dietz-Uhler & Lanter, 2009). In summary, we contend that interteaching as a whole is effective largely because it packages a repertoire of learning techniques which reinforce and supplement the individual benefits of each. With the increasing evidence supporting the benefits of active learning strategies for student engagement and learning, interteaching offers an organized and effective instructional method that can benefit both students and instructors.
REFERENCES Ainsworth, L. L. (1979). Self-paced instruction: An innovation that failed. Teaching of Psychology, 6(1), 42-46. Austin, J. L., Gilbert, M., Thibeault, M., Carr, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (2002). The effects of guided notes on student responding and recall of information in a university classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 243-254. Barbetta, P. M., & Scaruppa, C. L. (1995). Looking for a way to improve your behavior analysis lectures? Try guided notes. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 155-160. Benjamin, L. T. (1991). Personalization and active learning in the large introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 18(2), 68-74. Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 1. Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413-426. Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for enhancing the userfriendliness of behavioral arrangements in the college classroom. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 215-226.
56
Fuschia M. Sirois, Alan Scoboria and Antonio Pascual-Leone
Buskist, W., Sikorski, J., Buckley, T., & Saville, B. K. (2002). Elements of master teaching. In S. F. Davis & W. Buskist (Eds.), The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer (pp. 27-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Candy, P., Crebert, G., & O’Leary, J. (1994). Developing Lifelong Learners Through Undergraduate Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Serviceo. Document Number) Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1-32. Carroll, D. (2001). Using ignorance questions to promote thinking skills. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 98 - 100 Cherney, I. D. (2008). The effects of active learning on students' memories for course content. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 152-171. Dietz-Uhler, B., & Lanter, J. (2009). Using the four-questions technique to enhance learning. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 38 - 41. Drabick, D., Weisberg, R., Paul, L., & Bubier, J. (2007). Keeping It short and sweet: Brief, ungraded writing assignments facilitate. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 172-176. Eyre, H. L. (2007). Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a fleeting fancy or is there a revival on the horizon? The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(3), 317-324. Griffin, M. M., & Griffin, B. W. (1998). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on achievement, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 298-311. Halpern, D. F. (2004). Creating cooperative learning environments. In L. I. M. B. Perlman, & S.H. McFadden (Ed.), Lessons learned: Practical advice for the teaching of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 149-155). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye teacher... Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement form the NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35, 24–32. Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(265-299). Lake, D. A. (2000). Active learning: Student performance and perceptions compared with lecture. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL. Lawson, T. J., Bodle, J., & McDonough, T. (2007). Techniques for increasing student learning from educational videos: Notes versus guiding. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 9093. Lawson, T. J., Bodle, J. H., Houlette, M. A., & Haubner, R. R. (2006). Guiding questions enhance student learning from educational videos. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 31-33. McKeachie, W. J., & Hofer, B. (1999). McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. Miserandino, M. (1998). Those who can do: Implementing active learning. In Lessons Learned (Vol 1), Eds. B. Perlman, L.I. McCann & S.H. McFadden (pp. 109-114). Washington DC: American Psychological Society. Murphy, P. (1999). Learners, Learning and Assessment. London: Paul Chapman. Narloch, R., Garbin, C. P., & Turnage, K. D. (2006). Benefits of prelecture quizzes. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 109-112.
Deconstructing Interteaching
57
National Survey of Student Engagement (2008). Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://nsse.iub.edu/ NSSE_2008_Results/ docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_11-14-2008.pdf. Pintrich, P. R., Brown, D. R., & Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Saville, B. K. (2006). From sage on the stage to guide on the side: An alternative approach to teaching research methods. Paper presented at the Annual Teaching Institute, Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY. Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., & Elliott, M. P. (2005). Interteaching versus traditional methods of instruction: A preliminary analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 161-163. Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Neef, N. A., Van Norman, R., & Ferreri, S. J. (2006). A comparison of interteaching and lecture in the college classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 49-61. Schaeffer, G., Epting, K., Zinn, T., & Buskist, W. (2003). Student and faculty perceptions of effective teaching: A successful replication. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 133-136. Scoboria, A., & Pascual-Leone, J. A. (In press). Using interteaching in large undergraduate psychology classes: Better writing, better grades. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.. Staarman, J. K., Krol, K., & Meijden, H. (2005). Peer interaction in three collaborative learning environments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 29-39. Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311-330. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389. Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students' performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91-95.
In: Developments in Higher Education Editor: Mary Lee Albertson
ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 3
WHAT DO TRAINEE TEACHERS KNOW AND WHAT DO THEY THINK ABOUT SOCIAL STUDIES? Jesús Estepa1 and José María Cuenca2 Department of Sciencie and Philosophy Teaching, Education Sciencies Faculty; The University of Huelva, Spain
ABSTRACT One of the fundamental problems facing initial teacher training is the development of effective training programmes to raise the quality of teaching and tackle the demands that trainees will meet when they enter the profession. Our perspective adopts a constructivist approach, whereby understanding the working conceptions and knowledge of trainees, and developing these over the course of their university studies, enables us to improve the impact of initial training on professional practice. This chapter presents a summary of various studies we have conducted into initial university training at Nursery, Primary and Secondary levels within the area of the Social Sciences over the last ten years. A common theme is the analysis of prospective teachers’ pedagogic content knowledge in respect of areas which we consider essential for their professional development, such as history, heritage and society, both contemporary and historical. The studies foreground the trainees’ predominating professional knowledge with respect to their scientific, pedagogical and curricular conceptions in the field of the Social Sciences, and this enables us to detect obstacles to the structuring of professional knowledge in keeping with the principles that we consider desirable for the training of reflective, critical and innovative teachers.
1 2
[email protected] [email protected] 60
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
INTRODUCTION Teacher education courses within social studies in Spanish universities concentrate their efforts on enabling trainee teachers to learn to teach. The programmes tend to lack empirical grounding, and in general few connections are made between theory and practice. Furthermore, contradictions can be found between a progressive rhetoric and a traditional classroom practice. These features of teacher training might be found in other countries and other training programmes, as educational research has shown the scant influence of training courses upon improving teaching, revealing the impossibility of focusing professional practice as a simple application of learnt theory (Banks & Parker, 1990). Hence ‘novice teachers know a lot of general theoretical principles, but do not know how to put these into practice when it comes to responding to the needs of particular students in particular situations,’ such that ‘on exhausting their scant resources, they resort to known traditional models of teaching because these offer them the necessary security to survive’ (Benejam, 1993, p. 345). We therefore think it essential to develop a body of research which takes a much more systematic approach to the problems relating to teacher education, which we consider the key component in the processes of teaching and learning (Thornton, 2005). This has been our guiding philosophy over the twenty conferences that have been held in Spain by the University Association of Teacher Educators for Social Studies, and more specifically, in various monographs on the problems relating to teacher education in these disciplines (Ávila, López and Fernández, 2007; Gómez and Núñez, 2006; Estepa, de la Calle and Sánchez, 2002; Pagès, Estepa and Travé, 2000). Following Adler (2008, p. 333), we can identify five areas requiring greater research: • •
• • •
What are current practices in social studies teacher education and what impact do they have on pre-service teacher beliefs, attitudes and practice? What do we know about the beliefs and attitudes of social studies teacher candidates and teachers, and what do we know about factors which may contribute to a restructuring of those beliefs and attitudes? What do we know about the content knowledge and the development of pedagogical content knowledge of social studies teacher candidates? What is known about social studies teacher educators, and what can be learned from self-studies conducted by teacher educators? How have policy initiatives and politics affected teacher education programs and participants?
From our perspective, the relationship between theory and practice is at the heart of the teacher education process, and the predominant university teacher training approaches fail to promote a professional knowledge which adequately brings together theoretical knowledge and professional experience. The acquisition of this theoretical knowledge is influenced by knowledge of and ideas about social studies, its teaching and the teaching profession in general. In reviewing research on the issue we can note that there is general agreement that trainee teachers have explicit and implicit conceptions about the different variables relating to social studies teaching, and that these ideas are not easily changed by teacher education
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
61
programmes, although better results have been reported in those studies taking a constructivist approach. There is also general agreement in pointing out the need to research these conceptions, to probe the difficulties and obstacles to developing them, and based on this research, to design and test training programmes which facilitate teachers’ professional development and through these, the personal development of the students (Estepa, Ávila & Ruiz, 2007; Estepa, Ávila & Ferreras, 2008).
TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHING Professional knowledge is for us the sum of all the teacher’s knowledge and experience acquired throughout his or her career with respect to their specific area of expertise. In this sense, analysis of the issue concerning learning to teach must begin with the construction of conceptual networks through which trainees’ generally disparate and fragmentary knowledge can be articulated (Montero, 1992). For this to be achieved, it is essential to develop processes of significant learning, with all that this implies: analysis of pre-existing notions, understanding of the processes of trainees’ cognitive development, starting with the immediate context and tending towards abstraction and a greater degree of complexity in what is learnt, approaches to practice, amongst other relevant aspects. Research into professional knowledge concerns the analysis of what the teacher should know, and know how to do, in order to teach, the defining features of this knowledge, the real chances of its development and the alternatives for possible and desirable change, and in our case, what contribution social studies education can make towards this knowledge so as to enable the teacher to undertake the gradual process of transforming their social studies teaching, always with the aim of learning to teach (Estepa, 2000). In the area of social studies education, research has centred on delimiting Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986), referring to knowledge of those specific aspects of teaching and learning which make social studies accessible to students. We can approach this knowledge through analysis of the teacher’s practice and conceptions in relation to why social studies is taught, how students’ difficulties with the subject are tackled, how the curriculum is taught and what strategies are employed for its teaching. Pedagogical Content Knowledge is a crucial element within the range of knowledge required for teaching. If teachers need to know the general fundamentals of pedagogy, psychology and so on, they equally need to have a sound knowledge of the content they are to teach. Nevertheless, this content needs to be transformed, adapted and reorganised in such a way as to make it understandable to the students. In this sense, García Díaz and García Pérez (2001) consider that to develop this process, from an integrative and complex perspective, it is essential to take into account knowledge of one’s own practice and others which they denominate metadisciplinary. With all this, from our point of view, this Pedagogical Content Knowledge will include (table 1) one’s own knowledge and reflection on: a) the specific social studies subject content relevant to its teaching in a specific teaching context; b) pedagogical strategies for carrying out the processes of teaching/learning in relation to these contents; c) potential difficulties in teaching these contents; d) the conceptions of these contents that the students hold at different
62
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
stages of their school life ; e) the curricular specifications currently in force; f) the practice of the teaching and learning process in general, and social studies in particular; and g) metadisiplinary elements which might contribute relevant nodes of connection for teaching these topics (Cuenca, Domínguez & Estepa, 2000). In this way we note our reservations regarding Shulman’s model in respect of the inclusion of the teacher’s conceptions of teaching the topic in this section, which should in our opinion be categorised within the section corresponding to the teacher’s conceptions. Despite this, we are aware of the fact that the analysis of these conceptions is a habitual and sometimes unique way of arriving at the teacher’s knowledge as it is information which is explicitly offered by the teacher him or herself or which is inferred from their statements and actions, playing an important role in Pedagogical Content Knowledge, in the same way as other components which also interrelate with it. Curricular knowledge concerns the national curriculum specifications for social studies in terms of objectives, contents, methodology and evaluation, and consists in knowing and giving critical consideration to the relevant legislation. In large part it is determined by the teacher’s academic background, their teaching experience and the provisions of their training programme. It includes curricular design, curricular theory and anticipated curricular developments within the subject area. Table 1. The organisation and structure of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Cuenca, 2004)
The remaining components of include, as in the case above, the teacher’s professional and student experiences during training, and accumulated academic studies, along with their conceptions of social studies teaching/learning. That is to say, it consists of the knowledge of both the subject to be taught and other related subjects and their pedagogical concerns.
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
63
TEACHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT As University teacher educators, we are interested in improving the impact of initial teacher education programmes and in facilitating teachers’ professional development. We consider three factors as central to this process: the development of conceptions (and the coherence between those stated and those actually put into practice) as an element of professional knowledge; the growth in the capacity for reflection about, on and for practice (Schön, 1987); and the concept of teacher identity as something incorporating trainee and practising teachers’ images of themselves as members of a particular social group. In this way, we can get closer to knowing how professional development might affect the learning of future teachers and their potential future students (Van Hover, 2008). The key focus must be the identification of practice with the design and delivery of the curriculum, and its questioning with experimentation in teams of proposals and curricular projects in an activity of practice, checking and evaluation, so that the value of the curriculum is not simply that of being the medium for improving education, but an expression of ideas for improving teachers in their daily practice (Stenhouse, 1991). In this way, we link professional development to research into trainee teachers based on dealing with curricular problems (Porlán and Rivero, 1998), given that the curriculum represents the tool teachers work with in the classroom, thus relating theory and practice, reflection and action, school knowledge and professional knowledge, group and individual development3. Regarding this latter aspect, and in spite of the new forms of individualism which are being developed in the global society4, professional development implies improvement in a team, collegiate, collaborative, cooperative because, at least in the obligatory school years, curricular projects should pursue the complete training of students, their education as human beings, beyond subject divisions and specialities, the dialogue and communication between professionals with the same objective being indispensable (Álvarez Méndez, 2001); because this task, which recognises the capacity for professional decision-making as opposed to mere executor of prescriptions elaborated by others (the official curriculum, textbooks, etc), cannot be approached individually5; furthermore, in not working as a team, as Santos (1994) warns, the school structures remain intact and do not transform or generate dynamism; finally, because the definition of the primary teacher’s development as an activity which each person has to carry out individually limits the possibilities of this development to a large extent, in 3
Keiny (1994) distinguishes two interdependent contexts for professional development: one social and theoretical, the other practical. The first refers to a group n which teachers can express and exchange ideas and reconstruct their pedagogic knowledge through a dialectic process. The second is constituted by the teacher’s daily practice, where he or she can put new ideas into practice and reflect about (or on) the experience. From our perspective, the difference lies not so much in the theoretical or practical nature, as in both cases the teacher works with the curriculum, but in the social and individual dimension of professional development. 4 Cf Appel (1997) who offers and interesting analysis of this phenomenon in the USA, the intrusion of technical checking systems in teachers’ work through “predesigned curricular material packs”, in which if everything is predetermined, separating planning and delivery, there is no longer any pressing need for interaction among the teaching staff, and they become disconnected individuals, divorced from their colleagues and their real work. 5 In this sense Beyer and Liston (2001) report that all too frequently teachers can devote little attention to questions of the curriculum, and very often they are forced to complete the curricular design alone. ‘Based on our experience of working with teachers on curricular design and on our reflection on the curriculum, two factors seem to be decisive to this aim. Planning the curriculum is most productive if it is, at least in part, a question of collaboration, and if adequate time and working conditions are available. (p.238).
64
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
not considering reflection as a social practice in which groups of primary teachers can support and maintain the professional development of each participant (Zeichner, & Hoeft, 1996). We concur with Valli and Stout (2004) that ‘professional development must help teachers understand the discipline they are teaching together with the content standards and the assessments, connect teachers with adequate resources, give clear guidance on what students are expected to do, and provide a continuous and supportive framework for their reform efforts’ (p. 184). On the other hand, in order to analyse the degree of growth or development that the teacher experiences as a professional from his or her initial training, we consider the idea of desirable professional knowledge as a system of ideas with distinct levels of specification and articulation which can progress (Porlán and Rivero, 1998) very useful. Hence, we establish a hypothesis of progression of professional development as a gradation in the construction of professional knowledge from simplifying, reductionist, static and acritical perspectives, which would correspond to the more traditional models of teaching, towards other models more coherent with alternatives of a constructivist and investigative nature, passing through intermediate or transitional levels (technological and spontaneous) which in part supersede the traditional model but still display some obstacles to be overcome. Working with a hypothesis of this kind does not mean closing the teacher’s curriculum, as it does not necessarily mean that the primary teacher and the trainee primary teacher have to run the course of this professional development, nor even that their conceptions fit neatly into one of the levels. More accurately, it is a question of having available a frame of reference which allows us to intervene in the training process to detect difficulties and obstacles which will have to be overcome with the help of the appropriate training strategies. The following section presents a summary of the different research projects we have developed in the last ten years based on this theoretical framework. These studies focus on the question raised by Adler (2008) about the analysis of trainee teachers’ conceptions, as one of the fundamental lines of study in educational research. We have analysed the content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of prospective primary and secondary teachers in areas which we consider basic for their professional development: history, heritage and contemporary and historical societies.
SCHOOL KNOWLEDGE IN SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION PROGRAMMES This study aimed to contribute to our understanding of what happens and why when we do Social Studies teaching, describing and analysing what a university teacher (working under the limitations of tradition, the syllabus, the organisation and structure of the post, the social image of teaching and their own professional background) does in order to train prospective primary teachers. Here, the research line followed was what Dinkelman (2003) calls self-study, as an intentional and systematic inquiry into one’s own practice. The study did not intend to make any proposals for teacher training, nor evaluate how this training might be improved were the, essentially external, obstacles constraining our work to be removed, but instead it offered a report on, and analysis of, a teacher education programme, attempting to find coherence between its theoretical underpinnings and its practice and following a research-based
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
65
model as its theoretical referent (Porlán et al. 2001; Porlán, Martín del Pozo & Martín Toscano, 2002). In this way, what is presented below is the design and delivery of a specific syllabus for a specific subject taught to a group of students, although it is true that this programme was extendable to other students of other courses and that each year the plan of work and its carrying out were reviewed and contrasted with colleagues, incorporating the modifications suggested by this process of reflection, in a dynamic process in which a coherence was sought with the model of the teacher-researcher we postulate. The course, Social Studies Teaching, formed part of the qualification in Primary Teaching specialising in the Human Sciences in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Huelva. Although the course had been running since 1994/95, the data used in the study were drawn from the years 1995/96 and 1996/97, during which the programme saw various adaptations according to the students’ interests and the gaps in their knowledge, discussion with colleagues working within similar areas and the trainer’s own reflections on how the course worked in practice (Estepa, 1998). The syllabus for this qualification was structured according to an academic model of teacher training with a focus that was basically encyclopaedic (Gimeno and Pérez, 1993) in which the trainer was conceived of as a specialist in the various disciplines comprising his or her speciality and whose background was closely linked to a mastery of these, the contents of which what was to be taught. As a result, such weight was given to the academic aspects of the desirable professional knowledge (Porlan and Rivero, 1998), and especially the disciplines relating to the contents (in a model diametrically opposed to that enshrined in the new syllabuses for primary education, where the disciplines relating to teaching and learning predominate), that there was scant opportunity for professional development within the course. All this is to be found in the ongoing debate over whether training programmes should be based on academic disciplines, or focus on the development of skills and abilities so as to construct a curriculum facilitating the acquisition of citizen competences in a democratic society (Nelson, 2001; Evans, 2004; Whitson, 2004; Van Hover, 2008), from a perspective of professional development which is far more critical and coherent with our present society (Armento, 1996). We ensured that the limitations imposed on us by the syllabus did not represent an insurmountable obstacle to adapting the design of the course to a more practical and critical model. This was achieved by establishing a course dynamic in which the 14 trainees making up the group would plan and prepare five teaching units, each with its corresponding objectives, subject content, activities and bibliography. The underlying methodological principle was the correlation between the mode of operating during the course itself and the pedagogical model being promoted, referred to by Porlán and Rivero (1998) as the principle of isomorphism, in that the medium frequently becomes the message. Specifically, and following Cañal’s (2000) classification, classes were comprised by opportunities for the students to express their knowledge, opinions and personal experiences (all the teaching units began by exploring existing conceptions of the topic in hand), planning sessions, discussions, and presentations of academic topics. Each class typically finished with a review of what had been learnt and the processes followed in relation to the initial knowledge.
66
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
Although we are unable to go into a description of the teaching units or the activities devised, we can highlight some of the outcomes of this formative experience. Below is a brief selection of the students’ opinions of what the social studies meant for them. “My ideas have changed a lot. My idea of a Social Studies teacher was what is commonly called lecturing. Now, with this kind of teaching I’ve learnt that the lessons have to be more active. As prospective teachers, we have the added handicap that we were taught by traditional means.” (José Manuel) “I’d consider it fundamental, but basing myself on what the kids know and what interests them.” (Matías) “Well, the teacher isn’t merely someone who narrates all the facts and events, not only do they have to teach, they also have to transmit a set of values, educate the students and help them to understand the society they live in. Maybe because this course has made me see another view of the teacher, and because in teaching practice you see that just presenting information doesn’t work, for that you’ve got the media (books, maps, CDs etc). You have to know how to reach out to the students, make them participants and actors every moment they are studying. Methodology has managed to change the traditional models, where you gave a lecture, to new models which are more innovative and participatory, to an understanding of the importance of the reciprocal relationship between teacher and student.” (José) Nevertheless, the task of training primary teachers in social studies is, as Adler (1991) points out, problematic, for which reason it is necessary to continue the research into the factors influencing the thinking and action of trainee teachers and, in short, the teachers responsible for teaching social studies in school. In this regard, we know that professional development is a slow and complex process, and the changes that might occur during the course of initial training programmes tend to favour, according to the hypothesis of progression in professional development which we take as reference, innovation in both attitude and action, and a break with the tendency towards curricular uniformity. In summary, it is a question of beginning a process of change which breaks with the traditional pedagogic model, which, without doubt, in many cases, does not provide any kind of professional development towards models of a technological or spontaneity-oriented nature, since, as Schön (1987) notes, novice teachers’ pedagogical thinking, fed a theory rich diet during their years of academic training, tends towards simplification and becomes emasculated as a result of the processes of institutionalisation during their first years in the profession. Nonetheless, and without being ingenuous, we believe that for some a long process will have begun towards becoming teachers committed to teaching and society, capable of making reasoned decisions in their professional practice.
TEMPORAL NOTIONS: THE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE OF PRIMARY TEACHER TRAINEES One cannot question the importance given to the knowledge of educational psychology in teacher education programmes, but at the same time, the same importance should be given to subject content of the disciplines concerned and, of course, to the corresponding pedagogical knowledge. Taking this as its starting point, this next study considered the following problem:
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
67
do trainee primary teachers possess by the end of their studies sufficient knowledge of the subject content and sufficient basic pedagogical knowledge to teach social studies? On this occasion the study consisted in creating a questionnaire on knowledge of temporal notions, which was completed by trainee teachers in their final year of the qualification for Primary Teaching in the Faculty of Education Sciences at the University of Huelva. This same group had done a module on the treatment of heritage in social studies the previous year, and so already had some degree of familiarity with contents and strategies for teaching historical notions (Cuenca, Domínguez & Estepa, 2000). The questionnaire was completed by 55 students in the academic year 1998/99, and was designed with two considerations in mind. On the one hand, it included questions aimed at discovering the historical knowledge the respondents had of the concept of time and its relevance to education. On the other hand, a second section aimed to uncover pedagogical knowledge, specifically what subject content they would select and what strategies they would employ in the teaching of notions of time. Prominent amongst the findings of this study was the fact that the trainees’ content knowledge was not the most desirable, as the data brought to the fore significant gaps in key areas and some of the fundamental concepts of the disciplines they were to teach. For example, there was widespread confusion in the difference between notions of time and the units for measuring time. The majority confused the concept of time with that of its measurement, without recognising that the measurement of time is just one aspect, and, according to certain epistemological viewpoints, secondary to historical-temporal studies. Also significant was the lack of critical and interpretative viewpoints of societies, achieved through a temporal analysis, which permitted the projection of certain problems and situations towards the present time, and this indicated that their knowledge did not achieve the desired level of temporal abstraction. It seemed that their notion of teaching students concepts related to time was essentially one of providing them with a sense of chronology. Another finding which we consider important was the high valuation given by the trainee teachers to the disciplines relating to the processes of teaching/learning, leaving the educational sciences in a secondary role. The fact that the course Social Studies Pedagogy failed to appear in any case should give us cause to rethink the approach we take in their training, as, from what we learnt from the study, the trainee teachers are unaware of important areas in developing the processes of teaching/learning, which are doubtlessly related to these specific pedagogies. It was also noted in this study that the best known and most prominent contents were those in the concepts category, although the trainees did not have a full grasp of these. This could have been the result of their schooling, but nevertheless, the procedures of each discipline for teaching temporal notions are far less known and applied, resulting in them being given far less importance than concepts. Finally, attitudinal considerations scarcely appeared at all. In other words, concepts, facts and information continue to predominate, albeit implicitly, in teachers’ professional knowledge, despite the fact that in theory the three areas (concepts, procedures and attitudes) share equal importance. In this respect, serious problems were detected in characterising procedural contents, undoubtedly due to a lack of familiarity with both the area itself and its teaching. For their part, attitudinal contents drew a highly generalised treatment: dialogue, group work, obeying rules and so on, due, as in the above case, to a lack of familiarity with what values could imbue temporal notions.
68
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
The conclusion to be derived from the foregoing was the urgent need prioritise the attention given to pedagogical content knowledge in the teacher education programme, taking a fundamentally practical approach and making adjustments to the university syllabus where necessary. The changes implied an increase in the number of classes, a redistribution of the timetable amongst the various areas of knowledge, and a more rigorous approach to key aspects within social studies, all with the objective of improving the professional development of the trainee teachers. To this end, we must reinforce teacher education towards a professionalised knowledge of the discipline (its basic conceptual structure, analytical procedures and so on), so as to foment the ability to select, sequence and organise school knowledge, as well as to develop pedagogical content knowledge, as a practical and professionalised area, going more deeply into curricular considerations, in our case those concerning historical-temporal notions.
NOVICE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF THE MEANING OF HERITAGE AS AN ELEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY Through other studies carried out by our research team, we were able to ascertain that the level of trainees’ reflection on heritage and its value in construing identity was somewhat basic and simple, at times predicated on principles of exclusion in which heritage is employed as a differentiating element rather than something promoting multicultural respect. With respect to trainees’6 conceptions of heritage and its value in representing societal identity, the findings of study by Cuenca and Domínguez (2002) are of interest. These researchers based their study on a questionnaire with three questions relating to this issue: “What do you understand by cultural heritage?”; “What criteria would you employ to decide what counts as heritage?” and “What world heritage sites would you consider paramount to preserve faced with a natural or human disaster, giving reasons for your choice?” The responses, as might be expected, varied widely and raised interesting considerations regarding the respondents’ views of heritage and identity. Table 2 presents some of these responses, clearly relating heritage with identity. The data show how part of the sample understand the relation between heritage and the awareness of identity. It strikes us as interesting that there was little mention made of the concept of symbol in relation to those of heritage and identity given that from our point of view, we consider the three to be fundamental to the process of constructing identity. It should also be noted that in none of the cases analysed was there any reference to the value of heritage as a means of unifying or making cultural connections between societies, a situation we find worrying, as mentioned above, for which reason we feel it is essential to include this aspect in future teaching programmes (Domínguez & Cuenca, 2005). Some of the responses entail a more complex conception, suggesting connections between identity, heritage, history and the socio-natural environment in which cultures develop. Others focus more on the intrinsic value of heritage as a source of identity, and stressing the importance of conservation in terms of its cultural symbolism. On the other hand, we find statements which could be construed as endorsing differentiation and social
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
69
exclusion. This suggests that the use of heritage in the construction of identity could bring with it the danger of promoting attitudes in conflict with the objectives we propose. It is necessary, as a result, to always be aware of what and how we are teaching students when we introduce this subject. Table 2. Definitions of the term ‘heritage’ by the sample Those artefacts which identify a culture, considered as irreplaceable entities that have played a part in historical events or natural environments. Symbols of identity which we must know, conserve and protect. Everything that defines us as a culture and the way we feel and conceptualise our uniqueness as a community. All our symbols of identity across the range, which identify us and are exclusive to us. All legacy which enriches today’s culture (...) Everything that identifies and characterises an autonomous society, making it share the same culture. All types of representation identifying a people, a region or a nation together with its members. All those cultural artefacts which arise from society or which have arisen throughout history, and which are identifiable characteristics of that society. The sum of artefacts (...) which serve to represent the identity of a community, and which should be transmitted and conserved. Everything that is representative of an area, country, etc.
In general, in the case of the Primary Teaching trainees, 21% of the sample considered the relevance of heritage in terms of its symbolism for the creation and understanding of cultural identity within society, whilst the majority (46%) gave prominence to its importance as a purely historic item (figure 1). Trainee primary teachers' view of heritage 46
50 40 30,5 30
21 20 10
2,5
0 Monumentalist
estheticism
Historicist
Identity
Figure 1.
A larger proportion of the Secondary Teaching trainees, on the other hand, some 27.5%, considered the value of heritage in terms of identity, although as above, the majority, 62%, gave consideration to its historic aspect (figure 2). 6
The sample taken for this study consisted of 80 students from the qualification for Primary Teaching and 27 students from the CAP (Secondary Teaching Certificate), all studying at the University of Huelva in 2000/01.
70
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
Trainee secondary teachers' view of heritage (Social Studies)
70
62
60 50 40
27,5
30 20 10
3,5
7
0 Monumentalist
estheticism
Historicist
Identity
Figure 2.
The low number of trainees that considered heritage as an important component in the collective construction of identity can be understood if we take into account the serious deficiencies in the initial training of these professionals. We can identify this lack, on the one hand, as an absence of specific material regarding heritage, knowledge of it, reflection upon its value, and how it might be incorporated into teaching, and on the other, as the fault of the sources of basic information and training at the current time (legislation and textbooks), which in general do not offer an appropriate focus such that teachers develop in their students a view of heritage centred on multicultural principles of valuing one’s own and others’ identities.
A STUDY OF TRAINEE PRIMARY TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND THEIR TRAINING IN RESPECT OF CONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL SOCIETIES The aim of this study was to discover the conceptions that trainee primary teachers had of teaching Contemporary and Historical Societies, and their training in this particular so-called Area of Inquiry (here, the project ‘Investigating our World’7), to identify their level of development and to detect potential obstacles to the growth of their professional knowledge. Thus it focused on the exploration of knowledge about curricular conceptions and primary teacher training, with respect to a specific area of social studies about which the literature review provided no previous studies (Estepa, 2003).
7
Cf Cañal, Pozuelos and Travé (2005); one aspect of the Areas is that of being scaffolding or organisers for preservice and/or in-service primary training, in that they represent support and foundation material for the design of innovative teaching units.
Table 3. Categories, subcategories, indicators and descriptors for the analysis of trainee primary teachers’ conceptions of teaching contemporary and historical societies. Authors’ data CATEGORY I. CURRICULAR CONCEPTIONS OF CONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL SOCIETIES.
SUBCATEGORIES 1. Purpose of education.
INDICATORS Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented Investigative
2. Sources for determining school knowledge.
Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented Investigative
3. Conceptions of students’ learning difficulties.
Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented Investigative Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented
4. Methodology of teaching..
Investigative
5. Evaluation.
Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented Investigative
DESCRIPTORS To provide the student with fundamental information about contemporary and historical societies. From to facilitate Social Studies learning to so that the student learns how to behave in the social environment independently and critically. So that the steady enriching of the students’ knowledge allows them to understand contemporary societies and to act within them. No differentiation between school contents and scientific-disciplinary knowledge. From adaptation of subject contents, considering psychological variables, to selection of school content according to the interests and experiences of the students. Importance of procedures and values.. School contents are considered a complex and differentiated construction drawn from a variety of sources: subjects, everyday knowledge, socio-environmental issues and metadisciplinary knowledge. No recognition of learning difficulties or conceptual barriers. Conceptual and procedural or attitudinal and procedural barriers. Conceptual, procedural and attitudinal barriers. Teacher exposition and exercises from the textbook. Individual work. few pedagogical resources. From plan of progressive activities, closed and detailed according to the objectives, with predominance of individual work and various pedagogical resources used in closed fashion, to general plan of activities based on the performance of different types of task but without a guiding thread, with a predominance of group work and various pedagogical resources used asystematically. Inquiry oriented towards relevant socio-environmental problems with a plan of activities with a planned guiding thread. Individual and group work. Various pedagogical resources used as means in the plan of activities. Terminal, examination based, memory and exercises evaluated. Sanctioning grades. De “objective” initial and terminal evaluation for measuring the degree to which objectives are met to periodical evaluation based on class meetings to evaluate the psycho-social dynamics from a nonsanctioning perspective. Continuous and process, based on different instruments. The development of students’ ideas, class dynamic, curricular hypotheses and the teacher’s impact are all evaluated. Non-sanctioning and investigative.
Table 3. (Continued). CATEGORY II. CONCEPTIONS ABOUT TRAINING IN THE AI.
SUBCATEGORIES 6. Academic learning in professional knowledge.
INDICATORS Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented Investigative
7. The AI of contemporary societies in teacher education.
Traditional Technological Spontaneity-oriented Investigative
DESCRIPTORS Disciplines related to contents. From disciplines related to contents, learning and education together, to only educational psychological disciplines. Disciplines related to contents, learning and education, differentiating Social Studies Pedagogy as an integrative area of knowledge. For training in the contents to be taught. From for training in the contents to be taught and in the mastery of appropriate techniques and skills to be developed in class to to learn how to teach. To facilitate the development of the curriculum with respect to the contents in a critical, investigative and reflective fashion.
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
73
Given that it was a study of trainee primary teachers’ conceptions about aspects of the curriculum within the sphere of contemporary and historical societies, and their training in respect of this, the two categories of analysis that were established were conceptions about the curriculum and conceptions about training (table 3).These categories were then subdivided into seven subcategories, and each of these into three indicators corresponding to the three levels of progression in professional knowledge from the hypothesis of progression which functioned as the frame of reference for the training, following the teacher-researcher model (Porlán et al. 2001; Porlán, Martín del Pozo & Martín Toscano, 2002). Finally, descriptors were devised for ascribing the trainees’ responses to the subcategories. The scarcity of previous studies and the suitability of using this study as a kind of trial run for the Area of Inquiry design (henceforth AI), along with human and time constraints, led us to the conclusion that the most suitable data collection instrument was the questionnaire, a frequently used format in this type of study. The final version included a total of 11 questions, distributed over the categories and subcategories mentioned above, all of which were open-ended so as to maximise the information gathered and minimise any inadvertent bias on the part of the researcher. The questionnaire was completed by a sample of 41 students in their second year of a Primary Teaching qualification at the University of Huelva during the academic year 2002/03, and were following the course Social Studies and its Teaching in the morning slot, the teacher of which was the researcher himself1. An initial teaching unit, prior to studying the AI design, had been developed within the specifications of the subject programme, so the trainees had at least some vague idea of the Areas of Inquiry system and how it guided the design and delivery of the curriculum. The context in which the study was carried out was characterised by two conditioning features: firstly, it was a study of declarative knowledge, as it concerned conceptions made explicit in answers to a questionnaire; secondly, the sample selected, formed exclusively by students of whom the researcher himself was teacher, were in their second year of training and at the time of the study had not yet done their first teaching practice, nor had they received any specific training on the AIs, as a result of which the study explored only their professional knowledge of theory. An effort was made to mitigate these features by means of a data collection instrument which was based on a practical supposition – the design of a teaching unit about contemporary and historical societies – with the aim that the completion of this task, in which the trainees would have to make concrete decisions for their practice, would activate a kind of thinking that was closer to their true professional knowledge. The data that we obtained through analysis of the trainees’ conceptions opened a window onto the knowledge they commanded in relation to the aspects of the curriculum involving contemporary and historical societies, and their training with respect to these. The degree of professional development of the sample, in keeping with our hypothesis of progression, was more advanced in areas dealing with the curriculum – where the majority of respondents were placed at intermediate or transitional levels across the range of subcategories – than in aspects of training, in which the majority of trainees were to be found in the first level, characteristic of the traditional tendency. This difference in the degree of professional development can perhaps be explained by the sample giving less thought to the process of their initial training, over which they felt that they had little influence. Whatever the case, we interpret the 1
For this reason personal details were not requested, nor were written instructions given on how to complete the questionnaire.
74
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
importance accorded the disciplines to be taught and the pedagogical training for them as a deficiency in the current university syllabus, and as a gauge of the scant attention that it gives to Specific Pedagogies and, in particular, Social Studies Pedagogy.
A STUDY OF TRAINEE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF THE EDUCATIONAL USE OF MUSEUMS This study, of a general nature, took a simple question as its starting point: what is the educational value of museums, and in what sense can they be put to use within the educational context? To find the answer, we focused on the analysis of the conceptions manifest by trainee secondary teachers specialising in Social Studies, Geography and History during the academic year 2004/05, taking a sample of 19 students. It was necessary to take into account that, with respect to such a specific topic as the analysis of trainee secondary teachers’ conceptions of the role of museums in education, very few previous studies were available, for which reason we decided, in the first place, to carry out a quantitative study of a descriptive nature with the intention of exploring the area of analysis and getting a general picture of the problems we were facing. Once the overall reach of the study had been determined, we carried out a qualitative analysis aimed at accounting for certain of the findings from the initial analysis through a particularised study of some of the most relevant and significant subjects, according to their answers to the questionnaire, so as to get a better understanding of the predominant conceptual framework of the sample being studied (Cuenca & Estepa, 2007). From our perspective, centred on prospective teachers, we felt it was a basic question to determine what features the predominating pedagogical content knowledge of trainee secondary teachers displayed in respect of the educational use of the heritage available in museums and similar institutions, and what differences this registered with the desirable pedagogical content knowledge, from an integrative, complex and critical perspective, all of which so as to be able to characterise a fundamental part of teachers’ professional knowledge and to reveal any possible deficiencies in their training. Thus we were able to specify more concrete questions relating to the basic research problem with respect to the conceptions that these trainee teachers had of the educational value of museums, the ends, contents, methodological strategies, material and resources, evaluation and difficulties which e can find and use in these institutions for the communication of heritage. As a result of the indicated problems and questions, we decided that the most relevant objective should be to make a contribution to the analysis of, and reflection on, the pedagogical content knowledge relating to heritage, through museums and their influence in teachers’ professional development, oriented towards improvements in social studies teacher education. In the course of this study, two research tools were designed following various studies (Ávila, 2001; Serrat, 2006) which had carried out similar studies to that presented here, and other research on methodological questions, including questionnaire design (Colás and Buendía, 1998; Wiersma, 2000), and the categorisation system for analysing the data (García Díaz et al., 1999; Cuenca, 2004).
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
75
The data collection instrument consisted of a questionnaire which, after going through the validation process, was made up of eleven questions, three on the general characteristics of the sample, and eight addressing the problems which were the object of the study. These latter were phrased according to the different categories established for the data analysis, and the respective variables stipulated for each of them, with some of the questions addressing more than one of the variables in order to garner more information when it came to ascribing the responses to the various indicators. In its turn, the instrument for analysing the data consisted of a system of categories based on a hypothesis of professional development which guided the complete analytical process and as such, had to be made explicit when the questionnaire was designed for data collection. The categories, of which there were two, were subdivided, the first into two variables and the second into five, each with its corresponding indicators and descriptors to facilitate the analysis of the information (table 4). The data that was obtained and interpreted via the resultant instrument for analysis gave us an insight into the conceptions which the trainee teachers exhibited in relation to educational uses of museums. On this basis we were able to determine their level of professional development according to the design of a hypothesis of progression. This was made up of the different indicators from each variable in the study with respect to this topic, in gradual progression from the simplest to more complex conceptions. Beginning with the first category of the study, what stands out is the difference between the two variables which comprise it: with respect to the first variable, the majority of the sample are located at the most basic level of professional development (47.4%), while with respect to the second, the two largest groups, located at the second and third stages of progression, share the same percentage (42.1%). The divergence shown by these results, which we had expected to coincide to some degree, is explained less by a developed conception of the educational ends of museums, and more by the formulation of the question addressing the second variable, in which the examples given in choices of answer were ascribed to the higher levels of the model. It cannot be claimed, therefore, that the trainees’ conceptions of the educational use of museums represented the most desirable levels according to our view, simply that in this instance they had selected specific aspects which could be interesting within the educational sphere, a situation which is also evident, along similar lines, in the studies of Bravo (2000) and Cuenca (2003). In the second category of the study, an intermediate level of professional development predominated with respect to the variables ‘type of activity’ and ‘resources and materials’, and a basic level in the case of ‘the role of the student’ and ‘the teacher’s skills’. The only variable which remained outside this general tendency was that of ‘evaluation’, which was notable for the predominance of the third level of professional progression. We therefore gave significance to the first and second levels across the full range of the category concerning the methodology of incorporating the museum into teaching and treated the result of the sixth variable (‘evaluation’) as an anomaly whose data did not seem to be representative of the sample when the general results of the category were taken into account.
Table 4. System of categories for analysis of the information CATEGORIES I. PURPOSE AND ROLE OF MUSEUMS IN SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHING/LEARNING
VARIABLES 1. Educational objetives of museums
INDICATORS 1. Cultural 2. Practical 3. Critical
2. Educational contents of museums
1. No integration 2. Simple integration 3. Complex integration
II. METHODOLOGY FOR PEDAGOGICAL INVOLVEMENT OF MUSEUMS IN SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHING/LEARNING
3. Type of activities
4. Role of student
1. Complementary 2. Practical 3. Investigative 1. Receiver 2. Receiver -Emitter 3. Co-designer
5. Materials and resources
1. Object of education 2. Means of education 3. Source of knowledge
6. Evaluation
1. Conceptual-terminal 2. Process-practical 3. Process-integrative
7. Teacher skills
1. Academic perspective. 2. Technical-practical perspective 3. Critical perspective
DESCRIPTORS References only to achieving cultural learning: information, facts, dates. References to achieving learning which leads to developing practical facets through the use of different instruments and resources. References to involvement in conservation and the view of heritage as imbuing identity, implying problem-solving. Attention given to only one type of content, whether conceptual, procedural or attitudinal. Integration of two types of content in the course of the visit (C-P; C-A; P-A). Integration of the three types of content in the course of the visit, relating them specifically to a specific socio-cultural problem. Reviewing, complementing and/or checking theory. Developing and attending to practical aspects. Problem-solving and inquiry-based activities. Participates in activities exclusively as receiver of transmitted concepts. Participates in activities as receiver and transmitter of concepts. Process of receiving, reformulating and communicating the information. Participates in the design of the activities, fully integrated in the process of transmitting the contents from a multi-directional perspective. The material as an end in itself (learning to use the material). Supporting and illustrating the teacher’s exposition. As a source of knowledge about which to develop significant learning through inquirybased activities and self-critical work. Final evaluation centred on concepts that can be observed during the visit. Evaluation of the process, centred on procedural and attitudinal contents. Interconnected evaluation of process and product (conceptual, procedural and attitudinal contents), providing inquiry-oriented activities. Teacher as transmitter of pre-determined knowledge and expert in material to be learnt. Mastery of techniques, procedures and abilities relating to material to be learnt. Teacher as professional who reflects, diagnoses, investigates and takes decisions, aware of the ethical nature of his/her work.
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
77
CONCLUSION As has been seen, we have presented a series of studies which share a similar methodological design: the use of a questionnaire as an instrument of the first order, and of a system of categories for analysis of the information, which incorporates various subcategories or variables, indicators and descriptors. This latter instrument was designed according to a hypothesis of progression in one’s professional development, which should be experienced by teachers regarding the curricular and formative elements to be studied. We can see a similar degree of professional development across the results of these studies, even though the respondents were from groups with different educational backgrounds. In accounting for this homogeneity we find that the impact of initial training, at least as it is currently designed – minimal interrelation between theory and practice, scant connection between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, little coherence between the training model which is applied and the teaching model which is advocated – is marginal, since, as numerous studies have shown, the ideas of trainee teachers are very resistant to change. The studies we have presented highlight the existence of two fundamental obstacles to trainee teachers’ professional development: on the one hand, obstacles of an epistemological nature, by which we mean the purpose and the academic and educational value of social studies; on the other hand, methodological obstacles, by which we refer to the knowledge and conceptions of the most adequate strategies for bringing about significant social studies learning in the students with whom they will shortly be working. Overcoming such obstacles requires a differentiated treatment of a quantitative and qualitative nature regarding teacher education. It is essential to carry out similar research projects to those presented here, so that we might detect obstacles to effective training and find through their analysis solutions which draw on the interrelation of theory and practice, of the knowledge of what to teach and the knowledge of how to teach it. It is through systematic research of this kind that fuller professional development is made possible and teacher education programmes better meet the needs of trainees, in response to a key question: How does social studies professional development make a difference? (Van Hover, 2008). In this respect, a report by the American Educational Research Association suggests that for successful teacher training it is fundamental to establish links between the university and the school, specifically directed towards teacher education programmes. In like fashion, methodological strategies for teacher training should centre on case studies and the use of the portfolio system, both of proven effectiveness in changing teachers’ conceptions, knowledge and attitudes (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Studies such as those in this collection seek to uncover these conceptions so that they can become the starting point for university training and a continuous reference throughout the process. In this way we can achieve a more rigorous and well-founded influence over the obstacles that are detected, so that trainee Social Studies teachers can reflect on their own belief systems, their rationality and their theoretical-practical limitations, and also gain experience in designing and implementing the curriculum in this area in such a way that their reflection and practical experience enables them to make advances in their professional development.
78
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
REFERENCES Adler, S.A. (1991). The education of social studies teachers. In J.P. Shaver (ed.) Handbook of research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. A Project of the National Council for the Social Studies. (pp. 210-221). New York: Macmillan. Adler, S.A. (2008). The Education of Social Studies Teachers. In L.S. Levstik & C.A. Tyson (eds.) Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education. (pp. 329-351). New York: Roudledge. Álvarez Méndez, J.M. (2001). Entender la Didáctica, entender el Currículo. Madrid, Spain: Miño y Dávila. Apple, M.W. (1997). Teoría crítica y educación. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Miño y Dávila. Armento, B. (1996). The Professional Development of Social Studies Educators. En J. Sikula, Th. Butterly & E. Guyton (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Second Edition. A Project of the Association of Teachers Educators. (485-502). New York: Simon & Schuster. Ávila, R.M. (2001). Historia del Arte, enseñanza y profesores. Sevilla, Spain: Díada. Ávila, R.M., López, R. & Fernández, E. (eds.) (2007). Las competencias profesionales para la enseñanza-aprendizaje de las Ciencias Sociales ante el reto europeo y la globalización. Bilbao, Spain: AUPDCS. Banks, J.A. & Parker, W.C. (1990). Social Studies Teacher Education. In W.R. Houston (ed.), Handbook of Research in Teacher Education. (pp. 674-686). New York: McMillan. Benejam, P. (1993). Los contenidos de la Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales en la formación del profesorado. En L. Montero & J.M. Vez (eds.) Las didácticas específicas en la formación del profesorado. (pp. 341-348). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Tórculo. Beyer, L.E. & Liston, D.P. (2001). El currículo en conflicto. Madrid, Spain: Akal. Bravo, L. (2000). Las ideas previas de los futuros profesores de ciencias sociales de Educación Secundaria. En J. Pagès, J. Estepa & G. Travé (eds.) Modelos, contenidos y experiencias en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. (425-438). Huelva, Spain: Universidad de Huelva. Cañal, P. (2000). Las actividades de enseñanza. Un esquema de clasificación. Investigación en la Escuela, 40, 5-21. Cañal, P., Pozuelos, F.J. & Travé, G. (2005). Proyecto Curricular Investigando Nuestro Mundo. Descripción General y Fundamentos. Sevilla, Spain: Díada. Cochrand-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (2005). Executive Summmary. In M. Cochrand-Smith & K. Zeichner (eds.) Studiying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. (pp. 1-36). Washington DC: AERA. Colás, M.P. & Buendía, L. (1998). Investigación Educativa. Sevilla, Spain: Alfar. Cuenca, J.M. & Domínguez, C. (2002). Análisis de concepciones sobre la enseñanza del patrimonio en la formación inicial del profesorado de educación secundaria. En J. Estepa, M. de la Calle & M. Sánchez (eds.) Nuevos horizontes en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. (79-96). Madrid, Spain: ESLA-AUPDCS. Cuenca, J.M. (2003). Análisis de concepciones sobre la enseñanza del patrimonio en la educación obligatoria. Enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Revista de Investigación, 2, 37-45.
What Do Trainee Teachers Know and What Do They Think About Social Studies?
79
Cuenca, J.M. (2004). Heritage in Social Science Education: Conceptions and Obstacles to integrate it in Obligatory Education. Michigan: Proquest – University of Michigan. http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/uhu/fullcit?p3126904 Cuenca, J.M. & Estepa, J. (2007). Las concepciones de los docentes y el desarrollo profesional: dos estudios desde la formación inicial en Ciencias Sociales. Investigación en la Escuela, 61. 85-98. Cuenca, J.M., Domínguez, C. & Estepa, J. (2000). El conocimiento didáctico del contenido sobre las nociones temporales en el profesorado de Educación Primaria. En J. Pagès, J. Estepa, & G. Travé (eds.) Modelos, contenidos y experiencias en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. (pp. 401-412). Huelva, Spain: Universidad de HuelvaUniversidad Internacional de Andalucía-AUPDCS. Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and end tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journals of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 6-18. Domínguez, C. & Cuenca, J.M. (2005). Patrimonio e identidad para un espacio educativo multicultural. Análisis de concepciones y propuesta didáctica. Investigación en la Escuela, 56, 27-42. Estepa, J. (1998). El conocimiento escolar en la formación inicial del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. Investigación en la Escuela, 35, 43-52. Estepa, J. (2000). El conocimiento profesional de los profesores de Ciencias Sociales. En J. Pagès, J. Estepa, & G. Travé (eds.) Modelos, contenidos y experiencias en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. (pp. 313-334). Huelva, Spain: Universidad de Huelva-Universidad Internacional de Andalucía-AUPDCS. Estepa, J. (2003). Investigando las sociedades actuales e históricas. Investigación en la Escuela, 51, 71-82. Estepa, J., Ávila, R.M. & Ferreras, M. (2008). Primary and Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions about Heritage and Heritage Education: a Comparative Analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2095-2107. Estepa, J., Ávila, R.M. & Ruiz, R. (2007). Concepciones sobre la enseñanza y difusión del patrimonio en las instituciones educativas y los centros de interpretación. Estudio descriptivo. Enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Revista de Investigación, 6, 75-94. Estepa, J., de la Calle, M. & Sánchez, M. (eds.) (2002) Nuevos horizontes en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. Madrid, Spain: ESLA-AUPDCS. Evans, R.W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York: Teachers College Press. García Díaz, J.E. & García Pérez, F.F. (2001). El conocimiento metadisciplinar y las didácticas específicas. En F.J. Perales et al. (eds.) Congreso nacional de Didácticas Específicas. Las didácticas de las áreas curriculares en el siglo XXI. Vol. I (pp. 409421). Granada, Spain: Grupo Editorial Universitario. García Díaz, J.E. et al. (1999). El análisis de la intervención en el aula: instrumentos y ejemplificaciones. Investigación en la Escuela, 39, 63-88. Gimeno, J. & Pérez, A. I. (1993). Comprender y transformar la enseñanza. Barcelona, Spain: Morata. Gómez, A.E. & Núñez, P. (eds.) (2006). Formar para investigar, investigar para formar en Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales. Málaga, Spain: AUPDCS.
80
Jesús Estepa and José María Cuenca
Keiny, S. (1994). Teacher’ Profesional Development as a Process of Conceptual Change. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, G. & S. Vaage (eds.) Research on teachers’ thinking and practice. London: The Falmer Press. Montero, L. (1992). El aprendizaje de la enseñanza: la construcción del conocimiento profesional. En A. Estebaranz & V. Sánchez (eds.) Pensamiento de profesores y desarrollo profesional. (pp. 57-82). Vol. I. Madrid, Spain: Visor. Nelson, J.L. (2001). Defining social studies. In W. Stanley (ed.) Critical Issues in Social Studies Teacher Education. (pp. 15-38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Pagès, J., Estepa, J. & Travé, G. (eds.) (2000). Modelos, contenidos y experiencias en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias Sociales. Huelva, Spain: Universidad de HuelvaUniversidad Internacional de Andalucía-AUPDCS. Porlán, R. & Rivero, A. (1998). El conocimiento de los profesores. Sevilla, Spain: Díada. Porlán, R. et al. (2001). La relación teoría-práctica en la formación permanente del profesorado. Sevilla, Spain: Díada. Porlán, R., Martín del Pozo, R. & Martín Toscano, J. (2002). Conceptions of school-based teacher educators concerning ongoing teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (3), 305-321. Santos, M.A. (1994). Entre bastidores. El lado oculto de la organización escolar. Archidona, Spain: Aljibe. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Serrat, N. (2006). La lección de los lepidópteros o la pérdida de contenidos procedimentales. Enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Revista de Investigación, 5, 83-93. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 2, 4-14. Stenhouse, L. (1991). La investigación del curriculum y el arte del profesor. Investigación en la Escuela, 15, 9-15. Thornton, S.J. (2005). Teaching Social Studies that Matters: Curriculum for Active Learning. New York: Teacher College Press. Valli, L. & Stout, M. (2004). Continuing Professional Development for Social Studies Teachers. In S. Adler (ed.) Critical Issues in Social Studies Teacher Education. (pp. 165188). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Van Hover, S. (2008). The Professional Development of Social Studies Teachers. In L.S. Levstik & C.A. Tyson (eds.) Handbook of Research in Social Studies Education. (pp. 352-372). New York: Roudledge. Whitson, J.A. (2004). What social studies teachers need to know? In S. Adler (ed.) Critical Issues in Social Studies Teacher Education. (pp. 9-35). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Wiersma, W. (2000). Research Methods in Education. An Introduction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Zeichner, K. M. & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. Sikula, Th. Butterly & E. Guyton (eds) Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp.525547). Nueva York: Macmillan.
In: Developments in Higher Education Editor: Mary Lee Albertson
ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 4
DIFFERENT GROUPS CHALLENGE PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN IN A HIGHER EDUCATION Raija Hämäläinen* Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; P.O.Box 35; FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä
ABSTRACT This chapter explores pedagogical design in facilitating computer-supported collaborative learning in the light of two cases in higher education contexts. This study addresses two major aims: To elaborate different theoretical guidelines for the design of pedagogical core ideas of scripted tasks, which support the development of cognitive, social, developmental, or motivational aspects of learning; and to examine whether the groups followed the theoretical core ideas of the scripts and how groups’ activities varied between collaborative Group A and non-collaborative Group B despite apparently similar instructional support. Finally, we will discuss the main reasons behind different qualities of collaboration. On the basis of the challenges raised from the study, future prospects will be drawn.
INTRODUCTION This chapter explores pedagogical design in facilitating computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (e.g., Koschmann, 1996) in the light of two cases in higher education contexts. At its best, collaboration appears to be a promising social approach to foster learning. Thus, recent studies have indicated that when learners are left on their own, it is often difficult for teams to engage in collaboration (e.g., Arvaja, 2007; Vonderwell, 2003). There are even more challenges when students are working in virtual environments separated in place and time. Technological tools are rarely designed with learning and teaching in mind (Laurillard, 2009). As a result, the increased use of technological tools challenges the design *
Tel +358 14 260 3301; Fax +358 14 260 3201; Street address: Keskussairaalantie 2
82
Raija Hämäläinen
of pedagogical instruction for technological environments (Arvaja, Hämäläinen, & RaksuPuttonen, 2009). Considering these issues, the web has often been overrated as a tool for collaboration, and most web facilities intended for correspondence or coordination across distances are marketed as “collaboration tools” (Lipponen, 2001; Roschelle & Pea, 1999). As a result, the use of collaboration scripts as instructional support has been presented as a way of triggering productive collaboration (Kobbe et al., 2007). This study explores collaboration scripts as a pedagogical method of facilitating group processes in virtual environments in real educational contexts. Thus, it addresses two major aims: To elaborate different theoretical guidelines for the design of pedagogical core ideas of scripted tasks, which support the development of cognitive, social, developmental, or motivational aspects of learning; and to examine whether the groups followed the theoretical core ideas of the scripts and how groups’ activities varied between collaborative Group A and non-collaborative Group B despite apparently similar instructional support. Finally, we will discuss the main reasons behind different qualities of collaboration.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The roots of CSCL (Koschman, 1994, 1996) exist in the integration of research areas focusing on collaborative learning and information and communication technologies (ICT) (Arvaja, Häkkinen, & Kankaanranta, 2008). According to Faulkner, Joiner, Littleton, Miell, and Thompson (2000), computers may have a unique role to play in facilitating shared collaborative activities. Although there is no unified theory of CSCL, a common feature is a focus on how collaboration supported by technology can facilitate the joint construction of shared understanding, meaning, knowledge, and expertise in the group or community (Arvaja et al., 2008; Dillenbourg, Järvelä, & Fisher, 2008; Littleton & Whitelock, 2005). In recent years, many researchers have reported on advances in CSCL (e.g., Fischer, Bruhn, Gräsel, & Mandl, 2002; Koschmann, 1996; Schellens & Valcke, 2006). The potential of collaborative learning is that it combines individual and social processes (Dillenbourg, Järvelä, & Fisher, 2008; Dillenbourg & Self, 1995), through which groups can construct new understanding and knowledge (Stahl, 2005). According to Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen, and Järvelä (2007), collaboration is defined as a shared knowledge construction in which it is not enough that participants cumulatively (Mercer, 1996) share knowledge together; rather, the knowledge construction has to be built on others’ ideas and thoughts. Therefore, collaborative learning depends on interactions between group members (Arvaja et al., 2008). In successful collaboration, different aspects of learning, such as cognitive, social, developmental, and motivational elements (Slavin, 1997), are often intertwined. Thus, in an educational environment, collaboration alone does not automatically produce high-level collaboration where participants are engaged in cognitively high-level learning (Dillenbourg, 2002). The problem is that simply offering online learning environments will not necessarily cause students to interact in a way that promotes cognitively high-level collaborative learning (e.g., Lipponen, 2001). Thus, researchers have pointed out various kinds of problems – cognitive (e.g., Guzzetti & Glass, 1993), social (e.g. Arvaja, Rasku-Puttonen, Häkkinen, & Eteläpelto, 2003) and motivational (e.g., Volet & Järvelä, 2001) – in virtual collaborative learning environments, and especially in real educational settings. Collaborative learning
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
83
seems to be affected by the quality of interaction and whether a group is able to build new and innovative knowledge through such interactions (Barron, 2003). As stated earlier, when learners are left to their own devices, they rarely engage in productive collaborative interactions (Barron, 2003; Kobbe et al., 2007). Therefore, different pedagogical models and systems have been developed to support collaboration (e.g., De Corte, 1996; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991, 1994). One way to reduce uncertainty and aimless interactions in collaborative learning situations is to structure groups’ collaboration processes (Lehtinen, 2003). Recently, researchers have adopted collaboration scripts as an instructional approach to structure and support collaborative learning (Dillenbourg & Jerman, 2006; Kollar, Fischer, & Hesse, 2006; Schellens, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke, 2007; Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007; Weinberger, Fischer, & Mandl, 2003). The target of the scripts is to evoke particular shared interactions (e.g., solving cognitive conflict) that have been found to be related to productive collaborative learning (e.g., Cohen, 1994; King, 2006; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). In this way, scripts are expected to lead group members to higherlevel interaction, and therefore, to better shared knowledge construction and learning (Kobbe et al., 2007). Next, we will describe the theoretical vantage points of the scripts used in this study, Scripts 1 and 2; in addition, we will delineate different theoretical guidelines for the design of pedagogical scripts.
DIFFERENT THEORETICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF (PEDAGOGICAL) COLLABORATION SCRIPTS As recent studies have indicated, in order to induce collaboration between students, it is crucial to construct tasks that compel group members to work together. This is because most students first attempt to carry out the tasks on their own, joining forces with other learners only when they realize that this is necessary to solve the problem (Hämäläinen, 2008; Hämäläinen, Oksanen, & Häkkinen, 2008). From a pedagogical perspective, the leading issue in scripting is the core design principle, through which the script is expected to trigger collaboration (knowledge construction built on the ideas of others). For different learning goals there are different kinds of design principles through which scripts are expected to trigger specific interactions (Dillenbourg & Jerman, 2006). In CSCL environments, scripts may support, for example, the development of cognitive, social, developmental, or motivational aspects of learning (Hämäläinen, 2008). In this study, we assumed that collaboration would be supported by scripted tasks with different core pedagogical ideas; authentic learning problem, (e.g., Kester, Kirschner, & Corbalan, 2007), solving cognitive conflict (e.g., Doise, 1985), distributed expertise (e.g., Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006; Price et al., 2003), complementary knowledge construction (e.g., De Laat & Lally, 2004), and reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) (see table 1).
84
Raija Hämäläinen Table 1. Theoretical vantage points of the Scripts 1 and 2
Script 1
Script 2
Theoretical vantage points • authentic learning problem • complementary knowledge construction • reciprocal teaching • distributed expertise • complementary knowledge construction • conflict
The roots of conflict-oriented scripts can be found in Piaget’s cognitive conflict theory (an individual’s interaction with the concrete world) (Piaget, 1985), which was further developed to address socio-cognitive conflict by emphasizing the importance of social interaction (Doise & Mugny, 1986). The aim of conflict-oriented scripts is to trigger argumentation (e.g., Kollar, Fisher, & Slotta, 2008; van Bruggen, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002; Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer, & Mandl, 2005) among group members by forming pairs of students with conflicting opinions (e.g., Tudge, 1992; Moscovici & Doise, 1994). This can be done, for example, by providing students with conflicting evidence or by asking them to play conflicting roles. In this way, scripts aim to promote solving a cognitive conflict (e.g. Huang, Liu, & Shiu, 2008; Limón & Carretero, 1997; Moscovici & Doise, 1994). The rationale behind such a script is that conflicts may force learners to turn to new ways of constructing knowledge, opening up the possibility that new knowledge will be created (e.g., Doise, 1985; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). In terms of learning effects, the crucial question is: How are students able to solve their cognitive conflict, rather than just the conflict itself (Ayoko, Hartel, & Callan, 2002; Dillenbourg & Jerman, 2006; Limón, 2001)? Scripts may aim to assign and interchange roles that foster reciprocal activities (see Palincsar & Brown, 1984), such as questioning, mutual explaining or tutoring (e.g., Duran & Monereo, 2005; Greenwood, Arrega-Mayer, Utley, Gavin, & Terry, 2001; King, 1999; Webb, 1989). Within authentic learning problems (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lainema & Nurmi, 2006; Strijbos, Kirschner, & Martens, 2004; Zualkernan, 2006), the main idea is to create a situation in which students have to use their abilities to handle uncertainty (e.g., Berger & Calabrese, 1975), commit to solving a task, and build shared understanding (Dillenbourg, 1999; Resnick, 1991; Schwartz, 1995) by mutually explaining their perspectives on a task’s solution. In collaboration situations, learners’ resources, cognitive representations, and knowledge- transfer are interconnected with how well the group is able to build shared understanding (e.g., Fisher & Mandl, 2005). In typical CSCL situations, learners must first build shared understanding of the goal/task, and then (for example, through reciprocal activities) it is possible to create a shared task-solution. Scripts may aim to form pairs with complementary (e.g., Jigsaw-method; Aronsonet al., 1978) information (e.g. Perkins, 1993); these pairs will then trigger dependency and complementary knowledge construction between the participants (e.g., De Laat & Lally, 2004; Kneser & Ploetzner, 2001). Group members are dependent on each other, learners’ activities are connected to the whole process, and each piece of work is meaningful for the group in regard to finishing the task at hand (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992; Haake & Wilson, 1992). When, for example, resources or expertise (Hermann, Rummel, & Spada, 2001) are distributed between the team members, teamwork is necessary. Since none of the group members alone has enough
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
85
information/knowledge to solve the task alone, he or she needs to reason, explain and justify his or her knowledge or contribution to others (e.g. Herbsleb, Mockus, Finholta, & Grinter, 2000; Perkins, 1993; Price et al., 2003; Strijbos & Martens, 2001). When expertise is distributed, the coordination of different perspectives is connected to the success of collaboration (Baker, 2002; Erkens, Jaspers, Prangsma, & Kanselaar, 2005; Malone & Crowston, 1994). Thus, coordination involves personal responsibility, dependency between participants, and control of an aggregate of individuals (Brown & Campione, 1994; Malone & Crowston, 1994).
METHOD There are various solutions in terms of the type of technology used to support scripting. Firstly, scripts can be differenced by detailed directions for interactions (micro-scripts) and general guidelines for shared activities (macro-scripts) (Kobbe et al., 2007). Secondly, scripts can be differentiated according to whether collaboration is supported by specific instructional means or by technology (Hämäläinen, 2008). In line with this notion, Lipponen (2001) has made a distinction between the collaborative use of technology (software alone does not scaffold collaboration) and collaborative technology (software designed to support collaborative knowledge construction) (Häkkinen, Arvaja, Hämäläinen, & Pöysä, 2009). The current study focused on the collaborative use of existing technology (by sequences of instructions) in macro-scripted conditions. Two related empirical studies were carried out to examine whether the groups followed the core theoretical ideas of the scripts, to determine how different core design principles affected groups’ collaboration, and finally, to illustrate how groups’ activities varied between collaborative Group A and non-collaborative Group B despite apparently similar instructional support. This study implemented a design-based research approach (Brown, 1992; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; The DBR Collective, 2003). The empirical experiments were conducted to enhance an understanding of group collaboration in macro-scripted conditions. Macro-scripts aim to be flexible resources that result in a richness of collaboration between participants (Tchounikine, 2008).
Participants The participants of the study made up two small groups (collaborative and noncollaborative; based on how the students participated and in what kind of activities. The collaborative groups used shared knowledge construction in which new knowledge was built on each others’ ideas and thoughts) (Arvaja et al., 2007). For a more detailed definition of collaborative and non-collaborative groups, see Hämäläinen & Arvaja, 2009; Hämäläinen & Häkkinen, 2009) of first-year teacher education students (N=9) (names are pseudonyms) taking courses in the pedagogy of pre-primary and primary education. These groups are referred to as Group A (collaborative) and Group B (non-collaborative). The students participated in two different scripted tasks: Script 1 and Script 2 (see table 1). Group A consisted of five students; four female and one male. Group B consisted of four students:
86
Raija Hämäläinen
three female and one male. The leading idea in the study involved structuring the student groups’ collaborative activities by means of a script while they worked in an asynchronous virtual learning environment. The students worked in small groups assigned by the teacher and researchers. The script’s pedagogical idea was designed as a joint effort by two research groups (see Häkkinen et al., 2005), while the content of the script was designed by the teacher (an expert with a doctoral degree in education and many years’ teaching experience). Each of the scripted exercises took about four weeks, during which the students were supposed to proceed through five different steps. Moving from one step to the next presupposed that the previous task had been completed. The students were not penalized in any way is they failed to complete all of the steps in the script.
Data Collection The set of data consists of records of computer-based activity; log data on student activities; and asynchronous web-based discussions that took place during the scripted tasks 1 and 2. This study concentrated on the asynchronous web-based discussion that took place in Groups A and B during the scripted tasks 1 and 2. Thus, the data consists of students’ webbased messages. Moreover, all the material that was used in the course (lecture notes, webbased documents, and links) was used in interpreting the students’ collaboration activity.
Data Analysis The following qualitative analysis was used in analyzing Groups A and B’s collaboration in the scripted conditions: (1) verifying data, (2) examining the main discourse functions of communication and examining whether Groups A and B reached the pedagogical core idea of the script in scripted tasks 1 and 2, and (3) comparing the main differences between Groups A and B. At the first stage of analysis, data were verified and categorized. At this stage, all the material was read through several times, redundancies were omitted (such as repeated messages) and different types of data occurring in the same context were used for crossanalysis. The students’ web-based discussion was analyzed in terms of discourse functions. An utterance with the substance of a theory driven discourse function was chosen as the unit of analysis (Chi, 1997); for example, “Hanna: Phonological awareness. Timo has an apparent interest in phonemes. For instance, in comics he is asking if J is the letter of uncle Jani” is one utterance. The analysis was made by classifying each utterance into discourse function categories (see table 2 for descriptions). The categories were based on the theorydriven aims for scripted task 1: 1) authenticity, 2) complementary knowledge construction, 3) reciprocal teaching (see table 2); and task 2: 1) distributing expertise, 2) complementary knowledge construction, 3) solving cognitive conflict (see table 3). Next, the analysis focused on whether the groups reached the pedagogical core idea of the script. This was done by examining whether Script 1 generated complementary knowledge construction and reciprocal teaching, and Script 2 generated a resolution of cognitive conflict, complementary knowledge construction, and distributed expertise, as expected from the core pedagogical ideas of Scripts 1 and 2. Finally, an investigation was conducted to determine differences in types of
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
87
discourse functions between Group A and B which may have existed despite the use of the same scripted tasks for both groups. Table 2. Discourse Functions of Script 1 Discourse Functions Authenticity Complementary knowledge construction Reciprocal teaching
Description Referring the authentic case material Responding to or completing knowledge construction started by other group members (knowledge construction built on others’ ideas and thoughts) Teaching one’s own area of expertise to the other group members (including questioning, mutual explaining, or tutoring)
Table 3. Discourse Functions of Script 2 Discourse Functions Distributing expertise Complementary knowledge construction Solving cognitive conflict
Description Reasoning, explaining, or justifying one’s own knowledge Responding to or completing knowledge construction started by other group members (knowledge construction built on others’ ideas and thoughts) Negotiating a shared solution to the problem
RESULTS According to our earlier studies (see Hämäläinen & Arvaja, 2009; Hämäläinen & Häkkinen, 2009) the benefit of Scripts 1 and 2 are that they can guarantee that students find resources for their collaboration activity and are able to work together. However, the major challenges of scripted tasks seem to be related to group variations and to reaching a high-level collaboration. Recent research findings have indicated that a high level of activity (e.g., the number of utterances) does not necessarily indicate high-level collaboration (e.g., Hämäläinen, Oksanen, & Häkkinen, 2008). Therefore, this study examined how the groups followed theoretical core ideas of the Scripts A and B, and sought the differences in group activities between collaborative Group A and non-collaborative Group B. The findings indicate that despite the apparently similar instructional support, the level and quality of collaborative activities in Groups A and B varied in terms of the number, length, and content of their activities, satisfaction with the group work, the degree of collaboration, roles assumed, and attitudes displayed in the group. There was a difference in the number of theory-driven substance discourse functions, which was higher in the collaborative Group A than the non-collaborative Group B for both of the scripted tasks (see table 4).
88
Raija Hämäläinen Table 4. Theory-driven substance discourse functions with Groups A and B in scripted tasks Script 1 Authentic learning problem Complementary knowledge construction Reciprocal teaching Total Script 2 Distributed expertise Complementary knowledge construction Conflict Total
Collaborative Group A 10 13 19 42 Group A 63 52 115
Non-collaborative Group B 4 11 12 27 Group B 26 26
In scripted task 1, the biggest differences occurred in the level of collaboration shown and in the roles assumed by the participants. Script 1 based the learning task on the authentic work situation of the pedagogy of pre-primary and primary education. The script aimed to trigger complementary knowledge construction and reportorial teaching activities. As can be seen in table 4, Script 1 triggered these theory based discourse functions in both groups. However, as described in the following subsection (see tables 5 and 6), both of the groups had members who did not actively take part in the shared activities. Thus, as far as the roles in Script 1 were concerned, the main problem for the non-collaborative work (Group B) was attributable to “free riding,” which was recognized both by some active members of the group and by some “free riders” themselves (see also Hämäläinen & Arvaja, 2009). Thus, it was relatively easy for individual participants to coast and be invisible in the fairly open tasks in Script 1. Therefore, learners in non-collaborative Group B would particularly need more support or supervision to reach higher levels of participation or cognitive levels of learning. While the participants in the collaborative group felt that Script 1 did not structure their work well enough, they created their own self-scripting activities (see Dillenbourg & Tchounikine, 2007). Script 2 aimed at the distribution of expertise, complementary knowledge construction, and the resolution of cognitive conflict. However, as can be seen in table 4 above, conflict situations with critical argumentation and counter-argumentation did not occur. Script 2 also lacked complementary knowledge construction in non-collaborative Group B. The script required individual efforts from each student and, through this, ensured that all the participants would engage in some activity during the task. In practice, this meant that all the students either contributed to some of the work or failed to go through the script and dropped out of the course. However, with non-collaborative Group B, the number of theory-driven substance discourse functions (26 utterances) decreased, while the number of theory-driven substance discourse functions increased more than twofold in collaborative Group A (115 utterances) (see table 4). Therefore, it seems that collaboration depends on the learners’ willingness and effort towards shared collaboration. The findings for Script 2 indicate that if students are forced to participate (without motivation and engagement), scripting might increase the quasi-activity of non-engaged students and lead to simplistic discussion. With collaborative Group A, this seemed to increase the theory-driven collaborative activities (see table 4). To conclude, collaborative Group A seemed to benefit from the macro-level
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
89
scripting in both scripted tasks A and B, while the non-collaborative group would have needed different types of support. In Script 1, Group B suffered from attributable free riding. However, the amount of theory-driven substance discourse functions decreased further in the more detailed Script 2 with non-collaborative Group B. Therefore, more detailed scripting does not seem to be a solution in engaging members in the collaborative group work. This indicates the problematic nature of scripting collaboration: creative high level collaboration processes depend on genuine shared group processes, which may not develop in forcing inactive students to participate.
Uncompelled Collaboration The next two tables (table 5 and 6) present the frequency of theory-based discourse functions in the web-based discussion of students in Groups A and B in the scripted tasks 1 and 2. In scripted task 1 with non-collaborative Group B, the number of theory-driven substance discourse functions (27 utterances) was lower than in collaborative Group A (42 utterances) (see table 3). However, as was stated earlier, since the amount of activity does not indicate the quality of collaboration, Groups A and B’s collaboration processes cannot be estimated based only on the activity levels of the students. Therefore, the focus is on the individual differences and similarities in discussion, as well as the roles of individual students in the group (see also Hämäläinen & Arvaja, 2009; Hämäläinen & Häkkinen, 2009). Table 5. Frequency of theory-based discourse functions in Script 1 Script 1 Discourse functions Authenticity Complementary knowledge construction Reciprocal teaching
Group A Hanna
Jukka
Sanna
Anna
Jaana
Group B Pekka Heli
Miina
Nea
5 4
1 1
3 3
1 4
0 1
2 2
0 2
2 4
0 3
11
1
2
5
0
7
2
3
0
For Script 1, Group A created 41 theory-based discourse function utterances. This group had one very active member (Hanna), who had the role of the “captain” in the group. She invested a lot of effort in the collaborative task. Hanna took the chief responsibility for dealing with the task. As can be seen from table 5, in Script 1 Hanna was also the participant most actively following the core pedagogical ideas of the scripts. Her messages included a lot of theory-based comments (see table 5). She mainly taught others reciprocal knowledge. However, the advanced element of her activity was that she also grounded her (and through that, the whole groups’) work on the authentic material as intended in Script 1. Furthermore, she was also capable of complementary knowledge construction with Jukka, Sanna, Anna, and Jaana. The activity level of Jukka, Sanna, and Anna varied during the task. As can be seen in the table above, Anna and Sanna also took an active role in shared knowledge construction and reciprocal teaching. Within this group, Jukka was rather inactive throughout the task; the advantage of his participation was that almost all his input included theory-based
90
Raija Hämäläinen
discourse functions and he provided important complementary information for the task’s solution. In contrast, Jaana showed the opposite type of participation; even thought she was quite active in discussion, only one of her utterances included a theory-based discourse function (see table 5 above). Thus, her role was mainly in improving the atmosphere and organizing group work rather the content-based shared knowledge construction. In Group B, Heli and Miina took most of the responsibility for organizing the task, while the role of Pekka was to “teach or set the pace,” providing the grounding for the group work. Pekka had the role of a “ghost” (see Strijbos & De Laat, 2007), with a high individual learning goal, but a passive attitude toward the shared construction of the task. As can be seen in table 5, Pekka used a lot of reciprocal teaching to explain his ideas. However, the problem was that he had false information (which none of the other group members called into question); in addition, he did not participate in the actual construction of the content. Therefore, the quality of collaboration was low, as Group B neither reasoned nor justified their thoughts; furthermore, they did not ask critical questions or elaborate on their ideas.
Challenge of Reaching Cognitive Conflict and Complementary Knowledge Construction Script 2 failed to trigger active conflict situations. The conflict situations that were expected in the script did not occur either with the collaborative or the non-collaborative group (see table 6). The lack of conflict was quite surprising, since the teacher had many years’ experience using this task in face-to-face situations, where it had triggered conflicts with strong counter-argumentation. Therefore, the topic was expected to create cognitive conflicts in a web environment as well. According these findings, it seems that both the collaborative and non-collaborative group preferred avoiding conflicts and tended to solve tasks through mutual understanding in the virtual environment. Table 6. Frequency of theory-based discourse functions in Script 2 Script 2 Discourse functions Distributing expertise Complementary knowledge construction Solving cognitive conflict
Group A Hanna
Jukka
Sanna
Anna
Jaana
Group B Pekka
Heli
Miina
Nea
19
6
14
12
12
8
7
3
8
28
2
16
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
As can be seen from table 6, which presents the use of the theory-based discourse functions in Script 2, there were remarkable difference in the frequency of these functions between the collaborative (Group A) and non-collaborative Group (B). With collaborative Group A, individual work was grounded on a shared theory-based discourse (115 utterances), while with the non-collaborative group, monologue-type attitude in individual work destroyed the basis for the group work. As can be seen in table 5, in non-collaborative Group B, students were simply distributing their own expertise (achieved in the individual working
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
91
phase), as all 26 theory-based utterances distributes the student’s own expertise. Thus, instead of using their knowledge as a basic for collaboration, Pekka, Heli, Miina, and Nea performed minimal activity to pass the task. To conclude, Script 2 activated individual participation in the non-collaborative group instead of activating shared collaboration processes; therefore, the group members engaged in monologue-type information sharing. With collaborative Group A, the individual grounding of the work for shared knowledge construction had the opposite role. Even though the main theory-based discourse function was also distributing expertise, collaborative Group A used it to ground their shared complementary knowledge constructed. Hanna remained in the role of captain. She also followed most actively the core pedagogical ideas of the scripts. She had vital role in posing questions, distributing expertise, and elaborating and constructing shared knowledge; she mainly engaged in these tasks with Sanna (see table 6). Anna and Jukka had a passive role in shared knowledge construction; however, neither of them lacked other members’ shared collaboration. Jukka remained a rather inactive participant with new viewpoints for collaboration. Moreover, Anna shut off from complementary knowledge construction. By the end of the task, she had noticed her behavior and wondered about it. The role of Jaana changed compared to that in Script 1 as, within this Script 2, she took a much more active role in content-based shared knowledge construction. To sum up, for actively collaborating Group A, the requirement of an individual work load may have enhanced collaboration, as all the members then became capable of putting an individual effort into the task’s solution. However, even within the collaborative group there was one member (Anna) whose participation declined in the script with an individual workload.
CONCLUSION This study was inspired by the finding that when learners are left on their own in CSCL, it is often difficult for teams to engage in productive collaboration in authentic educational settings (Häkkinen, Arvaja, & Mäkitalo, 2004). One solution may be to design collaboration scripts in CSCL environments (Dillenbourg, 1999). This study explored macro-scripts as external support for CSCL, and elaborated on theoretical guidelines for the design of (pedagogical) collaboration scripts. As stated earlier, from a pedagogical perspective, the leading issue in scripting is the core design principle, through which the script is expected to trigger collaboration (knowledge construction built on others’ ideas). Therefore, the aim of this study was to elaborate different theoretical guidelines for the design of (pedagogical) collaboration scripts that support the development of cognitive, social, developmental, or motivational aspects of learning. This study focused on a collaborative and non-collaborative group performing the same scripted tasks. By opening up the process of each student’s based discourse, this study aims to offer tools used to detect possible reasons for differences. Optimally, this knowledge could be used to identify critical points for restructuring scripting in response to the specific needs of particular groups. Findings indicate that defining and introducing a core pedagogical idea is challenging. Lack of cognitive conflicts with both collaborative and non-collaborative groups highlight the particular nature of virtual collaboration. As tasks have been used to raise conflicts in face-toface situations for many years, the findings indicate that tasks from classroom situations are
92
Raija Hämäläinen
not easily transferable to virtual settings. In macro-scripted conditions, Groups A and B acted differently, despite using the same core pedagogical idea and an ideal script. This is in line with the notion of Dillenbourg and Jermann (2006), who state that differences emerge between an ideal script, a mental script (a social and mental representation created by the group performing the script), and an actual script (the emerging patterns, i.e., what really happens in a scripted learning situation). The findings demonstrate that, among the same students, the roles and main characteristics of the group work did not remain the same with different scripted tasks. However, in collaborative Group A, the same individual fulfilled the role of captain for both scripts, and her effort to construct shared knowledge successfully was significant. This is in line with the assumption of Rourke and Kanuka (2007), who state that well structured learning activities with clearly defined roles and the assessment of students’ participation may ease the difficulties of uncritical discourse in collaboration. Based on this study, one can surmise that designing macro-scripts is more complicated than integrating core pedagogical ideas (based on former research findings) into lesson plans. The findings show that, for different groups, there is a need for different kinds of core pedagogical ideas and the external supports through which scripts are expected to trigger collaboration. Aside from taking into account the learning goals for the group, this study suggests that learners’ characteristics, group compositions, and roles (Hare, 1994) should also be considered in scripting. To sum up, in the future, reasons for the advantages and disadvantages of CSCL within different groups should be explored. In this study, the same students proceeded through the same two scripts. The findings indicate that non-collaborative Group B would have needed more controlled participation and scaffolding during the work in Script 1. The advantage of the more detailed control in Script 2 was that it prevented coasting, but the negative effect was that, since some students were forced to participate, with non-collaborative Group B the amount of theory-driven substance discourse functions did not increase and students did not construct shared knowledge. The collaborative group requirement of personal work in Script 2 enhanced the whole Group’s A collaboration, as students used their pieces of information as a resource for shared knowledge construction in collaboration. In contrast, in non-collaborative Group B the requirement of individual work negatively affected collaboration, as students used personal work as an excuse for skipping or copying and pasting text in the shared part of the work (these students felt that they had already done their part). Since collaboration in macro-scripted conditions seems to depend on the learners' willingness to work together, the script should not be seen as a way to force students to participate in collaboration. If students are forced to participate (without motivation and engagement), there is the risk that, while scripting may increase the quasi-activity of some students who are not really committed to the actual group work, it may lead to simplistic discussion or even prevent more active members' collaboration (see also Hämäläinen & Häkkinen, 2009). In the future, we need ways of recognizing the needs of different learning groups. At best, new technologies may be developed to take account of the unique needs of different learners. At this point, teachers may be able to aim different scripts to certain types of groups. Ideally, this kind of knowledge could also be used to help students to recognize disturbing activity and offer them tools to turn their activity towards a type of participation that facilitates collaboration. This poses interesting challenges to script design. One such challenge is deciphering the core design principles that evoke students’ motivational highlevel engagement (e.g., Järvelä, Veermans, & Leinonen, 2008; Volet, Summers, & Thurman,
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
93
2008) in collaborative knowledge construction for different groups. A further challenge is deciding how to assign individuals to groups in such a way that they will recognize and balance their collaborative behaviors to create optimal group processes. Furthermore, teachers’ ways of identifying the needs of different groups should be enhanced (e.g., with new technologies). To conclude, in terms of this aspect of scripted collaboration, future challenges are: finding ways to recognize different needs for shared collaboration processes, and finding ways to engage the whole group in the collaboration process (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Volet, Summers, & Thurman, 2008), while still leaving space for participants' own ideas and creativity (Amabile, 1983; Gall & Breeze, 2008; Vass, 2002).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Academy of Finland (project no. 121097).
REFERENCES Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springler-Verlag. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, C. & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 133-158. Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2008). Collaborative learning and computer supported collaborative learning environments. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Springer. In press. Arvaja, M., & Hämäläinen, R. & Rasku-Puttonen (2009). Challenges for the teacher’s role in promoting productive knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning contexts. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D .Olofsson (Eds.), Online Learning Communities and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery. (pp. 263-280). Hersey: IGI Global. Arvaja, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Häkkinen, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2003). Constructing knowledge through a role-play in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 319-341. Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P. & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448-459. Ayoko, O. B., Hartel, C. & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory approach. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 165 - 195.
94
Raija Hämäläinen
Baker, M. (2002). Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving. In P. Salembier & H. Benchekroun (Eds.), Cooperation and Complexity. (pp. 587-620). Socio-technical Systems, Vol. 16. Paris: Hermès. Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.) Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 227-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Chi, M. (1997) Quantifying Qualitative Analysis of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6 (3), 271-315. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Instructional Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. De Corte, E. (1996). Toward the Integration of Computers in Powerful Learning Environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandl, (Eds.), Technology-Based Learning Environments. Psychological and Educational Foundations (pp. 79-85). New York: Springer NATO ASI Series. Series F. Computer and system sciences; 137. De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2004). It’s not so easy: researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 165-171. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Pergamon. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P.A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three Worlds of CSCL. Can we Support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, and I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives (pp. 275-301). New York: Springer. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S. & Fisher, F. (2008). The evolution of research on computersupported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. Paper presented at the Kaleidoscope NoE symposium 2008, Berlin, Germany.
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
95
Dillenbourg, P. & Self, J.A. (1995). Designing human-computer collaborative learning, In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, (pp. 245-264). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Dillenbourg, P. & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computersupported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1-13. Doise, W. (1985). Social regulations in cognitive development. In R. Hinde, A.-N. PerretClermont & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Social Relationships and Cognitive Development, (pp. 294-308). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW ΄92 - Sharing Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (pp. 107-114). Toronto: ACM/SIGOIS. Duran, D. & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequence of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning & Instruction, 15(3), 179- 199. Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463– 486. Faulkner, D., Joiner, R., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Thompson, L. (2000). The mediating effect of task presentation on collaboration and children's acquisition of scientific reasoning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 418-431. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H., (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, C., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213-232. Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2001). Facilitating the construction of shared knowledge with graphical representation tools in face-to-face and computer-mediated scenarios. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of Euro-CSCL 2001 (pp. 230-236). Maastricht, Holland: Maastricht McLuhan Institute. Gall, M. & Breeze, N. (2008). Music and eJay: An opportunity for creative collaborations in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 27-40 Greenwood, C.R., Arrega-Mayer, C., Utley, C.A., Gavin, K.M. & Terry, B.J. (2001). Classwide peer tutoring learning management system: Applications with elementarylevel English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 34-47. Guzzetti, B. J., & Glass, G. V. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–159. Haake, J.M. and B. Wilson (1992): Supporting Collaborative Writing of Hyper-documents in SEPIA. In Proceedings of CSCW ’92, 31 October–4 November. Toronto, Canada. pp. 138–146. Herbsleb, J.D., Mockus, A., Finholta, T.A., & Grinter, R.E., (2000). Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, (pp.319-328). Philadelphia, PA. Hare, A.P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and current perspective. Small Group Research. 25, 443-448.
96
Raija Hämäläinen
Hermann, F., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2001). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarinen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference on ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, (E-CSCL) (pp. 293-300). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute. Huang, T.-H., Liu, Y.-C., & Shiu, C.-Y. (2008). Construction of an online learning system for decimal numbers through the use of cognitive conflict strategy. Computers & Education, 50(1), 61–76. Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M. & Mäkitalo, K. (2004). Prerequisites for CSCL: Research approaches, methodological challenges and pedagogical development. In K. Littleton, D. Faulkner & D. Miell (Eds.), Learning to Collaborate and Collaborating to Learn, (pp. 161-175). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M. Hämäläinen R., & Pöysä, J. (2009). Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A review of SCORE Studies. In Ertl, B. (Ed.), E-Collaborative Knowledge Construction: Learning from Computer-Supported and Virtual Environments. IGI Global. (Accepted for publication).
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Arvaja, M., Bluemink, J., Hämäläinen, R., Järvenoja, H., et al. (2005). ECOL: Ecology for collaboration with pedagogical structuring and self-regulated learning: Individual and group level perspectives. A poster presented in Earli 2005 Conference. 23.-27.8.05, Nikosia, Kypros. Hämäläinen, R. (2008). Designing and investigating pedagogical scripts to facilitate computer-supported collaborative learning. University of Jyväskylä. Finnish Institute for Educational Research, 24. Hämäläinen, R. & Arvaja, M. (2009). Scripted collaboration and group-based variations in a higher education CSCL context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1-16. Hämäläinen, R. & Häkkinen, P. (2009). Teachers’ instructional planning for computersupported collaborative learning: Macro-scripts as a pedagogical method to facilitate collaborative learning. (Accepted for publication). Hämäläinen, R., Oksanen, K. & Häkkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyzing collaboration in a scripted game for vocational education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 24962506. Järvelä, S., Veermans, M. & Leinonen, P. (2008) Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: a process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology of Education. (in press). Kester, L., Kirschner, P., & Corbalan, G. (2007). Designing support to facilitate learning in powerful electronic learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1047– 1054. King, A. (1990). Facilitating elaborative learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664-687. King, A. (2006). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In: F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives, (pp. 13-37). New York: Springer.
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
97
Kneser, C. & Ploetzner, R. (2001). Collaboration on the basis of complementary domain knowledge: observed dialogue structures and their relation to learning success. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 53–83. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2 (2/3), 211-224. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. (2006). Computer-supported cooperation scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. (2008). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning & Instruction, 17(6), 708-721. Koschmann, T. (1994). Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 219-225. Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Lainema, T., & Nurmi, S. (2006). Applying an authentic, dynamic learning environment in real world business. Computers & Education, 47(1), 94–115. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: An Approach to Powerful Learning Environments. In E. de Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriëboer (Eds.), Powerful Learning Environments: Unraveling Basic Components and Dimensions (pp. 35-54). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Limon, M., (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357–380. Limón, M. & Carretero, M., (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213–230. Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: From promises to reality. Dissertation. University of Turku. Littleton, K, and Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 147-164. Malone, T. W. & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary theory of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87-119. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in
classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377. Moscovici, S., and Doise, W. (1994). Conflict and Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions. London: Sage Publications. Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction. 1(2), 117-175. Perkins, D.N. (1993). Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon, (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and Educational Considerations, (pp. 88-110). New York: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. (1985). Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. University of Chicago Press.
98
Raija Hämäläinen
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227 Price, S., Rogers, Y., Stanton, D., & Smith, H. (2003) A new conceptual framework for CSCL: Supporting diverse forms of reflection through multiple interactions. In (Eds.), B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, U. Hoppe, Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003, (pp. 513 – 523). Bergen: InterMedia. Resnick, L.B. (1991). Shared cognition: thinking as social practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from Today’s WWW to a Powerful Educational Infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25. Rourke, R., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 105–126. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37- 68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349-370. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2 (2/3), 225-246. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354. Shavelson, R. J., D. C. Phillips, L. T., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28. Slavin, R. E. (1997). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: A quarter century of research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Pedagogical Psychology, Frankfurt, September 1997. Stahl, G. (2005). Group Cognition: Computer Support for Collaborative Knowledge Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F., (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration script. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2 (3/3), 421–447. Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2007, August). Prototypical roles in computer-supported collaborative learning: A conceptual framework for the design of a tool for teachers. In J. W. Strijbos & A. Weinberger (Chairs), Facilitating and analyzing roles in computersupported collaborative learning. Paper presented in a symposium conducted at the 12th biennial EARLI conference, Budapest, Hungary. Strijbos, J. W., & Martens, R. L. (2001, August). Structuring group-based learning. Paper presented at the 9th European Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Fribourg, Switzerland.
Different Groups Challenge Pedagogical Design in a Higher Education
99
Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P.A. & Martens, R.L. (2004). What we know about CSCL and what we do not (but need to) know about CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What We Know About CSCL: And Implementing It in Higher Education. (pp. 245-261). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic/Springer Verlag. Tchounikine, P., (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. (In press). Tudge, J.R.H. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: a Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63(6). 1364–1379. Vass, E., (2002) Friendship and collaborative creative writing in the primary classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 102–110. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representations of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121-138. Volet, S., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.), (2001). Motivation in Learning Eontexts: Theoretical Advances and Methodological Implications. London: Pergamon. Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2008, in press). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21-39. Webb, N. & Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2003). Collaboration scripts to facilitate knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) 2003 in Padova, Italy. Zualkernan, I.A. (2006). A framework and a methodology for developing authentic constructivist e-Learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 198– 212.
In: Developments in Higher Education Editor: Mary Lee Albertson
ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 5
INVESTIGATING THE DEMAND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION: THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL VARIABLES Maria Eliophotou Menon* University of Cyprus; Department of Education; Nicosia; Cyprus
ABSTRACT The chapter investigates the main influences on the private demand for higher education, through an investigation of the decision of young people to select higher education over employment at the end of their secondary education. It is based on a survey of 611 secondary school seniors which took place in Cyprus, a small Mediterranean country and a member of the European Union. The methodology employs both quantitative and qualitative methods for the analysis of the survey data. Four categories of variables reported to be important as demand-influencing factors in the literature were examined, namely, social, economic, institutional and individual/personal factors. According to the findings, the most important influences on the student’s decision to pursue higher education were the following: the student’s ability, the student’s gender, personal/psychological and economic considerations. Higher ability students and female students were found to be more likely to pursue higher education. This was also the case for students who placed emphasis on personal and economic considerations in the pursuit of higher studies. This chapter compares the findings to those of an earlier study of the topic in the same country, and discusses the implications of the findings for higher education policy.
*
Address Correspondence To: Maria Eliophotou Menon; Associate Professor; University of Cyprus; Department of Education; P.O. Box 20537; 1678 Nicosia; Cyprus; Tel: 357-22892944; Fax: 357-22753702 ; e-mail:
[email protected] 102
Maria Eliophotou Menon
INTRODUCTION The phenomenal expansion of higher education systems in the second half of the twentieth century has resulted in an interest in the factors influencing the decision of young people to pursue tertiary education. In an attempt to arrive at a better understanding of student motivational patterns and behaviour, several studies have examined the main influences on the choice between higher education and direct employment. Research on demandinfluencing factors has been used to inform policy initiatives concerned with access and equity in higher education. It is generally accepted that information on the factors influencing the demand for higher education can facilitate the design of measures aimed at increasing the participation rate of under-represented groups. Moreover, the investigation of student motivational patterns can be of value to universities, which can take into account the needs and wants of their student public in the development of their educational programmes. The demand for higher education is commonly considered to be subject to a great number of influences, the most important of which fall under the following categories of variables: social/familial, psychological/individual, economic/occupational, and structural/institutional (OECD, 1978). Many of the studies which have attempted to investigate the influences on the demand for higher education have focused on one of these categories. For instance, social/familial variables have been examined by sociologists in the framework of cultural reproduction theories, while economic/occupational variables have been the subject of several investigations in the field of economics, especially in relation to human capital theory. As a result, most studies have provided us with evidence on the effect of one class of variables on demand, without reference to the influence of other categories of demand-influencing factors. However, a more comprehensive account of the reasons that drive young people to pursue higher education requires that all main influences on demand be taken into account. This approach allows for an assessment of the relative importance of each demand-influencing category on the decision making of individual students. The aim of the present chapter is two-fold: First, it attempts to identify the relative influence of the four categories of factors previously mentioned on the intention of secondary school graduates to pursue higher education. Specifically, it investigates the influence of several variables associated with the four categories of demand-influencing factors. This is done through data collected from a survey of the intentions of secondary school seniors, which took place in Cyprus1. Second, it endeavours to examine changes in the effects of these factors through time by comparing the present results to those of an earlier study, which was also conducted in Cyprus (Menon, 1998). Longitudinal studies of the effect of different variables on demand are very rare, making it difficult for planners and policy makers to follow changes in demand patterns. The remainder of the chapter is organised as follows: First, it presents the context of the study through a review of the literature on the factors influencing the demand for higher education. Second, it discusses the methodology used to gather data on the topic and the analytical methods employed. It then presents and discusses the research findings, and finally arrives at the main conclusions and their implications for educational planning and policy making. 1
The present study was conducted in the Republic of Cyprus, the educational system of which has been heavily influenced by the Greek model.
Investigating the Demand for Higher Education
103
THE CONTEXT The classification of demand-influencing factors into four main categories (social/familial, economic/occupational, psychological/individual, structural/institutional) provides a basis for the examination of research findings associated with different fields of study such as economics, psychology and sociology. Even though the separation of factors into groups should not be seen as an attempt to formulate competing explanatory models of the demand for higher education, different emphases and methodological approaches are associated with research studies in each group. In what follows, we provide a brief account of the variables commonly investigated under each category of demand-influencing factors2 and present the relevant research findings for each variable.
Social/Familial Factors It has long been recognised that the social origins of young people play an important role in their educational and occupational choices. The family is often considered to have a major impact on the decision of secondary school students to pursue higher education. Families of higher social status have been found to encourage their children to perform better at school and continue into post-compulsory education. A social class disadvantage in relation to higher education entry was reported by both early and recent studies (see, for example, Connor, 2001; Floud, Halsey & Martin, 1956; Li, 2007; Robbins Committee on Higher Education, 1963; Rosado & David, 2006; Thomas, 2001). In a study of educational attainment in thirteen countries, the lower participation rate of working class children was found to remain constant in the twentieth century, with the exception of two countries, namely, Sweden and the Netherlands (Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993). In the United Kingdom, Thomas (2001) reported that fewer of the lower class students who had achieved higher education entry qualifications, proceeded to apply to university. This is often attributed to a deficit in the aspirations and motivations of the lower classes (Archer & Yamashita, 2003). Parental education, in particular, has been shown to have a significant effect on the private demand for postcompulsory education, with educated parents being more able to guide their children towards higher education (Albert, 2000; Hayden & Carpenter, 1990; Li, 2007; Petrongolo & San Segundo, 2002). Other social background variables linked to the demand for higher education in the literature include family size and structure (Birdsall, 1980; Buchmann & Hannum, 2001). In addition to familial variables, social variables such as peers have also been investigated as demand-influencing factors. In early studies, the effect of peers on educational aspirations was generally reported to be limited (Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Williams, 1972). In some recent studies, however, peers and friends were found to have a positive influence on educational intentions (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Connor, 2001; Forste, Heaton & Haas, 2004).
2
It should be noted that some demand variables may not be easily classified into one group in that their influence can be also linked to at least one other group. For instance, several studies suggest that students from working class backgrounds perceive greater financial risk in the decision to enter higher education (Baxter, Tate &
104
Maria Eliophotou Menon
Economic/Occupational Factors In economics, several attempts have been made to estimate the effect of economic considerations on the decision of young people to enter higher education. Two main approaches to the study of the topic can be found in the literature: First, a large number of econometric studies have employed regression models to examine the effect of various economic/occupational variables on the higher education participation rate of young people (see, for example, Bennett, Glennerster & Nevison, 1992; Canton & de Jong, 2005; Handa & Skolnik, 1975; Mueller & Rockerbie, 2005). This approach makes use of available statistical data, without reference to individual data provided by prospective students. According to the findings of most econometric studies, economic variables (such as the direct costs of higher education, relative wage differences, and the rate of youth unemployment) have a significant impact on the demand for higher education. Second, a group of studies have attempted to study the economic influences on the demand for higher education through data collected from individual students (see, for example, Menon, 1997, 2008a, 2008b; Williams & Gordon, 1981; Wong, 1989). In many studies, the collection of data from individual students is used to estimate an expected or perceived rate of return to higher education, based on the student’s perceptions of relevant costs and monetary benefits. The perceived rate of return to higher education has been reported to exert a significant effect on the decision of young people to enter post-compulsory education. In the case of Cyprus, this was found to be the case at two points in time (see, Menon, 1997; Menon, 2008a). It thus appears that the findings of available studies on the impact of economic factors on the demand for higher education point to a significant effect, irrespective of the methodology employed in the investigation of the topic.
Psychological/Individual Factors In the context of psychology, the individual’s choices with regard to higher education are strongly affected by his/her personal characteristics. The role of individual differences in abilities and motivational characteristics is usually emphasised under the psychological approach. Student ability, in particular, has been reported to be a major determinant of the student’s educational aspirations (Jimenez & Salas-Velasco, 2000; Maani & Kalb, 2007; Kodde & Ritzen, 1988). In almost all relevant studies, an ability or grade effect on the intention to enter higher education is observed, with students of higher ability being more likely to pursue entry into universities. Other individual variables linked to the demand for higher education include the student’s motives and aspirations, his/her personality and his/her perceptions and attitudes towards aspects of higher education and/or employment. Moreover, individual/demographic characteristics such as gender, race and ethnic origin have also been reported to play an important role in the decision to enter higher education. The increase in the participation of women has been phenomenal in many countries, with women being more likely to attend universities than men in some cases (Albert, 2000; Forste, Heaton & Haas, 2004). However, the participation of women, like that of the working classes, Hatt, 2007; Archer, Hutchings & Ross, 2003). This is often attributed to a tendency on their part to be more debt averse than their middle class counterparts.
Investigating the Demand for Higher Education
105
is often biased towards, or restricted to, certain subjects and university types (Coffield & Vignoles, 1997). As regards race and ethnic origin, significant differences in demand patterns have been reported between whites and other groups (Borus & Carpenter, 1984; Freeman, 1977; Ordovensky, 1995).
Structural/Institutional Factors The characteristics of educational institutions attended by students in the course of their secondary education have also been linked to entry into higher education. Numerous institutional variables have been examined in the literature, including the status of the secondary school (Meyer, 1970), streaming mechanisms and enrollment in a vocational track at secondary school (Yuchtman & Samuel, 1975; Ordovensky, 1995), and the secondary school curriculum (Borus & Carpenter, 1984). As regards teachers and career advisors, in some studies their influence was reported to be small, while in others they have been reported to be of some influence (Connor, 2001; Forste, Heaton & Haas, 2004). Other institutional variables examined in the literature include participation in extracurricular activities and institutional proximity to the student’s home. It is important to note that the perceived or anticipated structural conditions of higher education programmes can also be linked to the demand for higher education. Overall, it appears that, as indicated by various studies, a large number of variables can be considered relevant as influences on the future educational paths of secondary school graduates. Even though it is impossible to consider all variables grouped under the four main categories discussed above, it is important to take into account all four categories in the attempt to investigate the main influences on demand.
THE BACKGROUND The study reported in the present chapter took place in Cyprus, a small Eastern Mediterranean country, which joined the European Union in 2004. Cyprus is characterised by exceptionally high demand for tertiary education, witnessed in the very high proportion of young people who choose to continue their studies. According to the latest figures of the Department of Statistics and Research (2007), 82% of secondary school graduates chose to enter higher education in 2006/2007. The high participation rate in tertiary education in Cyprus has been attributed to economic and societal changes. In the 1960s, government policies encouraged educational expansion at the tertiary level in an attempt to boost the development of the country’s economy. At the same time, the gradual emancipation of women resulted in their higher representation in the student body. Additional economic, cultural and institutional forces also played a role. The maintenance of a wage differential in favour of university graduates by the public sector has encouraged young Cypriots to view higher education as the means to a secure, well-paid government post. Moreover, cultural patterns associated with traditional conceptions of theoretical knowledge as superior to the knowledge of practical skills have also contributed to the phenomenal increase in demand. Finally, secondary school curricula,
106
Maria Eliophotou Menon
through their focus on theoretical knowledge as a basis for preparation for higher studies, have also had an effect on the higher education participation rate. Studies of the demand for higher education in Cyprus have pointed to the importance of social, economic, individual and institutional factors in the decision-making process which precedes entry into higher education (Menon, 1998; Papanastasiou & Michaelides, 1988). In the most recent study of the topic, the main factors associated with the intention to pursue higher education in the country were reported to be psychological/individual and occupational (Menon, 1998).
METHODOLOGY Surveys were used to collect primary data from a sample of 611 students enrolled in the final year of their secondary education at both general (academic) and technical (vocational) public schools in Cyprus. The schools were selected on the basis of specific characteristics (size, geographical location) in an attempt to arrive at a representative student sample. A questionnaire was administered to respondents during school time. The co-operation of school authorities and teachers secured an extremely high response rate. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate whether they planned to enter higher education after secondary school or seek employment instead. Specifically, respondents were offered a choice between the following six scenaria in an attempt to take into account possible variations in their plans: higher education entry after secondary school, higher education entry after the army (applicable to boys), direct employment after secondary school, direct employment after the army (applicable to boys), direct employment and parttime study in higher education, army and part-time study in higher education (applicable to boys). Based on their responses, respondents were finally divided into two groups: those who included higher education in their future plans and those who did not. They were also asked to report the degree to which a number of factors had influenced this decision. With the vast majority of respondents planning to enter higher education (87.1%), the responses to the question mainly concerned the scenario of higher education entry. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate the following 10 items on the basis of their importance as demand-influencing factors: • • • • • • • • • •
Friends, acquaintances Parents, relatives Economic considerations (the economic benefits of higher studies/of employment) The subjects/track chosen at secondary school The non-economic benefits of education (e.g. betterment of the individual) Secondary school instructors Secondary school career counsellors Grades/performance at secondary school Occupational factors (e.g. ability to easily secure employment) Personal/psychological factors (desires, plans)
Investigating the Demand for Higher Education
107
The following five-point scale was used in the rating of the importance of the above mentioned items: • • • • •
1 = I was not at all influenced by this item 2 = I was influenced to a small extent by this item 3 = I was influenced to a moderate extent by this item 4 = I was influenced to a great extent by this item 5 = I was influenced to a very great extent by this item
In this question, an attempt was made to include the main categories of factors reported to be important in the literature. Thus, the 10 items were selected on the basis of the findings of relevant research. The findings of previous studies conducted in Cyprus were also taken into account in their specification. Respondents were also given the chance to identify and rate any additional factors with an effect on their decision to choose higher education or direct employment after the end of their secondary school studies. In addition to the rating of the ten factors, participants were also asked to respond to an open-ended question and to discuss in their own words the main influences on their decision to enter higher education or seek employment after the completion of their secondary education. This enabled respondents to provide additional information on the effect of each factor, as well as to bring up additional variables not included in the quantitative part. Specifically, it made it possible for them to expand on the reasons for which certain factors were considered more important than others. Thus, the inclusion of an open-ended question allowed for the collection of qualitative data on the topic, resulting in a more complete picture of student motivation in the pursuit of higher studies. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics (frequencies, mean scores) were used to provide an indication of the importance of each item. In an attempt to provide a model of the demand for higher education, logistic regression analysis was employed with the educational intentions of the student serving as the dependent variable and the ten variables associated with the main demand-influencing items serving as the independent variables. In addition to the ten items which represented the students’ perceptions of the importance of demandinfluencing factors, certain objective measures of students’ characteristics were also included as independent variables. These were the student’s gender, his/her socioeconomic status and his/her ability. Socioeconomic status and ability scores were estimated on the basis of information provided by respondents in the questionnaire. Logistic models are necessary in cases of dichotomous dependent variables, as in the case of the present study, with respondents divided into those intending to enter higher education and those intending to work after secondary school. The use of the logistic regression model allowed for the estimation of the probability that an individual will choose higher education, given his/her characteristics as identified by the values of the explanatory independent variables. Thus, the use of the model made it possible to measure the relative effect of each variable on the demand for higher education. In addition to the quantitative methods of analysis, content analysis was used to study the responses to the open-ended question. This question proved to be a rich source of information as the majority of respondents (more than 60%) chose to answer it.
108
Maria Eliophotou Menon
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics The vast majority of respondents (87.1%) intended to enter higher education after the completion of their secondary education. The main reason for the slightly lower participation rate (82%) is the fact that some students who fail in entrance examinations to universities in Cyprus and Greece revise their initial plans with respect to higher education and enter employment instead. Of respondents, 49.7% were males and 50.3% were females. The majority (65.3%) were classified as medium and high ability students, with only 34.7% being classified as low ability. As regards socioeconomic status, the majority (69.1%) were classified as lower middle and low socioeconomic status students. The remaining (30.9%) were assigned high socioeconomic status. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate mean scores for the importance of each of the ten items included in the questionnaire in order to estimate the importance of several demandinfluencing factors (see table 1). The mean scores ranged from a high of 4.17 to a low of 1.72, indicating that students gave very different ratings in their evaluation of the ten items. The highest rating (4.17) was assigned to personal/psychological considerations, this being the only case of a mean rating above 4.00. It appears that the decision to enter higher education in Cyprus is strongly influenced by the prospective students’ personal wishes and plans. This is in agreement with the results of the previous Cyprus study (Menon, 1998), which also found personal considerations to be an extremely important influence on students’ intentions. Table 1. Demand-Ιnfluencing Factors: Frequencies and Mean Scores Influencing Factors Personal variables Occupational variables Economic variables School subjects Parents, relatives Grades / Performance Non-economic variables Friends, acquaintances Teachers Career counsellors
1 5.5 12.8 20.8 21.5 23.1 24.1 31.7 43.9 56.6 61.3
Percentage for Scale Points (%) 2 3 4 6.5 11.3 19.4 10.7 20.7 28.5 12.2 20.6 20.8 14.2 22.8 23.4 22.3 21.8 18.8 18.3 27.2 19.8 19.3 22.8 14.3 24.4 21.3 6.9 22.1 13.9 4.7 16.7 13.6 5.7
5 57.3 27.3 25.6 18.1 14.0 10.5 11.9 3.5 2.7 2.8
Mean Score 4.17 3.47 3.18 3.02 2.78 2.74 2.55 2.02 1.75 1.72
Only three variables received a rating which ranged between three and four. These were the following: occupational considerations such as the belief that university graduates will be in a better position to secure employment; economic considerations reflected in the higher rate of return to higher education; and the school subjects included in the curriculum (mean rating of 3.47, 3.18 and 3.02, respectively). All remaining variables received a rating below 3.00, which suggests that they were of less importance to respondents. Specifically, parents/relatives, grades/performance, non-economic variables and friends/acquaintances
Investigating the Demand for Higher Education
109
were assigned ratings of 2.78, 2.74, 2.55 and 2.02, respectively. Two variables were rated below 2.00, making them the least important to respondents. They were teachers (1.75) and career counsellors (1.72).
Logistic Regression Analysis As previously mentioned, a logistic regression model was used in order to identify the factors with a significant impact on the student’s educational intentions. The independent variables entered in the model included the ten demand-influencing items and three individual characteristics (gender, ability and socioeconomic status). The student’s educational intentions served as the independent variable. The aim was to identify those factors that increased the likelihood of the student forming the intention to enter higher education. Table 2 presents the standardised regression coefficients, the standard errors and the Wald statistics for the regression estimation3. The logistic coefficients (B) should be interpreted as the change in the logarithmic odds of the dependent variable associated with a one-unit change in the independent variable. As seen in table 2, four independent variables had a significant effect on the student’s intention to pursue higher education. These were personal/psychological considerations, economic considerations, the student’s gender, and the student’s ability. Table 2. Standardised Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Wald Statistics Independent variables Gender SES Ability Friends, acquaintances Parents, relatives Economic variables School subjects Non-economic variables Teachers Career counsellors Grades/performance Occupational variables Personal considerations Constant N
B 0.87 0.72 1.85 -0.17 0.26 0.31 0.23 -0.08
SE 0.35 0.40 0.34 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14
Wald 6.11* 3.16 29.99*** 1.13 3.43 6.12* 2.69 0.03
-0.17 -0.23 -0.09 0.08 0.28 -1.69 611
0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.59
0.88 2.17 0.43 0.38 5.19* 8.16**
***p
