New learning

NEW LEARNING This Page Intentionally Left Blank New Learning Edited by Robert-Jan Simons University of Nijmegen, ...

Author: Robert-Jan Simons | Adrianus Arnoldus Maria van der Linden | Jos van der Linden | Tom Duffy | Interuniversitair Centrum voor Onderwijskundig Onderzoek

133 downloads 4689 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

NEW LEARNING

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

New Learning

Edited by

Robert-Jan Simons University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Jos van der Linden University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

and

Tom Duffy Unext, Chicago, U.S.A.

In collaboration with Interuniversitair Centrum voor Onderwijskundig Onderzoek (ICO)

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW

eBook ISBN: Print ISBN:

0-306-47614-2 0-7923-6296-9

©2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow Print ©2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht All rights reserved No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher Created in the United States of America Visit Kluwer Online at: and Kluwer's eBookstore at:

http://kluweronline.com http://ebooks.kluweronline.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1.

New Learning: Three Ways to Learn in a New Balance Robert Jan Simons, Jos van der Linden and Tom Duffy

vii 1

PART 1: NEW LEARNING, TECHNOLOGIES AND ASSESSMENT 2.

Active Learning: Self-Directed Learning and Independent Work Bernadette van Hout-Wolters, Robert Jan Simons and Simone Volet

21

3.

Collaborative Learning Jos van der Linden, Gijsbert Erkens, Henk Schmidt and Peter Renshaw

37

4.

New Technologies Gellof Kanselaar, Ton de Jong, Jerry Andriessen and Peter Goodyear

55

5.

Assessing Active Self-Directed Learning Bernadette van Hout-Wolters

83

6.

Valid Classroom Assessment of Complex Skills Karel Stokking and Marinus Voeten

101

PART 2: DOMAIN-RELATED ISSUES OF NEW LEARNING 7.

New Learning in Science and Technology Johan van der Sanden, Jan Terwel and Stella Vosniadou

119

8.

New Learning in Social Studies Geert ten Dam, Fans Vernooij and Monique Volman

141

9.

Writing and Learning to Write: A Double Challenge Gert Rijlaarsdam and Michel Couzijn

157

10. A Social Perspective on New Learning Ton Mooij, Jan Terwel, and Günther Huber

191

vi

PART 3: NEW INSTRUCTION, TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION 11. Process-Oriented Teaching Jan Vermunt and Lieven Verschaffel

209

12. Teaching for Active Learning Mieke Brekelmans, Peter Sleegers and Barry Fraser

227

13. New Learning in Teacher Education Fred Korthagen, Cees Klaassen and Tom Russell

243

14. The Professional Development of Teachers Douwe Beijaard, Nico Verloop, Theo Wubbels and Sharon Feiman-Nemser

261

Subject Index

275

PREFACE The book you are now reading aims to bring together research and theory on "new learning, "which is te term used to refer to the new learning outcomes, new kinds of learning processes, and new instructional methods both wanted by society and currently stressed in psychological and educational theory. Many people keep asking about “new learning.” Is it really a new way of learning? Are there really new learning outcomes? Is this current fad really different from the other kinds of learning propagated by such traditional school innovators as Montessori, Dewey, Steiner, or Freinet? Of course, there are some similarities between the attention now being paid to new ways of learning and new learning outcomes and previous efforts. We believe, however, that at least three important differences exist. First, there is much more attention to the role of active, independent, and self-directed learning than before. Many more schools and teachers are involved in such efforts than in the twenties or the sixties, for example. Many governments are stimulating active ways to learn. Employers and employee organizations are — for various reasons — now in favor of active learning in school and on the job. This is clearly related to increased recognition of the importance of and need for life-long learning and what are now called “learning organizations” as a result of rapidly changing societies and economies. Second, there is currently a much greater emphasis on the combination of active learning, so-called learning to learn, and collaborative learning than before. Active learning is only possible when students have learned how to actively learn, how to monitor their active learning, and how to communicate about their active learning: the tools for empowerment. We cannot provide students with opportunities for independent learning and active working when they do not have the necessary cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective skills. A capacity for so-called “learning to learn” and an ability to collaborate constitute a necessary component of instruction aimed at active learning. Third, the present wave of attention to new forms of learning has much more of a basis in the psychology of learning and instruction than the previous waves. Constructivist learning theories and empirical research on active learning provide a clear foundation for the relevant instruction. We know much more about the capacity to learn and the motivation to learn than before. The present book aims to bring together the research and theory that can help practitioners organize new forms of learning with a focus on three main questions: 1) what is known about the new learning processes and outcomes; 2) how does new learning differ for the various subject matter areas, and 3) how can instruction and teacher training best prepare both students and teachers for new learning? The focus is on Dutch research and theory within an international perspective. This means that all of the chapters cover not only Dutch research but also a wider array of studies vii

viii from a variety of countries. Moreover, we tried to organize international coauthorship for as many chapters as possible in order to make the book a really international book. All of the Dutch authors are member of the ICO — the Interuniversity Center for Educational Research, which is an international center of excellence in the field of educational research in The Netherlands bringing Dutch researchers publishing internationally and taking responsibility for the training of Ph.D. students. This book is one in a series of ICO books aimed to attract a broader audience for the results of educational research and theory. We would therefore like to thank the ICO for the opportunity to prepare this interesting new book. And, in closing, we would like to thank our secretary at the University of Nijmegen, Nelleke Hendriks, for the splendid work she did in making a cohesive whole of the present collection of rather different contributions. Robert-Jan Simons, Jos van der Linden, and Tom Duffy

ROBERT-JAN SIMONS, JOS VAN DER LINDEN AND TOM DUFFY

1. NEW LEARNING: THREE WAYS TO LEARN IN A NEW BALANCE.

INTRODUCTION People are learning all the time. They could not even stop learning when they would want to. The one learning experience, however, is not the other. There are various kinds of learning. Are some forms of learning better than other? When we want to decide whether there are differences in the quality of forms of learning, we need criteria for good learning. How can we come to these kinds of criteria? There are, in our view, two ways. The one is looking at society and deriving criteria for good learning from there. The other is looking at research on learning and instruction and the theories that were developed. Fortunately, the two ways tend to agree in the outcomes. From both perspectives similar ideas are put forward that can be summarized in the term "new learning". It is the word we use for: new learning outcomes, new kinds of learning processes and new instructional models that are both wanted by society and stressed in educational and psychological theory. In this chapter, an overview will be given of the kinds of new learning outcomes needed, the learning processes that will lead to these outcomes and the kinds of instructional processes that can bring about these learning processes. We also give an overview of the contributions made to new learning by the authors of this book in the chapters that follow our introduction. NEW LEARNING OUTCOMES New learning outcomes as described by politicians, parents, teachers and company representatives refer to outcomes that are durable, flexible, functional, meaningful, generalizable and application-oriented (see also Engeström, 1994; Lodewijks, 1993). They should be durable in the sense that they remain over a long period of time. Instead of learning for today and tomorrow people should be learning for months, years or even lifetime. Learning outcomes should be flexible in that they can be approached from different angles and perspectives instead of being tight to one perspective rigidly. Results of learning should be adaptable to new contexts and changes in contexts. This can only happen when there is deep understanding instead of rote learning. Flexibility relates to internal relational networks between 1

R. J. Simons et al. (eds.), New Learning, 1-20. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

2


knowledge elements that are approachable in an easy way. The functionality of learning outcomes refers to their "just in time, just in place” character: the results of learning should come to the fore at the right time and place. People should learn what they need at a certain time and place, not less not more (Mellander, 1993). Learning outcomes should also be meaningful: real understanding of a few basic principles with far-reaching importance for understanding is more important than superficial understanding of many facts that become obsolete anyhow. Learning outcomes should be generalizable in the sense that they are not restricted to one context or situation but reach out to other contexts and situations. Finally, learning outcomes should be application-oriented: people should know the possible applications and their conditions of use: when and where is application of the learning possible or necessary. Furthermore, new learning asks for new kinds of learning outcomes: learning-, thinking-, collaboration and regulation-skills. Where the previously described characteristics all relate to the transferability of rather traditional knowledge oriented learning outcomes, these ones refer to skills that can be applied on information and on learning processes. These kinds of skills will be needed because of the information overflow and the exponential increase of information. It will be impossible and unwise to focus on "taking in as much information as possible". Instead, a focus on the skills of learning, thinking, collaboration and regulation should prevail. It is more what people can do with information than the information itself that becomes important. Finding one’s way in the growing body of knowledge becomes more important than having many factual details in memory. From the perspective of educational and instructional psychology the kinds of outcomes that are wanted follow from some theoretical assumptions about representations in memory (Simons, 1993). A distinction is made between three ways to represent information in memory: episodic representation where concrete happenings and narrative kind of information (with a date and a place) are represented; conceptual representation, where generalized meaning and relations are represented and action representation where procedural, action-related information is represented. Episodic representations are based on personal, situated and affective experiences with instances of the concepts and principles (like I love the little bird that I have at home). Conceptual (semantic) representations refer to concepts and principles with their defining characteristics (like a bird is an animal with feathers). Action representations refer to the things one can do with the semantic and episodic information: solving certain kinds of problems, using the knowledge (like birds can bring over messages). Good learning outcomes have to do with rich and complex memory representations showing a high degree of connectedness (see Prawat, 1989). Memory representations have a high degree of connectedness when there are many and strong relationships between the elements of the representations. These occur within the three kinds of representations and between them. Strong relations between semantic, episodic and action knowledge refer to conceptual representations with strong relations with examples and concrete experiences or to episodic representations fitting in a well-understood meaningful context or practical

NEW LEARNING: THREE WAYS TO LEARN IN A NEW BALANCE

3

action-representations with a firm base in theory. Ideally both the connections within these three kinds of representations and between them are rich and strong. Furthermore, also connections with the three kinds of knowledge representations in other domains are thought to be important. Good learning outcomes are those that realize these kinds of connected representations. To us it seems a challenge to find valid and reliable assessments for those new learning outcomes. Some suggestions can be found in chapter 5 and 6. In our view the kinds of memory representations and their relations with high degrees of connectedness realize the kinds of outcomes that come from societal needs as described above. Thus conceptual, episodic and action representations with high degrees of connectedness and with strong interrelations produce durable, flexible, functional, meaningful, generalizable and application-oriented learning outcomes. NEW KINDS OF LEARNING PROCESSES What kinds of new learning processes are needed in order to reach the new outcomes described above? First we will look at three different ways to learn and their occurrence in school, work and other contexts. We will conclude that there are changes in the emphasis on the three in different contexts. Then we will go into twelve characteristics proposed in the literature. Are all of these needed and desirable? How do these relate to the three ways of learning? Three ways to learn In our view one can distinguish between three different ways to learn: guided learning, experiential learning and action learning. They differ in many respects from each other and they produce slightly different kinds of understanding. These three ways to learn can be compared with three different ways to undertake a journey: travelling, trekking and exploring. Let us explore these ways of speaking about learning. In organizing a collective travelling journey the guide is an expert who knows the way and who plans a trip. The guide tells about the various parts of the trip and acts as the decision-maker. What are important success-factors for such a trip? In analogy with a description by Schweiker (1993) the following factors may be deduced. It is important that the leader or guide looks carefully to the wishes and needs of all travelers and to bring in their ideas in an early stage. They have to be asked where the journey should go to and commit themselves to the destination chosen. When the trip starts, it should be possible to start at different moments: some flexibility of starting times is important. During the trip the group should stay together, thus some coordination of tempo is important. During the trip the guide and scouts in the group should monitor how the group is proceeding: are they still on the right road? Is the destination still valued or should a change of route or destination be considered? They should also look for necessities to change the plans when changes in the environment occur.

4


Likewise in guided learning a trainer or teacher takes all the relevant decisions and the learner can and should follow him or her. He decides about the goals of learning, the learning strategies, the way to measure learning outcomes and he takes care of feedback, judgment and rewards. The learners should commit themselves to the decisions made and should follow and obey the trainer or teacher. Success factors for guided learning are then: Taking differences in interests, prior knowledge and abilities into account. Good commitment to learning goals through good communication about it. Good communication about learning strategies. Tolerance for differences in starting speed. Co-ordination of tempo while on the way: keeping the group together; helping each other. Openness for new strategies, new goals through metacognitive control by the trainer and the participants Timing and quality of reward and judgment systems. What is measured and rewarded determines learning strategies. In a trekking journey a group of people undertakes a trip without planning and organizing at forehand. One might think of a group of (young) people with their back-bags, walking or biking together. If a group member doesn’t like the group anymore (s)he goes to another group or continues alone, perhaps meeting the group somewhere later on. They just go away on a certain date without any concrete destination planned. They just go where they agree to go and let their plans develop underway, depending on the circumstances like the weather, the people they meet, their feelings and so on. The group wants to be as flexible as possible and does not like to plan and organize. The main idea is going together. People agree to inspire each other and negotiate about the next steps on a day to day base. All members should, however, be heard and their needs should be fulfilled now and then. There is no fixed leader or guide. Everyone can and will be a leader, depending on the expertise available. Finding harmony is the main decision model. The group is very open and listens carefully to other groups of trekkers. Though the group members should share the essential values that guide the journey, there may be many differences outside of the group-life. Likewise in experiential learning it is not so much a leader or even a predetermined goal that controls the learning. Rather circumstances, personal motivation, other people, innovations, discoveries, experiments etc. determine what and how one learns. There is not even an explicit set of learning goals. Instead, learning is a side effect of the activities one undertakes. Success factors in trekking kinds of experiential learning are in our view: Interests, knowledge and action-plans of participants are put central. There are no explicit or very vague learning goals only. The experience itself is the goal. Long-term higher-order generic goals (related to the experience) are thought to be more important than short-term goals. Learning from experiences is the key strategy. Each learner can have his / her own tempo.


5

Team learning from and with each other is important. Metacognitive control of activities by the learners themselves. Extreme flexibility for new strategies, new goals: experimentation and innovation Reward and judgment systems tuned to discoveries and innovations Between travelling and trekking one might discern a third way to travel: exploring like pioneers who explore new land. It is the need to find a suitable surrounding to start a new life that guides them. There is a sense of urgency that determines the route and destination in a certain perspective. It is looking for a place that fulfils certain criteria. Likewise, there is in action learning (Revans, 1982) a much more active and explicit role for learners and learning goals than in experiential learning. Learning is central and not a side-effect, but the learners themselves determine the goals of learning according to needs arising in their actions (at work or elsewhere). Learning is not pre-organized and preplanned by an outsider or expert, nor is it depending on coincidental intrinsic motivations. It is self-organized and selfplanned. Learners determine furthermore their own ways of self-testing. Reflection plays an important role in finding out what was learned and what should still be learned. Thus instead of letting the teachers or trainers decide about the learning goals, learning strategies and testing, these factors become not unplanned and unorganized as in trekking, but learners decide on their own, and they do this explicitly. For action learning trainers the following seem to be success factors: opportunities to determine ones own learning goals explicitly opportunities to choose ones own learning strategies control of learning by learners self-responsibility for their own learning opportunities to learn independently opportunity for self-testing The three ways to learn occur in school-situations and training as well as in work and life situations. The division of time over the three ways, however, is different in the different contexts mentioned. At work experiential learning prevails, in schools and training, however, guided learning gets more accent. But all three occur in ail three different contexts. In home situations probably action learning is more prominent. We see tendencies in the three contexts of learning (school, work, and home) to stress one of the other two ways of learning. Thus, in schools there is a plea for more independent learning (action learning and experiential learning). At work there is a tendency to return to still more experiential learning after we had a decade of emphasis on guided learning (training and workplace instruction). It can be shown that current changes and tendencies in learning and instruction processes in the different contexts have to do with a change in the division of tasks and of time between the three ways to learn (see below).

6


New learning processes and strategies

In order to be able to reach the new learning outcomes mentioned above, new kinds of learning processes (automatic) and strategies (selected and applied) are needed. We will discuss twelve characteristics of these new kinds of learning processes and strategies as proposed in the literature. Ideal learning processes and strategies, as described in the literature about constructivism, in educational and instructional psychology and found in thoughts and principles of design about powerful learning environments, are the active, cumulative, constructive, goal-directed, diagnostic, reflective, discovery oriented, contextual, problem oriented, case based, social and intrinsically motivated kinds of learning. The first group of six characteristics involves a shift towards action learning and the second group towards experiential learning (see Table 1). The first shift from guided learning towards action learning involves an increased activity of the learner in making decisions about learning independently. The shift from guided learning to experiential learning involves increased activity of the learner in a second sense of the term: undergoing important personal experiences, actively thinking, solving problems, finding out things, thinking about concrete cases and learning socially and intrinsically.

Shifts towards action learning

Shuell (1988) formulated the main characteristics of good learning: “....(constructive) learning is an active, constructive, cumulative and goal directed process.... It is active in that the student must do certain things while processing incoming information in order to learn the material in a meaningful manner. It is constructive in that new information must be elaborated and related to other information in order for the student to retain simple information and to understand complex material. It is cumulative in that all new learning builds upon and/or utilizes the learner's prior knowledge in ways that determine what and how much is learned. It is goal oriented in that learning is most likely to be successful if the learner is aware of the goal (at least in a general sense) toward which he or she is


7

working and possesses expectations that are appropriate for attaining the desired outcome.”(p277-278). Two further characteristics of new learning are, in our view, that it is diagnostic and reflective (Simons 1997; see also chapter 2 and 5 in this book). This means that learners should undertake activities like monitoring, selftesting and checking that help them diagnose and judge whether they are still pursuing the goal they had set. Because teachers and trainers can not look into the heads of the learners and are always at a certain distance of them, both physically and psychologically, learners better take care of their own monitoring and testing at least partially. Moreover, it means that learners should be or become aware of their way of learning through reflection. By thinking about their (way of) learning they acquire metacognitive knowledge that will help them master future learning. Good learning requires in our view that learners are very active in the sense of determining and controlling their learning. We do not believe, however, that there is one kind of activity only. Instead at some times learners will be active in the sense of action learning, focussing on the learning strategies, at other times they should be active in the experiential meaning: determining and controlling actions instead of learning (see below). In a similar way good learning cannot be cumulative all the time. Some times prior learning confuses new learning so much that it is better to build a wall between the two (Simons, 1998). Moreover, if you do not have much prior knowledge in a certain domain it is impossible to learn cumulatively. Of course you may then use prior knowledge of a general nature or from other domains (analogies; Simons, 1981). Thus also the amount of cumulativity possible and desirable should and will vary across learning situations. In one way or another learners are always constructing. What we are constructing may vary, however. Learners cannot learn in the same kind of constructivity all the time. As shown by Pask (1976) some learners act as globetrotters, who go everywhere without finding a place to rest or stay: they relate everything with everything else and end in total chaos and confusion because they do not focus on details and procedures. In our view human learning and action is always goal-directed. It depends on circumstances, however, if the action goals or the learning goals are in focus. Sometimes one should be satisfied with a global, general learning goal and let the learning environment guide your discoveries (see experiential learning). Sometimes it is even impossible to have clear learning goals: if there is no teacher to help you formulate goals reachable in a certain amount of time, you can only know what goals are possible when you have become an expert in the field. Of course learning cannot be diagnostic all the time either. If a learner spends all the time diagnosing his own learning he has no time to learn. Focusing too much on the state of your mind may even hinder learning, as Kuhl (1983) showed. Finally, the argument also holds for our last characteristic reflectivity. In learning reflective periods should occur, but not continuously. Our conclusion as to the six characteristics of new learning processes and strategies described before is that they are all very important but that they should be complemented, extended and varied with the characteristics described in the next section.

8


Shift towards experiential learning

Some other characteristics of good learning, involving the shift towards experiential learning and described in the recent literature, are that learning should become more discovery- oriented, contextual, problem oriented, case-based, social, and intrinsically motivated. These shifts can be interpreted as shifts toward experiential learning. Discovering knowledge and insights oneself, or learning in an inductive, inquiry instead of deductive receptive way, brings, according to the literature all kinds of positive effects, like intrinsic motivation, durability, transfer etc. In our view learners are discovering almost all the time. Learning is essentially inquiry learning. This does not mean, however, that all instruction should be organized in the way Ausubel (1963) and others described discovery learning as an instructional strategy. Another characteristic of good learning is contextualization. Many instances of school learning are too much decontextualized and many improvements can and should be made as to the contextualization of school learning. Real-life and connections with applications are important aspects of good learning. Contextualizing knowledge representations with episodic and action representations are, however, only two of many instances of good learning. Building strong connections within semantic, episodic or action representations form equally important instances. Furthermore, also forming connections between different domains of (semantic) knowledge are important examples. Experiences we had with on the job training, discovery learning and simulations, being learning environments with a high context binding, learned that here decontextualization instead of contextualization is the main problem. Under these circumstances learning is often not constructive because there is no decontextualization. Learning remains bound to the context of the simulation, or some job contexts. The consequence is that the resulting memory representations are inflexibly related to one or a few contexts only. The key problem is that there should be a balance between contextualization and decontextualization. Not the question whether there is contextualization and decontextualization, but their interrelations and their timing are the important issues in learning. Finally, we have serious doubts whether the sequence contextualization first and decontextualization afterwards, is the optimal sequence for all kinds of subject matter (see higher mathematics) and is the optimal one for all kinds of students (see also Prawat, 1989). Good learning should be problem oriented and case -based. Problem orientation and organizing learning around cases clearly is good for contextualization and motivation. Problem orientation strengthens the connections between semantic and action representations. Cases connect episodic and semantic representations. The position that good learning is social or even that only social constructions of reality are possible is strongly defended. More and more, learning is seen to be an activity taken place in a social context and thereby learning can be defined as a social process in which people interact with each other. This does not imply that these other people should always be present during learning. People can


9

also discuss and interact with themselves (with a virtual other) and be social in this way. Moreover, social aspects of learning can also be built into teaching materials and computers. Learning together with real other learners can be a very powerful form of learning, in which learners help each other's construction processes (see for instance, chapter 4 and 10 in this book). Many studies show how powerful social learning environments can be (see for instance Palincsar and Brown, 1984). In our view, however, and according to our experience, this kind of social learning can also be very ineffective and inefficient (see also Salomon, 1988; chapter 3). Some teams do not function the way they ought to. Some contents and domains do not lend themselves for this form of social learning (see for instance Biemans and Simons, 1991). The last characteristic to be considered is intrinsic motivation. Good learning can have some connections with intrinsic motivation, but many times it will not. Convincing arguments were put forward by Brophy (1988). It is not the kind of motivation that comes out of the materials and the environment that is the most important, but the motivation to learn. This means being motivated to find out certain things, to have a desire for knowledge, to like learning and to keep on learning even if its relevance is not immediately clear or when it gets boring. In our view new learning outcomes ask for both a shift towards action learning and towards experiential learning. If it would only be towards action learning, the focus would be too much on the conscious, planned and pre-organized forms of learning. This is, in our view, very important and needed for the new outcomes, but it would be too one-sided if it would not be complemented with a shift towards experiential learning, bringing in authentic contexts and implicit forms of learning. Although these two shifs are important, we would not be skip all guided learning. This can have important functions too. We need, in other words, a new balance between guided learning, action learning and experiential learning. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

New instruction should be aiming for the new outcomes of learning through the facilitation of the new learning processes and strategies in which a new balance between guided learning, experiential learning and action learning occurs. Below we will present three instructional models for this. We will discuss two approaches: a) What kinds of instruction do we need in order to reach the new learning outcomes? Above we claimed that we need a shift towards experiential and action learning. b) How can we improve the processes and strategies of learning through instruction? Here we propose a new approach to instruction called process oriented instruction (see also chapter 11). Instructional models for facilitating the three ways of learning

At this point we would like to present three six step models of instruction that are, in our view, important for guided, experiential and action learning. They are based on and deduced from a model of teaching / training that is a combination of the theories described by Mellander (1993) and Dixon (1994) (see Figure 2).

10


Trainers and teachers should, according to this model, (be able to) help learners according to the six steps described in Figure 2. Besides they have to (be able to) help learners according to the success factors of guided learning described above. The instructional model for experiential learning is depicted in Figure 3. In this model teachers / trainers help learners to learn from experience without asking or stimulating them to plan the goals and strategies of learning explicitly. Instead they now ask them to focus on action and to reflect on action afterwards. The success factors for experiential learning as described above may form points of attention for teachers / trainers.


11

Figure 4 depicts our instructional model of action learning. Learners are in this case asked and stimulated to plan learning goals and strategies explicitly. The focus is on learning and less on action. Learning goals and strategies follow from and should relate to the actions that are undertaken.

12


Process-oriented instruction: what

The three instructional models described before, focus on the first set of new learning outcomes: outcomes that are durable, flexible, functional, meaningful, generalizable and application-oriented. What about the other new kinds of learning outcomes (: learning-, thinking-, collaboration and regulation-skills)? In our view this asks for a new instructional approach, which we call process-oriented instruction. This is instruction focusing on the further development of processes of thinking, learning and self-regulation of learning and thinking integrated in regular domain-specific instruction. Thus it is: integrated learning to think, integrated learning to learn, integrated learning to collaborate, integrated learning from collaboration and integrated learning to regulate learning and thinking. Process-oriented instruction not only focuses on the kinds of general skills mentioned, it also tries to hand over responsibility for learning and teaching to the learner gradually. The more learning, thinking and regulation skills the learner acquires, the more freedom he gets to regulate his own learning and thinking. What kinds of skills are important? This question is treated in the current paragraph. The next paragraph discusses the how of process-oriented instruction.


13

Learning to think

Two kinds of thinking skills can be discerned: general and discipline specific thinking skills. Examples of relevant general thinking skills are: analogical reasoning critical thinking logical reasoning Discipline specific skills are skills that originate in specific domains, disciplines or subject matter areas. In history, for instance, there are some skills that relate to time and place of historical events: historians want students to consider the time and place dimensions of an event, almost as an automatism. Moreover, historical thinking and methodology stresses that one should always try to compare different sources and to take the perspective of the writer into account ("is the writer a king or a blue collar worker”?). In geography the correct analysis and interpretation of maps is a complex skill that resides close to the core of the discipline. In biology thinking in hierarchical schematic representations seems to be important. In foreign language learning it is important to take the culture of the country into account (see part 2 of this book, chapters 7 up to 10). Learning to learn

There are various kinds of learning skills that could form the focus of processoriented instruction: cognitive skills, metacogmitive skills and affectivemotivational skills. Examples of cognitive skills are deep learning strategies like comparing, criticizing and structuring, overview skills like summarizing, schematizing, reviewing and generalizing and transfer skills like considering possible and necessary conditions of use. Examples of metacogmitive learning skills are making a planning of times and strategies for learning, orientation on goals and outcomes, realistic goal-setting, regular checking and testing and finally restarting when problems occur and reflection on process and outcome. Learning to collaborate and learning from collaboration

More and more co-operative jobs and tasks replace single ones. Learning to collaborate and learning from collaboration means acquiring skills like dividing tasks between group members, leading a group, learning together, monitoring group progress, defining group goals and group learning goals, negotiating and coconstructing knowledge, coordinating cognitive and social-communicative actions and creating a supportive collaborative climate (see also chapter 3 and 10). Learning to regulate

Learning to regulate one’s own learning and thinking means on the one hand having the learning, thinking and regulation skills that were described before. On the other hand it means a gradual increase of independence in learning and thinking. What we need is a systematic sequence of steps of increasing

14


independence and a common set of words and concepts to denote these steps. In a previous publication Simons and Zuijlen (1995) proposed the following sequence: Working independently - Learning strategically - Self-directed learning. When working independently the learning goals, the learning strategy, the time and place of learning, the way of testing and feedback and judgement-procedures are fully determined by the teacher or learning environment. Students just have to fulfill assignments and learning will occur if and when they obey. When learning strategically, students have freedom of choice related to the learning strategy: what kinds of learning strategy to take, where and when learning takes place. The learning goals, ways of testing and feedback / judgement procedures, however, remain under teacher-control. In self-directed learning students have more freedom, for instance with respect to choice of learning goals, self-testing and or feedback / judgement procedures. Typically, in learning to regulate all these three kinds of independence should be taught: different kinds of skills are involved in each of them. Gradual increase of independence

In beginning phases more emphasis should be laid upon learning to work independently, then how to learn strategically gets more attention gradually and finally, self-directed learning seems to be the most complex form of learning. This does not mean, however, that we should wait with the introduction of self-directed learning until strategic learning and the attached skills have been mastered fully. And similarly, it is, in our view, not necessary to wait with the introduction of strategic learning until independent working has been mastered. Instead, the main two principles of sequence should be a) that in beginning phases the simpler forms of independence should occupy more time than the more complex ones with a gradual increase of time for more complex forms; and b) more complex forms of independence can in the beginning phases of learning to regulate only be practiced with respect to themes where one has a relative high level of expertise. In other words in beginning phases there is more independent work and some strategic learning in relation to topics one has prior knowledge about. Later there comes more room for strategic learning, also in relation to less familiar topics and some room for self-directed learning about familiar topics. Finally, there is also some self-directed learning related to unfamiliar themes. The main motivational principle underlying all of these sequences is ‘Freedom as reward’ (see also chapter 12) Process-oriented instruction: how

In process-oriented instruction the processes and skills to be learned are modeled, both by teacher and by fellow-students. This means that the important thinking, learning and regulation skills are made public, by demonstrating and discussing them with each other on a regular basis. One of the main obstacles to learning to learn and think is that these processes are hidden and remain invisible. Research shows that younger students take these processes for granted. They don't realize


15

that people have many different ways to approach tasks. Moreover, they tend to believe that their own way is the only possible way. This has to change when one wants to teach learning, thinking and regulation skills. Fellow-students sometimes form better and more convincing models of learning, thinking and regulation than teachers, because they are better identification models and because their way of thinking is perhaps less automated and unconscious. Furthermore, in process-oriented instruction teachers should be external monitors of the learning, thinking and regulation activities of students temporarily. As long as students are unable to monitor themselves adequately, the teacher should take this role for them and keep an eye on their processes. Through observations and questions the teachers tries to find out whether the processes are still on the right track, whether problems occur and whether students understand what they are doing. Gradually, however, the teacher should withdraw these monitoring and other kinds of teacher control when students are ready. This is called scaffolding: after scaffolds have been built they can become the bases for new scaffolds to reach a higher part of the house that is being built. When parts of the house are ready, scaffolds can be removed. Moreover, the process-oriented teacher should become a metacognitive guide of the students. This means trying to make them aware of their way of learning, thinking and regulation. It is only when they have this kind of metacognitive awareness themselves that they can become self-regulators. Thus, the teachers role is to help them develop this awareness. Another role of teachers in process-oriented instruction is to organize positive self-evaluation by students. They should believe in themselves. They should believe that they could do it, because without this it is hard to learn and think independently. Orchestrating positive self-evaluation means to help students with goal setting: choosing goals that are reachable and still have a kind of challenge. Of course, teachers should also provide for multiple opportunities to practice the various skills in various circumstances, getting lots of feedback, from fellow-students and from teachers. These practical applications should occur, preferably in authentic tasks: cases, simulations, real problems, in situ. First-hand experiences are very important. Finally, students should be stimulated to reflect on their learning, thinking and regulation, both in action as well as on action. Reflection in action means reflecting during or immediately after task-execution, reflection on action means reflecting in a more general sense about one's actions in various circumstances. To fullfill all these different roles we ask a lot from teachers. How can we support teachers to show the best practise of new learning? What ought to be done in teacher education? Some answers can be found in part 3 of this book, chapters 11 up to and including chapter 14. INTRODUCTION TO THE OTHER CHAPTERS

The five chapters that follow in part 1 treat the concept of new learning itself in more detail. Specifically they focus on new learning processes: self-directed and independent learning, collaborative learning, new technologies (ICT mediated learning) and new kinds of assessment.

16


Van Hout-Wolters, Simons and Volet analyse in chapter 2 the concept of active and independent learning. What kinds of activity are involved? How can people develop the skills and attitudes needed for independent learning? Learning independently is on the one hand an easy thing to do (even very young children can do it), on the other hand it is difficult to do it all the time and in all subjects and situations. What is research telling us about the skills and attitudes of which independent learning consists? How can learning to learn help teachers to let their students learn more autonomously? In chapter 3 follows an overview of research on collaborative learning by Van der Linden, Erkens, Schmidt and Renshaw. In new learning the social dimension of learning is getting new attention. Long traditions of research on collaborative learning can now be integrated with independent learning and situated learning. What do we know about collaborative learning? Which forms of collaboration can be distinguished? Research is reviewed from two perspectives: effect-oriented research and process-oriented research. Effect-oriented research shows that collaborative learning may have various kinds of positive effects, but that there are many mediating variables involved that may influence these effects, like type of task, composition of the group, common goals and group climate. Process-oriented research points to factors like having a common goal, sharing responsibility, feeling collaborative engaged, being mutally dependent and willing to negotiate and coconstruct knowledge in ill-structured problem settings. Chapter 4 deals with new technologies (Kanselaar, de Jong, Andriessen and Goodyear). New computer-based learning environments create situations that are related to realistic situations. Examples treated refer to mathematics and foreign language learning. Moreover, simulations of real life situations, using visual and schematic information make discovery learning possible. Studies are reviewed into the effects of discovery learning in simulated computer environments and into the factors that play a role in it. Using the internet, new kinds of learning, new kinds of collaboration and new forms of collaborative learning (CSCL) become possible. What are their influences on the kinds of learning and the kinds of interactions that are taking place? Van Hout-Wolters argues, in chapter 5, why it is important to assess skills of active and self-directed learning. She gives an overview of the kinds of learning skills that are to be assessed. These refer to cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and resource management strategies. The main focus of the chapter is on the way the skills of self-directed and active learning could be assessed. A variety of assessment methods are described, including questionnaires, interviews, thinking aloud protocols, observations, portfolios, cases and study tasks. Finally, the chapter describes the use of assessment methods. How to select the right method? Can they be combined? What are important considerations? Valid classroom assessment of complex skills is the theme Stokking and Voeten analyze in chapter 6, the final chapter of part 1. Can the traditional standardized testing forms measure the outcomes of new learning or do we need alternative forms of assessment? New forms of testing refer to measurements that are more open-ended, more curriculum-embedded and more tailor-made. Especially, new


17

forms of assessment intend to assess more complex learning outcomes, using a variety of item formats, teacher observations, simulations, product ratings, presentations and portfolios. Multi-dimensional portfolio-assessments try to prevent that students study for the test instead of for reaching learning goals. The chapter presents principles for the construction and validation of performance assessment, as well as a critical evaluation of the current practice. Important criteria refer to reliability, validity, acceptability and practical usefulness. As an example, the authors treat the measurement of inquiry skills. In part 2 this book treats domain-related issues of new learning. What roles do the issues of new learning play in specific disciplines? There are chapters about science and technology, social studies, language learning (especially writing), and learning of social skills. Van der Sanden, Terwel and Vosniadou describe in chapter 7 developments in science and technology. In the natural sciences and in (information) technology many changes are going on. Practical applications in real life became more important. The authors focus on four issues: 1) the role of misconceptions and more general of conceptual change; 2) the role of goal orientations, learning conceptions and approaches to learning; 3) problem-based learning; 4) differential effects for learners with varying ability levels. Ten Dam, Vernooij and Volman treat, in chapter 8, three specific disciplines with the domain of social studies: business economics, care and environmental education. In business education research shows that there is a lot of resistance to changes related to new learning. Research with respect to "care", daily life as an organizing principle for learning, emphasizes the legitimatisation of the discipline as a regular and important theme for education as well as the kinds of learning outcomes that are reached. The research on environmental education gives attention to the integration of various disciplines (history, biology, business, etc.). Moreover, this chapter presents some points of discussion that play a role in all three of the disciplines involved: implementation of changes, assessment of learning outcomes and norms and values and the role of the school in changing these. Writing and learning to write is the topic of chapter 9 written by Rijlaarsdam and Couzijn. Writing typically plays two roles in education. On the one hand it is one of the basic skills to be learned. On the other hand students learn through writing (summaries, theses, assignments, etc.). The chapter treats both aspects as well as the relation between the two. A social perspective on new learning ends part 2 of this book. Mooij, Terwel and Huber focus on the development of social and emotional skills. They review studies into a variety of variables that influence the development of social competence: home environments, individual differences, teaching approaches, school variables, curriculum variables, etc. The authors argue that is important to carry out multilevel studies focusing especially on the interactions between the variables at different levels. Implementing collaborative learning in schools is important but difficult to accomplish. A set of rules and procedures, that help teachers to organize collaborative learning in the classroom, called AGO, has been tested in various

18


studies. Results of these studies are reviewed. An other approach, fractal teaching, uses collaborative learning as a means to reorganize teaching around learning islands, integrating several disciplines. An important intermediate variable seems to be certainty vs uncertainty orientation. Part 3 of the book shifts the attention from new learning to new teaching and teacher education. How do teachers try to organize the new kinds of learning processes and outcomes through new forms of teaching? How do these changes show up in teacher education? Vermunt and Verschaffel, the authors of chapter 11, argue that a new form of teaching is needed, called process-oriented teaching. In process-oriented teaching one tries to reach two sets of goals at the same time: domain specific knowledge and skills on the one hand and (more) general thinking and learning skills on the other hand. Process-oriented teaching is characterised by a gradual transfer of control over student learning processes from instructional agents to the students. Integration in domain-specific instruction of thinking and learning skills occurs mainly through a focus on the processes of knowledge construction and utilisation. In instructions, in demonstrations, in assignments and in feedback procedures, thinking and learning skills are trained explicitly with and without awareness of the students of this (immersion approach). What are the main principles of process-oriented teaching? What are the obstacles? In how far is it occurring in education already? How can it be realised in different types of learning environments (teacher-guided, co-operative, self-instructional)? Chapter 12 is about teaching for active learning. Brekelmans, Sleegers and Fraser describe ways of teaching to promote active learning. They start from an analysis of teaching from two different viewpoints, the interpersonal viewpoint, which has to do with the relationship between teacher and students and the learning actions viewpoint which has to do with the way a teacher evokes appropriate student learning activities. From both perspectives they give an overview of research that has been done on teacher cognition and behaviour stimulating or inhibiting active learning. What are the main principles for teaching that really involves students and let them study and learn actively? For Dutch education, empirical results are presented about the degree to which there is a shift toward more active forms of learning. Further they question if a change toward more active learning has implications for the interpersonal relationship between teacher and students. This discussion is based on a study of student perceptions and observations of teaching in classes with different degrees of active learning. The role of new learning in teacher education is the focus of chapter 13 (Korthagen, Klaassen and Russell). The concept of new learning creates the need to prepare teachers for a pedagogical role different from the traditional role of the teacher. The authors approach this issue from two perspectives: from the perspective of the kinds of conscious and unconscious theories teachers use in making sense of the teaching learning situation and from the perspective of pedagogical norms and values. The implications are that teacher education should provide teachers with the theories necessary for their new roles and that the pedagogy of teacher education should be in line with the changing educational


19

practices in schools: teacher educators should themselves practice what they preach. Chapter 13 analyzes these consequences for teacher education of the change towards new learning. It is concluded that experiential learning, learning by reflection, learning within relevant contexts, and forms of peer-based learning are necessary ingredients of a teacher education curriculum aiming at the development of new learning in schools. The chapter describes some examples of arrangements in teacher education curricula based on these principles, as well as an overview of empirical results of research into the effectiveness of these arrangements. The professional development of teachers is the theme of the final chapter 14 of the book. Beijaard, Verloop, Wubbels and Feiman-Nemser state that the facilitation of new learning processes of students requires the learning of new habits and working procedures by experienced teachers. Studies into the existing professional development of teachers are reviewed. Teachers are willing to change their beliefs and teaching practices, but not (always) in the direction of new learning in which students have more room to determine their own learning. Instead , teachers tend to become more dominant in determining learning over the years and this is related to a stable teaching career. From a contextual perspective, teachers' working conditions are described that promote their learning in practice. From a learning perspective, attention needs to be paid to the relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices, and to reflection and enquiry through which experienced teachers learn to study and continuously modify their teaching. REFERENCES Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Biemans, H., & Simons, P.R.J. (1991). Regulation support in computer aided learning to use Wordperfect. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the German Educational Psychology Association. Köln, September 25-27. Brophy, J.J. (1988).The teacher's role in stimulating student motivation to learn. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, april. Dixon, N. (1994). The Organizational Learning Cycle: how we can learn collectively. McGraw-Hill International (UK). Engeström, Y. (1994). Training for change: new approach to instruction and learning. Geneva: International Labour Office. Kuhl, J. (1983). Motivation, Konflikt und Handlungskontrolle (Motivation, conflict and action control). Berlin: Springer. Lodewijks, J.G.L.C. (1993). De kick van het kunnen. [The thrill of skill]. Tilburg: MesoConsult. Mellander, K. (1993). The Power of Learning: Fostering Employee Growth, ASTD (American Society for Training and Development), Alexandria 1993 Palincsar, AS. en Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehensionmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Prawat, R.S. (1989). Promoting acces to knowledge, strategy, and dispositions in students: a research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1-41. Revans, R. (1982). Action learning. Chartwell-Bratt: Bromley. Salomon, G. (1988). When teams do not function the way they ought to. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, april 5-9. Schweiker, U. (1995). Seven success factors of organisational change. Paper presented at the conference of the European Consortium for the Learning Organisation (ECLO). Warwick (UK). Shuell, T.J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 276-295. Simons, P.R.J. (1981). Vergelijkenderwijs: Onderzoek naar de invloed van metaforen op het leren (Influences of concrete analogies on learning). Tilburg University: Dissertation.

20


Simons, P.R.J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 291-313). Berlin: Springer. Simons, P.R.J. (1997). Ontwikkeling van leercompetenties. [ Development of learning competences]. Opleiding en Ontwikkeling, 9,17-20 Simons, P.R.J. (1998). Transfer of learning: paradoxes for learners. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Congress of Applied Psychology. August 13, San Francisco. Simons, P.R.J. & Zuylen, J.G.G. (1995). Van zelfstandig werken naar zelf verantwoordelijk leren. [From independent work to self-directed leaming] In P.R.J. Simons & J.G.G. Zuylen (Red.), De didactiek van leren leren, Studiehuisreeks 4 (pp. 7-20). Tilburg: MesoConsult.

AFFILIATIONS

Robert-Jan Simons, University of Nijmegen, Department of Education, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected].

Jos van der Linden, Utrecht University, Department of Educational Sciences, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Tom Duffy, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington IN47405, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

BERNADETTE VAN HOUT-WOLTERS, ROBERT-JAN SIMONS AND SIMONE VOLET

2. ACTIVE LEARNING: SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND INDEPENDENT WORK

INTRODUCTION

Why is there so much attention for active learning nowadays and how is the current wave of interest in active learning different from previous ones? This chapter starts with a conceptual distinction between two forms of active learning: self-directed learning and independent work. Then the reasons are given which have been put forward for placing a greater emphasis on active as opposed to more passive forms of learning in recent years. After reviewing the skills and competencies which learners need to develop in order to function effectively as active learners, several factors are discussed which can inhibit the development of active learning in schools and colleges. Finally, the conditions under which self-directed learning and independent work can be promoted in the classroom are examined, with particular attention to instructional programs which integrate 'learning to learn' and 'learning to think' approaches within the teaching of specific disciplines and in general. TWO KINDS OF ACTIVE LEARNING: SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND INDEPENDENT WORK

Of course there is no black and white distinction between active and passive learning. It is more a dimension, a matter of less and more than a dichotomy. All learning is active in a certain sense. Some learning is more active than other learning, however. Here, active learning is defined as a form of learning in which the learner uses opportunities to decide about aspects of the learning process. A second definition of active learning connects it to mental activity in another sense: it refers to the extent to which the learner is challenged to use his or her mental abilities while learning. Thus active learning on the one hand has to do with decisions about learning and on the other hand making an active use of thinking. We will call the first kind of active learning self-directed learning and the second one independent work. Self-directed learning, or active learning in the first sense, refers to the number and kinds of decisions, that are taken by learners themselves (or in cooperation with a teacher / trainer). In more active forms of learning, for instance, learners make their own time-planning, they choose learning goals and activities they like, they test their progress, they take care of learning and understanding on 21

R. J. Simons et al. (eds.), New Learning. 21-36. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

22


their own, and they reflect on errors and successes. Active learning, in this sense, has to do with the preparation, execution, regulation, control, feedback and maintenance of learning activities by learners (learner control). In independent work, the second meaning of active learning (tied to mental activity), it is not so much the number and quality of decisions about learning that count but how much activity is asked from the learner. Are students figuring out things on their own? Are they working without teacher supervision? Are they working together as a group? Are they thinking while learning? In this case, the amount of (mental) activity of learners is the important criterion. The goals and kinds of activities, the control and regulation as well as the feedback and maintenance of the learning are under teacher control. It resembles more active execution of assignments than active decision making about learning. Sometimes this kind of active learning involves co-operative learning, at other times it is just individual work. The distinction refers to the focus of the activity. Is it on learning or on action? Later on we will use a system of learning functions to clarify this distinction. Learning functions are psychological functions to be fulfilled before, during and after learning by a learner alone or with the help of outsiders like teachers, fellow students, computers or bosses. The distinction between self-directed learning and independent working can now be restated as follows: Is it the execution of the task itself that is active or is it the active execution of the whole range of learning functions? WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION FOR ACTIVE LEARNING IN EDUCATION?

Why is there so much attention for active learning nowadays? Several reasons, related to learners, teachers, schools and society, can be mentioned. Active learning is probably more attractive for learners than more passive forms of learning. Learners are supposed to be more motivated and interested when they can make decisions about their own learning and when their mental activity is challenged. By being involved in some of the decisions related to their own learning the learners can connect to their prior knowledge and their needs more optimally. Furthermore, by finding out things independently, they can follow their own interests and motivation. As a consequence, they will learn all kinds of valuable skills, such as social skills, decision-making skills, taking responsibility, etc. Active learning is important because of opportunities for students to learn how to learn. Students can learn how to learn by practicing how to do it. Giving them responsibility for parts of the decisions that can or should be made is one way to teach them how to learn. Previously, it was thought that learning how to learn and active forms of learning were only for the elite. Only the best students were expected to be able to learn actively. Conventional wisdom was that the weaker students required highly structured forms of teaching. During the eighties, however, this picture started to change (cf. Resnick, 1987). Several empirical studies showed that active learning and learning to learn were especially important

ACTIVE LEARNING

23

for the weaker students. One of the reasons why weaker students were not successful proved to be that they were not actively engaged in their own learning. When the weakest students were taught strategies to learn and think more effectively, their learning performance improved dramatically (see for instance Palincsar and Brown, 1984). Active learning is also important for teachers. Motivational and burnout problems of teachers are likely to decrease if students are more motivated and more actively engaged in their own learning. Besides, teaching becomes more intellectually challenging when students are learning actively and independently. Of late, recent literature on learning in the workplace and learning organizations (e.g. Marsick, 1993; Senge, 1990) has revealed that employers themselves value their employees' learning abilities and positive attitudes towards lifelong learning. Employers need a flexible workforce who is able and ready to learn independently. Companies are striving to become learning organizations with employees who are able and ready to learn both on the job and off the job. Companies which will survive are those able to learn quicker than their competitors. For collective learning to take place, companies need people who learn easily, rapidly and willingly. Societies at large need also people who are able to learn. So many aspects of life are changing at a rapid tempo, that it has become impossible to teach people everything at school and during their youth. Life-long learning has become a necessity for everyone. Societies have become learning societies, and therefore students have to learn already in schools how to be active learners. Finally, active learning is important for schools themselves, since they are confronted with new demands from the labor market to which they can not remain silent. Because knowledge and skills tend to change faster and faster, the emphasis shifts away from schools to later life and job-related learning. Furthermore, higher types of schools demand from the lower schools that they produce students that are able and willing to learn actively and independently. Secondary schools expect this from elementary schools and higher education expects it from secondary education. IS THE PRESENT WAVE OF ACTIVE LEARNING SPECIAL?

Is there anything new in the present wave of emphasis on active learning? In the beginning of this century the traditional school reformers (like Montessori, Dewey, Freinet, Petersen, Parkhurst, Steiner, etc.) proposed new types of schools (Montessori schools, Freinet schools, Dalton schools, Jenaplan schools, etc.) all stressing active learning in various forms. Montessori schools, for instance, focused (and are still focusing) on free choices of students in determining the things they want to do and learn. Furthermore, active sensorimotoric activities (feeling, touching, etc.) were stressed, especially in the kindergarten-age. As another example, Dewey emphasized the value of self-discovered knowledge and Steiner the importance of taking the child’s' temperament into account. The traditional school reformers, however, did not succeed in changing the great majority of schools. They remained elitist schools for only a small part of the population.

24


The next wave of attention for active learning took place in the sixties and seventies. The traditional school-reformers attracted new attention and new innovative schools were founded. Rogers' book “Freedom to learn” became popular, especially in the university context. The project method and small group activities were introduced in many schools, especially in elementary schools. Piagetian schools emphasized the importance of connecting to the developmental stage of the child and focusing on learning how to think. After a while, however, active learning once more lost its popularity. The concepts of effective schools and effective instruction became fashionable, emphasizing the pragmatic idea of "no nonsense" schools with a good learning climate, clear instruction, instructional leadership, and a focus on testable knowledge and skills. The present wave of active learning in the nineties appears to differ from the previous ones in three respects. First, there seems to be a much broader emphasis on the role of active learning. Schools and teachers are more broadly involved. Many governments are keen to initiate the introduction of active learning in schools. Employers and organizations of employees are, for various reasons, in favor of active learning in schools. This, for one thing, has to do with the necessity of life-long learning and learning organizations, because of the increasing speed of changes in societies and economies. Secondly, the present focus is much more than in the previous cases focusing on the combination of active learning and learning to learn. Active learning is only possible when students have learnt how to do it and how to regulate it: i.e. they need to be equipped with the skills before they can be empowered. In other words, it is not possible to give students opportunities for independent work and active learning if they do not have the necessary cognitive, metacognitive and affective skills to perform such activities. It is believed that integrated learning to learn is a necessary component of instruction aiming for active learning. Thirdly, the present wave of active learning is more solidly grounded in theories of learning than the previous ones. Constructivistic learning theory and empirical evidence for its conceptual usefulness provide the basis for effective modes of instruction for active learning. SKILLS AND ATTITUDES OF ACTIVE LEARNERS

How can we describe active learners in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes needed? The answers to this question are different for self-directed learning and independent work. For independent work this relates to being able to work without guidance (Candy, 1991). For self-directed learning the answer comes from the concept of learning functions (Boekaerts and Simons, 1995; Simons, 1989). In independent work, learning is a side-effect of problem solving, working or acting only. There is no explicit regulation of learning by the learners, nor any conscious attempts of learners to regulate learning as such (but teachers of course may be focusing on the learning consciously). Students are regulating their actions, problem solving or working, but not their learning. Learning occurs unconsciously and is regulated by the environment or by the teacher(s). Thus learners have no conscious learning goals, no conscious learning strategies and they are not aware of

ACTIVE LEARNING

25

the kind of testing of learning to be expected. Still there is learning, even very important learning. Although learners themselves do not organize this kind of learning, some organization is still possible, be it through pedagogical authorities or through environmental conditions. The environment can be organized in such ways that more or less implicit learning becomes probable. Van der Hoeven-van Doornum and Simons (1994) did a search of the literature in order to find the skills and attitudes that learners need for independent work. The first set of skills and attitudes they found relates to being able and ready to work without help of others (alone and with fellow students). This has to do with competencies like personal autonomy (Candy, 1991), time management, reflection and self-regulation. A second set of skills and attitudes relates to working in such a way that experiential learning becomes probable. They refer to competencies like searching for varied attractive and challenging problem solving situations from which one can learn, finding and valuing time for reflection, looking for feedback, taking opportunities for innovation and experimentation and searching for a variety of contexts, tasks and circumstances. Competencies of self-directed learning can be deducted from learning functions, as discussed in section 1. These are psychological functions to be fulfilled before, during and after learning by a learner alone or with the help of outsiders like teachers, fellow students, or computers. Learning functions can have several functions, like describing teacher-activities or the interaction between teachers and students. They can also be used, and that is what we mean here, to define learning skills and readiness. Being able and ready to learn as a self-directed learner means being able and ready to execute the learning functions described in the Figures 1 to 3 on one's own. These figures present our view of the major learning functions in preparing, executing and closing learning. Thus a selfdirected learner is able and ready to prepare learning independently (see Figure 1), to execute the executive learning functions independently (see Figure 2) and to close learning independently (se Figure 3). Self-directed preparation of learning refers to competencies like looking for relevant prior knowledge, motivating oneself for learning and deciding about learning goals. Self-directed execution of learning consists of executive steps like selecting the relevant information, concentrationmanagement and self-testing. Closing learning independently has to do with competencies like summing up what one learned, reflecting on the learning process and attributing learning to relevant causes. In the three Figures cognitive, affective and metacognitive learning functions are distinguished. Cognitive functions refer to the functions that pertain to information processing and task execution as such. Affective functions relate to the motivational and emotional aspects of learning. Metacognitive functions are the functions that control, regulate and steer the cognitive and affective functions. It is important to realize that the three categories (cognitive, affective and metacognitive functions) cannot be seen as completely independent. The list of learning functions is expected to be a reasonably complete overview of all the functions needed for effective learning. It is based on and combines several cognitive, affective and metacognitive functions described and studied elsewhere (e.g. Boekaerts & Simons, 1995; Candy, 1991; Kuhl, 1983;

26


Mellander, 1993; Shuell, 1988; Vermunt, 1992). There is as yet little empirical evidence that the list is a complete overview. Perhaps there are more of these learning functions, perhaps some could be combined.

ACTIVE LEARNING

27

We postulate that the ideal independent active learner is able and willing to execute all of the learning functions on his/her own, without assistance from the outside. It is important to note that the preparatory and closing learning functions can also take place during execution itself when there are short cycles of activities.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS THAT MANY LEARNERS ARE STILL NOT ACTIVE LEARNERS?

In the foregoing we saw that active self-directed learners take care of their learning, in the sense that they are able and ready to execute the learning functions. We also described why active learning is more attractive for learners than more passive forms, even for weak students. And as mentioned earlier, there is widespread agreement on the desirability of active, self-directed and independent learning across all spheres of society nowadays. Despite consensus on the desirability of the concept, many teachers and researchers share the view that most learners are not displaying the characteristics of active learners. A number of problems have been identified and issues raised across

28


educational environments. In schools and colleges which enthusiastically embarked on ‘learning to learn’ activities, a certain disappointment can be noticed. The implementation of active forms of learning have often failed, or the results fell short of expectations. The next section reviews recent publications (Riemersma & Veugelers, 1997; Van Hout-Wolters, 1994; Veugelers, 1999) which have identified a number of factors contributing to the difficulties in the implementation of active forms of learning School management and organization

One of the reasons for the lack of active learning in students may be the fact that in some schools this has not clearly become the spearhead of policy. Even if this is the case, there is often too little attention for ‘learning to learn’ and self-directed learning. Schools experience, for example, problems with changing the curriculum to fit in learning-to-learn lessons, or with integrating ‘learning to learn’ instruction in the content lessons. Another reason could be that students have few opportunities for active learning because of too many traditional teacher-directed classes and insufficient self-study hours in their timetable. If students are to find opportunities for active learning in every school subject, coordination and attuning within the school can be considered as a necessity, as well as adjustment of the program. Teachers

Many teachers are not highly motivated to give attention to 'learning to learn' and active self-directed learning in students. Apparently, they do not see the benefits of it, or they think that attention to it does not fit in their subject matter. Some teachers also argue that these activities take up too much time. Other teachers want to concentrate all their attention on the instruction of content knowledge and consequently neglect the instruction of domain-specific or general learning-how-tolearn skills. Also, the necessary attuning and coordination is considered a problem, for it supposedly would limit the autonomy of the teacher. Furthermore, although the new tasks of the teacher may well be more diverse and interesting, it also makes teaching more intensive and time-consuming, while the teacher salaries remain the same. Finally, an important issue is the fact that, by far, not all teachers possess sufficient knowledge and skills to foster ‘learning to learn’ and to supervise their students in active self-directed learning. Most teachers would need to develop forms of instruction which are fundamentally different from those they are currently using and familiar with. Their own teacher education is unlikely to have included these, and suitable courses in active learning and teaching are often not available. As a consequence, it appears difficult to promote reflective theory and strategy change in teachers (see also Elshout-Mohr, Van Hout-Wolters, & Broekkamp, 1999).

ACTIVE LEARNING

29

Learners

Learners are not always motivated to invest much time and energy in gaining the new learning skills either. They do not always recognize the usefulness of these skills, or they dread the needed effort to learn them (Rabinowitz, Freeman, & Cohen, 1992). Learners often hold strong beliefs and persistent approaches to learning, that are hard to bend. Some failure-fearing students prefer, for example, to learn a whole paragraph by heart than to understand and remember the main issues. Students, especially in secondary education, often are not very interested in the subject matter. They go to school to meet their friends; Seaming seems to be more or less a ‘side issue’. These students prefer to follow teacher-directed lessons, than to engage in self-directed activities. There are also students who prefer to disappear during self-study hours, or to play games with their friends. Individual differences create problems too. There are students who get little teacher attention during individual study hours, because they ask few questions and little supervision. These students can get behind and their learning problems are hard to overcome. The student differences can be individually and culturally determined. Learning environment

Instructional goals

Sometimes it is not clear whether the possession of learning skills is considered as an expedient to obtain good learner results, or viewed as an educational goal in itself. The choice of one or the other alternative has consequences. When the possessing of learning skills is considered as a learning aid, instruction should be based on research directed at the relations between specific learning skills and learning outcomes. If, on the other hand, the possession of skills is viewed as an educational goal, one will choose specifications based on considerations of life-Song learning (see section 1). Lack of clarity whether learning skills represent a means or a goal, can lead to problems with the instruction and supervision of learning skills as well as with the assessment of the results (see also chapter 5).

Contents

Question marks could often be placed at the specific learning skills which are considered most important by a school or a teacher. What is the choice based on? In the means-oriented approach, are the instructed learning skills based on research about the relations between these skills and learning outcomes (for which domains, which type of learning tasks, and which type of learners)? And why, in the goaloriented approach, are the selected skills considered important?

30


Instructional methods

The way the skills for self-directed learning are taught should also be regularly queried. To what extent are these instructional methods based on research, for instance research on instruction in other general skills of similar complexity (see e.g. Van Oostendorp & Elshout-Mohr, 1999)? And again: are these methods attuned to certain specific domains, learning tasks and type of learners? Media/ materials

There still appears to be a lack of good learning-material within the subject areas in which 'learning to learn' is incorporated. And if there is attention to learning skills in the subject material, it is often not built up systematically. Assessment

In accordance with the fact that active self-directed learning itself is often not viewed as an educational goal, mastery of this type of learning is not explicitly assessed in tests and exams. However, if it is considered an educational goal, it should be assessed. Besides, students and teachers will take the instruction of ‘learning to learn’ more seriously when the learning skills are being assessed, resulting in an increased motivation to work on it (Van Hout-Wolters, 1992). In the above it is suggested that educational practice is often not based on research findings concerning active self-directed learning. It should be noted however, that research in this area has indeed resulted in new insights, but that there are also a number of blind spots remaining. In the next section some insight will be given to research results on active self-directed learning, which can be of importance to educational practice. HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO BECOME ACTIVE LEARNERS?

Research exploring the teaching/learning conditions which promote active learning has increased dramatically in the last decade. While numerous studies have examined and documented the educational benefits of inducing students to engage in more mentally active forms of learning, the importance of fostering independent work has received relatively less attention in experimental research. A distinction can be made between experimental studies aimed at promoting active, selfregulated learning embedded within domain-specific instruction, and those focusing on promoting the development of general strategies for self-regulated learning and metacognitive knowledge and awareness about learning in general. Both types of interventions aim ultimately at increasing the amount and quality of

ACTIVE LEARNING

31

mental activity during learning, but the development of skills and attitudes for independent work in the broader sense (described in section 4) is not always promoted as part of these interventions. Promoting active, discipline-related self-regulated learning strategies

The benefit on students' learning outcomes of inducing their development and use of content-relevant self-regulated learning strategies is well documented in the literature on process-oriented instruction (De Jong & Van Hout-Wolters, 1994; Volet, 1995: see also chapter 11). The assumptions behind this type of instruction is that there is a causal link between active self-regulated learning and the development of meaningful, flexible and transferable content knowledge. The pioneering work of Palincsar and Brown(1984) in the area of reading, of Scardamalia, Bereiter and Steinbach (1984) in the field of writing, and of Schoenfeld (1985) in the domain of mathematics is well known. Intervention programs where students were taught at the same time the content of a discipline and strategies for handling that content competently, i.e. teaching process and content "in coherence" (Vermunt, 1995), have been found effective in a whole range of fields of study and across all age groups, including primary school, high school, college and university students. For example, Lundeberg's (1987) research revealed how teaching first year university law students the metacognitive strategies used by legal experts improved the quality of their comprehension of legal texts. Alternatively, Moore and Scevak (1995) successfully trained high school students to use a heuristic strategy for integrating written text and visual aid in science learning. Also embedded within regular instruction, is Carriedo and Alonso-Tapia's (1995) experimental work exploring the differential benefits, on reading comprehension in language, natural sciences and social sciences, of teaching strategies for recognizing textual structures and building graphical representations of these structures. Students who most benefit from explicit strategy instruction are generally those deficient in the target strategies and unable to develop these strategies without assistance (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Leon & Carretero, 1995; Moore & Scevak, 1995). Snow and Lohman's (1984) argument that direct training of content-related cognitive strategies may be counterproductive for more able learners because they have already developed effective models of learning was supported by some of Volet, McGill and Pears' (1995) findings. A common feature of successful strategy instruction intervention programs is the process-oriented instructional approach used to foster students' development of the target strategies. In most programs, students were provided with opportunities to witness the mental activity of more able individuals, and then encouraged to practice the strategies with guidance in a socially supportive environment. Externalization of mental activity, via think aloud techniques and expert modeling is assumed to give learners unique insight into the thinking processes of experts, while scaffolding, cognitive coaching, reciprocal teaching and other forms of guided learning are expected to provide the support necessary to develop the skills

32


and confidence for independent use of the strategies. Boekaerts (1997) has stressed the importance for independent learning, of individuals' capacity for selfscaffolding their learning. Inducing students to engage in more mentally demanding learning activities as part of regular instruction is widely recognized as critical for enhancing the quality of their learning outcomes. Promoting a gradual transfer of responsibility for mental activity from the teacher to the learner in a specific content area is a first step towards independent self-regulated learning. Contextualized forms of strategy instruction, however, do not lead to far transfer of learning, unless this issue was addressed directly as part of the intervention. Some generalization and transfer can be obtained by instigating "mindful" learning during both the process of instruction and the process of transfer (Salomon & Globerson, 1987). Alternatively, offering learners opportunities to reflect upon and practice self-regulated learning across multiple tasks and contexts may create metacognitive experiences, which in turn promote independent self-regulated learning. Overall however, while contentspecific contextualized forms of self-regulated learning instruction are expected to increase the amount and quality of students' mental activity and in turn improve their learning outcomes in that domain, as claimed in the transfer literature (Salomon & Perkins, 1989; Simons, in press), minimal transfer of learning can be expected beyond that. Promoting active, general self-regulated learning processes and metacognitive knowledge about learning As discussed in the first part of this chapter, if active self-regulated learning is to increase in schools, at university and in the workplace, there is a need for learners to be equipped with the skills, confidence and commitment for active learning across tasks and situations. It also requires the educational context to provide the opportunities and affordances for active and independent self-regulated learning to take place and be valued. While some students learn to self-regulate their learning without much tuition or prompts, others need guidance, not only to acquire the strategies but also to develop the conditional knowledge necessary to know how, when and where to these strategies can be applied appropriately (Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996; Winograd & Hare, 1988). Interventions aimed at fostering students' development of active general self-regulated learning and conditional or metacognitive knowledge about learning have involved specifically designed learning how to learn programs as well as integrated programs where learning how to learn is embedded within regular discipline instruction. Some learning how to learn programs consist of direct instruction of general learning strategies - conceptualized as domain-independent heuristics - in combination with an attempt to enhance students' metacognitive knowledge and reflection about learning. One well known successful program of that kind for

ACTIVE LEARNING

33

university students is the one developed by Weinstein (see Weinstein & Meyer, 1996) in the United States. Hattie et al. (1996) and Simpson, Hynd, Nist and Burrell (1997) give some insight into the variety of 'learning tot learn' programs, their theoretical underpinnings and their effects. Simpson et al. (1997) especially mention the problems of limited transfer of the learned strategies to new situations, and the lack of long-term evaluation data. Hattie et al. (1996) conclude from a meta-analysis of 51 studies that learning skills interventions should be in context, use tasks within the same domain as the target content, and promote a high degree of learner activity and metacognitive awareness. Linked up with this, more and more programs emphasize "integrated learning to think, integrated learning to learn and integrated learning to regulate learning and thinking" (Simons, 1997) as an integral part of regular instruction delivered by regular teachers within their discipline. In integrated programs, students are induced to activate their existing knowledge and strategies about learning, to reflect on their own and alternative approaches to learning, and on the impact of different learning styles on the quality of learning outcomes in their particular discipline area as well as in general. A major advantage of integrated programs is that they can be implemented with, and benefit learners of all ages, all levels of development and across all fields of study. Cognitive interventions during regular instruction rely on reflection, persuasion, awareness raising as well as ‘constructive frictions’ (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999) in order to challenge students’ possible misconceptions about learning. Carrying out such interventions during the actual process of learning is particularly well suited to raise students awareness of the relationships between learning strategies and learning outcomes. As argued by Collins, Brown and Newman (1989), articulation and reflection are powerful cognitive tools to foster the development of appropriate mental models of learning and in turn active self-regulated learning. Effective integrated programs for inducing self-regulated learning require teachers who are themselves convinced of the educational value of active learning. Selfregulated learning can only take place if teachers are prepared to share some of the control of learning with their students, give them more opportunities to exercise strategic, self-responsible learning. Simons (1997), Vermunt and Verloop (1999) and Boekaerts (1997) all highlight the significant role played by teachers in promoting active self-directed learning in their classroom. Adequate preparation of teachers is essential for the successful implementation of active self-directed learning in the classroom. Many successful experimental programs described in the literature were carried out by teachers/researchers committed to the educational principles underlying the programs. Requiring regular teachers to play the roles of 'diagnostician, challenger, model learner, activator, monitor and evaluator' (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999) necessary to promote students' self-regulation of learning is quite difficult to obtain, as revealed in Lonka and Ahola's (1995), VidalAbarca and Gilabert's (1995) and Volet, McGill and Pears' (1995) research (see also section 5). Lack of preparation, commitment and confidence for such new challenging roles, often associated with perceptions of minimal institutional support and methods of assessment which are not congruent with the promotion of

34


active independent work are some of the factors inhibiting teachers' introduction of active independent learning. Large scale innovation programs

The large scale, nation-wide innovation programs recently introduced in the Netherlands have addressed these issues by promoting collaborative ventures between school principals, teachers, teacher educators and researchers. Teachers involved in the implementation of such programs are prepared at the conceptual as well as the practical level, through comprehensive professional development programs. They are provided with examples of best practice and demonstrations of expert modeling, cognitive coaching, scaffolding and social support similar to those they are expected to use with their own students (Boekaerts, 1997; Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Veugelers & Zijlstra, 1996, 1998; Bergen, Derksen & Lamberigts, 1997). The strength of such large-scale innovation programs is in the holistic, multi-level and multi-dimensional approach adopted for their implementation. Multi levels refer to the level of the institution or school, the level of teacher preparation and the level of students' learning processes, while the multidimensional approach refers to the cognitive, affective and metacognitive aspects of learning. Furthermore, the long-term plans for such programs, their implementation across disciplines, the effort made to ensure that assessment practices reflect the change in instructional methods and the research-based monitoring of their effectiveness should enhance their chance of success, and ultimately the quality of students' learning. REFERENCES Bergen, T., Derksen, K. & Lamberigts, R. (1997). Teachers’ and students’ perception of activating instruction before and after a teacher training program. Paper presented at the Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Athens, Greece. Boekaerts, M (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concepts embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161-186 Boekaerts, M. en Simons, P.R.J. (1995). Leren en instructie [Learning and instruction] Assen: van Gorkum. Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for life-long learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carriedo, N., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (1995). Comprehension strategy training in content areas. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 411-432. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed). Knowing, learning and instruction - Essays in honor of Robert Olaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. De Jong, F.P.C.M & Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (Eds). (1994). Process-oriented instruction and learning from text. Amsterdam: VU University Press. Elshout-Mohr, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Broekkamp, H. (1999). Mapping situations in classroom and research: Eight types of instructional-learning episodes. Learning and Instruction, 9, 57-75. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136. Kuhl, J. (1983). Motivation, Konflikt und Handlungskontrolle [Motivation, conflict and action control]. Berlin: Springer. Leon, J.A. & Carretero, M. (1995). Intervention in comprehension and memory strategies: Knowledge and use of text structure. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 203-220. Lonka, K., & Ahola, K., (1995). Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 351-368.

ACTIVE LEARNING

35

Lundeberg, M.A. (1987). Metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension: Studying understanding in legal case analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 407-432. Marsick, V.J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art & science of systematic change. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey Bass. Mellander, K. (1993). The Power of Learning: Fostering Employee Growth, ASTD [American Society for Training and Development], Alexandria. Moore, P.J. & Scevak, J.J. (1995). The effects of strategy training on high school students' learning from science texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 401-410. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. Rabinowitz, M., Freeman, K., & Cohen, S. (1992). Use and maintenance of strategies: The influence of accessibility on knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 211-218. Resnick, L.B. (1987). Relationship between learning at school and what we do in the rest of our lives. Presidential address at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, April. Riemersma, F.S.J., & Veugelers, W. (1997). Varianten van het studiehuis [Variants of the study house] (SCO-ILO-rep. 479). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.. Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623-637. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173-190. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Shuell, T.J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 276-295. Simons, P.R.J. (1989). Leren leren: naar een nieuwe didactische aanpak [Learning to learn: towards a new approach]. In P.R.J. Simons, & J.G.G. Zuylen (Red.), Handboek huiswerkdidactiek en geïntegreerd studievaardigheidsonderwijs (pp. 46-59). Heerlen: MesoConsult. Simons, P.R.J. (1997). From romanticism to practice in learning. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 8(1), 8-15. Simons, P.R.J. (in press). Transfer of learning: Paradoxes for learners. International Journal of Educational Research, Simpson, M.L., Hynd, C.R., Nist, S.I,., & Burell, K.I. (1997). College academic assistance programs and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 9(1), 39-87. Snow, R. & Lohman, D. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 347-376. Van der Hoeven-van Doornum, A., & Simons, P.R.J. (1994). Transfervermogen en flexibiliteit [Transferability and flexibility]. Nijmegen: ITS. Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (1992). Cognitieve strategieën als onderwijsdoel [Cognitive strategies as an instructional goal]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (1994). 'Leren leren' in het onderwijs: Ontwikkelingen en problemen ['Learning to learn' in education: Developments and problems]. VELON Tijdschrift, 15, 3-7. Van Oostendorp, H. & Elshout-Mohr, M. (1999). Thinking skills in reading and text studying. In: J.H.M. Hamers, J.E.H. van Luit and B.Csapo (Eds.), Teaching and learning thinking skills. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs [Learning styles and regulation of learning processes in higher education]. Tilburg: Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University. Vermunt, J.D. (1995). Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 325-349. Vermunt, J.D. & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257-281. Veugelers, W. (1999). Het studiehuis in de knel: zelfstandigheid en controle van scholen, docenten en leerlingen [The study house in a hole: Independence and control of schools, teachers and students]. MESO, 19, 2-8. Veugelers, W., & Zijlstra, H. (Eds.).(1996). Praktijken uit het studiehuis [Practices in the study house]. Leuven-Apeldoorn, the Netherlands: Garant.

36


Veugelers, W., & Zijlstra, H. (1998). Learning together in networks of schools and university. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(2), 169-180. Vidal-Abarca, E., & Gilabert, R. (1995). Teaching strategies to create visual representations of key ideas in content area text materials: A long-term intervention inserted in school curriculum. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 433-448. Volet, S.E. (1995). Process-oriented instruction: A discussion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 449-459. Volet, S.E., McGill, T., & Pears, H. (1995). Implementing process-based instruction in regular university teaching: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(4), 385-400. Weinstein, C. E. & Meyer, D.K. (1996). Learning strategies: Teaching and assessing. In E. de Corte & F.E. Weinert (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 423428). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Winograd, P., & Chou Hare, V. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.) Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 121-139). San Diego: Academic Press.

AFFILIATIONS

Bernadette van Hout-Wolters, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: vanhoutwolters@ilo. uva. nl.

Robert-Jan Simons, University of Nijmegen, Department of Education, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected].

Simone Volet, School of Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch 6150, Western Australia. E-mail: [email protected].

JOS VAN DER LINDEN, GIJSBERT ERKENS, HENK SCHMIDT AND PETER RENSHAW

3. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

INTRODUCTION

In the 1970s research projects on cooperative and collaborative learning started abroad and research in the Netherlands followed suit in the 1980s. In those days enthusiasm about cooperative arrangements in educational settings was limited to those who did research on cooperative learning. Policy documents indicating that social and emotional development deserved more attention were rare at that time. At present, in the 1990s, as we are heading for the millennium, collaborative learning has earned a high priority on the Dutch institutional agendas in educational politics and educational support. However, the initial enthusiasm and optimism of researchers has been toned down by their growing awareness of the complexity of the interacting variables which mark the effects of collaborative learning. On the basis of research results, this chapter clarifies what makes collaborative learning such a complex affair. However, we do not consider this clarification an aim in itself. The chapter is primarily intended to discuss the conditions for the introduction of collaborative learning in education and training and to ensure that it is introduced with the right measure of prudence and caution. After all, we should not forget that only some thirty years ago, during the 1960s, strong preferences for communal forms of living and learning and for working in teams on projects resulted mainly in problems and disappointing experiences. In the opening section of the chapter we inquire into the reasons why at present so many people are attracted to collaborative learning as a leading concept in education. Subsequently, we discuss the relevant research. We focus more on Dutch research than in comparable reviews (Cohen, 1994; Herz-Lazarowitz and Miller, 1992; Rogoff, 1998; Webb and Palincsar, 1996). Moreover, we attempt to sort out which factors from research shows to be of importance for the explanation of the effects of collaborative learning. The chapter closes with a short discussion of the main challenges for the near future. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IS IN THE AIR

How can we explain the present popularity of collaborative learning? One reason, we think, is a change in ideology. The period starting mid 1970s and ending around 1985 (with a rather longer political aftermath in the Netherlands), there was 37


38


a tendency to attach more importance to the individual and mutual competition was considered the driving force behind change. A pragmatic attitude was prominent: there was a no- nonsense atmosphere and there was disillusionment with regard to the possibility of significant social change. Keywords were: “ reassertion of conservative values”,“ seeking effectiveness”, “belief in market functioning”, and “individualization”. As a reaction, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s a strong belief in the power of broad partnerships, the power of globalization and new social formations - e.g. the unification of Europe - can be discerned. In the Netherlands this also applies to education and training. The government has focussed on large scale school mergers and on broad-based combined schools. The belief in globalization is still holding strong; in addition there is a growing tendency for an emphasis on local collaboration within global communities. A tendency that is as yet stronger in trade and industry than in government circles. A good example can be found in trade and industry where great confidence exists in self-managing teams which realize aims for the organization as a whole (Kwakman & Postema, 1996; Kampermann & Gerrichhauzen, 1992; Tjepkema, 1997). The fact that in daily practice outside schools people are often required to cooperate with each other can be seen as an important motive for introducing cooperative learning situations in education and training. Attuning school-based learning more to learning out-ofschool (Resnick, 1987) is believed to offer better possibilities for adequate adult functioning in society. In short, we believe that the importance attached to collaborative learning as a teaching method partly mirrors the importance attached to forms of cooperation in society at large. If this holds true, however, we would like to add a note of warning. We feel that the choice for collaborative learning is only partly legitimized by what is considered relevant for society. Current ideology should never exclusively prompt the choice for a certain teaching method. This brings us to a second important reason behind the popularity of collaborative learning as a teaching method. Collaborative learning fits in perfectly with the changing views on learning and the nature of knowledge. More than in former times it is considered wise to give the learner a more active and more constructive role. Moreover this knowledge- constructing process is not merely looked upon as an individual affair but rather as a process of interaction and negotiation with other agents in the learning environment such as the teacher, fellow pupils and the teaching materials. In this view it is emphasized that knowledge is no longer to be thought of as absolute, tied to a single person, but rather as relative to a community and subject to change. In this formulation knowledge construction has individual as well as social aspects. There is no consensus of opinion how these aspects relate to each other (Salomon and Perkins, 1998; O'Connor, 1998). Notably there is no agreement on the unit of analysis that is to be employed when understanding learning, because two different perspectives apply. Central to the cognitive-acquisition oriented perspective on constructivism (we will refer to this as the cognitive perspective) is an individual's (solo) knowledge construction which can and should be enhanced by a facilitating social context. Central to the situative participation-oriented

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

39

perspective on knowledge construction (we will refer to this as the situative perspective) is the socially based participatory construction of knowledge whereby the individual and social agents form a unified learning system. In short, depending on the perspective chosen, collaborative learning and research into that field acquire fundamentally different meanings in various respects. There are differences in scale and what is meant by learning as well as collaboration (Dillenbourg, 1999). We emphasize this point because all too often it is assumed that it is clear what we are talking about when we speak about collaborative learning. This holds true for educational scientists, policy makers and teachers. For that reason, we feel it would be wise to use a working definition of collaborative learning. We propose the following one: learning in cooperation with others offers the opportunities for an active learning process; it entails that one has to come to a mutual agreement as to the interpretation of what is to be learned and how to go about it. The aim is to work towards a shared meaning as a result of the negotiation process and towards a common learning result, a result that also serves as the basis for individual understanding, a personal viewpoint and identity (Erkens, 1997; Kanselaar, Van der Linden and Erkens, 1997). RESEARCH ON COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Research on collaborative learning is divisible into two kinds: effect-oriented and process-oriented research. Effect-oriented research is concerned with the effects of collaborative learning in comparison with the effects of other didactic teaching methods or learning situations, methods in which task planning, learning context and composition of groups are organized differently. Process-oriented research analyses the collaborative process as such and looks at factors that can explain the effects of collaborative learning. This division into two kinds across the two perspectives on learning (the cognitive and situative), though , till recently, most research has been done within the cognitive perspective (Dillenbourg et al, 1996). We will first present some main findings of effect-oriented research. Next we will try to explain the diverse effects by mentioning the factors which seem to play an important role in the process-oriented research. Effect-oriented research

Although research into the effects of learning has a long tradition (Bos, 1938) it was in the beginning of the 1980s, particularly outside the Netherlands, that the interest in cooperative learning as a teaching method in education grew considerably (Sharan and Sharan, 1976; Slavin, 1983). Learning appears to be more productive when learning tasks or problem assignments are solved together with fellow students rather than in individual or teacher-pupil teaching/learning situations (Webb, 1982; Johnson & Johnson, 1992). Cooperative learning also seems to have positive effects on motivational factors and in the field of social skills (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1991; Vedder & Bloemkolk, 1985; Lamberigts, 1986 a and b). The results are however not unequivocal and sometimes even contradictory (Lamberigts, 1988, 1990; Vedder, 1985; Wiersema & Van Oudenhoven, 1992).

40


These contradictions can partly be ascribed to the differing views on the interpretation of collaboration and on how cooperative learning situations are to be organized. Moreover mutual comparison of data is complicated by the fact that the qualitative differences with regard to the nature of the implementation of the cooperative method, the duration of the experiments, and the measuring instruments are often too large (Kanselaar & Van der Linden, 1984; Van der Linden, 1987 a and b). Despite these problems some results of the research into the effects of cooperative learning can be presented. Cooperative versus individual or competitive learning

Much of the research into the effects of cooperative learning takes the form of a comparison with more individual or competitive forms of studying (Johnson, Maruyma, Johnson, Nelson, Skon, 1981). In general one can conclude from the meta-analysis conducted in this field of research that cognitive achievement of students working in cooperative learning situations is usually as high or higher than achievements of students involved in traditional, individual or competitive learning situations. This seems to be true for divergent age-groups, for a variety of subjects under study, and for a large number of different tasks, ranging from memory tasks to solving problems. Furthermore cooperative learning seems to enhance motivation, self-confidence and mutual relations between students (Bossert, 1988). In a meta-analysis of 63 studies which compared cooperative and competitive problem-solving Qin, Johnson and Johnson (1995) found that in 55 (87%) of the studies the cooperative condition resulted in a better learning effect with regard to individual problem-solving capacities. Although all cooperative conditions turned out to improve learning, the effect was relatively stronger in nonlinguistic and ill-structured heuristic problem tasks. The authors explain this effect of collaboration on learning results as follows: compared to individual problemsolvers cooperative partners can acquire a shared meaning, notably a better common problem representation, through the exchange of various ideas and strategies, and through improvements that may subsequently be proposed. Van Oudenhoven (1992) offers another interesting explanation - which deserves further investigation - for the fact that only for some tasks certain cooperative settings lead to better learning results than an individual setting. There may be a curvilinear relation between task complexity and effect of cooperation. If the skills to be learned are simple and the tasks are not challenging, it seems to be better not to apply cooperative learning unless group rewarding and/or intergroup competition are used. If the skill involved in the task is complex, peer interaction may help to achieve a higher order thinking. If the skills involved in the task become extremely complex, peer interaction may not be useful anymore and some expert help, e.g. from the teacher, is probably more helpful.


41

Heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups Quite a lot of research has been carried out to find the optimal size and composition of groups in which students cooperate. In addition to group size and composition according to gender, individual differences in achievement play an important part. Frequently it is argued that heterogeneous ability groups should be favorable to learning because the brighter student will learn from offering clarification to weaker students and the weaker students will learn from these clarifications. Ros (1994 b) states that brighter students are better at clarifying a subject than students with a lesser command. But the students’ abilities still differ considerably from the teacher; for the teacher will make an effort to involve all students in problemsolving and he will see to it that all students play an active role. However, the differences in achievements of students who received help from fellow-students or from teachers were smaller than might be expected from these differences in the quality of help. This outcome illustrates the complexity in the adjustment of giving help and receiving help (Nelson-Lecall, 1992; Webb, 1992; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). Dutch research also struggles with the complexity and novelty of carrying out collaborative learning interventions. In the AGO-model, i.e., the Adaptive Group Education for mathematics instruction for 12-16 year olds (Terwel, 1986; Terwel et al., 1994) the use of heterogeneous groups is viewed as a tool to accommodate to the differences between students in one class. The setting is tailored in such a way that in principle every student can make a significant contribution. The design, with a control group, offers the possibility to test three expected outcomes (Hoek, 1998; Hoek et al, 1997). Firstly, does the experimental curriculum program lead to higher learning outcomes and a more positive attitude towards mathematics of all students? Secondly, do high-achieving students have a larger learning gain and a more positive attitude than the low-achieving students when learning in cooperative groups? And thirdly, do the low-achieving students in the experimental program(s) have a larger learning gain and a more positive attitude towards mathematics than the low-achieving students in the control group? Not one of the expectations could be supported in all studies. This was explained in terms of the complexity of the intervention, the considerable differences with the current educational practice, and, as a consequence, the fact that both teachers and students largely lacked the required experience and capacities for carrying out the experiment. Common goal and shared responsibility Slavin's (1992) review of research into cooperative learning shows that clear group goals and the taken of responsibility by individual participants are necessary conditions for effect on learning achievement. According to Slavin , group goals motivate students to help group members in the learning process. The shared responsibility diminishes the possibilities for the so-called 'free rider effect', i.e. the possibility that a participant profits from the cooperation without contributing anything. However, Slavin defines the individual responsibility for the functioning of the group only in terms of individual learning achievement; the mark given to

42


the group as a whole depends on the achievements of the individual participants. We feel, this is a rather schoolish way to establish individual responsibility for the functioning of the group as a whole. Complementarity in tasks and roles

Other ways to stimulate responsibility for reaching the common goal are: allocation of tasks, complementary skills or complementary information (Bossert, 1988). The allocation of tasks involves that the execution of sub-tasks, vital for the realization of the group product, are conceived of as an individual responsibility. In case of complementary skills or information the mutually different expertise of individual participants is needed for the execution of the group task. In other words, students possess different complementary skills that can be used to execute the task at hand. Or students only possess part of the information needed for the execution of the task. Van der Linden (1986) shows that this task dependency has a positive impact on both the group process and the group result. In all cases making a specific contribution to the group task is a responsibility of each participant and each of them can be made accountable for it. Research carried out in a context named Scripted cooperation yielded interesting results. The context is laboratory based and involves college students working together in structured dyads to master an academic or technical task. Unlike other cooperative techniques, the processing activities of the dyad members are specified or scripted. Scripted cooperation differs from peer-tutoring approaches in that the participants in a dyad are equal with respect to the task at hand. "It appears that the most effective script is one that encourages active processing of the information by the participants, promotes positive affect, and is flexible enough to permit the participants to tailor the roles they play to exploit their own processing strengths" (O'Donnell and Dansereau, 1992, p. 136). Moreover, complementary allocation of tasks or roles turns out to be a successful way to restructure nonproductive small group discourse, resulting from status problems, into equitable interaction and enhanced learning results (Cohen, 1994). Cooperative climate in schools

Research carried out by Stevens and Slavin (1995) focussed on the learning effects realized in cooperative schools in which collaborative learning has been implemented on all levels. In the classes of cooperative elementary schools groups frequently worked together on projects on a variety of subjects for longer stretches of time. Furthermore the school staff and management were organized according to a cooperative model. The effect on pupils' learning achievements appeared to be quite considerable. After two years their achievements in both language and arithmetic skills were significantly higher than in traditional schools. Moreover, highly gifted children turned out to achieve higher educational results than highly gifted pupils who followed an enrichment program for gifted pupils in other types of schools. At the same time learning-disabled children or pupils with learning


43

problems profited more from working in cooperative groups then similar pupils in other schools, and, desirably, social acceptance of these pupils also increased. Favorable effects on learning achievement and on mutual relations in school are also observed in implementation studies carried out in England (Dunne and Bennett, 1990; Cowie, 1995), in Germany (Huber, 1993 and 1995), and in the Netherlands (Broekman, 1988; Roeders, 1995). Recently Veenman (1998) set up a two- to three-year school- improvement project in several primary schools focussed on schooling, support and evaluation of cooperative learning. Such a long term research project is rather unique in the Dutch educational sector. This allows one to gain both short term and longitudinal insights in the effects of schooling and support in cooperative learning on the actual application of this teaching method in the classroom. Measuring the pupils’ individual achievements in addition to group outcomes will allow relating their individual achievements to the application of cooperative learning. Conclusions effect-oriented research

This overview clearly shows that various factors, often in mutual interaction, determine the effects of collaborative or cooperative learning. So far, important factors that have been determined, are: type of task, composition of the group, the goal that is commonly agreed upon, complementarity of expertise (in tasks and roles), and the climate in which cooperative learning take place. The results with regard to the effect on cognitive achievements in cooperative learning are not unequivocal and negative effects are also reported (Herz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus and Miller, 1992, Salomon and Globerson, 1989). The same holds for the social and motivational level. These divergent effects can partly be explained in terms of the course of the cooperative process itself and in terms of the skills and situation characteristics that play a part in this process (Slavin, 1992). Process –oriented research

There is relatively few research that deals with factors which can explain why and under what conditions cooperation facilitates or hinders the realization of intended learning outcomes. We shall discuss the main results. Maintaining common ground

Effective cooperation appears to require that task oriented behavior and group oriented behavior be geared to one another (Adams, Carlson & Hamm, 1990). The main function of task oriented behavior, like for instance clarification or elaboration, is that participants remain focussed on the task goal. Group oriented behavior, like empathy, serves to support participants socially and emotionally by maintaining a safe and harmonious climate. Erkens (1997) found in his analyses of collaborating students that focussing, checking and argumentation were the most important coordinating processes to obtain a common ground and to maintain a shared understanding. By means of focussing students try to coordinate the current

44


topic of discussion, by checking students maintain consistency in the construction of their knowledge base, and by argumentation they try to convince their partner of the line of reasoning they endorse. Co-responsibility, equality and mutuality Co-responsibility is particularly important when doing cooperative work on routine learning tasks with a clearly defined standard procedure. Without this, the information presented by the student with the highest achievement, a student who already masters the specific skills involved, usually suffices to meet the group goal. Hence, in these cases the degree of interaction and the degree of mutuality can hardly be expected to relate to learning effects. Then, motivational factors such as reward structure and individual accountability have to carry the weight. According to Cohen (1994) in these forms of cooperation reward structure, individual accountability and sharing of resources serve as effective measures to make the better student share responsibility with the weaker student both for the mutual learning process and for helping the weaker partner along. The nature of cooperation is entirely different in contexts where learning tasks are conceptual, not-well-defined heuristic problems are to be solved or the task requires that a knowledge structure is constructed on the basis of solid arguments. Such tasks do not allow for fixed procedures or fixed answers, and the best ways for solving the problems are to be found in the course of the process. Cooperation with regard to these types of open learning or problem tasks clearly reveals a connection between the degree of interaction and discussion among partners and learning effect. According to Cohen, people engaged in these types of tasks do not need to be stimulated by rewards for the group as a whole. On the one hand cooperation is stimulated by the challenging, intrinsically motivating nature of such tasks and on the other hand a stimulus is provided by the degree to which participants are mutually dependent on one another with regard to sources of information and skills. In Cohen's definition of a genuine cooperative or group task no individual participant possesses all the necessary means of knowledge, skills, information, and material. For these open learning and problem tasks open discussion, mutual exchange of propositions and argumentation are essential. Barnes and Todd (1977) were among the first to indicate the importance of active participation in these situations. Damon and Phelps (1989) point to the degree of mutuality, the degree of mutual commitment that can be discerned in the interaction and participation process; they feel that this degree of mutuality is the distinguishing characteristic of cooperative work forms. Too much guidance or structuring of the interaction, for instance by assigning roles to participants, can sometimes even have a contrary effect. Moreover it is important that students feel their positions are equal and that differences in social status remain limited. Damon and Phelps (1989) use the term “equality between partners “ which implies that those involved can take instructions from each other and that there is no unilateral control.


45

Mutual support and criticism

In her doctoral research carried out in 1938 Maria C. Bos, later lecturer in child psychology at the University of Amsterdam, was the first to look into factors within the process of cooperation between students which determined and enhanced the level of intellectual achievement. She posed the following question: "How can we explain and how can it happen that two children who are unable to solve a problem individually can solve it when they work on it together?" She concluded that the explanation should be sought in the favorable conditions provided by mutual contact and active cooperation, such conditions being favorable for a productive working process. Three factors that contribute to the working process and which use is stimulated by working together were determined to be: initiative, criticism, and concentration. Also in later research both reinforcement of mutual criticism and concentration on the task turned out to be important factors of the cooperative process (a.o. King, 1992; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). Verbalization and co-construction

In many cases the cooperative learning situation elicits discussion, argumentation and explanation. The situation stimulates the verbalization and explicit formulation of the concepts and processes under discussion. Collins, Brown & Newman (1989) call this 'situated articulation'. The hypothesis is that explicit formulation helps students to become more aware of the cognitive and meta-cognitive processes bound up with the execution of the task. (Active) participation in the classroom can be expressed in various ways, however. Mercer (1995) distinguishes three forms of talk in the classroom; using his neo-Vygotskian theoretical framework, he calls them social modes of thinking. The first social mode of thinking, disputational talk, is characterized by disagreement, assertion and counter-assertion. These differences in viewpoint, however, do not lead to anything constructive but rather to the entrenchment of students within their individual perspectives. The second social mode of thinking, cumulative talk, is characterized by uncritical compiling and accumulation of ideas. The third social mode of thinking is exploratory talk. Talk in this mode is characterized by constructive and critical engagement with the ideas proposed by the partners in the group. Claims are publicly accountable and reasoning is visible and therefore open to evaluation and critique. Research on a process akin to exploratory talk, namely collective argumentation, has been reported by Brown (1994) and Renshaw and Brown (1997). Collective argumentation involves students working on mathematics in small groups (varying from 2 to 5 members per group) where initially they individually "represent" a problem (using pictures, diagrams, drawings, graphs, algorithms, numbers etcetera) and then "compare" their representations with those of other group members. This phase of individual representation and comparison provides the potential for differences in understanding to be exposed and examined. Subsequent talk by the students regarding the appraisal of representations is guided by the keywords "explain", "justify", and "agree". Finally, moving from the small group to the classroom group, the thinking within each group is validated as it is

46


presented to the whole class for discussion. Results from research on collective argumentation suggests that in some classes the students have begun to move beyond reproductive learning, where they rely on an expert to validate their answers, to a co-constructivist view of learning (Renshaw and Brown, submitted). Such a move asks for orchestrating the classroom discourse in specific ways (see also Elbers and Streefland, 1997 a) and tasks demanding abstract talk (Bennett and Dunne, 1996). If not, exploratory and argumentational use of language in classrooms will be found to be low (Kumpulainen, 1996). Dekker and Elshout-Mohr (1998) have constructed a cyclic process model around four key activities: to show, to explain, to justify and to reconstruct one's work. The model is meant to show how individuals' can raise their level of mathematical understanding by letting students work in small groups on a mathematical problem. At this moment the model can be seen as a heuristic starting point for the research they are currently undertaking. Collaborative learning mean that participants reach mutual agreement about the representation of and their approach to the learning or problem task. Working together and consulting with one another about the task and the domain requires constructing a common frame of concepts and reference, a shared meaning. Without shared representation communication between participants is impossible (Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989; Schlegloff, 1991; Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Particularly in case of conceptual learning tasks and heuristic problem tasks with unknown or new concepts is the common construction of a knowledge base a process that forms an integral part of the execution of the task. Participants should ideally not only reach consensus about the representation of the problem, but also about the way the task is to be dealt with. Moreover, during the entire process the task strategy chosen should be checked by means of monitoring, so that when results fail to occur, revision or adaptation can be contemplated. Results from research aimed at finding distinguished patterns and sequences in dialogue acts between more and less successful problem solving pairs suggest that the former showed better coordination in reasoning and argumentation (Erkens, 1997; Van der Linden, Erkens & Barnard, 1989; Van der Linden, Erkens & Nieuwenhuysen, 1995). Elaboration

Students particularly learn from giving elaborative help to others and learn less from receiving help (Webb and Farivar, 1994). Training students in giving and asking for help and elaboration turned out to have a positive learning effect in the field of mathematics; this proved particularly effective among ethnic students. An explanation of this learning effect of elaboration could be that providing elaborative help stimulates the provider to reorganize his knowledge, to discover gaps in his knowledge, and to make connections between different parts of his knowledge, so he is better able to embed the subject matter in existing knowledge structures. This elaborative effect in collaborative teaching/learning situations is not only stimulated by giving help but also by giving arguments and explanations, by the justification of


47

the individual viewpoint and by solving mutual differences of opinion (Webb, 1992; King, 1992). Detailed analyses of supposed cognitive, meta-cognitive and sociocommunicative processes during elaboration remain scarce. Van Boxtel, Van der Linden en Kanselaar (in press; submitted) found in their studies on dialogic physics learning some empirical evidence for the suggestion that especially episodes that can be considered both constructive and collaborative are valuable. An example is "elaboration of conflict". Conflict episodes were identified on the basis of nonconfirmations, counter arguments and critical questions. A conflict is elaborated when students explain or justify their statements, or when students contribute to the resolution of the conflict through argumentation about the solution (collaborative elaboration). Resolution of a conflict can also be reached without elaboration (no elaboration), for example, when a student immediately accepts the statement or counter argument of his or her partner. De Grave (1998) demonstrates that it can be enriching to supplement the analysis of verbal interaction in a face-to-face setting a small group analyzing a problem – with a retrospective analysis. In this case participants were asked to watch the video recordings made of the setting they were in before and were asked to state everything they remembered to have thought about. De Grave concludes that verbal interaction in the face-to-face setting only reveals the top of the iceberg of processes like theory evaluation and metareasoning (see also De Grave, Boshuizen & Schmidt, 1996). Tune in cognitively and socially

Students are supposed to be better able to gauge what fellow students have not understood or which misconceptions have taken root than their teachers. Students are also thought to speak each other's language. This is why they are thought to profit more from each other's help. However, the research results are ambiguous. Not all help enhances learning, it can even have a negative effect. Webb (1992) states “ To be effective for learning, help must be timely, relevant, of sufficient elaboration, understood by the recipient, and applied by the recipient to the problem at hand” (page 103). Schmidt et. al. (1989) found that activation of prior knowledge through small-group discussion, focussing on explanations of a phenomenon in terms of underlying principles or mechanisms, can structure and restructure that knowledge and facilitate the comprehension of new information. Van Boxtel, Van der Linden and Kanselaar (1997) found that individual preparation before a collaborative learning task resulted in better learning results and the asking of more questions. The importance of linking up to the nature of thinking and the level of thinking of participants, which allow participants to give learning tasks a personal interpretation and develop personal relations, also turn out to be important in a setting where students work together in groups under the guidance of a tutor (Problem-based learning). Apparently "the better a tutor empathizes with students' thoughts and adapts his interventions to their level of understanding”, the better the group performs and the better the results of students are (Moust, 1993, p. 160). Crook (1998, pp. 240-241) proposes three features of social interaction that are

48


central to the successful creation of collaborative elaboration and engagement: a sense of harmony and intimacy; a rich supply of external resources; and the quality of interpersonal relations already in place at the time some novel collaborative encounter is initiated. Conclusions process-oriented research

Similar to the main results of the effect research on collaborative or cooperative learning, having a common goal, sharing responsibility, being mutual dependent, and needing to reach agreement through open interaction were found to be central elements of cooperation: they appear to enhance task orientation and task concentration. In our view these are necessary conditions for cooperation. Aside from these there are factors within the collaborative learning situations which may possibly enhance the learning effect, like verbalization, co-construction and elaboration. It appears that a collaborative learning environment is more suited to conceptual learning or heuristic problem tasks than to the accomplishment of routine tasks. It also appears to be desirable to create an open, verbally interactive, safe and harmonious situation in which equal participants can reach agreement about representation and about the way the task is to be dealt with. Explicit formulation, elaboration and co-construction, mutual support and criticism and tuning in cognitively and socially seem to enhance the learning process: they appear to be the cognitive and communicative means by which a shared meaning could be reached as the basis for individual understanding, a personal viewpoint and social identity. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: CHALLENGES FOR THE NEAR FUTURE

As yet the explanations of the effects of collaborative learning are weak. It appears that numerous divergent factors are at work. Some are chiefly concerned with the conditions for cooperation. Others touch on the conditions for learning. Consequently we still lack a sufficiently rational basis for the realization of collaborative learning in education and training. Do we know what ought to be done to improve the current state of affairs? We feel, we have to work on three related points. First, we should begin thinking about changing the prevailing understanding of knowledge, learning and teaching. Second, we should ask ourselves which research preoccupations hamper progress. Third, we should explore what makes collaborative learning special. Changing our understanding of knowledge

In a collaborative learning situation anyone involved can take the initiative. It is no longer the exclusive right of the teacher, seen as and behaving like a purveyor of information. Instead, we should think of teachers as agents of cultural change who foster reacculturation by marshaling interdependence among student peers. We should also revise assumptions about the nature and authority of knowledge and


49

about classroom authority. Knowledge is not a certain kind of thing, grounded on reality and fact, something that gets transferred from one head to another. Collaborative learning, in contrast, assumes that knowledge is a social construct, a consensus among the members of a community of knowledgeable peers (Bruffee, 1999; Carpay, 1979; Elbers and Streefland, 1997b; Van der Linden, 1988). As a consequence, to teach exclusively in the stand-up-and-tell-‘em way most still teach today will not do. Teachers should focus more on setting up conditions in which students learn by working together on substantive issues. In doing so, they can also specify scenarios based on roles, like reciprocal tutoring (Palincsar and Brown, 1984) or to specify rules for collaboration. Awareness of research preoccupations

It appears that at least three research preoccupations hamper progress (Crook, 1998). Firstly, the definition of collaborative learning rarely goes beyond the operational interpretation “putting into small groups”. Research shows that this interpretation is absolutely inadequate. The type of task and make-up of a collaborating group has profound implications for experiences of students in it (Webb & Palincsar, 1996; Cohen, 1994; O’Donnell & King, 1999). We agree with Dillenbourg (1999) who states: “the words “collaborative learning” describe a situation in which particular forms of interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence, a general concern is to develop ways to increase the probability that some types of interaction occur” (page, 7). Secondly, most researchers use quite global categories to observe collaborative learning and/or offer a small number of examples or cases they consider illustrative of constructive collaboration without stating how representative these are for the interactions elicited. The findings are disappointing. To our opinion, we need tools for observing and analyzing interactions which focus on judging whether the collaborative learning process is a more or less successful enterprise of creating common knowledge. We think, the focus is theoretically in line with the assumption that collaborative learning asks for a coordination of actions and aims towards a shared meaning as a result of the negotiation process and towards a common learning result. Research based on this line of reasoning seems promising (Van Boxtel et al, 1997; in press; Erkens, 1997). Thirdly, the significance of collaborative learning is almost exclusively measured in terms of the impact upon individual cognition. This does insufficient justice to the different meanings of the concept “ social learning’ and the ways in which individual and social learning relate to one another (Salomon and Perkins, 1998). Reflection on legitimation

Peers do not learn because they are two or more, but because they perform some activities. Activities that might trigger some specific learning processes. Are there learning processes that would be very specific to collaborative interactions? One could be that collaboration optimalizes the students’ accessibility to knowledge

50


construction. An example can be found in Maria Bos’ dissertation: she refers to it with the term “initiative”. The cooperative situation forces participants to make a beginning and thus brings about a task-oriented working process, while in individual settings the resistance to start must be overcome by exercise of the will. Another could be that knowledge construction and knowledge representation show some correspondence to the process of collaboration. Although it may seem strange to talk about “collaboration with oneself'”, we find it quit common to speak about “conflict with oneself”. Moreover, the idea that thinking can be viewed as a dialogue with oneself is not a new idea. It is most prominent in Vygotsky’s notions about “internalization” and also in his statement “ it is through others that we develop into ourselves” (Vygotsky 1930/1980, page 161). Other concepts pointing to the same idea are “appropriation” (Rogoff, 1990), “participation” (Hoogsteder, 1995) and “mutual modeling” (Dillenbourg, 1999). To assume some correspondence between the process of collaboration and knowledge construction and representation might imply that (cognitive) models of information processing are too limited. These models stress too much knowledge representation as a private property, structured as a personal web of meaning. We would urge for research to substantiate the view of knowledge as a social construct and to develop models accordingly. Initial steps in this kind of research (Mercer, 1995; Nelissen, 1998; Rogoff, 1998; Saljö, 1997; Salomon, 1993; Van Oers, 1987) render some plausibility to the, above mentioned, assumption of correspondence. If this turns to be so, it will become clear why collaboration as a form of learning may lead to a more efficient or even unique way of knowledge construction. REFERENCES Adams, D., Carlson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative Learning & Educational Media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Azmitia, M., and Perlmutter, M. (1989). Social influences on children’s cognition: State of Art and future directions. In: H.W. Reese (Ed.). Advances in Child Development and Behavior: New York: Academic Press, Pp. 89-144. Barnes, D., and Todd, F. (1977). Communication and Learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bennett, N., and Dunne, E. (1991). The nature and quality of talk in co-operative classroom groups. Learning and Instruction, 1, 2, 103-118. Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: from small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25, 8,37-40. Bos, M. (1938). Experimental study of productive collaboration. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff. Bossert, S.T. (1988). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225253. Broekman, T.H.A. (1988). Leerlingen begeleiden leerlingen: Verslag van een proefproject. Nijmegen: Hoogveld Instituut. Brown, A.L. and Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In: L.B. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing, Learning and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 393-453. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 32-42. Brown, R.A.J. (1994). Collective mathematical thinking in the primary classroom: A conceptual and empirical analysis within a Sociocultural framework. Bachelor of Educational Studies (Hons) Thesis, University of Queensland.


51

Bruffee, K.A. (1999). Collaborative learning. Higher Education, Interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Edition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Carpay, J. (1979). Over leerlingen gesproken. Openbare les. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1, 1-35. Cowie, H. (1995). Cooperative group work: A perspective from the U.K. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 3, 227-238. Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: the case of collaborative learning. Computers in Education, 30, 3-4, 237-247. Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three methods of peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58,(2), 9-19. De Grave, W. (1998). Probleemgestuurd leren als kennisconstructie. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht. De Grave, W.S., Boshuizen, H.P.A., & Schmidt, H.G. (1996). Problem based learning: Cognitive and metacognitive processes during problem analysis. Instructional science, 24, 321-341. Dekker, R. and Elshout-Mohr, M. (1998). A process model for interaction and mathematical level raising. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 303-314. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of Research on collaborative learning. In: E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.). Learning in Humans and Machines. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Doise, W. and Mugny, G, (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Draper, S. (1995). Computational modeling of constructive interaction: Relaxing the mutuality hypothesis. In: C. O’Malley (Ed.). Computer supported collaborative learning. NATO ASI Series, Vol. 128, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 223- 245. Dunne, E., & Bennett, N. (1990). Talking and learning in groups. London: Macmillan Education. Elbers, E., and Streefland, L. (1997 a). Learning by participation in a community of learners. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Athens: August 26-30. Elbers, E., and Streefland, L. (1997 b). Changing identities in the classroom. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Athens: August 2630. Erkens, G. (1997). Coöperatief probleemoplossen met computers in het onderwijs (Cooperative problem solving with computers). Utrecht: Ph.D. thesis. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Kirkus, V.B., and Miller, N. (1992). Implications of current research on cooperative interaction for classroom application. In: R. Hertz-Lazarowitz and Herz-Lazarowitz R & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoek, D. (1998). Social and cognitive strategies in co-operative groups. Deventer: Quick Service drukkerijen Nederland BV. Hoek, D., Terwel, J. & Eeden, P. van den (1997). Effects of training in the use of social and cognitive strategies: An intervention study in secondary mathematics in co-operative groups. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3, 364-389. Hoogsteder, M. (1995). Learning through participation. Utrecht: Ph.D. thesis. Huber, G. L. (1995). Cooperative learning in German schools. International Journal of Educational Research,23, 3, 201-211. Huber, G.L. (Hrsg.) (1993). Neue Perspectiven der Kooperation. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective Cooperation. In: R. Herz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174-203. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4 Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human development. Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive and individual goal structure on achievement: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62. Kampermann, A.W.T en Gerrichhauzen, J. (Red). (1995). Teambuilding. Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen.

52


Kanselaar, G. en Van der Linden, J.L. (1984). Leren door samenwerken. In: J. Lowyck en H.H. Tillema (Red.). Vormen van leren en onderwijzen in de klas. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V. Kanselaar, G., Van der Linden, J.L. & Erkens, G. (1997). Samenwerkend leren. In: P. Leenheer, R.J. Simons en J. Zuylen (Red.). Didactische verkenningen van het studiehuis. Tilburg: MesoConsult B.V., 76-88. Katz, S. and Lesgold, A. (1993). The role of the tutor in Computer-based collaborative Learning Situations. In: S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.). Computers as Cognitive tools. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 289-319. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111-126. Kumpulainen, K. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6, 3, 243-261. Kwakman, F. en Postema, A. (1996). Het team als probleemoplosser. Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen. Lamberigts, R. J. A. G. (1988). Coöperatief leren. In: B. Creemers ea. (Red.). Onderwijskundig Lexicon, C 1300. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson. Lamberigts, R. J. A. G. (1990). De helpende leerling. In: B. Creemers ea. (Red.). Onderwijskundig Lexicon, 2345, Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson. Lamberigts, R.A.J.G., Verhagen, E.J., Gerris, J.R.M., & Campbell, H.W. (1986 a). Coöperatieve leergroepen in het onderwijs: doelstelling, karakteristieken en implementatie. Pedagogische Studiën, 63 (5), 205217. Lamberigts, R.A.J.G., Verhagen, E.J., Gerris, J.R.M., & Campbell, H.W. (1986 b). Coöperatieve leergroepen in het perspectief van onderzoek. Pedagogische Studiën, 63 (6), 262-274. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk among teachers and learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Miller, N. (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 253-281. Moust, J. (1993). De rol van tutoren in probleemgestuurd onderwijs. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Nelissen, J. M.C. (1995). Interactief reken-wiskunde onderwijs. Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het reken-wiskunde onderwijs, 14,1, 35-44. Nelissen, J.M.C. (1998). Representaties in het reken-wiskunde onderwijs. Pedagogische Studiën, 75, 169183. Nelson-LeGall, S. (1992). Children’s instrumental help-seeking: Its role in the social acquisition and construction of knowledge. In: R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 49- 68. O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the “Efficacy of Social Constructivism”? In: P.D. Pearson and A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.). Review of Research in Education. Washington: American Educational Research association, Pp. 25-72. O’Donnell, A.M. and Dansereau, D.F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing Academic learning and performance. In: R. Herz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. Pp. 120-141. O’Donnell, A.M. & King, A. (Eds.).(1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 2, 129-143. Renshaw, P.D. & Brown, R.A.J. (1997). Learning partnerships: The role of teachers in a community of learners. In: L. Logan & J. Sachs (Eds). Meeting the challenges of primary schools. London: Routledge Renshaw, P.D. & Brown, R.A.J. (submitted). Orchestrating different voices in student talk about infinity: theoretical and empirical analyses. Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 13-20. Roeders, P. (1995). Samen leren. Apeldoom: Garant. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In: D. Kuhn and R.S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Development, fifth edition, Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 679-744. Ros, A (1994 a). Samenwerking tussen leerlingen en effectief onderwijs. De invloed van de leerkracht. Groningen: RION. Ros, A (1994 b). Analyse en effecten van uitleg door leerlingen en leerkrachten. Groningen: RION Saljö, R. (1997). Learning and Sociocultural change. Inaugural lecture. Utrecht: Utrecht University, June 13.


53

Saljö, R. (in press). Learning as the use of tools: a sociocultural perspective on the human- technology link. To appear in K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.). Learning and computers: Analyzing productive interactions. London: Routledge. Salomon, G. (Ed). (1993). Distributed Cognitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. and Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and Social Aspects of learning. In: P.D. Pearson and A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.). Review of Research in Education. Washington: American Educational Research Association, Pp. 1-24. Schegloff, E. (1991). Conservation analysis and socially shared cognition. In: L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasly (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association, Pp. 150-171. Sharan, S. and Sharan, Y. (1976). Small-Group Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Educational Technology Publications. Slavin, R.E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman Inc. Slavin, R.E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In: R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 145-174. Stevens, R.J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). The cooperative Elementary school: Effects on students achievement, Attitudes and Social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 2, 321-351. Terwel, J. (1986). Leren in coöperatieve groepen: theorie en onderzoek. In: A. Reints & J.C. Voogt (Red.). Naar beter onderwijs. Tilburg: Uitgeverij Zwijsen B.V., Pp. 71-100. Tjepkema, S. (1997). Zelfsturende teams: naar synergie tussen leren en werken? Opleiding & Ontwikkeling Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J.L., & Kanselaar, G. (1997). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: interaction processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and poster task. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8, 3-4, 341-361. Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J.L., & Kanselaar, G. (in press). Stimulating deep processing in a collaborative learning environment. To appear in H. Cowie, D. van der Aalsvoort & N. Mercer (Eds). Social interaction in learning and instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge. Pergamon Press Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J.L., & Kanselaar, G. (submitted). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Van der Linden, J. L. (1988). Samenwerken en leren. In: N. Deen ea. (Red.). Handboek leerlingbegeleiding. 2340. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson Van der Linden, J.L. (1986). Samen problemen oplossen. In: S. Dijkstra en P. Span (Red.). Leerprocessen en instructie. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Van der Linden, J.L. (1987 a). Samenwerken en leren in groepsverband. In: P. Span, J.M.C. Nelissen, H.F. Pijning en C. Dietvorst (Red.). Onderwijzen en leren. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Van der Linden, J.L. (1987 b). Samenwerken en leren in het onderwijs. In: J.H. Boonman & J.L. van der Linden (Red.). Taal, leren en Samenwerken in het onderwijs. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Van der Linden, J.L., Erkens, G. & Barnard, Y.F. (1989). Social interaction in problem- solving activities. In: H. Mandl, E. De Corte, S.N. Bennett & H. Friedrich (Eds.). Learning and Instruction. Volume 2. 1. Oxford: Pergamon, 113-127. Van der Linden, J.L., Erkens, G., & Nieuwenhuysen, T. (1995). Gemeiasames Problemlösen in Grupen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, Zeitschrift fur Lernforshung, 23,4, 301-315. Van Oers, B. (1987). Activiteit en begrip. Amsterdam: VU uitgeverij BV. Van Oudenhoven, J.P. (1992). Cooperative learning and achievement: a conditional relation Paper, presented at 25th International Congress of Psychology at Brussels, Belgium, July 19-24. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. ’s Gravenhage: Stichting voor onderzoek van het onderwijs. Vedder, P. en Bloemkolk, M. (1985). Samenwerken en probleemoplossen. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger BV. Veenman, S. (1998). Coöperatief leren: Voorstel en verantwoording van een schoolverbeteringsprogramma. Nijmegen: vakgroep onderwijskunde, K.U. Nijmegen. Webb, N.M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52, 421-445. Webb, N.M. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In: R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 102-119. Webb, N.M. and Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 2, 369- 395. Webb, N.M. and Palincsar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In: D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Mac Millan, pp. 841-873.

54


Wiersema, B. & Van Oudenhoven, J.P. (1992). Effects of cooperation on spelling achievement at three age levels (grades 2, 4 and 6). European Journal of Psychology of Education, VII, 95-108.

AFFILIATIONS

Jos van der Linden, Utrecht University, Department of Educational Sciences, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: J. L. vanderLinden@fss. uu. nl

Gijsbert Erkens, Utrecht University, Department of Educational Sciences, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Henk Schmidt, Maastricht University, Department of Psychology, P.O.Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: H. Schmidt@psychology. unimaas. nl

Peter Renshaw, University of Queensland, Graduate School of Education, Brisbane Qld 4072, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Carla van Boxtel, to the other members of the Interactive Learning Group (ILG) at the Department of Educational Sciences of the University of Utrecht and to participants of an interuniversity research network on higher cognitive processes (HOGCOG) for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

GELLOF KANSELAAR, TON DE JONG, JERRY ANDRIESSEN AND PETER GOODYEAR 1

4. NEW TECHNOLOGIES

INTRODUCTION

Current trends dominating the field of learning and instruction are (socio)constructivism, situationism, and collaborative learning. Respectively, these new views on learning imply that learners are encouraged to construct their own knowledge instead of copying it from an authority, be it a book or a teacher, in realistic situations instead of decontextualized, formal situations such as propagated in traditional textbooks, together with others instead of on their own (see de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro J-M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W.R., 1999). Technology can play a major role in implementing these new trends in education. In current research, constructive learning is supported by computer environments such as hypermedia, concept mapping, simulations, and modeling tools (see de Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998; DeCorte, 1990). Realistic situations can be brought into the classroom by means of digital video, as for example implemented in the Jasper series (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992). Collaborative learning has been supported in environments such as CSILE (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996) and Belvédère (Suthers, Weiner, Connelly, & Paolucci, 1995) as well as Internet based environments such as Virtual Classrooms. In this chapter we will review some research projects in the Netherlands and abroad, which are in line with this evolving conceptualization of new types of learning by using new technologies. Before we discuss the theoretical background, we present the research topics of this chapter in a graph (see Figure 1). In learning situations in school, the information sources of a certain domain are presented to the student by using technological (top left corner in Figure 1) or social mediation (bottom right corner in Figure 1). Learning is supported by social mediation (other people in face-to-face situations) or by using media such as books, computers, etc. (technological mediation). Research on collaboration in face-to-face situations without focusing on technological media is discussed in the chapter on “Collaborative learning” by Van der Linden, Erkens, Schmidt and Renshaw. In this chapter, we focus on the use of new technologies and the way they influence ‘new’ learning. Main features of new technologies are: 1

The authors are grateful to Hermi Tabachnek-Schijf for her helpful comments.

55 R. J. Simons et al. (eds.), New Learning, 55-81. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

56

GELLOF KANSELAAR, TON DE JONG, JERRY ANDRIESSEN AND PETER GOODYEAR

a) Multiple representations. New trends in education, such as anchored instruction, are easier to implement by using digital video. We present the use of digital video and animations in learning the relation between moving objects (i.e. a car that starts, slows down, etc.) and the graphical representation in distance-time and speed-time graphs in the Section Situated cognition and mathematics. We also discuss the use of different representations (text, speech, and video) in learning words in a foreign language. Different representations of the domain knowledge can lead to different learning activities and, hopefully, to more complex knowledge structures. b) Technological mediation is used here to indicate learning activities that are possible due to the interactive way the domain knowledge can be used in a computer program. Examples of this idea are presented in the Section Discovery learning with computer simulations, where we discuss discovery learning with computer simulations. c) Computer mediated communication. In the last part of this chapter, in the Section Collaborative learning with computers, we focus on the possibilities of integrating the social and technological mediation in computer mediated communication (CMC, the two arrows in the middle of the square of Figure 1. Examples of CMC are collaborative writing and argumentation. The focus on media in this chapter is on new technologies.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

57

Characteristics of new technologies

First, we will define the term “new technologies”. By this we mean electronic devices that process information in digital form. Examples of such processes are storing, transporting, transforming, searching, generating and presenting of digital information. Computers and the Internet are well known devices for processing and transporting; disks and CD-ROMs for storage and search. Digital video and audio are ways of presenting information in varied and flexible ways. New media process information at a symbolic level very flexibly, thanks to these new capabilities, one can program a computer to run a model of the behavior of a system and display that behavior as needed in textual, numerical, or graphical form. Such a model can be made interactive: users can manipulate the values of parameters in the model and change its behavior. The capabilities of new technologies enable changes in the representational basis and in the processing characteristics of information (Kozma, 1991), for example in the following ways: non-linear representation, e.g., hypertext; multiple representations and transformation between different representations, e.g., a spreadsheet table can be transformed into a graph; dynamic representations, e.g., simulation of a process; rule-based representation of knowledge allowing flexible implementation of procedural knowledge; electronic communication, both synchronous (chatting) and a-synchronous (discussion forums and e-mail). By using these characteristics, we can present realistic learning situations in which we can stimulate the personal construction of knowledge and the collaboration between students. Although new media have wonderful processing capabilities, they were not developed as a response to a pedagogical imperative or need. Rather, after the technology was developed, it was co-opted for educational use. Sometimes, new media added something to the old processes. Forty years ago, textbooks were the media to use to become informed about foreign countries; nowadays, television adds realism and timeliness. At other times, new media takes something away – we use devices (e.g., the symbolic calculator) that, nearly invisibly, perform all kinds of computational processes for the learner. Technology, initially, was not of much help in linking learning theories and educational practices, as its development lagged far behind, and was at first only used for drill and practice applications. But technology has developed very fast, and can currently offer tools for intellectual partnership, to be employed in constructivistic learning environments for the manipulation and design, access and communication of information (Salomon, 1997). These new tools, in turn, are allowing new conceptualizations of learning and the development of new modes of use. In this way they strengthen the link between learning theories and instructional practices as is suggested by Duffy and Jonassen (1991, p. 7) and Duffy, Lowyck, and Jonassen (1992).

58


Changing views on learning and instruction In other chapters in this book attention is paid to new learning theories such as constructivism, socio-constructivism, situated cognition, and anchored instruction. In this chapter, we will review some distinctions that relate to new technologies. Since these relevant distinctions all have to do with constructivism, we first explain our view on constructivism. New learning theories have spawned a changing view on learning and instruction. Constructivism and all it implies is perhaps the most important one. Constructivism is not a single concept, but can involve the following three aspects: a) a set of epistemological beliefs (that is, beliefs about the nature of reality, whether there is an independent reality - cf. Von Glasersfeld (1978) or Cunningham (1992)); a b) set of psychological beliefs about the nature of mind, cognition and learning (e.g. that learning involves constructing one’s own knowledge); a set of educational beliefs about the best way to support learning (e.g., that c) direct instruction through lecture methods is very limited or inappropriate; that engaging materials, such as dramatic video cases are potentially very valuable; that one should allow the learner to define their own learning objectives; that knowledge emerges from constructive interaction between the teacher and the student or between collaborating students). Some people argue that these three aspects are necessarily very tightly coupled. But we want to argue that there are circumstances in which one can talk about shifts in (c) which are not significantly linked with shifts in (a) or (b). For example, one can adopt video-based anchored instruction (following Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992)) without shifting in one’s beliefs about whether there is, or is not, an objective independent reality. Equally, lots of people give lectures who also believe that learning is fundamentally about the individual construction of meaning/knowledge. (There is no contradiction, in principle, between these two.). Such research and behaviors, in our view, can still be constructivist. We will not restrict ourselves to research that is only based on strong constructivist principles (aspect a), but we will be broader in our consideration of empirical and other source material. Constructivist principles, broadly defined as above, provide a set of guiding principles to help designers and teachers to create learner-centered, collaborative environments that support reflective and experiential processes (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell & Haag, 1995, p. 8). In this chapter three lines of research, anchored in this changing view on learning and instruction, will be presented: situated learning in ‘realistic’ situations; discovery learning with computer simulations; 2

We introduced “socio-constructivism” as a new learning paradigm. But aspect b and also c has a long tradition in Europe, e.g. Piaget (1952), Vygotsky (1978) and Bartlett (1932). With regard to learning mathematics, Freudenthal (1978) has advocated nearly the same ideas as socio-constructivism since the sixties.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

59

collaborative learning with computers. In each line of research we will discuss the relation between underlying learning principles and the use of new technologies. SITUATED LEARNING IN REALISTIC SITUATIONS

Most of the research in situated cognition and the use of ‘realistic’ situations has been done in science and mathematics. One of the best known examples in education is the Jasper series of the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991, 1992, 1993). Constructivist principles of the series, in which Jasper Woodburry stars in adventurous stories, led to a video-based presentation format to anchor instruction, narrative format, embedded data design and complex authentic mathematical problem solving. The assessment outcomes of the Jasper series were positive (1992, p. 19), although alternative assessment procedures are necessary to demonstrate the progress students made in other areas than traditional math problem solving. So, anchoring instruction in ‘real’ life situations by using digital, interactive video was successful. Situated cognition and mathematics

Offering rich, situational settings and the use of multiple representations has been a prominent research topic in mathematics learning. Researching the use of situated simulation models has become a central topic of attention in mathematics education. With early, well-designed concrete models, students were expected to discover the mathematics principles that were embedded therein. The inherent problem of this approach is that the knowledge represented by concrete models is clear only to those who already possess this knowledge, having the long-term memory structures to “fill in the gaps”. To paraphrase Tabachneck-Schijf and Simon (1996): “Simple perception can yield the answer, but only to a student who has learned to notice the relevant features of the presentations, who has acquired the appropriate inference operators and can thus make the needed inferences, and who can translate back and forth between these operators and their interpretations” (p. 37). Students thus merely see the concrete manifestations of these models, because for them there is no mathematical knowledge to see (Tabachneck-Schijf & Simon, 1998). Students’ progress in pure discovery models proved therefore too slow – there is too much knowledge missing. Socio-constructivist theory stimulated research that tried to look at models from an actor’s point of view instead of the observer’s point of view. The focus of this research is on attempting to get students to link their experiential knowledge, often based on naïve models, with formal knowledge. Past research has described such naïve models and has shown that students encounter much difficulty integrating them with formal knowledge. They often keep the two models separated (Gentner & Stevens, 1983) and thus lack the links to make formal knowledge useful in everyday life.

60


One current line of research concerns making connections between motion as perceived (experiential representation) and motion as represented mathematically in graphs (formal representation) (Boyd & Rubin, 1996; Scanlon, 1998). The research of Kanselaar, van Galen, Beemer, Erkens and Gravemeijer (1999) examines how students explore and understand the relations between graphs in situations where digitized videos help them to revisit and reflect on an object’s motion. The advantage of digital video is that it is structurally segmented (i.e. in frames) and randomly accessible, making it possible to measure certain aspects such as height and frame number, but when “played” can be experienced as continuous. When the experimenter prepares the video, the students can measure distances between several points of moving objects in the video. Video serves here as a medium to connect experiential everyday and represented worlds. One of the research questions in the research project of Kanselaar et al. (1999) was how much guidance students needed in order to draw and understand graphs of moving objects on a video. In one condition of this experiment the students were guided by more precise questions and hints (guided condition), in the other condition they were unguided, left on their own to find out how to answer more general questions on drawing graphs. The students manipulated a video that showed a Ferris wheel on the Dam (central square) in Amsterdam (see Figure 2). The students could measure time, distance traveled, and number of seats on the video-images of the Ferris wheel. Graphs could be presented on the screen in parallel with the video. Examples of the more general questions the students had to answer were: When you are seated in the Ferris wheel, how many seconds do you spend above the level of the Palace on the Dam? Can you construct a graph that represents the number of people getting in and out the wheel during the time that you spend seated in the wheel? Compared to students in the less guided condition, those in the guided condition, who had to answer a sequence of specific questions, showed a lot of local behavior, while global understanding was left wanting. They did not understand well enough what they were doing and the overall goal of their activities. On the other hand, the students in the less guided condition were more often satisfied with incomplete answers. Both conditions turned out to have different advantages and disadvantages: the right amount of structure and support in such realistic presentations is proving hard to define. Not only the realistic aspects of the representations are important. Kanselaar et al. (1999) also presented the students with an animation in which four girls had to run a race in the playground. Students immediately posed the question: “Who wins?”. To answer this question, they looked for the relation between the animation and the graph. In this case they formulated relevant questions by their own. In another problem they had to analyze the relation between a car in a video that starts, accelerates, slows down and stops, and the representation of distance-time and speed-time graphs. In this case the students had problems in formulating the questions. So, realistic (video) representation is not always easier to interpret than simple animations. Knowledge about the real life situation, to which the artificial

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

61

representation refers to, is also a very important determinant for the learning activities of the students.

Situated cognition and foreign language learning

The principles of situated cognition can also be applied to learning foreign languages. One learns a foreign language in order to be able to communicate. Situated cognition principles prescribe that the structuring of learning materials should first and foremost be determined by communicative needs. The traditional grammar-translation method, in which vocabulary was learned mostly by memorizing L2/L1 word pairs did not serve this main purpose and did not directly lead to fluent oral proficiency, though it largely enabled learners to read material in the foreign language. In the communicative approach, however, the linguistic context, the situation, speakers’ roles and types of texts are all taken into careful consideration. One aspect of the communicative concept in foreign language learning is a different view of how vocabulary should be acquired. Nagy, Herman, and Anderson (1985, 1987) showed that, using traditional approaches, learners between six and sixteen years of age extended their vocabulary mainly by deriving word meanings from reading words in meaningful contexts. Building one’s vocabulary this way has several disadvantages. First, it has shown to be slow. Situated cognition would predict the cause of this problem to lie in the fact that in order to effectively use a

62


word, the learner has to encounter the word in different contexts. As a result, if several contexts are not offered within a short period of time, the effectiveness of learning words from contexts becomes visible only in the long term. To speed up vocabulary building, then, various clear and informative contexts should be offered in a brief time period. Kanselaar (1994) designed an experiment offering students a rich, situated environment containing such contexts. A computer program called “IT’S-English” on CD-ROM (Kanselaar, 1994; Jaspers, Kanselaar & Kok, 1993) was used that contained the pronunciation of 5000 words and 2000 ‘context sentences’, synonyms, etc., using the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (Sinclair 1987) as a source. This dictionary contains 70,000 keywords, which are defined and cited in “real English” context sentences. In IT’S-English, each individual word, its definition in English (the foreign language), one or more context sentences, and its pronunciation (of 5000 words) are available, thus offering multiple layers of meaning and representation. It is also possible to link short digital videos to certain words. While reading and listening to a text, the user can call up various types of information as options. IT’S-English contained different types of exercises, one of which was completing Cloze texts (a reproductive exercise). In cloze texts words that are deleted from a text have to be inserted by the learner. In the experiment, first the frequency with which learners used the available options was examined in order to determine the usefulness of the different representations of the words. In the cloze texts, more than half of the information called up consisted of context sentences (also missing the deleted word). The word to be filled in is thus placed in several contexts, in addition to the context given in the exercise itself, offering various ways of storing (and later finding) the information in one’s mind. Guessing the word from its meaning definition was also a frequently chosen option: one-third of all the information called-up in cloze texts consisted of meaning definitions. Secondly, the researchers examined the usefulness of IT’S-English as a teaching method by comparing the results of pupils being taught English with traditional methods to those using the IT’S-English environment. The pupils who had been taught English with the communicative program proved to have gained more from their experiences. Their knowledge of newly acquired English vocabulary was greater than that of the pupils who had been taught English with the more traditional method; the researchers concluded that the representation of multiple and authentic contexts had a positive effect on learning vocabulary of a foreign language. DISCOVERY LEARNING WITH COMPUTER SIMULATIONS

One of the new themes in learning and instruction clearly is the emphasis on learning as the personal construction of knowledge. Technology can play an important role in this approach by offering environments that encourage learners to engage in self-directed constructive learning processes. In the literature (see for example, Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1992; Schank & Cleary, 1995; Towne, de

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

63

Jong & Spada, 1993) we find examples of ‘constructivistic’ computer based learning environments such as hypertext environments, concept mapping environments and modeling environments. Simulation environments take a specific place. Computer simulations are programs that contain a model of a real system. Basic actions the learner can perform using an interface to the model are changing values of input variables and observing the resulting changes in values of output variables (de Jong, 1991; de Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998; Reigeluth & Schwartz, 1989). In a survey of Dutch higher education, simulation was found to be the most popular form of computer based learning environments (de Jong, Van Andel, Leiblum, & Mirande, 1992). We can think of several reasons for this. The first is that computer simulation is very well suited for discovery learning, in which learners experiment and construct knowledge like ‘scientists’. That is, they provide the simulation with input, observe the output, draw their conclusions, and go to their next experiment. It is also believed that knowledge that is gained by a process of self-directed discovery learning has a deeper, better anchored, more intuitive character than knowledge that is gained in the traditional lecture (Grimes & Willey, 1990; Faryniarz & Lockwood, 1992; Carlsen & Andre, 1992; Rivers & Vockell, 1987; Swaak & de Jong, 1996). In addition to the expected learning advantages, simulations are introduced in instruction for a number of other reasons. First, practical reasons can make a simulation preferable to the real training situation, for example when training on the job is dangerous to man, environment and/or material. Second, simulations offer the opportunity to change reality in such a way that learning is facilitated, for example when the time scale is changed so that real processes can be slowed down or speeded up (see de Jong, 1991). Reality can also be ‘augmented’ in simulations. For example, in a simulation on optics in which deflection of light through lenses is being studied, Hulshof, de Jong and Van Joolingen (1999) introduced an artificial ‘eye’ that can be used by learners to ‘see’ virtual points. In another simulation on learning to drive a car Van Emmerik, Van Rooij and de Jong (in preparation) introduced a visual cue to indicate the distance to an approaching car for a driver who wants to overtake. Another advantage of simulation is its motivational appeal (Ajewole, 1991) and their relative efficiency over expository modes of teaching (Choi & Gennaro, 1987; Rivers & Vockell, 1987; Shute & Glaser, 1990). The disadvantage of simulations, however, is that discovery learning proves to be a difficult process. Here we give a short summary of de Jong and Van Joolingen (1998) who present an extensive overview of many kinds of problems that have been found in studies on discovery learning: Finding new hypotheses. A difficult process that distinguishes successful from unsuccessful learners. Important problems here are: (1) learners (even university students) simply may not know what a hypothesis should look like; (2) learners may not be able to state or adapt hypotheses on the basis of data gathered; (3) learners can be led by considerations that don’t necessarily help them to find the correct (or best) theoretical principles. For example, they do not like to state hypotheses that run a high risk of being refuted. Design of experiments. A crucial aspect that provides information for deciding upon the soundness of a hypothesis. When a learner does not yet have a

64


hypothesis, well-designed experiments can be used to generate ideas about the model in the simulation. In the literature we find a number of phenomena indicating poorly designed experiments: (1) confirmation bias, the tendency to seek for information that confirms the hypothesis they have, instead of trying to disconfirm the hypothesis; (2) designing inconclusive experiments, for example, in the context of discovery learning with simulations, Glaser, Schauble, Raghavan and Zeitz (1992), point to a frequently observed phenomenon that learners tend to vary too many variables in one experiment, with the result that they cannot draw any conclusions from these experiments; (3) inefficient experimentation behavior. For example, it is often found that subjects do not use the whole range of potential informative experiments that are available, but only a limited set, and moreover design the same experiment several times; (4) constructing experiments that are not intended to test a hypothesis. Schauble, Klopfer and Raghavan (1991) identified what they have called the “engineering approach”, which denotes the attitude to create some desirable outcome instead of trying to understand the model. Interpreting data. Once having performed correct experiments, data that come from these experiments need to be interpreted before the results from the experiments can be translated into hypotheses on the domain. Here learners quite often make misencodings. Klahr, Fay and Dunbar (1993) found that subjects made misencodings of experimental data ranging from a mean of 35% of at least one misencoding, to a high 63%. Also the interpretation of graphs, a frequently needed skill when interacting with simulations, is clearly a difficult process. Regulative processes. It is frequently reported that successful learners use systematic planning and monitoring, whereas unsuccessful learners work in an unsystematic way (e.g., Lavoie & Good, 1988; Simmons & Lunetta, 1993). Shute & Glaser (1990) claim that successful learners plan their experiments and manipulations to a greater extent, and pay more attention to data management issues. Glaser et al. (1992) report that successful discoverers followed a plan over experiments, whereas unsuccessful ones used a more random strategy, concentrating on local decisions, which also gave them monitoring problems. Though Glaser et al. (1992) mention persistence in following a goal as a characteristic of good learners, these successful subjects also were ready to leave a route when it apparently would not lead to success. Goal setting is also reported as a problem (for subjects with low prior knowledge). For the process of monitoring differences, Lavoie and Good (1988) report that good learners make more notes during learning, and Schauble, Glaser, Raghavan and Reiner (1991) report more systematic data recording among successful learners. The conclusion that learners have difficulties with discovery learning indicates that it might be necessary to support the learner in the discovery process in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of discovery learning. SIMQUEST is an authoring environment that helps authors to create simulation based learning environments that are embedded in instructional support (see e.g., de Jong, van Joolingen, Swaak, Veermans, Limbach, King, & Gureghian, 1998). Currently, the

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

65

SIMQUEST authoring environment provides the opportunity to create four types of instructional support for learners: Model progression. A learning environment created with SIMQUEST may contain a number of different simulation models, ordered for example along a dimension of difficulty. Introducing gradually more complex models helps the learner in the regulative processes, since at the start the number of variables is limited and increases per model progression step. When the environment is less complex there is less to monitor and plan. Model progression also helps to stay close to the learner’s starting knowledge. Through model progression, concepts that are new and unfamiliar are introduced only when the learner has successfully mastered the earlier model progression level(s). In this way model progression may also help the learner in forming better hypotheses. Assignments. Assignments provide the learner with short-term goals, like finding a specified relation, predicting the behavior of the simulation or achieving a specified simulation state. In conjunction with model progression, assignments decompose the overall learning goal of a simulation into a number of subgoals and in this way help the regulation of the learning process. The set of assignments can also be used to make the learner explore the complete domain and, by setting the simulation in a specific state, have learners experiment with specific phenomena. Explanations. In the SIMQUEST system the author can define textual, graphical, and multimedia explanations. These explanations can be used to provide extra information on variables, relations, or events in the simulation. These explanations are always directly accessible to learners. Explanations give learners direct access to necessary prior and background knowledge, which may help them in interpreting data and stating hypotheses. Monitoring. The monitoring tool helps learners save, compare, and replay the experiments they have been doing, and can provide feedback on the relation between the experiments and answers chosen (see de Jong et al., 1998). Figure 3 gives an example of a part of a learner interface created with SIMQUEST. This example is part of a large SIMQUEST learning environment on sewage plants. Part of this environment concerns the role that bacteria play in the purification of water. The elements shown in Figure 3 come from the first model progression level where learners can only observe (and not manipulate) a phenomenon (by starting, pausing, and stepping through the simulation). The output is presented in a graph, numerically, and by an animation at the bottom of the simulation window showing bacteria that divide. The assignment asks learners for explanations of what they can observe (there are multiple correct answers). After selecting answers feedback is presented. The figure also shows an example of an explanation presenting background information. In later levels of this simulation, learners can themselves manipulate the stocks and inflow of nutrients for the bacteria and observe the effects on the bio-mass. Several empirical studies were conducted to evaluate the support the researchers introduced (e.g., de Jong, Härtel, Swaak & Van Joolingen, 1996; Swaak, Van Joolingen & de Jong, 1998; de Jong et al., 1999; Swaak, Blokhuis, Gutierrez, & López, 1997). The overall conclusions of these studies are as follows:

66


Intuitive knowledge improves. There is an improvement in learning if measured with intuitive knowledge tests. Several studies were conducted under the assumption that simulation would lead to a more qualitative, intuitive, type of knowledge (see Swaak & de Jong, 1996, for a more detailed definition) than the knowledge that is acquired in more expository ways of teaching. The overall results of these studies are that in learning with simulations, intuitive knowledge improves to a far larger extent than does definitional knowledge. Assignments and explanations are very popular. The learners consult instructional measures such as assignments and explanations very frequently. In the SIMQUEST environments, learners have access to a large number of assignments and explanations (see Figure 3 for illustrations of explanations and assignments). The assignments are of several types (e.g., explaining a phenomenon) and the explanations include many kinds of multimedia. Logfile analysis shows that learners use most of the assignments and most of the available explanations to such a degree that it may be problematic to describe this as free discovery behavior (see de Jong et al., 1998).

Adding assignments improved results. Adding specific assignments to a simulation environment improved the learning results significantly as compared to the same simulation without specific assignments.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

67

Results of adding model progression are inconclusive. The introduction of model progression, this is starting with simple models before introducing more complex ones, did not raise student’s learning results as compared with environments where the most complex situation was given from the start, but the studies could not give a conclusive picture here. Results from the literature (see e.g., de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998) suggest that model progression can be a fruitful approach when the target model has sufficient complexity. Adding instructional measures, overall, did not increase the experienced cognitive load. A concern when adding instructional support to a simulation is that the complexity of the environment as a whole increases, which may raise the experienced cognitive load. In several experiments the cognitive load experienced was measured by using an on-line self-rating questionnaire. These findings are in line with other studies on discovery learning with simulations as we find them in the literature (see e.g., de Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998). COLLABORATIVE LEARNING WITH COMPUTERS “The idea that authentic learning only occurs in collaboration with others has become the central pillar of constructivist orthodoxy and is the one on which practically every other principle is dependent to some extent” (Petraglia, 1998, p.77). The computer can support collaborative learning in several ways. For example, Erkens (1997) distinguishes four different types of use: (1) Computer-based collaborative tasks (CBCT): the computer presents a task environment to foster student collaboration. The extra advantages of the medium (compared to collaborating without it) may be the shared problem representation that can function as a joint problem space, the ease of data-access, and, in some cases, intelligent coaching. Example systems are Sherlock (Katz & Lesgold, 1993) and the Envisioning Machine (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). (2) Co-operative tools (CT): the computer is used as a co-operative tool, a partner who may take over some of the burden of lower-order tasks, while functioning as a (non-intelligent) tool during higher-order activities. Examples are Writing Partner (Salomon, 1993), and Case-Based Reasoning tool (Kolodner, 1993). (3) Computer mediated communication (CMC), or Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL): supports collaborating over electronic networks (CSILE, Scardamalia, Bereiter & Lamon, 1994). The computer serves as the communication interface, which allows interaction and collaboration between several students at the same time or spread out asynchronously over a specific period. Email conferencing (Henri, 1995) and Group Ware systems (Mitchell & Posner, 1996) fall into this category. In addition, representations and interfaces that support problem solving and communication are sometimes provided, such as in Chene (Baker & Bielaczyc, 1995), Belvédère (Suthers, Weiner, Connelly, & Paolucci, 1995), or the Collaborative Text Production Tool (Andriessen, Erkens, Overeem & Jaspers, 1996). (4) Intelligent Co-operative Systems (ICS): to set it off from (2) in ICS the computer functions as an intelligent co-operative partner (the computer simulates the part of the problem solving and dialogue of a fellow student) (DSA: Erkens,

68


1997), a co-learner (People Power: Dillenbourg & Self, 1992), or learning companion (Integration-Kid: Chan & Baskin, 1990). In the current chapter, we focus on the third type of computer supported tool: CMC and CSCL, where collaboration between students by using computers for (a)synchronous communication is the central focus. This aspect of computer mediated communication is presented in the left, lower triangle in Figure 1 (see introduction, this chapter). These types of application involve the use of distance learning software, i.e., software by which people collaborate over a network. The role of the computer is to facilitate learning by providing means for communication and problem solving. Collaboration over a network may also incorporate aspects of the other types of applications for collaborative learning, such as shared problem representations, and the use of tools or intelligent agents. In addition, it evokes its own interesting prospects for collaboration, for example in the form of electronic discussion tools. For the purpose of this section, collaborative learning occurs between two or more learners engaged in a task that requires them to co-operate and interact. The role of the instructor is to support and sometimes coach the interaction, but the main focus of interest is on the activities carried out by collaborating learners. Two closely related questions are central here: (a) what are the characteristics of electronic collaboration for the purpose of learning something?, (b) how to support such electronic collaborative learning, for example in terms of interfaces, shared representations, tools, moderating and coaching agents? The task domains, we focus on in this section are (1) writing and (2) electronic argumentation. A comprehensive overview of the pros and cons of collaboratively carrying out these tasks in electronic environments is as yet lacking. Therefore, the presentations and discussions that follow remain rather exploratory. The domains we studied can be considered as characteristic of ‘new learning’ domains, as they pertain to processes and skills that are not meant to be acquired for their own sake (e.g. what is the goal of writing?), but are a crucial part of many other tasks, in school as well as in daily life (e.g. I want to write a love letter to a girl). In addition, they require extensive negotiation and the acquisition of the needed language of a community of practice or academic profession (Petraglia, 1998; Andriessen & Sandberg, in press). In the discussion that follows we assume the following: The assignment supports the acquisition of something else, e.g., general abilities and skills applicable in many other tasks and domains. Hence specific task-related processes such as task acquisition or successful problem-solving are not the primary focus of attention. Collaborative assignments should be truly collaborative, that is, both (all) partners need to participate fully in the collaboration in order to accomplish a task or reach a solution. Electronic environments foster interaction and problem solving in specific and not always obvious manners. The main goal for the study of collaboration in such environments is to analyze the complex interactions between collaborators and the relation of interactions to information exchange, in order to find the specific constraints under which different electronic environments foster (or

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

69

hinder) specific kinds of collaborative learning. Social, cognitive, and technological constraints seem to be interdependent in a variety of ways, depending on the task, the instruction, the roles of instructors and students, student characteristics, the medium and the interface (Veerman, Andriessen & Kanselaar, submitted). Collaborative writing

Writing clearly is a domain of interest for new learning. When writers are purposefully engaged in knowledge transforming activities (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987), writing can even be one of the main vehicles to foster learning. The problem of getting writers engaged in knowledge transforming activities, however, is quite serious. Several studies have shown that writers of various ages, either novices or experts, do not engage in knowledge transformation by default (e.g. Torrance, 1996). A cause can be that writing texts of any length has been shown to be a complex process in which several interrelated subprocesses can be distinguished, each with its own dynamics and constraints (for a review: Alamargot & Chanquoy, in preparation). The main advantage of collaborative writing, compared to individual writing, is to offer a workspace where the writers can receive immediate feedback from each other on their writing actions. Furthermore, the discussions generated by the activity make the collaborators verbalize and negotiate many things: representations, purpose, plans, doubts, etc. Collaborating writers have to test their hypotheses, justify their propositions, and make their goals explicit. This may lead to progressively more conscious control and increased awareness of the processes (Giroud, 1999). According to the literature (e.g. Gere & Stevens, 1989; Piolat, 1990; Roussey & Gombert, 1992), the dialogues created by all these activities lead to more revision, more critical control, and more consideration of audience. Electronic collaborative writing tools could provide support in several ways (Diermanse, 1997): Brainstorming: although there is evidence showing that individual brainstorming tends to be more effective than collective brainstorming (Kanselaar & van der Linden, 1983), it may be that after an individual phase some negotiation about the feasibility of generated ideas could be supported by a tool that supplies a common window and prompts such as “are there conflicts between ideas?” or “are all ideas realistic?” (Sharples, 1993). Concept mapping: concept mapping may be quite effectively carried out in collaboration (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993; Van Boxtel, Kanselaar & van der Linden, 1998, and a graphical tool allowing collaborative concept mapping could be quite useful. Planning: in contrast to individual planning, collaborative planning is not considered very important or fruitful (Beck, 1993) and it is unclear how it should be supported. Maybe providing schemas or outliners could be useful, but for learning purposes, these should not constrain reflection too much.

70


Information retrieval: many tools are available for searching information, but collaborative search and selection (in any other sense than CBCT, see above) is not supported. Note-taking: collective and individual notebooks could be provided. Writing text: collaborative writing tools currently provide only rudimentary word-processing capabilities (apart from situations of sharing the same wordprocessor). Sharples and O’Malley (1992) describe the design for a writer’s assistant that allows support at the level of management of writing activities. At the interface, turn taking should be managed and all interactions should be logged and open for inspection in a user-friendly way. Revising: users should be able to evaluate and revise their text easily. Procedural facilitation, which has been shown to be useful for individual writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Salomon, 1993) could foster collaborative writing as well. How collaborative revision should be fostered electronically has not been studied. Electronic collaborative text production with respect to the relationship between characteristics of collaboration on the one hand and learning and problem solving on the other hand is studied at Utrecht University. A network-based (Collaborative Text Production: CTP-) tool was developed which combines a shared wordprocessor, chat-boxes and private information sources to foster the collaborative distance writing of texts. Collaboration and the sharing of windows is restricted to dyads of students. The working screen of the program displays several private and shared windows (see Figure 4). The two private information windows at the top (“Task window” and “Arguments” window) both contain task information. The Task Window displays the task assignment and the Arguments window displays additional information an individual participant is provided with. A turn pages button may be used to turn the pages when the reasons are represented in pictorial format. To communicate with his partner the student has a Chat Box. It can be used to write messages that simultaneously can be seen by the writing-partner in the Other’s Chat Window. This arrangement allows partners to send messages simultaneously. When a message is ready, pressing the return button will enter it into the shared Chat History, where the previous dialogue is available for review by both participants. The CTP Text Box is the shared space in which the participants may enter, edit and revise the text they are currently writing. They both can write in the same text but not simultaneously. Two buttons and a traffic light under the CTP Text Box (here barely visible) are used to signal turn-taking intentions and turn giving. The CTP collaborative writing-tool may be used in different contexts for practical and research purposes. One study of the CTP system (Andriessen et al., 1996) showed that, in the written product, students explored multiple viewpoints and elaborated upon their arguments, despite the fact that no dialogue moves or turn-taking controls were available in the communication window. In this study the system was used to gather

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

71

data to study the effects of external information representations on argumentative text.

The discussion by the participants, the chat-messages, the button-actions and all changes in the text were logged in a time-based protocol to be used for further analysis. In this experiment, 74 university students in social sciences, working in pairs, were instructed to write two texts (1) considering the problem of the overpopulation of rabbits and (2) considering labor policy on employability. Pairs were randomly assigned to two different conditions. Students were provided with some predefined arguments in (a) textual format or in (b) graphical representations. Except for turn-taking facilities in the CTP Text Box, interaction was not structured. The two conditions affected the frequencies of reasons of different types. The pictorial information gave rise to a greater number and variety of elaborations in the written products than did the textual information. This, however, did not relate to more coherent texts or advanced text production strategies. Content elaboration and coherent collaborative writing seemed to rely on different processes.

72


Collaborative argumentation

A related domain is learning by collaborative argumentation. Collaborative argumentation can be understood as two or more persons engaging in a discussion about problems and issues triggered by an assignment with some specific learning goal. In one sense of the term, learning can be understood as the process that transpires through argumentation among teachers, students and their real worlds (Petraglia, 1998). In what way learning results through such a process is quite unclear. Proposals have been put forward concerning mechanisms such as belief revision, conceptual change, externalizing knowledge and opinions, selfexplanations, co-construction of knowledge, reflection and the reconstruction of knowledge through critical discussion (e.g. Piaget, 1952; Doise & Mugny, 1984; Savery & Duffy, 1994; Baker, 1996; Erkens, 1997; Petraglia, 1998; Veerman & Treasure-Jones, in press). Specific computer tools have been designed to support collaborative argumentation. Belvédère is a synchronous network-tool developed by the LRDC at the University of Pittsburgh (Learning Research and Development Center, 1996) and developed further by Suthers at Hawaii. Individuals or groups of students of any size can use Belvédère for constructing argumentative diagrams online. The working screen of the program (see Figure 5) displays private and shared windows. To communicate with a partner the student has a private text-based chat-box, as in the CTP system, in which multi-line messages can be created and sent. Messages will then be displayed, coupled with the writer’s name, in the shared chat-history. Adding data into the shared diagram is constrained: students must use the predefined set of boxes (‘hypothesis’, ‘data’, ‘unspecified’) and links (‘for’, ‘against’, ‘and’). These are shown in the menu bar in Figure 5. Thickness of links can be modified to reflect a participant’s confidence in the information. The thicker the line, the more certain the student is. Participants’ names can be displayed alongside their contributions. So, students can keep track of who is responsible for each component in the shared argument diagram. An electronic coach (the ‘light bulb’) is available to give help on demand. The coach gives advice on how to improve the argument structure, based on the representation of the argumentative structure in the diagram. In one study with Belvédère (Veerman & Andriessen, 1997) students working in pairs produced conflicting stances about three different aspects of a conceptual design task. Each aspect had to be discussed in separate sessions using Belvédère. Three argumentative diagrams had to be submitted as the final product. The average proportion of argumentative utterances was about .90 in the dialogues and circa .96 in the diagrams. When comparing the frequency of arguments produced in the Belvédère dialogues and in the CTP chats (in a different task, see above) Veerman & Andriessen (1997) found similar proportions, despite the provision of argumentative moves such as ‘Hypotheses’, ‘Data’, ‘For’, and ‘Against’ in the task window of the Belvédère system. In comparing different systems, structuring the

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

73

interaction does not necessarily seem to provoke argumentation. This may depend on task characteristics such as the instruction to compete versus instruction to compromise (Veerman & Treasure-Jones, in press).

In addition to the study of the ways computer support may trigger the frequency of argumentation, one must study the relationship between argumentation and learning. One conclusion derived from research on collaborative learning is that during the exploration of multiple points of view, regular checking of mutual understanding and focus maintenance are essential for engagement in fruitful discussions (Erkens, 1997; Baker, 1994, 1996). To support and optimize students’ engagement in argumentative dialogues for learning purposes, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) provides interesting research opportunities. The permanence and explicitness of text together with the possibility for time-delays in asynchronous text-based communication provide opportunities for reflection and scrutinizing information for participants in the discussion as well as for educational researchers. In addition, CMC may offer educators ways to intervene. However, in CMC situations, the effects of both online and asynchronous tutoring are not known very well. For example, whereas Hightower and Sayeed’s (1995) study on synchronous electronic discussion showed a higher degree of biased behavior than in face-to-face discussions, indicating a strong tendency towards compromising with the tutor, Veerman & Andriessen, (1996) experienced the opposite result in their educational practice. In an asynchronous discussion task,

74


they experienced a tutor being completely ignored. However, they also found that a tutor’s intervention could disrupt a discussion at once, causing unrecoverable breakdowns in student’s negotiation processes. It seems that the relationship between mode of communication, task environment, knowledge domain and the roles of teachers and students are quite complex and far from understood. In a recent experiment, Veerman, Andriessen and Kanselaar (submitted) analyzed synchronous discussions in terms of constructive activities. Constructive activities embody 4 types of goal-oriented activities in which (1) relevant information is added or explained, and/or (2) information is reformulated and specified through summarizing, (3) old and new knowledge is integrated and transformed and/or (4) information is judged on strength or relevance. Less constructive or even destructive activities are information exchanges such as repetitions, off-task information, or information from unreliable sources. This research example is focused on student pairs, supported by a peer-tutor. The purpose of the task was to collaboratively solve a short discussion task in a synchronous CMC environment. After some technical instruction a group of students (the ‘tutors’) were randomly assigned to two training groups aimed at the use of (1) “structured” versus (2) “reflective” peer-tutoring strategies. During these half-an-hour training sessions of the tutors, another group of students (the ‘students’) analyzed a written dialogue of a tutoring session, using Laurillard’s (1993) ‘conversational framework’. In a critical review of this framework by Bostock (1996), this framework is tested on consistency and is judged to be only partly accurate, thus students could be expected to generate differing analyses. The first part of the assignment for the ‘students’, an individual preparation for later discussion, took about 10 minutes and involved labeling sentences according to the most appropriate categories of the conversational framework. This manipulation was inspired by a report by Bull and Broady (1997) in which students comparing individually prepared solutions to exercises became naturally engaged in extensive discussion. In the experimental session the ‘tutors’ guided pairs of ‘students’ during the discussion of their individual results. These interactions were carried out electronically with each participant seated behind his or her individual computer screen. Contrary to expectations the frequency of constructive activities was rather low, less than 35%, and involved only adding, explaining and evaluating. Many exchanges involved problems with the interface (a shared word processor and a simple on-line chat), also the cause of many focusing problems. A post-hoc cluster analysis revealed three groups of subjects. The largest group of subjects, called the achievers (1), could be characterized by a strong focus on the application of information, that is on solving the exercise. These students did not produce as many constructive activities as the second group, called the conceptual achievers (2). This second group produced more than twice as many constructive activities as the first group. They shift back and forward between discussing the meaning of concepts and the use of concepts. The third group (3) differs from the other two in that they discuss the meaning of the concepts and the task strategy, while discussing the use of concepts is quite a bit lower.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

75

Such results seem important, because they are drawn on the basis of the analysis of quite complex interactions in which a number of essential factors have been taken into account. Research on electronic collaborative learning needs many more such detailed results in order to find reliable answers to questions concerning its educational validity. It seems that fruitful application of electronic tools for collaborative learning is not only a matter of instructional arrangement, but requires better understanding of the precise interactions between the affordances of tools and environments, learner characteristics and specific learning requirements. CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have discussed new types of learning environments that included aspects of constructivistic, situated, and collaborative learning. We have seen that these new type of learning environments give learners affordances to extend their cognitive abilities. Using Salomon’s words we can speak of the ‘person-plus’ result. using these tools allows students to relate their results to reality, to behave as a proficient discoverer and to communicate with others in a structured and productive way. The final question then is what should be done to introduce these tools into educational practice. First, of course, the available hardware and infrastructure should meet the demands of these environments, but this goes without saying and is, with nowadays rapidly increasing computing power for an affordable price, hardly an issue anymore. What matters is the embedding in the curriculum, the assessment procedures being used, and the organizational aspects. Embedding in the curriculum refers to the balancing of the methods used in the curriculum. The mere introduction of a learning environment that emphasizes for example situated learning without a clear connection to parts in the curriculum where abstraction and reflection takes place probably fails to make a contribution to overall goals of the curriculum. Students may become quite confused when in some classes an expository mode is used, whereas in others they have to discover the domain themselves. Again, a balanced curriculum probably should house both type of learning and instruction, but they need to refer to each other and should not be present as isolated parts. The same holds for collaborative settings. Students should know the justification for collaborative and individual parts in their curriculum. The best known example of an educational change that partly failed because it was introduced as a separate unit is the introduction of LOGO that quite often was introduced next to and not integrated with the traditional mathematics education (see DeCorte, 1993). A prominent subject of attention should be the connection between the software being introduced and the other materials used, such as books. It is of utmost importance that also these materials are constructed from one viewpoint so that for students an integrated method results.

76


Introducing new ways of learning in the school practice quite often is not accompanied by a change of assessment methods. What results is a situation in which the results of learning are measured by methods that are not suited. For example, in the work on simulation based learning de Jong and van Joolingen (1998) found that effects of simulation based training were only evident when assessment measures that measured more understanding and intuitive types of knowledge were used. In general, an assessment that shifts away from the product and turns more into the direction of the process seems in line with the new ways of learning as discussed in this chapter. Portfolio’s and logfile analysis, e.g. protocol analysis of computer mediated communication, are measurement techniques that can be used here. Embedding new ways of learning and instruction into a school finally requires that at the organizational level adaptations are made. This refers to the educational program that should allow for a study load that is equally divided over time, but that should also allow for prepared teachers. The latter should not only focus on their technical skills, but they should certainly also be schooled into the new ways of learning and their new role in this. If not, there is a high risk that teachers will mould the new technologies to fit their traditional approaches (see e.g., de Jong et al., 1998). REFERENCES Ajewole, G.A, (1991). Effects of discovery and expository instructional methods on the attitude of students to biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 401-409. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (in preparation). Through the models of text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Andriessen, J., Erkens. G., Overeem, E., & Jaspers, J. (1996, September). Using complex information in argumentation for collaborative text production. Paper presented at the UCIS’96 conference. Poitiers, France. Andriessen, J.E.B., & Sandberg, J.A.C. (in press). Where is education and how about AI? Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Baker, M. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5, 199-254. Baker, M. (1996). Argumentation and Cognitive Change in Collaborative Problem-Solving Dialogues. COAST Research Report Number CR-13/96, France. Baker, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (1995). Missed opportunities for learning in collaborative problem-solving interactions. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of AI-ED 95 – World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 210-218). Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Beck, E.E. (1993). A survey of experiences of collaborative writing. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative writing. (pp. 87-112). London: Springer. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bostock, S.J. (1996). A critical review of Laurillard’s classification of educational media. Instructional Science, 24, 71-88. Boxtel, C. A. M. van, Linden, J. L. van der, & Kanselaar, G. (1998). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: interaction processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and a poster task. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8, 341-361.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

77

Boyd, A., & Rubin, A. (1996). Interactive Video: a Bridge between Motion and Math. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 57-93. Bull, S., & Broady, E. (1997). Spontaneous peer tutoring from sharing student models. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 143-150). Kobe: IOS Press. Carlsen, D.D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome students’ preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 105-109. Chan, T.W. & Baskin, A.W. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasson & G. Gaulthier (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education (pp. 6-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Choi, B., & Gennaro, E. (1987). The effectiveness of using computer simulated experiments on junior high school students understanding of the volume displacement concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 539-552. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Technology and the Design of Generative Learning Environments. Educational Technology, May 1991, pp. 34-40. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury: Assessment of Instructional Outcomes. Internal publication, pp. 1-19 Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993). Anchored Instruction and Situated Cognition Revisited. Educational Technology, March 1993, pp. 52-71. Cunningham, D.J. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. de Jong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education & Computing, 6, 217229. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202. de Jong, T., Härtel, H., Swaak. J., & van Joolingen, W. (1996). Support for simulation-based learning; the effects of assignments in learning about transmission lines. In A. Diaz de Ilarazza Sánchez & I. Fernández de Castro (Eds.), Computer aided learning and instruction in science and engineering (pp. 9-27). Berlin: Springer Verlag. de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro J-M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W.R. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support; an example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 597-615. de Jong, T., van Andel, J., Leiblum, M., & Mirande, M. (1992). Computer assisted learning in higher education in the Netherlands, a review of findings. Computers & Education, 19, 381-386. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W.R., Swaak, J., Veermans, K., Limbach, R., King, S., & Gureghian, D. (1998). Self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 235-246. DeCorte, E. (1990). Learning with new information technologies in schools; perspectives from the psychology of learning and instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 69-84 Oxford: Pergamon Press. DeCorte, E. (1993). Toward embedding enriched Logo-based learning environments in the school curriculum: Retrospect and prospect. In P. Georgiadis, G. Gyftodimos, Y. Kotsanis & C. Kynigos (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th European Logo conference (Athens, Greece), 335-349. Diermanse, E. (1997). Samenwerkend schrijven en computerondersteunde hulpmiddelen. [Collaborative writing and computer supported tools]. Utrecht: Internal report, dept. of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University. Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J.A. (1992). A computational approach to socially distributed cognition. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 353-372. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon. Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology. Educational Technology, May 1991,7-12. Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.). (1992). Designing environments for constructive learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Erkens, G. (1997). Coöperatief probleemoplossen met computers in het onderwijs: Het modelleren van coöperatieve dialogen voor de ontwikkeling van intelligente onderwijssystemen. [Cooperative problem solving with computers in education: Modeling of cooperative dialogues for the design of intelligent educational systems] Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

78


Faryniarz, J.V., & Lockwood, L.G. (1992). Effectiveness of microcomputer simulations in stimulating environmental problem solving by community college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 453-470. Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing. Preface to a science of mathematical education. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company. Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. (Eds.). (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gere, A., & Stevens, R.S. (1989). The language of writing groups: How oral response shapes revision. In S.W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 85-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Giroud, A (1999). Studying argumentative text processing through collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University press. Glaser, R., Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Zeitz, C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In E. De Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 345-373). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Glasersfeld, E.V. von. (1978). Radical constructivism and Piaget’s concept of knowledge. In L.P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education, (pp. 30-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grimes, P.W., & Willey, T.E. (1990). The effectiveness of microcomputer simulations in the principles of economics course. Computers & Education, 14, 81-86. Henri, F. (1995). Distance learning and computer mediated communication: Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 145-165). NATO ASI Series, Vol. 128. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hightower, R., & Sayeed, L. (1995). The impact of computer-mediated communication systems on biased group discussion. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 33-44. Hulshof, C., de Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. (1999). The influence of prior knowledge on scientific discovery learning processes in simulation-based science domains. Paper presented at the 1999 AERA Annual Meeting. Montreal, Canada. Jaspers, J.G.M., Kanselaar, G., & Kok, W.A.M. (1993) Productive Language Use with IT’S ENGLISH. Computers & Education, 21, 67-75. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computermediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 7-26. Kanselaar, G. (1994). Foreign Language Teaching with Multimedia. In P. Breeder & J. Murre (Eds.), Abstract Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Models in Language Acquisition. 21-23 April. (pp. 29-30). Tilburg: Tilburg Universiteit. Kanselaar, G., & van der Linden, J.L. (1983). Sociaal Kognitieve Komplexiteit. [Social cognitive complexity]. Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht: Utrecht university. Kanselaar, G., van Galen, F., Beemer, H., Erkens, G., & Gravemeijer, K. (1999). Grafieken leren met de computer (A realistic approach of learning mathematical principles in an ICT-learning-environment). Utrecht: ISOR. Katz, S. & Lesgold, A. (1993). The role of the tutor in Computer-Based Collaborative Learning Situations. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp. 289-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Klahr, D., Fay, A.L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Kozma, R.B. (1991). Learning With Media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 2, 179-211. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge Lavoie, D.R., & Good, R. (1988). The nature and use of predictions skills in a biological computer simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 335-360. Learning Research and Development Center (1996). Advanced Cognitive Tools for Learning. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. Mitchell, A., & Posner, I. (1996). Field study of collaborative writing by grade 6 students. Nagy W.E., Herman, P.A., & Anderson, R.C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253. Nagy W.E., Herman, P.A, & Anderson, R.C. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading, American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

79

Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by Design: the rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence. New York: International University Press. Piolat, A. (1990). Vers l'amelioration de la rédaction de texte. [Towards improved text composition]. Dossier d’habilitation à diriger des recherches. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence. Reigeluth, C.M., & Schwartz, E. (1989). An instructional theory for the design of computer-based simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 1-10. Rivers, R.H., & Vockell, E. (1987). Computer simulations to stimulate scientific problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 403-415. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D. (1995). Construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer-Verlag. Roth, W. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993b). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503-534. Roussey, J.Y., & Gombert, A. (1992). Ecriture en dyade d’un texte argumentatif par des enfants de huit ans. [Writing in dyads of an argumentative text by 8 year old children]. Archives de Psychologie, 297315. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the writing partner. In Lajoie, S.P. & Derry, S.J. (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools, (pp. 289-317). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Salomon, G. (1997). Novel Constructivist Learning Environments and Novel Technologies: Some Issues to Be Concerned With. Invited Key note Address presented at the EARLI meeting, Athens, August 1997 Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1994). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivistic framework. Educational Technology (august 1994). Scanlon, E. (1998). How Beginning students Use Graphs of Motion. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations (pp. 67-86). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd. Scardamalia, M, & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and Understanding. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International Perspectives on the design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments (pp. 149-183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE-project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 202-229). Cambridge: MIT Press. Schank, R.C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991a). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201-239. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991b). Students’ transitions from an engineering to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882. Sharples, M. (Ed.), (1993). Computer supported collaborative writing. London: Springer-Verlag. Sharples, M., & O’Malley, C. (1992). A framework for the design of a writer’s assistant. In P. Holt & P. Williams (Eds.), Computers and writing: State of the art (pp. 319-336). Worchester: Billing & Sons. Shute, V.J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-77. Simmons, P.E., & Lunetta, V.N. (1993). Problem-solving behaviors during a genetics computer simulation: beyond the expert/novice dichotomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 153-173. Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (1987). Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London and Glasgow: Collins Publishers. Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). GroupWare for developing critical discussion skills. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh . Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. de (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: the development of the what-if test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 341-362. Swaak, J., Blokhuis, V., Gutierrez, M., & Lopez, M. (1997). Evaluating simulation discovery environments with learners. SERVIVE deliverable D32. Enschede: University of Twente, Faculty of Educational Science and Technology, OCTO. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W.R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8, 235-253. Tabachneck-Schijf, H.J.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Alternative representations of instructional material. In D. Peterson (Ed.), Forms of Representation, pp. 28-46. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.

80


Tabachnek-Schijf, H.J.M., & Simon, H.A. (1998). One Person, Multiple Representations: An Analyses of a Simple, Realistic Multiple Representation Learning Task. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, (pp. 197-236). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd. Torrance, M. (1996). Is writing expertise like other kinds of expertise? In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in writing Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Towne, D.M., de Jong, T., & Spada, H. (Eds.). (1993). Simulation-based experiential learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Van Boxtel, C. A. M., Linden, J. L. van der, & Kanselaar, G. (1998). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: interaction processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and a poster task. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8, 341-361. Van Emmerik, M.L., van Rooij, J.C.G.M., & de Jong, T. (in preparation). Differences in instruction for a simulated driving task. TNO report Veerman, A.L., & Andriessen, J.E.B. (1996, December). Argumentatie tijdens zwak gestructureerd probleemoplossen [Argumentation during solving ill-structured problems]. Paper presented at the VIOT congress, Utrecht. Veerman, A.L., & Andriessen, J.E.B. (1997, September). Academic learning & writing through the use of educational technology. Paper presented at the conference on Learning & Teaching Argumentation. Middlesex University, London. Veerman, A.L., & Andriessen, J.E.B. (1999), Enhancing learning through electronic discussion. Paper presented at Call99, London. Veerman, A.L., & Andriessen, J.E.B., & Kanselaar, G. (submitted). Enhancing learning through collaborative argumentation. Veerman, A.L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (in press). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In J.E.B. Andriessen & P Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentatieve text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

AFFILIATIONS

Gellof Kanselaar, Utrecht University, Department of Educational Sciences, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Jerry Andriessen, Utrecht University, Department of Educational Sciences, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: J. [email protected]

Ton de Jong, University of Twente, Faculty of Educational Science and Technology, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. nl

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

81

Peter Goodyear, Lancaster University, Center for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster UK, LA1 4YL, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]


BERNADETTE VAN HOUT-WOLTERS

5. ASSESSING ACTIVE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

As there has been much interest in ‘active self-directed learning’ in the last few years, assessing this kind of learning should receive more attention. It often happens that the ability to learn actively and in a self-directed way has been a policy goal in education, but that little or no information has been gathered about reaching that goal. Even if one does not regard managing the skills of active selfdirected learning as a goal, but as a means to obtain good learning results, it is advisable to assess these skills. A review study by Simpson, Hynd, Nist and Burrell (1997) shows that this is not done in most cases. They give an overview of four kinds of college academic assistance programs; in this overview they map the goals, the placement assessment methods (diagnosis), the instructional methods and the program evaluation methods for all four programs. It is striking that, in these programs, the effects are often measured in terms of improved study results only (GPA and persistence at university) and that there is much less attention for the question whether the skills trained have improved. We see the same in the review study by Hattie, Biggs and Purdie (1996). Assessing skills for active self-directed learning (called ‘learning skills’ from here on) certainly is not a simple matter. Teachers, educational consultants as well as researchers often have problems with it. Not every one knows that there are many assessment methods available, besides the often used learning skills questionnaires. And if they do know this, they often find it difficult to select an appropriate one. To assist them, this chapter not only gives an overview of available assessment methods, it also gives information to help make a responsible choice for a certain specific situation. The chapter starts with the first two questions one should ask oneself if one wants to assess learning skills: why do I want to assess learning skills and which specific skills would I like to assess? WHY ASSESS LEARNING SKILLS?

We can distinguish different goals in assessing learners’ skills for active selfdirected learning: Diagnostic evaluation. Here, the goal is obtaining information about the strongest and weakest sides of learners’ learning skills. On the basis of this evaluation individual learners can be advised to take some training or to be guided individually. One could also decide on the basis of this evaluation to adapt the curriculum to the learning skills of individual learners (differentiation). Not only at an individual level, but also at school level it might be important to gather diagnostic information about the learning skills of 83

R. J. Simons el al. (eds.), New Learning, 83–99. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

84


learners as a group. This could then lead to decisions with regard to the aspects to be trained separately and/or to be emphasized during the regular lessons. Formative evaluation. Testing of progress (formative evaluation) takes place if the goal is to periodically gather information during the instruction or guidance about the improvement of learners with regard to these skills. This gives feedback to both the learners themselves and the teacher/guide, on the basis of which the learning, instruction or guidance process can be adapted. Summative evaluation. This form of evaluation takes place at the end of the instructional or guidance activity to determine whether the set goals have been reached (final testing). If learning skills in education belong to the general or subject-specific educational goals it is self-evident that they, just as the other educational goals, are explicitly tested in tests and exams. This not only offers a means to judge the learning results of individual learners, but also gives the school or institute the opportunity to check whether the policy goals with regard to active self-directed learning have been reached. Summative evaluation of learning skills takes place on a very limited scale in education. Non-evaluative assessment. If one does not have the intention to attach a judgment or a valuation to an assessment of learners’ learning skills but only wants to record it, a non-evaluative assessment takes place. This is often the case in scientific research, for instance when one wants to gain more insight into separate components of learning skills or when one wants to record the skills level of certain groups of learners for an international comparison of learning skills. These different goals can produce different conditions that the assessment instruments have to meet. Especially when decisions with regard to individual learners have to be taken on the basis of the assessment, we must demand a lot from the assessment’s reliability, validity and standardization. It will also be important in educational settings that the assessment and the data analysis can easily be executed in practice. As mentioned above, it is important to explicitly test learners’ management of skills for active self-directed learning if this belongs to the educational goals and if it gets attention in the curriculum. This not only has the result that the instruction in these skills is taken more seriously by learners and their teachers; tests appear to be a powerful means to direct learners’ learning processes and in that way to contribute to the realization of those goals. Put more simply: If learners know that they will get questions or tasks about learning skills in the test, they will also pay more attention to them in the lessons and in their test preparation (Van Hout-Wolters, 1992, see also Dochy & Moerkerke, 1997). ASSESS WHICH SKILLS?

After one has decided to assess the skills for active self-directed learning, one often chooses a familiar questionnaire in educational practice. In this approach, in which one takes available instruments for granted, one takes the risk of assessing other skills than one had in mind or than the instruction or the lessons paid attention to.

ASSESSING ACTIVE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

85

Therefore, it is of paramount importance to know exactly what one regards to be ‘active self-directed learning’, and which (sub)skills one wants to assess exactly. Many descriptions, taxonomies and overviews of learning skills or strategies have been published in the last couple of years,1 both by researchers and teachers. As an example of these we will mention here the overviews by Boekaerts and Simons (1995), Garcia and Pintrich (1994), Pintrich (1988), Van HoutWolters, Simons and Volet (in press), Vermunt (1998), Weinstein (1988), Weinstein and Hume (1998) and Zimmerman (1994). A taxonomy used regularly and internationally is the one by Pintrich (1988) (see Table 1).

86


Learning skills can also be divided into skills that are used before, during and after the execution of the learning task. An example of such a division is presented in chapter 2 of this book (Van Hout-Wolters, Simons & Volet, in press), in which the learning skills are described in terms of ‘learning functions’ to be fulfilled during learning (see a shortened version in Table 2).


87

The taxonomies described in Table 1 and 2 illustrate that many (sub)skills for active self-directed learning can be distinguished. In the Netherlands a number of these skills for active self-directed learning have been integrated into the official core goals of basic education, in the final exam programs of preparatory vocational education (vbo) and lower general secondary education (mavo) and in the guidelines for the implementation of the second phase of higher general secondary education (havo) and pre-university education (vwo). These skills are mentioned both in the core goals for separate subjects and in the general core goals. If one wants to assess whether the skills goals set have been reached it is important to precisely describe how one defines these skills. All skills have to be made operational in such a way that they can be assessed validly and reliably. When we take Pintrich’s taxonomy (Table 1) as an example it is clear that the skills mentioned greatly differ from one another: ‘Elaboration’, for instance, is something completely different than ‘planning’ and ‘effort management’. If we think that a learner should master these skills we must check for every skill how it can best be described and assessed. ASSESS SKILLS IN WHAT WAY?

Verbal report techniques are often used to assess skills for active self-directed learning. What happens far less often, is that the learner is asked to tackle a concrete, standardized study task actively and self-directed. This is striking, really, even more so when we compare this with assessing reading skills. Peverly (1990) notes that both reading and studying are cognitively and affectively complex skills and that both of them are important for study success in almost all subjects. For the assessment of reading skills learners almost always have to read a concrete text. The assessment of skills for active self-directed learning, however, is taken on in the educational practice very differently and very often less seriously. In this section we will describe a number of methods for the assessment of active self-directed learning. This will give an impression in short of the great variety in available assessment methods (for more information we refer to the literature cited). The methods will be supplied with some comments. They will be described in order of frequency of use. In the last part of this section recently developed ‘new’ assessment methods will be discussed, such as performance assessment and portfolios. Verbal Reports: Off-Line and On-Line Methods

Learners can verbally report about their learning activities (off-line) independently from or immediately after a concrete learning task, but this can also be done during the execution of the task (on-line). Off-line methods for verbal reports are

88


questionnaires and interviews. An on-line method in which learners report verbally is the thinking-aloud method. Questionnaires Learners are presented with a questionnaire with open/closed questions and/or statements with regard to the cognitive, affective and/or metacognitive learning activities taking place during studying. Such a questionnaire can be aimed at a specific training, task or research and be constructed for that purpose. However, much use is made of more general, standardized questionnaires to assess (meta)cognitive and/or affective learning activities. In this case, some adaptations are made to make the questionnaires applicable to the special situation or the specific goal. New questionnaires are regularly constructed on the basis of items of different existing standardized questionnaires, as well. In addition to this, foreign questionnaires are sometimes translated and elaborated (see e.g. Kuyper, 1994; Severiens, 1999). Many standardized questionnaires are meant to record how a learner normally goes about during studying. A number of them state explicitly that they assess the learning style of the learner. Because learning styles are mostly described as rather fixed tendencies in learning strategies to be used these questionnaires are less suitable to record differences in learning activities for different study tasks. In the Netherlands the Inventory Learning Styles (ILS) is much used (versions for secondary and higher education; Van Rijswijk & Vermunt, 1987; Roosendaal & Vermunt, 1996). From overviews of questionnaires (see e.g. Oosterhuis-Geers, 1995; De Waal, 1995; Peverly, 1990) it appears that a large amount of questionnaires are available in the Netherlands and abroad. We will mention some of them: In Dutch: Inventory Learning Styles (ILS-HO; Van Rijswijk & Vermunt, 1987); Inventory Learning Styles (ILS-VO; Roosendaal & Vermunt, 1996); Questionnaire Study Problems (Schouwenburg, 1990); Learning and Studying (L&S; Vorst, 1991); Study Motivation and Academic Results Test (SMART; Topman, Kleijn, Van der Ploeg & Masset, 1991); Questionnaire Study Methods (VSM; Oosterhuis-Geers, 1998); Questionnaire Study Approach Sixth Form HAVO-VWO (Schouwenburg & Schilder, 1998); Questionnaire Metacognitive Skills (Kuyper, 1994, in De Jager & Reezigt, 1996); Questionnaire Motivation, Learning process and Learning strategies (Severiens, 1999) In English: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Palmer & Schulte, 1987);


89

Inventory of Learning Processes (Schmeck, 1983); Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987); Effective Study Test (Brown, 1986); Study Attitudes Methods Survey (Michael, Michael & Zimmerman, 1988); Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1987); Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1993); Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle & Tait, 1994). These questionnaires differ in goal, subject matter, target group, type of questions/statements, number of scales and items, fill-in time, reliability and validity. They have in common, however, that they try to gain insight into learners’ cognitive, affective and metacognitive learning activities by the learners’ written retrospection. In general, the advantages of questionnaires as an assessment instrument are that the learners are not disturbed during studying and that the collection of data and scoring the questionnaires usually is a simple task that takes little time. A disadvantage, however, is that the learner may have forgotten all kinds of learning activities or considers them to be too unimportant to mention them. A learner may also be unaware of activities he has carried out or unable to the kind of reflection necessary to fill in a questionnaire. Social desirability could also play a role and decidedly so if the questionnaire is used as a test instrument. In other words, the validity of such data have been queried (see also Busato, 1998; Verheul & Yang, 1986; Verheij, Veenman, & Prins, submitted). The use of standardized questionnaires also often poses the problem that they have not been tuned to the specific study situation or the research questions (see e.g. Garner, 1988; James & Blank, 1993; Van Hout-Wolters, 1986; Weinstein & Meyer, 1996). Oral interviews

In individual interviews it is possible after one or more concrete study task(s) to ask the learner what s/he was doing and thinking during that particular study task. To aid the learner’s memory during the interviews video-recordings of the task performance can be shown: The stimulated recall technique. The learner’s notes could also stimulate the memory (Garner, 1988; Peterson, Swing, Braverman & Buss, 1982). The interview could also have a more general character; one could ask how the learner usually goes about when studying (e.g. Marton, Watkins & Tang, 1997; Vermunt, 1992). Conducting individual interviews and the data analysis take much more time than with written questionnaires. One should also pay attention to the fact that the study tasks chosen for the interview must be representative for the learners’ study situation. An advantage in comparison with written questionnaires is that one can ‘continue to ask questions’ when the learner has answered. For the rest the same (dis)advantages are valid as those we have mentioned for the questionnaires.

90


Thinking-aloud method

In this on-line method the learner is asked to read and think aloud during studying (e.g. De Jong, 1992; Royer, Cisero & Carlo, 1993). They sometimes do not have to do this continuously, but only at specifically marked points in the study text of in time. In most case, the learners are not meant to theorize about their learning activities. However, sometimes they are meant to do so: In that case they have to give a description of their study process with the reasons why they perform a specific activity (introspection). For the analysis and interpretation of the data collected in this way detailed analysis protocols are put together. This method is used most often in research and hardly ever in educational practice. An advantage is that the method gives information about the learning activities at the moment they take place, so that little can be lost. Disadvantages are the possible disruption and delay of the learning activities, the time-consuming data collection and analysis and the difficult interpretation of the data. Moreover, social desirability could play a part in introspection. With regard to the disruptive nature of this method Verheul & Yang (1986) amongst others have shown that the learning results of students who had had to think aloud during studying after a period of practicing did not significantly differ from the learning results of students without a thinking-aloud task. Registration of externally observable learning activities

One could also register the learner’s specific, externally observable (overt) behavior that gives information about the learning activities taking place at that moment. Observation and video registration

By means of observation one could get information about all kinds of external aspects of studying, such as head movements, direction of looking, change in sitting position and facial expression, but one could also register whether the learner underlines in the text, makes notes, turns a page and consults other sources of information. An observer can register these activities at the time the learner is studying. Because this might be disturbing, one could make a video-recording of the learner to perform the observations later on. An advantage of the observation method is that the learner can study in an ordinary fashion with normal study materials. Disadvantages are that the observation and scoring take much time and that only easily observable activities can be registered. Eye movement registration and other measurements of reading time

Eye movement registration could be used to exactly record learners’ reading or problem-solving strategies, for instance by working out which parts of a study text are studied longer and more often than other parts, and in which order they are studied. Conclusions can be drawn from this about certain learning activities of the learner. Because one usually does not need precise registrations on letter level in


91

research into learning strategies, but rather on word group, sentence or paragraph level, alternatives have been developed in which the study text or task is presented on a screen with the help of a computer. In this way it is also possible to register how long, how often and in which order learners look at text parts and other presentations (e.g. Reynolds, Wade, Trathen & Lapan, 1989; Royer, Cisero & Carlo, 1993). More than 10 years ago it was thought that this method has as its main problem that the screen situation did not compare with a normal study situation, because learners would only see a limited part of the text or task, because the reading distance was greater and because learners could not mark of make notes in the actual text (Van Hout-Wolters, 1986). In view of the enormous growth of the use of the computer learners have become much more used to this. Advantages of this method are that one can take measurements on-line, without disturbing the learning process. A disadvantage that remains is that it supplies only quantitative data about learning time and learning order, which at the most give indications of the (meta)cognitive and affective processes taking place. In reading research this problem has been compensated for by not only taking time and order measurements, but also by interrupting the learner's reading with questions about what s/he is exactly doing and why? ‘New’ assessment methods

For assessing active self-directed learning only limited use is made of ‘new’ assessment methods, such as portfolios. Some of these ‘new’ assessment methods will here be described in short. Multiple-choice tests

Although multiple-choice tests seem to be more suitable for the assessment of knowledge than of skills, Elshout-Mohr and Meijer (1998) have constructed a multiple-choice test for the assessment of eight general skills, representative for the learning goals that at this moment have been formulated for basic education in the Netherlands. These are skills such as ‘forming of opinion’, ‘performing observations’ and ‘co-operating on tasks’. The test consists of verbal and pictorial items. The test as a whole (total score) appears to be reliable enough to be used on a large scale in the Netherlands at the end of basic education. From previous thinking-aloud research it appears that pupils mostly base their answers on their own experiential knowledge of the skills involved. Because more and more attention is paid to developing general metacognitive knowledge and skills in students in secondary Dutch education it is necessary to develop diagnostic and test instruments which can be used in a classroom. The authors mentioned above have the plan to develop a multiple-choice test for this purpose as well. In this test students will have to judge different ways of analyzing cognitive tasks or thoughts with regard to planning and directing learning activities.

92


Concrete study tasks (performance assessment)

Within the framework of more attention for higher cognitive skills and situated learning in education there is also need for performance assessment (see e.g. Hambleton, 1996; Solano-Flores & Shavelson, 1997): Learners have to show the knowledge and skills acquired by executing a concrete task. For the subject Science this means, for instance, that students demonstrate their research skill by carrying out an experiment, including formation of hypotheses, planning, execution and reporting. The assessment could also take place within a computer simulation of the task. Because much performance assessment is aimed at real-life problems it is also called authentic assessment. The thoughts behind this task-directed form of testing are that instruction and assessment can be combined and that the evaluative climate in the classroom is reduced. Learning skills can also be tested in this way. Starting from concrete study tasks one can gain insight into the learning activities taking place within a learner. Learners are presented, for instance, with a complex task, which is used to check in how far they can execute it. One can also use a range of tasks ever becoming more difficult and report to what level the tasks are executed satisfactory (Elshout-Mohr, 1997). If on the basis of this conclusions have to be drawn about learning activities taking place we require much from the selection (representative tasks?), construction (which thinking steps are desired?) and judgment (which criteria?) of these study tasks (Airasian, 1994; Popham, 1995). Linn, Baker and Dunbar (1991, in Hambleton, 1996) give eight guidelines for the valid use of performance assessment. Another form of testing learning skills by means of concrete study tasks takes place if one explicitly asks learners for all thinking steps they have taken in their tackling that study task. Questions can also be aimed at individual thinking steps, such as ‘Show the data of this problem schematically’, ‘Describe the solution route’ or ‘Describe the steps you have taken to make this summary’. It has become customary to ask this kind of questions in the exact sciences in secondary education, but not so in the other subjects. Case studies

Performance assessment in concrete study tasks forms a part of case studies, but other data are collected as well, such as observation and interview data. The study tasks are part of the learner’s ordinary curriculum. Point of departure is that the ‘skill to study actively and self-directed’ is a comprehensive construct in which all kinds of variables influence one another: cognitive, metacognitive, affective, task, context and student variables. Although we can distinguish all kinds of components in this skill, assessments of these separate components do not render a picture of the skill as a whole, according to proponents of case studies. Moreover, they see many problematic sides of the assessment methods used most often, such as questionnaires. That is why Simpson et al. (1997) amongst other propose these qualitative case studies, in which a variation of in-depth information is gathered about learners’ learning activities in a specific period of time. Although case


93

studies indeed render more information about the skill to learn actively and selfdirected as a whole, they have their problems, such as the time-consuming process of data collection and analysis and the difficult comparison and judgment of data from different learners. Portfolios

During recent years more and more attention has been paid to portfolios: a collection of the learner’s own products in the course of a certain period of time. This is not only a collection of paper products, such as essays, reports and interviews, but also audio- and videotapes, pictures, drawings and other products. These portfolios often show a development in time. Others, however, only contain the best products (Winograd & Jones, 1992). Portfolios are meant to visualize learning processes by means of learning products: The learners show what they know and can do, what they consider to be important, which approach belongs to them and what they would still like to learn. Most of the time, learners are meant to collect the relevant products themselves, select them, reflect upon them and present them to their fellow-learners (Van Kammen, 1999). It is important that they can tell something about the meaning of these products for themselves, for instance what they have learned from them. In that sense portfolios not only give information about the learner’s level in a certain subject, but also about the learners’ skills to learn actively and self-directed. Hambleton (1996) indicates that this way of testing has much face validity for the learners themselves and that it can give valuable information about the learners’ progress. It is a form of authentic measurement in which assessment and instruction can go hand in hand. However, many questions remain unanswered, for instance about the criteria to be used for the selection and judgment of the products in the portfolio. There is a standardization problem as well: Because every portfolio contains a unique set of products, learners are assessed on the basis of different information. SELECTION OF ASSESSMENT METHODS

In the sections above we have described several methods to assess active selfdirected learning. We mentioned some advantages and disadvantages for every assessment method. In this paragraph we will discuss some general problems. After that we will go into the considerations to be made when selecting a method. Problems with regard to the assessments

All methods claim to assess certain skills for active self-directed learning. The designers and users of the methods, however, in most cases do not indicate why the concrete assessments (the answers in questionnaires/interviews, thoughts uttered, overt behavior, products and so on) are indicative of control of these skills. The theory behind the assessment is lacking. In addition, it very often is not clear what the standard is: When is someone an expert in a particular skill

94


and what in-between stages of skillfulness can be distinguished (for different ages, types of school, etc.)? Research literature often gives information about the reliability of assessment methods used in the research discussed. In many cases, little is known about the methods and instruments used in educational practice (Royer et al., 1993). This especially poses a problem when decisions are taken about individual learners on the basis of the assessment. ‘Active self-directed’ learning encompasses complex, compound skills. That also appears from the taxonomies presented in section 2. These skills, however, can also be different for learners for every domain and type of learning task (see e.g. Elshout-Mohr, Van Hout-Wolters & Broekkamp, 1999). In selecting an assessment method one should take this into account. It is important for learners to tune their approach of a learning task to the concrete learning goals (task demands) of that moment. Skill in tuning to learning goals even is very important in education and work situations (Schellings & Van Hout-Wolters, 1996). This skill should receive more attention in the assessment of active self-directed learning. Most assessment methods of active self-directed learning are aimed more at assessing cognitive and metacognitive skills than at affective learning skills. Not all assessment methods are easy to use for all age groups. Questionnaires, for instance, appear to be less suitable for primary school pupils. Older people are more disturbed by on-line measurements during studying than younger people. Combination of assessment methods

Despite these problems one still wants to assess the skills for active self-directed learning with the present state of knowledge. To portray as many aspects of learners’ active self-directed learning the advice is given more and more to use a combination of assessment methods, quantitative and qualitative assessment methods, in which both product and process information is gathered. In this way one can benefit from the strengths of the different methods. Weinstein and Meyer (1996) advise, following Garner (1988) to combine a verbal-report method with gathering students’ products, such as lecture notes, an exam or a written task. Simpson et al. (1997) advise to collect both data about study results and persistence and verbal-report data to evaluate learning to learn programs in higher education. These authors also suggest that students’ actual use of strategies should be measured in a number of subjects. In recent research into active self-directed learning different kinds of assessment methods have often been combined. That has happened less often in educational practice. An example of a method used in practice is given by Peverly (1990). He gives students a grade appropriate study text which they have to study ‘as for an exam/test’. Students are also told that they will have to answer test questions after studying the text. The student gets paper, a pen, marking pen and a dictionary and he is allowed to ask questions. During studying the student is recorded on videotape. The studying is followed by free recall and cued recall


95

measurements. After that, the teacher asks questions about the student’s studying the text to exactly map what the student was doing and why. Then there is a short break in which the teacher analyses the summary or another product by the student. After that, the teacher asks questions about this as well: What has s/he been doing and why. He also poses specific questions about any errors in the structure or content of the summary. Finally, there is a metacognitive interview in which information is gathered about the student’s perception of the cognitive, affective and resource management aspects of studying and testing. This method is used by Peverly as an instrument of diagnosis for students with serious studying problems. Considerations during the selection of methods

All methods have their strong and weak points, including Peverly’s method (1990) described above. Peverly’s strongest point is the variation in assessment methods and one of its weakest is the fact that only one single study text is used. With another study text the learner’s foreknowledge and interest might be different and other cognitive activities might be necessary to digest the text. The investment in time when using this method will often pose a problem. It becomes clear from the above analysis that one has to make a number of considerations when selecting an assessment method. The most important aspect is that one has to have a clear view of why one wants to exactly assess active selfdirected learning and what one wants to assess (see sections 1 and 2). From these choices a number of other choices emerge. If, for instance, one wants to gather information about the learning skills of large groups of learners, one will have to find methods to be used in groups. To conclude, we highlight a number of aspects which might be important in the selection of an appropriate method for the assessment of learning skills.

1. Goal of the assessment diagnosis in-between testing final testing non-evaluative assessment 2. Content of the assessment which skills which subskills domain-specific or domain-transgressing 3. Target group individual learners – groups of learners school – work situations primary – secondary – higher education 4. Type of data to be collected verbal data – externally observable behavior oral – written data

96

5.

6.

7.

8.


quantitative – qualitative data real-life tasks – constructed tasks Assessment procedure standardized – non-standardized during task execution – after (of disconnected from) task execution individually – in a group short registration – longer registration Processing the data collected automatic data input – non-automatic data input processing with standard – without standard short data processing – longer data processing Psychometric quality of the assessment method reliability validity Financial aspects price of assessment instrument costs of data collection costs of data processing

Based on these eight aspects a set of precise criteria can be defined to which an assessment method will have to conform in a certain situation. These criteria can be used as a point of departure to make the selection process easier from the many available assessment methods. In addition, the criteria can also be used for the design of new methods for assessing skills for active self-directed learning. After all, it is of paramount importance that these skills are assessed well, both in educational practice and in educational research. NOTES 1 See Van Hout-Wolters (1992) for a definition of the terms ‘strategy’ and ‘skill’ (in an educational context). These two terms, however, are often used as synonyms in educational psychology.

REFERENCES Airasian, P.W. (1994). Classroom assessment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P.R.J. (1995). Leren en instructie; Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces [Learning and Instruction; Psychology of the learner and the learning process]. Assen: Van Gorcum. Biggs, J.B. (1987). The Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Brown, W.F. (1986). Effective Study Test. Iowa City, IA: ACT. Busato, V.V. (1998). Leerstijlen nader geanalyseerd [Learning styles analyzed more closely]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. De Jager, B., & Reezigt, G.J. (1996). Onderwijseffectiviteit en metacognitieve vaardigheden [Educational efficiency and metacognitive skills]. Internal report. Groningen: GION. De Jong, F.P.C.M. (1992). Zelfstandig leren. Regulatie van het leerproces en leren reguleren: Een procesbenadering [Independent learning. Regulation of the learning process and learning to regulate: A process approach]. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University. De Waal, L. (1995). Studievaardigheidsvragenlijsten, een inventarisatie [Questionnaires for study skills, an inventory]. LOS Contact, 15 (3), 29-30.


97

Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1997). Assessment as a major influence on the present and future of learning and instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(5), 415-432. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1987). Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems. Elshout-Mohr, M. (1997). Nieuwe ‘vaardigheden’ in het onderwijs: Discussiestuk [New ‘skills’ in education: Discussion paper]. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstanun Institute and Graduate School of Teaching and Learning. Elshout-Mohr, M., & Meijer, J. (1998). Validering van AlvaBavo: Een toets voor algemene vaardigheden in de basisvorming [Validation of AlvaBavo: A test for general skills in basic education]. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Institute, University of Amsterdam. Elshout-Mohr, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Broekkamp, H. (1999). Mapping situations in classroom and research: Eight types of instructional learning episodes. Learning and Instruction, 9(1), 57-75. Entwistle, N.J., & Tait, H. (1994). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of selfschemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Garner, R. (1988). Verbal report data on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. San Diego: Academic Press. Hambleton, R.K. (1996). Advances in assessment models, methods and practices. In: D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.,), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 899-926). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136. James, W.B., & Blank, W.E. (1993). Review and critique of available learning-style instruments for adults. New directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 59, 47-58. Kuyper, H. (1994). Instrumentenonderzoek leerlingmetingen bovenbouw voortgezet onderwijs [Instrument research of student assessments of the upper school in secondary education]. Internal report. Groningen: GION. Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: expectations and validation crtiteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21. Marton, F., Watkins, D., & Tang, C. (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hongkong. Learning and Instruction, 7(1), 21-48. Michael, W.B., Michael, JJ., & Zimmerman, W.S. (1988). Study Attitudes and Methods Survey. San Diego: EDITS. Oosterhuis-Geers, J.(1995). PROBES: Procedure ter bevordering van effectief en efficiënt studeergedrag [PROBES: Procedure to promote effective and efficient studying behavior]. Enschede: University of Twente. Oosterhuis-Geers, J. (1998). Vragenlijst Studiemethoden (VSM) op internet [Questionnaire Study methods (VSM) on the internet]. LOS Contact, 18(1), 9-10. Peterson, P.L., Swing,, S.R., Braverman, M.T., & Buss, R. (1982). Students’ aptitudes and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 535-547. Peverly, S.T. (1990). The assessment of academic studying: An alternative to existing methods. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference in Boston, MA. Pintrich, P.R. (1988). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J.S. Stark & L.A. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. Popham, W.J. (1995). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Needham Heights, MA: Allen & Bacon. Reynolds, R.E., Wade, S.E., Trathen, W., & Lapan, R. (1989). The selective attention strategy and prose learning. In C.B. McCormick, G.E. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 159-190). New York: Springer Verlag. Roosendaal, A., & Vermunt, J. (1996). Leerstijlen en zelfstandig leren in het voorportaal van het studiehuis [Learning styles and self-directed learning at the gate of the ‘study house’]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 21, 336-347. Royer, J.M., Cisero, C.A., & Carlo, M.S. (1993). Techniques and procedures for assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 201-243.

98


Schellings, G.L.M., & Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (1996). Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and by their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 742-756. Schmeck, R.R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. Dillon & R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition. New York: Academic Press. Schouwenburg, H.C. (1990). Diagnostiek van studeerproblemen [Diagnostics for studying problems]. LOS Contact, 22. Schouwenburg, H.C., & Schilder, A.E. (1998). Handleiding bij de vragenlijst Studie-aanpak leerlingen bovenbouw HAVO-VWO [Manual to the questionnaire Study approach for students of the upper school of HAVO-VWO]. Groningen: Studie Ondersteuning, University of Groningen. Severiens, S. (1999). Vragenlijst Motivatie, Leerproces en Leerstrategieën [Questionnaire Motivation, Learning process and Learning strategies]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning. Simpson, M.L., Hynd, C.R., Nist, S.L., & Burell, K.I. (1997). College academic assistance programs and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 9(1), 39-87. Solano-Flores, G., & Shavelson, R.J. (1997). Development of performance assessments in science: Conceptual, practical and logical issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 16-25. Topman, R.M., Kleijn, W.C., Van der Ploeg, H.M., & Masset, E.A (1991). Test anxiety, cognitions, study habits and academic performance: a prospective study. In K.A. Hagtvet (Ed.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 7). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (1986). Markeren van kerngedeelten in studieteksten: Een proces-produkt benadering [Cueing of key phrases in instructional texts: A process-product approach]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (1992). Cognitieve strategieën als onderwijsdoel [Cognitive strategies as an educational goal]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., Simons, P.R.J., & Volet, S. (in press). Active learning: Self-directed learning and independent work. In P.R.J. Simons, J.L. van der Linden, & T.M. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Van Kammen, D. (1999). Werken met portfolio’s daagt uit om te tonen waar je voor staat [Working with portfolios challenges, to show where you stand]. Didaktief & School, 29(1/2), 30-33. Van Rijswijk, F.A.W.M., & Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1987). Vaardig studeren: studie aanpak adviespakket voor OU studenten. (Deel I, II en III) [Studying skillfully: Advisory package for study approach of Open University students (parts I, II and III)]. Tilburg: Tilburg University. Verheul, I., & Yang, J. (1986). Het traceren van leerprocessen via hardop-leermethode en een procesvragenlijst [Tracing learning processes by means of the thinking-aloud method and a process questionnaire]. In W.J. Van den Linden & J.M. Wijnstra (Eds.), Ontwikkelingen in de methodologie van het onderwijsonderzoek. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Verheij, J., Veenman, M.V.J., & Prins, F.J. (submitted). Identifying technical students at risk: self reported learning styles versus behavioral measures. Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs: Naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken [Learning styles and directing learning processes in higher education: Towards a process-directed instruction in self-directed learning]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Vermunt, J. (1998). Leeractiviteiten van leerlingen [Students’ learning activities]. In L. Verschaffel & J.D. Vermunt (Eds.), Het leren van leerlingen. Onderwijskundig lexicon, editie lll (pp. 29-46). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson. Vorst, H.C.M. (1991). Leren & Studeren: Ontwikkelingen van een vragenlijst leer- en studievaardigheid [Learning & Studying: Developments of a questionnaire for learning and studying skills]. Nijmegen: Berkhout Nijmegen. Weinstein, C.E. (1988). Assessment and training of student learning strategies. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press. Weinstein, C.E., & Hume, L.M. (1998). Study strategies for lifelong learning. Washington: American Psychological Association. Weinstein, C.E., & Meyer, D.K. (1996). Learning strategies: Teaching and Assessing. In E. De Corte & F.E. Weinert (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 423428). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Weinstein, C.E., Palmer, D.R., & Schulte, A.C. (1987). Learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, Florida: H&H publishing.


99

Winograd, P., & Jones, D.L. (1992). The use of portfolios in performance assessment. New directions for education reform, 1(2), 37-50. Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

AFFILIATIONS Bernadette van Hout-Wolters, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Email: vanhoutwolters@ilo. uva. nl. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Henry Schouwenburg, Simone Volet and my colleagues of the ILO-research group, Sarah Blom, Hein Broekkamp, Geert ten Dam and Sabine Severiens, for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter. I am especially indebted to Marianne Elshout-Mohr for her contribution and stimulating feedback.


KAREL STOKKING AND MARINUS VOETEN

6. VALID CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT OF COMPLEX SKILLS

NEW LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION AND CLAIMS ABOUT ASSESSMENT

New learning goals and new arrangements for teaching and learning may require new ways of testing learning outcomes. There are at least three impetuses for change here. In the first place, the traditional forms of testing are experienced as inadequate. Secondly, in the context of the new forms of learning and instruction, testing learning achievements gets another, broader role. And thirdly, the general trend to require the students to be more active, more independent, and more reflective in their learning, requires from the teachers to approach the students in a different way, also in testing achievement. New learning goals include attention for application of knowledge and skills in authentic situations, higher order thinking skills, and learning to learn. Modern society expects education to offer more than factual knowledge and basic skills. Broad and practically meaningful competencies are thought to be of equal or even greater importance. New learning and instructional processes refer to learning environments and learning activities that involve active, independent and reflective students, collaboration between students, teachers that coach students, and authentic situations for learning and problem solving. Recent changes in assessment parallel these developments. There is a shift from multiple choice to open-ended questions, from curriculum-independent to curriculum-embedded assessment and from using national standardized tests to classroom assessment, tailor-made by teachers. Alternative approaches intend to assess complex learning outcomes, using a variety of item formats, teacher observations, computer simulations, product ratings, presentations, and portfolios. Moreover, the relationship between assessment and learning and instruction is changing. New assessment practices include a focus on tasks with more than one good answer, the appraisal of learning processes that develop over longer periods of time, and assessment of group performance (cf. Jones & Hambleton, 1992). The alternative forms of assessment may also be seen in the light of giving students opportunities to learn, by clarifying the goals and by focusing, monitoring and supporting their development. Finally, when students are to be more active and independent learners, they must also be able to assess their own progress.

101


102


Though there are positive motives for developing new forms of assessment, the main impetus for reform was probably negative: the growing awareness that traditional closed-form knowledge tests were too remote from real-life uses of knowledge and skills, and were not suited for measuring broad and complex competencies. Of course, one has to be careful when it comes to criticizing traditional forms of testing, because it is possible that this criticism refers to certain limited practices rather than to fundamental limitations of the actual tests (cf. Hambleton and Murphy, 1992). Publications about performance assessment are very positive (Linn, 1989; Wiggins, 1989; Linn, Baker, & Dunbar, 1991; Wolf, Bixby, Glenn & Gardner, 1991; Rowe & Hill, 1996). Many authors are strikingly optimistic: the new approach is thought to be able to assess more general and higher-order skills, and may even deliver more valid measures than traditional approaches of testing. In our view, more empirical evidence is required. The expected positive effects of authentic assessment must be subjected to the same empirical research as all validity claims (cf. Messick, 1994). According to Glaser and Silver (1994) two conditions must be met to assure that assessment is likely to promote learning. First, the content of the assessment procedure must appropriately reflect the important instructional objectives. This is part of the evidential validity of the assessment. And second, the assessment must be planned and implemented as an integral part of the curriculum and the instruction (cf. Nitko, 1989). This relates to the consequential validity of the assessment. Our reservations seem to be supported by the difficulty of the design and development of technically sound performance assessments. This is apparent from studies of assessments based on products and portfolios (especially with regard to writing). These assessments must closely link up with instruction and adequately cover its contents. They must be designed in such a way that teachers can apply them. At the same time they must be open and general enough to suit the broad variation of student answers (products, solutions, choices), making coverage of instructional content less direct. Furthermore, they must be analytical enough for the student and the teacher to learn something useful, and this complicates the rating process (cf. Arter, 1993). When such a diversity of demands must be met, making a good scoring system requires a lot of construction work (cf. Baker, Abedi, Linn & Niemi, 1995; Novak, Herman & Gearhart, 1996). Many publications about new forms of assessment are quite general. In this article we intend to focus on the discussion on performance assessment and especially on two aspects: the new learning goals in terms of broad, complex skills and their interpretation in cognitive and constructivistic terms (section 2) and the criteria the assessment will have to meet (section 3). This is illustrated by research into the development and assessment of inquiry skills, a topical interest in secondary education in the Netherlands (section 4). Finally, we describe several implications for education and address some questions for the research agenda.

VALID CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT OF COMPLEX SKILLS

103

BROAD, GENERAL SKILLS AS LEARNING OBJECTIVES Before we can discuss criteria for developing performance assessments for general skills we need to clarify the concept of skill, and the idea of a general skill. Educational goals are commonly categorized as knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Prins, 1984; De Groot, 1986; Reetz, 1989; Boekaerts & Simons, 1995). We describe some views and give examples of classifications and their application. Romiszowski (1981) made a clear distinction between knowledge and skills: knowledge one either possesses or not, skills are mastered to a certain degree. Within the knowledge domain a distinction can be made between facts, concepts, principles and procedures. Skills can be classified as intellectual, interpersonal, affective, and psychomotor skills. According to Romiszowski, if a skill is more 'productive', knowledge plays a larger role in the performance. De Groot (1986) criticized the idea that learning outcomes can be usefully classified into cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. Especially, complex general skills cannot be subdivided into small units that can be defined, measured and learned separately. In human performance all kinds of elementary psychological functions play a role and cannot be separated from each other. De Groot alluded to 'knowledge-and-skills' as one complex: everything that one can describe as a (learned) ability to do something. In his view every desirable learning outcome is a learnt 'knowledge-and-skills' complex. Boekaerts en Simons (1995) use various classifications and designations. They define procedural knowledge as the ability to use or apply knowledge, but also as knowledge of action sequences, rules, routines and programs, and then again as a way of dealing with knowledge. They view strategies in terms of combinations of skills and of techniques that can knowingly be used. Other publications also use a diversity of concepts. Resnick and Collins (1996), for instance, view learning skills in terms of strategies and also as a set of habits. It seems advisable to make clearer distinctions between knowledge, strategy (plan, procedure, or heuristic), skill, and habit. One may have knowledge of a strategy, and it may have become a habit to apply a strategy, but that tells us little about the skill element. A skill may look like a strategy, when consciously applied, and like a habit, when the skill has become completely automatic. Skills are conceived in various ways (cf. De Groot, 1986; Romiszowski, 1981; Vallas, 1990; Boekaerts & Simons, 1995; Proctor & Dutta, 1995): skill may be defined as a (social meaningful) task or activity; a skill may refer to the proficiency with which someone can do something; it can refer to the automatic execution of procedures, that may but need not be expressed in visible actions (think of mental and affective skills); skill may be seen as a hypothetical construct, a non-observable quality that facilitates behavior All considered there seems to be good reason to view 'knowledge and skills' as a unity, but at the same time it can be maintained that they are separate constructs. Cognitive psychologists obviously view skills in terms of processed knowledge. In performance assessment, from a constructivistic perspective, skills are often mentioned without an explicit link to knowledge. However, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. The complex skill of performing an

104


authentic task may be subjected to a cognitive task analysis, and the development of sub-skills may be studied in terms of procedural knowledge. The term 'general skills' obliges us to specify what range of tasks or settings are covered by the term. This is analogous to the question of the possibility of transfer. Simons and Verschaffel (1992) defined transfer as 'the effect of earlier learned knowledge and skills on its use in new, more or less differing learning and application situations'. Using the term 'effect' they make transfer a causal process. It is more parsimonious to restrict the transfer concept to the (observable) use of knowledge and skills in situations that are different from the ones in which they were learned (Perkins and Salomon, 1996). In addition, the types of transfer that Simons and Verschaffel describe concern various dimensions that could be more explicitly distinguished, level of abstraction, context of application, and domain of content. Some authors use the terms 'transferable skills' and 'transfer skills' (Nijhof and Remmers, 1990; Moerkamp and De Bruijn, 1991; Nijhof and Streumer, 1994). Transferable skills' is used for skills with a broad range of application, 'transfer skills' is used for skills that enhance transfer. The term 'general skills' used in this study encompasses both. The term 'transferable' seems unnecessary. It is enough to say that skills are more or less broadly applicable. 'Transfer skills' are by definition generally applicable (they are supposed to bridge different contexts or domains) and therefore a sub-set of 'transferable skills'. In addition, the term 'transfer skills' entails the danger of an infinite regression. We conclude that it is best to use the term 'general skills' to refer to skills that are not specific for only one particular knowledge domain, school subject or application context. However, as we shall see, the term is also used for complex skills, containing a number of sub-skills. PRINCIPLES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS A clear understanding of the meaning of skill is vital for the design of instruction intended to promote skill learning. It is important to have a model of the processes that underskilled performance and its development. In constructing tests for measuring skills the present state of the art even requires an explicit model of the processes that underlie the actual performance and the way in which a skill develops (cf. Messick, 1984, 1995; Willett, 1988; Eggen & Sanders, 1993). Skills are concerned with organized processes that develop by omitting unnecessary elements, conscious steering, and controls, by acting more and more on the basis of anticipation and recognition and by using larger units (pattern recognition, integration of sub-skills), and by becoming more accurate, stabilized, and flexible. Although this point of view has been adhered to for some years (cf. Reed, 1968), it does not provide a sufficient basis for instruction and assessment. A well-known model of skill acquisition has been proposed by Fitts and Posner (1967). The first phase involves understanding what the task is about and knowing what cues to attend to. In the second phase a method is learned for actually performing the task. In the third phase task performance becomes (quasi-)


105

automatic. Anderson (1982) applied this model to the acquisition of cognitive skills. The first phase requires building up declarative knowledge. Through a process of knowledge compilation the declarative knowledge is converted into procedural knowledge. During the third phase practice (and reflection on possible problems) is still required to reach expert level. It is important to make a distinction between level of development and level of mastery. The first refers to the complete developmental process, recognizing individual differences in rate of development and in maximum level that can be reached (cf. Goldstein, 1979; Eggen en Sanders, 1993). Level of mastery is measured by referring to what is the desirable or practical maximum level of achievement. It is often assumed that a skill can be divided into sub-skills, that development proceeds through a number of stages or levels that always follow each other in the same sequence, and that each stage or level can be assessed separately (cf. Reed, 1968; Goldstein, 1979; Fischer, 1980; Frederiksen, Glaser, Lesgold & Shafto, 1990; Keeves, 1994). Skill acquisition, however, does not necessarily proceed in a continuous way, but can also proceed in leaps and bounds. This is partly due to intermediate integration processes and irregular environmental influences (Reed, 1968). In addition, people differ in developmental routes of skill acquisition (Fischer, 1980). Furthermore, the sequence of learning a complex skill need not be the same as the sequence by which learned sub-skills are used during performance (cf. Nitko, 1989). There may be individual differences in the order of sub-skills; people may differ in their way of tackling a task (cf. Snow and Lohman, 1989). Achievement differences may be related to problem representation, availability and the use of prior knowledge, selected strategy, or monitoring (Messick, 1984; Millman & Greene, 1989; Alexander, Schallert & Hare, 1991; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). In sum, we do not have complete process models at our disposal. That does not imply that student achievements offer no clues for the students' development. Wolf et al. (1991) and Rowe & Hill (1996) identified certain scalogram structures and concluded that stages exist in the development of the skills concerned. From a constructivistic point of view one may accept such cognitive oriented results. Constructivists, however, are inclined to abandon an interpretation of skill development in terms of a specific (cognitive) theoretical construct and do not pay much attention to modeling the process in theoretical terms. (Yet, even in a constructivistic approach one cannot but view a skill as a theoretical construct, if we agree that a person can have a skill without expressing it). The criteria for the validity of assessments, to be mentioned below, can be viewed against the background of the cognitive tradition, which maintains that tasks are only a vehicle of assessment and performance is interpreted in terms of a theoretical construct (with respect to a certain skill) (Messick, 1994). This construct-oriented construction and interpretation of assessments contrasts with a task-oriented perspective, which seems to be the natural perspective in the constructivistic approach. However, a constructivistic approach which accentuates the authentic character of a task need not restrict itself to an interpretation of the

106


performance in terms of the observable task itself. In so far as the sub-skills resulting from a cognitive task-analysis can be seen as authentic (meaningful) in itself, both traditions could well combine, and the traditional psychometric concept of validity is still relevant. According to Linn et al. (1991) the quality of performance-based assessments must be judged by a set of validity criteria specifically tuned to such assessments. Messick (1994, 1995), however, showed that all general validity criteria are needed for coverage of evidential and consequential issues of assessment, and that these criteria are fully applicable to performance assessments. Linn (1994) modified his earlier position by stressing that priorities must be set in determining evidential and consequential validity and that the priorities derive from 'the intent of measurement and the uses and interpretations that are made of results'.


107

Performance assessment seems to emphasize aspects of consequential validity rather than issues of evidential validity. However, evidential validity remains as important as in traditional forms of assessment. For example, for openended tasks, consistency in rating and generalizability over tasks intended to measure the same skill are important issues. Technical standards for performancebased assessments must acknowledge this. Shavelson, Baxter and Gao (1993) concluded from a generalizability study in science and mathematics that considerable variance existed between the methods of data collection (like shortanswer questions, diaries, or observations) as well as between the specific tasks used. We will examine the criteria for validity against this background. What are these general quality criteria? Figure 1, based on De Groot (1970), Messick (1989, 1995) and Eggen and Sanders (1993), represents the broadly accepted state of the art. Performance assessments cannot escape critical scrutiny on these criteria, especially in accountability assessment with high stakes involved for students. The following section describes research into the evaluation of the actual applicability of these criteria on teacher's assessments of student's inquiry skills in an authentic setting. AN EXAMPLE: INQUIRY SKILLS

Dutch secondary education examinations (school exams and national final exams) tend to emphasize more and more the importance of skills, including general skills that cross the borders of school subjects, such as information, inquiry and presentation skills. Starting in 1999 school exams will be spread out over the last two or three years of secondary school. Students' performance will be gathered in a file for each student with included judgements on completed assignments. Students work independently (individually or in small groups). When necessary the teacher may intervene and support students. A rating of at least 'sufficient' on the last and biggest assignment (the 'profile project') is necessary to enter the national final exam. The contents of the school exams are circumscribed in the programs for the national final exams. Schools are allowed to fill in the details. Several institutions in the Dutch educational support structure are developing means to support teachers. However, different lists of inquiry skills are used and different criteria are considered relevant. In April 1998 the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Utrecht started a research project aimed at gaining more insight in the extent to which teachers are able to assess practical assignments in a way which conforms to psychometric criteria. We want to find out to what extent teachers are able to meet these criteria. Because the assignments are part of the school exam the stakes for students are high and it is legitimate to inquire into the quality of teachers' judgments (De Groot, 1970). We focus on practical work carried out by students working together on a research project. This is intimately bound up with the developments in assessment described above. Practical assignments in particular are supposed to test (general)

108


skills, to be fit for classroom use, and to be more valid than other ways of measurement. However, the possibilities and merits of this approach are not yet clear enough. Our research project consists of four steps: (1) a literature survey and an analysis of educational goals concerning inquiry skills, relevant sub-skills, and possibilities and difficulties in assessing these skills; (2) a survey held amongst teachers, exploring their practices and experiences in judging practical work of students. Moreover, all relevant materials are collected: the assignments the teacher has given, the products of the students, the criteria the teachers use, the ratings given, etc.; (3) a systematic evaluation of the results of the preceding steps by a panel of experts, confronting the assessment practice of the teachers with the criteria in Figure 1; (4) development of a computer-based assessment scheme, in collaboration with selected teachers, to create an optimum in the trade-off between practical feasibility and maximal satisfaction with psychometric standards. The following is a summary of the results of the first step, illustrated by some results of the second step. Alternative goals with respect to inquiry skills in secondary education

One element of good performance assessment practice in education is that the assessment criteria are consistent with the educational goals the teacher is striving for. There may be several reasons for including inquiry skills in the curriculum: 1 Enabling students to acquire knowledge about the subject. The focus is on inquiry as a way of learning subject-specific contents. 2 Involving students in inquiry regarded as an interpretation of independent learning. This comes close to 'learning to learn' and enhances students' selfconfidence and motivation. 3 Enabling students to experience the essential elements in setting up and executing a research project: the procedure, the way of reasoning, shifting between theory, research questions, design, data and conclusions. The aim is to get an overview of all the decisions to be made and their interrelationships. 4 Enabling students to practice the sub-skills involved in inquiry processes, such as planning and monitoring skills, information skills (acquiring, structuring, analyzing, concluding), language skills (reasoning, communicating, writing). 5 Enabling students to acquire knowledge of and experience with the major instruments of a researcher, that is, the craftsmanship needed to do research, The toolbox of the researcher contains a number of methods and techniques, and norms and conventions also play a part. 6 Introducing students to the ethos of (disciplined) inquiry: persistent curiosity, methodical thinking, objectivity, balanced judgement, verifiability. 7 Giving students the opportunity to recognize that knowledge partly has to do with a reality that cannot be molded at people's will, and partly with ideas construed by people, individually and jointly, about this reality. This goal concerns the conception of knowledge; the idea that the quest for knowledge is an open and ongoing process (instead of knowledge being some codified database).


109

Some of these goals are pursued in general education (or even lifelong learning) (2, 6, 7); others (3, 4, 5) are related to the preparation for a study at university level. During the second step in our research project 50 teachers participated in a survey (natural science and social science subjects). About 90% of the teachers aimed at goals 1, 2, 4 and 7, and 55% at goals 3, 5 and 6. The fact that teachers seem to be inclined to teach 'research' as a series of steps (step 4) instead of research as a creative and disciplined way of thinking (steps 3 and 6) is not without risks. It may well lead to a distorted picture of scientific research and can cause students to develop an aversion against doing research. Inquiry skills in the exams for pre-university education in the Netherlands In the Netherlands the programs for national final exams are developed under the authority of the Ministry of Education by the Institute for Curriculum Development SLO. For each school subject, in order to comply to criteria of validity and legitimization, all sorts of experts and stakeholders (especially teachers) are involved in this process. The SLO coordinates the process. In 1996 the exam programs were completed which are operative since 1998. The format of the descriptions of the objectives differs from subject to subject, but the most important general skills are always listed first, under the heading 'domain A, general skills'. We analyzed the objectives of the following subjects: physics, biology, geography, history, economics, Dutch, and mathematics. We developed a list of 10 research steps which allows for a classification of all objectives and a fair comparison of the ways in which the inquiry process was conceptualized for the various school subjects. We now describe the steps. 1 specifying a problem in terms of the main concepts of the discipline In the objectives for physics and biology this step is barely made explicit, it is implied in two objectives: recognizing and specifying a natural science problem, and relating problem statements and hypotheses with data and available prior knowledge. For geography, history, and economics the important concepts of the discipline have been described in a number of statements of objectives. 2 stating a research question, hypotheses and expectations, and/or subquestions For the natural science subjects, hypotheses and expectations are required. For geography and history it is required to subdivide a research question into subquestions. A research question must be a researchable question: it should be clear-cut and unequivocal, accessible to research, and practicable in terms of the conditions at hand and time available. These demands are not made explicit in the objectives. In practice, students will often have difficulty clarifying concepts and getting a good picture of the process and possible results of the research. 3 designing the research, creating a plan of activities, monitoring its execution Remarkably, the objectives do not tell us anything about the choice of an adequate research plan (e.g., design, sampling, instrumentation, and analysis). Choices in this area go to the heart of the matter of what one might call the existing body of knowledge about doing research. The practice of research also requires that attention be paid to an appropriate allocation of tasks (when the study is done by a

110


group of students), insight in which tools are required, making appointments, and so on. So, ability to organize and communicative skills also are important. 4 finding and selecting information, or data collection For physics and biology an explicit distinction has been made between use of written, oral and audiovisual sources, the choice and interviewing of informants and getting information from graphs, tables, and so on. The objectives for geography, history and economics explicitly specify the determination of information needs and the selection of relevant sources. For collecting data special "techniques" are needed, and specific skills are involved. 5 determining the value of information or data This step is concerned with the reliability and relevance (utility) of the data, and for the social science subjects the criterion of representativeness is important as well. This step is analyzed separately, because evaluating information on these criteria must be based on a combination of considerations from steps 1, 2, and 4. 6 handling information or data For the natural sciences and economics processing data and representing results in the form of graphs is emphasized. In geography and history terms like 'analysis' and 'interpretation' are used. This step is the first that also includes objectives for native language instruction, i.e. the analysis of expository texts. The objectives for mathematics concentrate on this step, in combination with step 1, and view mathematics as a subject to be applied to all sorts of problems. It focuses on designing and testing a valid and useful mathematical model. 7 drawing conclusions This step is briefly touched on in the objectives for all school subjects. In geography, history, and economics the only additional requirement is that arguments have to be provided. Drawing conclusions can be especially complicated where these school subjects are concerned. This step deserves more attention. 8 judging the adequacy of the research This step is briefly mentioned in one objective for each subject field. For native language, learning objectives concerning the assessment of an expository text can be classified under this heading. In this step all previous steps should be reviewed. In this way students should consciously learn how to do research. From an educational point of view this seems to be an important step. One must require students to reflect, and they will need support to do just that. 9 forming a well-reasoned opinion For this step no physics or biology objectives have been formulated. One may wonder whether values and norms, and taking a stand are not important for these fields. Obviously a distinction must be made between values and norms that are part of the topic under study, and values and norms concerning the study itself (the purpose of the research, the interests served, the consequences of the acquired knowledge). The first type of values and norms are only at stake in the social science subjects, but the second type is also important for the natural sciences. 10 reporting (description) and presentation (oral and/or visual) The objectives for native language instruction include writing a correct, wellstructured and convincing expository text. Geography, history and economics


111

require, besides a written report, a presentation supported by audiovisual means or by ICT. The teachers who participated in our survey devoted more or less attention to all steps discussed. These teachers devote most of their attention to conclusions (step 7) and formulation of research problems and design (steps 1-3). The preceding analysis illustrates the specification of learning objectives and subskills needed to develop an adequate performance assessment. At least three questions must be asked: (a) To what extent do the steps refer to meaningful subtasks and/or separate sub-skills? (b) To what extent are these skills subject-specific or subject-transcending? (c) How can the development of these skills be assessed by the teacher? In order to answer the first two questions we offer a short summary of some publications about research into the problem of measuring and judging such skills. The answer to the third question is given by means of a description of insights we developed during our research into the relationship between instruction, guidance and assessment, including a number of practical choices teachers have to make. (a) Do the research steps refer to meaningful sub-tasks and to different sub-skills? It is important to education as well as assessment to ask oneself whether the subskills listed above are independent or linked to each other, or whether the one is a condition for the other. Part of the problem is which level of specification should be chosen. Lock (1989, 1990) employed the following classification (order adapted): planning, manipulation, observation, interpretation, report, self-reliance. Brown et al. (1996) distinguished: designing and planning, using and organizing techniques and apparatus, observing and measuring, interpreting experimental observations and data, recording and reporting. Both studies show that data collection and report writing are two discernible skill domains. The design and planning of a study seem to be associated with interpretation of the results (judging by the correlations between student scores on the judgment scales). This association can possibly be explained by the fact that both research steps are closely related to the content connected with the research problem, or the knowledge domain concerned (see our step 1). Both studies indicated that these sub-skills were most subject-specific. These results shed more light on the discussion about a construct-oriented versus a task-oriented perspective and a cognitive or psychometric versus a constructivistic point of view. Where inquiry is concerned several sub-skills have to be discerned, and these do not highly correlate. In this situation, if we view the relationship between the indicators and theoretical constructs as laid down in classical psychometrical theory whereby the constructs are looked upon as causes and indicators as effects, we may not speak of one total inquiry skill. On the other hand, the sub-skills could also be seen as causes that combine to a total inquiry skill. If the sub-skills are not strongly related, in the last model they compensate for each other: a student can be good in planning but bad in drawing conclusions, or vice versa, and still reach the same total score. Since a research project can only

112


be successfully completed if all relevant sub-skills are mastered satisfactorily, this result is not desirable. Consequently, the additional requirement should be included that every sub-skill is mastered to at least some minimal standard. In a task-oriented perspective on performance assessment a research assignment can be taken as one big task. From a constructivistic point of view it is important that a task is meaningful, and a project as a whole will pass this criterion (particularly if the students were able to make their own choices). In the context of a comprehensive research project the separate research steps will be interpretable as meaningful (sub-) tasks. An interpretation of sub-skills or indicators as meaningful (sub-)tasks can be combined with an interpretation of these indicators as causes of a total inquiry skill. In the cognitive-psychometric tradition the sub-skills will be seen as theoretical constructs, which should be made measurable in the traditional way. The sub-skills then offer an explanation of the total performance, and generalization to future performance is based on that explanation, in other words, based on the theory that the student disposes these skills. In a constructivistic approach explanation is not prominent, and generalization is merely a question of prediction, based on earlier performances. (b) Are the sub-skills subject-specific or subject-transcending? It is also important to find out to what extent the sub-skills are subject-specific or even task-specific. Previous studies have reached somewhat different conclusions (cf. Lock, 1989, 1990; Brown, Moore, Silkstone & Botton, 1996). A recurring result in various studies (Lock, 1990; Shavelson et al., 1993; Brown et al., 1996) is that a number of sub-skills are highly task-specific. In other words, there seems to be little transfer to other topics, assignments or problem statements (within the same school subject). An important consequence of this is that a certain number of different inquiry assignments must be judged to ascertain a valid generalization. Minima mentioned are 5, 8, 10, and more, and limits of practicality will soon be exceeded. However, it is important to keep in mind that development of expertise is characterized by increasing flexibility. Task specificity may be high for the novice, but not for the expert. Our survey among 50 teachers explored their views and practices with regard to teaching, coaching and assessing research skills. Few significant differences were found between the school subjects. These significant differences mainly concerned the teacher's experiences with different types of research (experiment, survey, observational studies, document-analysis, etc.). (c) Various ways of testing (inquiry) skills For performance assessment of complex practical skills various methods of measurement can be used (cf. Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1996). Straetmans (1993) arranged a number of techniques on the dimension hands-off (like the traditional written test) versus hands-on (e.g. a 'work sample test'), with simulation techniques as in-between options. The techniques on this dimension vary in degree of representativeness for real-world settings in which the skill must be applied. A test is more representative when it is more inclusive (covers more component skills or a


113

larger variety of tasks), and more true-to-life (authentically reflecting real-world activities). Straetmans concluded that hands-off tests meet demands of accuracy and reliability more adequately (partly due to standardization), while hands-on tests score higher on transferability. Simulations take on an intermediate position. At which point on this dimension should teacher appraisal of research work by (small groups of) students be localized? On the one hand it may be called hands-on testing, because students are not answering test questions about research, but are actually doing research. On the other hand the testing situation remains a school situation, in which the teacher sets certain limits and gives support. Is this the better of two worlds or is it just the opposite of that: a test that is neither reliable nor true-to-life? The answer will mainly depend on the ways in which the goals of the research work and its assessment, and the teacher arranges her coaching and the assessment process. Lock (1990) and Shavelson et al. (1993) reported substantial method variance. An implication of this could be that one should use more than one method to assess students' research work, not only teacher ratings. A viable supplementary method could well be self-assessment, students assessing their own work. (In the last step of our project we concentrate on the development of a computer program for teacher assessment, peer assessment and self-assessment of students' inquiry projects). The choices the teacher has to make for some form or forms of assessment should be tuned to the goals he or she is striving for, the assignments and guidance given, and the function or functions the assessment has to fulfill. In assessing inquiry skills, the students, given the opportunity to execute a study, have freedom of choice, they may work collaboratively, and they may ask for teacher assistance. The student is viewed and treated as an active, independent learner for whom assignments and assessments must be meaningful, true-to-life, challenging and motivating. Such assignments usually do not culminate in questions which allow for only one right answer. Moreover, there is no strict time limit, and students may use all kinds of resources. Depending on the goals strived for, teachers will stress certain points or make special demands with regard to the kind of research the students perform and the way they do the research. Quite a number of didactic choices are required: allocation of steering functions to teacher or students regarding the various research steps (for instance: is the research problem a given or not) (in our survey about 65% of the teachers are giving pre-structured assignments); more or less step by step coaching (to reduce the risk that a research project fails, and to increase the possibilities to offer precise feedback) (about 80% of our social science subject teachers and about 50% of the natural science subject teachers is giving step by step assistance); more or less explicit use of collaboration between students, to promote reflection, argumentation, motivation, etc. (in our survey 40% always makes use of collaboration, 15% does so regularly, 35% sometimes, and 10% never); the nature of the feedback (global or detailed, process- or product-oriented, diverging or converging).

114


These choices and the functions of assessment are not without consequences for the decisions that are to be made with regard to the further details of the assessment. For instance, if the teacher's main objective when allowing students to do research is their independent learning of subject-specific contents, she will evidently only judge the subject knowledge gains and not the inquiry skills learnt. If the teacher follows the procedure step by step, it is possible to judge parts of the project (intermediately completed phases), if not she can only judge the end product. Other decisions are: judging the products only or including the process of inquiry in the judgement (in our survey 25% of the teachers only judged the final report, 50% also judged the process but did so implicitly, and 25% judged the process by explicit criteria); judging by means of a global rating system, or by means of detailed specification of aspects and criteria (15% of the teachers in our survey judged the final report globally and 40% used a detailed specification, 25% judged intermediate products globally, and 25% judged such products using specifications); how, if at all, can we account for: the complexity, quality level and/or originality of the research; the extent to which the student or students worked independently or needed interventions and support by the teacher; the amount of time or effort invested by students, and the 'authenticity' (cf. Webb, 1997). The choices made should be based on considerations regarding the sub-skills involved, the performance standards set, and the goals of the assessment. Assessment of students' performances can have several functions: selection and placement, feedback on learning achievements, diagnosis of learning problems, decisions about grading and certification (Madaus & Kellaghan, 1982; Messick, 1984; Nitko, 1989; Keeves, 1994). Attention for performance assessment is associated with an emphasis on formative functions of assessment (diagnosis, feedback). EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS AND A RESEARCH AGENDA

Altering assessment practices is likely to affect the curriculum, teaching methods, and students' understanding of the meaning of their work. We briefly mention some implications, to indicate the context in which new forms of assessment will have to settle. The possibilities of integrating assessment and instruction (cf. Nitko, 1989) is one important aspect. The options for integration that can be realized in practice are related to the structure of the curriculum, the function of the assessment (e.g. placement, diagnosis), and the teacher's possibilities to measure the relevant knowledge and skills. The integration has a potential impact on the learning activities, processes and results of the students. Impact is to be expected to the extent that the assessment makes clear what the learning goals are and why they are important, gives students a realistic and meaningful feedback and motivates them by giving them the feeling that they are going to learn something valuable. Quite a lot will depend on the way the teacher manages this. Assessment


115

that is insufficiently tuned to the educational contents and processes offers the teacher and students no useful insight, and can lead to unfair decisions. In general, assessment may contribute to the learning process by focusing attention, providing performance anchors, requiring active participation, offering opportunity for good practice, and providing feedback (Crooks, 1988; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Boekaerts, 1991; Rowe & Hill, 1996; Wolfe, 1996). Crooks (1988) makes clear that the effect of assessment on students is mediated by the expectations of the students. By communicating in a clear way that standards are high but attainable students are stimulated to achieve. In addition, Wolf et al. (1991) and White and Frederiksen (1998) found that the necessity to judge and to reflect, and to include students in the judgment process, had positive effects on the teachers themselves. They understood more accurately what inquiry is about and were better able to communicate about it with the students. Implementation of newer forms of assessment presupposes that the teachers have the relevant competencies and that teachers, students and parents accept these innovations. For the development of valid forms of authentic assessment such aspects are relevant as well. Stiggins & Bridgeford (1985) found that a lot of teachers had problems in choosing, developing and using assessment materials and procedures. The problems were partly organizational (finding the time needed; realizing collaboration with other teachers), partly teachers tended to have difficulties with the correct interpretation and use of the results. The authors concluded that about 75% of the teachers in secondary education had serious concerns about the new forms of assessment, that the assessment practice of a substantial part of the teachers is not without risk when it comes to the validity of their judgments, and that teachers would need more training in these matters. There is no reason to believe that the situation in the Netherlands in 1999 is essentially different. Seyfart, Simon and Schlesinger (1994) signalized that students and parents may have problems with so-called 'soft' testing of 'soft' skills, partly because they worry about whether students learn enough and whether traditional knowledge and basic skills are not being neglected or norms lowered. Parents may also doubt or suspect the fairness and objectivity of assessments when no standardized tests are used and even collaboration between students is allowed. These doubts are also voiced in the Netherlands. How can research contribute to a responsible development and implementation of newer forms of assessment, and gain more insight in the possibilities and pitfalls? At least three types of research seem called for. First, research into the psychometric quality and the conditions that make certain quality levels attainable. Secondly, research into the ways in which teachers (and the students themselves) can learn to use these new forms of assessment adequately and systematically. And finally, research into the effects of newer forms of assessment on the instruction and learning process, the learning results, and the reception of these reforms by both students and parents.

116

KAREL STOKKING AND MARINUS VOETEN REFERENCES

Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., & Hare, V.C. (1991). Coming to terms: how researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research 61 (3), 315-343. Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 89, 369-406. Arter, J. (1993). Designing Scoring Rubrics for Performance Assessments: the Heart of the Matter. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Test Center. Baker, E.L., Abedi, R.L. Linn, R.L., & Niemi, D. (1995). Dimensionality and generalizability of domainindependent performance assessment. Journal of Educational Research 89 (4), 197-205. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. Boekaerts, M. (1991). Subjective competence, appraisals and self-assessment. Learning and Instruction 1, 1-17. Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P.R.J. (1995). Leren en instructie. Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces. Assen: Van Gorcum. Brown, C.R., Moore, J.L., Silkstone, B.E., & Botton, C. (1996). The construct validity and context dependency of teacher assessment of practical skills in some pre-university level science examinations. Assessment in Education 3 (3), 377-391. Crooks, T.J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research 58 (4), 438-481. Eggen, T. & Sanders, P. (Eds.). (1993). Psychometrie in de praktijk. Amhem: Cito. Fischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: the control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review 87 (6), 477-531. Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M.G. (Eds.) (1990). Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Glaser, R., & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing and instruction: Retrospect and prospect. In: L. DarlingHammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education 20, 393-419. Goldstein, H. (1979). The design and analysis of longitudinal studies. London: Academic Press. Groot, AD. de. (1970). Some badly needed non-statistical concepts in applied psychometrics. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie 25, 360-376. Groot, A.D. de. (1986). Wat neemt de leerling mee van onderwijs? Gedragsrepertoires, programma's, kennisen-vaardigheden. In: A.D. de Groot, Begrip van Evalueren. Den Haag: VUGA, 63-82. Hambleton, R.K., & Murphy, E. (1992). A psychometric perspective on authentic measurement. Applied Measurement in Education 5 (1), 1-16. Jones, R.W., & Hambleton, R.K. (1992). Recent advances in psychometric methods. Amherst: Massachusetts University, Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research. Keeves, J.P. (1994). Methods of assessment in schools. In T. Husén, & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon, 362-370. Linn, R.L. (Ed.). (1989). Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Linn, R.L. (1994). Performance Assessment. Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher 23 (9), 4-14. Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher 20 (8), 15-21. Lock, R. (1989). Assessment of practical skills. Part 1. The relationships between component skills. Research in Science & Technological Education 7 (2), 221-233. Lock, R. (1990). Assessment of practical skills. Part 2. Context dependency and construct validity. Research in Science & Technological Education 8 (1), 35-52. Madaus, G., & Kellaghan, T. (1992). Curriculum evaluation and assessment. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 119-154. Messick, S. (1984). The psychology of educational measurement. Journal of Educational Measurement 21 (3), 215-237. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.). Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 13-103. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher 23 (2), 13-23. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. Validation of inferences from person's responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist 50 (9), 741-749. Millman, J., & Greene, J. (1989). The specification and development of tests of achievement and ability. In R.L. Linn (Ed.). Educational Measurement (3rd ed.) New York: Macmillan, 335-366.


117

Moerkamp, T., & de Bruijn, E. (1991). Leren voor een loopbaan. Het verwerven van transitievaardigheden in HAVO en MBO. Amsterdam: SCO. Nijhof, W.J., & J.L.M. Remmers. (1990). Basisvaardigheden en het beroepsonderwijs. Een operationalisering van het begrip basisvaardigheden. Pedagogische Studiën 67, 389-402. Nijhof, W.J., & J.N. Streumer. (1994). Verbreed beroepsonderwijs. Enschede: UT/TO. Nitko, A.J. (1989). Designing tests that are integrated with instruction. In R.L. Linn (Ed.). Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 447-474. Novak, J.R., Herman, J.L. & Gearhart, M. (1996). Establishing validity for performance-based assessments: An illustration for collections of student writing. The Journal of Educational Research 89 (4), 220-233. Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, O. (1996). Transfer of Learning. In: Tj. Plomp, D.P. Ely (Eds.). International encyclopedia of educational technology. Second edition. Oxford: Pergamon, 64-68. Prins, R. (1984). Over de beoordeling van de beroepshouding. Indigo-reeks nr. 5.7. Enschede: SLO and Arnhem: CITO. Proctor, R.W., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Reed, G.F. (1968). Skill. In E.A. Lunzer & J.F. Morris (Eds.). Development in human learning. New York: American Elsevier, 104-143. Reetz, L. (1989). Zum Konzept der Schlüsselqualifikationen in der Berufsbildung. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis 18 (5), 3-10 en (6), 24-30. Resnick, L.B., & Collins, A. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Tj. Plomp, & D.P. Ely (Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Cambridge UK: Pergamon, 48-51. Romiszowski, A.J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. London, etc.: Kogan Page. Rowe, K.J., & Hill, P.W. (1996). Assessing, recording and reporting students' educational progress: the case for 'subject profiles'. Assessment in Education 3 (3), 309-352. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: an update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 (10), 1045-1063. Seyfart, J.T., Simon, D.J., & Schlesinger, J. (1994). Assessing student performance: are our assumptions valid? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Chicago, February 16-19. Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P. & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement 30 (3), 215-232. Simons, P.R.J., & L. Verschaffel. (1992). Transfer: onderzoek en onderwijs. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch 17 (1), 3-16. Snow, R.E., & Lohman, D.F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R.L. Linn (Ed.). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 263-331. Stiggins, R.J., & Bridgeford, N.J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement 22 (4), 271-286. Straetmans, G.J.J.M. (1993). Het vaststellen van competentie met vaardigheidstoetsen. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs 11 (3), 188-203. Vallas, S.P. (1990). The concept of skill. A critical review. Work and Occupations 17 (4), 379-398. Webb, N.M. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory into Practice 36 (4), 205-213. White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction 16 (1), 3-118. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: toward more authentic and equitable assessment Phi Delta Kappa 70 (9), 703-713. Willett, J.B. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. In E.Z. Rothkopf (Ed.). Review of Research in Education 15, 345-422. Wolf, D., J. Bixby, J. Glenn, H. Gardner. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Educational Research 17, 31-74. Wolfe, E.W. (1996). Student Reflection in Portfolio Assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, April 911.

AFFILIATIONS

Karel Stokking, Department of Educational Science, University of Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: k. stokking@fss. uu.nl.

118


Rinus Voeten, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Nijmegen (visiting researcher at the Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Finland). E-mail: [email protected].

JOHAN VAN DER SANDEN, JAN TERWEL AND STELLA VOSNIADOU

7. NEW LEARNING IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY A competency perspective

INTRODUCTION

The still rapidly growing importance of science and technology in the information society (see also Lintsen et al., 1998) has not only given rise to the establishment of communities of highly specialized scientists and engineers but has and is having profound effects on ordinary life as well. Everyone can be regarded a member of a diffuse and ever-increasing community of people for which a variety of scientific knowledge-based services and products is quite common, making a basic understanding of everyday science and technology necessary. As an initially peripheral member of the communities of practice involved (Lave & Wenger, 1991), a collection of incidental and intentional learning processes is required to reach the status of a full member. More general as well as more specific competencies are needed to appreciate and comprehend the proliferation of scientific-technological offshoots. These competencies enable someone to participate in the everyday world of science and technology or, additionally, in more specialized communities engaged in the application, maintenance and/or creation of specific technological services and products. Science and technology literacy has become an important aspect of recent discussions about educational standards in the US, Canada, and European countries like the UK and the Netherlands. In spite of its importance, the learning and instruction of science and technology are not simple. Many students do not manage to acquire basic science and technology-related competencies or have difficulties in applying knowledge and skills in out-of-school situations (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). Others, though having science and technology-related abilities prefer not to take up educational programs in this field. In the Netherlands, for instance, almost half of the students in preuniversity education are enrolled in science and technology examination programs, but a significant part of these students do not enter science and technology programs in higher education (Commissie Toekomst Natuur- en Technische Wetenschappen, 1997). Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find enough well qualified science and technology teachers, as a consequence of which even less students may be expected to choose science and technology programs. The failure of teacher educators, curriculum developers and teachers to engage all students in the learning of mathematics, science and technology is due to a diversity 119


120


of factors. We want to draw attention to two close-to-school factors. First, there is a tendency in cognitive theories to attribute disappointing outcomes to individual learners. Second, the teaching of mathematics, science and technology can be characterized by a ‘transmission model’ and a ‘content mastery’ approach (Byrnes, 1996). Until recently, neither cognitive theory nor teaching practice has paid attention to the social context in which mathematics, science and technology is learned and used (Gauvain, 1998). This chapter focuses on different approaches to learning and instruction in science and technology education. The content is organized around a number of specific issues, which are highly relevant for the field and which continue to provoke discussion among researchers as well as practitioners. These issues are considered from the perspective of the development of competencies in a community of learners, i.e., a participation perspective. The notion of ‘becoming a member of a community of learners’ plays an important role in this perspective. This also means special attention to non-participation and its negative consequences for the process and the outcomes of learning (Terwel, 1997). Initial differences between students in pre-knowledge - and as a consequence differences in the need for social and instructional support- are related to differences in participation and membership, which in turn are mediating factors in producing differential learning outcomes. The first issue that is taken up in section 2 concerns the role of prior knowledge in the acquisition of science concepts as studied from a conceptual change perspective (e.g. Ali, 1990; Biemans, 1997; Vosniadou, 1991; Glynn, Yeany & Britton, 1991). This line of research has provided important information on the learning of science and has led to several proposals about instructional interventions. Science learning is also studied by researchers interested in student goal orientations, learning conceptions and approaches to learning (e.g. Ng & Bereiter, 1992; Prosser, Walker & Millar, 1996) and epistemological beliefs (e.g. diSessa, 1985; Schommer, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles & Pintrich, 1996). The role these variables play in the process of conceptual change is elaborated in section 3. In science and technology curricula it is common practice to confront students with a diversity of problems, exercises and practical tasks. It is assumed that students learn to apply earlier acquired knowledge and develop a number of cognitive and metacognitive skills. Transfer is often found to be problematic, however (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). In section 4 we discuss a number of issues concerned with learning from problem solving or task execution. In section 5 we pay some attention to the well-known finding that students of different ability levels often benefit differentially from available co-operative or other learning opportunities (especially multimedia). Differential effects in mathematics, science and technology is the last issue we will deal with in this chapter. The well-known ‘Matthew effects’ seem to especially occur in domains like mathematics, science and technology. As a consequence teachers may become increasingly frustrated and less prepared to deal with alternative science conceptions of students. In addition, they lack insight into why students

NEW LEARNING IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

121

differentially benefit from teaching and learning in the classroom,. as a consequence of status problems in co-operative groups, for example. Cognitive psychologists, subject matter specialists and teachers often overlook contextual constraints by which students are excluded from the resources that are necessary for cognitive development and learning (Van Oers 1998; Gauvain, 1998). We finalize our contribution to New Learning in section 6 by making some concluding remarks with regard to the learning and instruction of science and technology and offering some suggestions for further research and educational practice. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

In educational psychology the role of prior knowledge in learning continues to intrigue researchers (e.g., Dochy, 1992). Prior knowledge variables have traditionally been studied from a quantitative and instructional viewpoint. A good example is the well-known Gagné-Briggs ‘events of instruction’ approach to teaching (Gagné & Briggs, 1979): in order for learning to occur there has to be relevant pre-knowledge, which has to be activated by the teacher. If there happens to be no relevant prior knowledge, it has to be ‘installed’ by the teacher first, before instruction proceeds. Another illustration is the so-called ‘instructional support hypothesis’ which was central in Tobias’ ATI-research (e.g. Tobias, 1976). Tobias was interested in interactions between the amount of instructional support and the quantity of students’ prior knowledge and achievement: “…the higher the level of prior achievement, the lower the instructional support required to accomplish instructional objectives. Conversely, as level of prior achievement decreases, the amount of instructional support required increases” (op. cit, p. 67). Typically, these examples illustrate the objectivist view on learning and instruction. Learning is seen as taking in externally defined and stored knowledge; teaching as handing down new pieces of knowledge by the teacher to increase the amount of knowledge in the learner’s heads. Byrnes (1996) has clarified the differences between objectivist and constructivist approaches to learning and. instruction by comparing a student’s knowledge with a ‘brick wall’, which somehow has to be built up. Objectivist teachers typically try to build the wall inside the student’s head by laying neatly organized bricks in the ‘right spot’. Constructivist teachers, on the other hand, provide the bricks and help the students build their own wall (p. 1314). Constructivism and social constructivism have no doubt given a new impulse to the acknowledgment of the essential role of prior knowledge in learning (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994; Dudley Herron, 1996). This revitalized interest can be mainly attributed to the constructivist position that learning should be basically seen as the process of elaborating and restructuring prior knowledge (Boekaerts & Simons, 1993). Not only formal school-based knowledge is

122


considered, but also intuitive and more tacit types of knowledge, which may express themselves as ideas, beliefs, opinions, images or naive theories, are taken into account. In this respect it is interesting to note that ‘everyday cognition’ and ‘practical intelligence’ are becoming important concepts in cross-cultural psychology (e.g. Schliemann, Carraher & Ceci, 1997) as are ‘informal learning’ and ‘tacit knowledge’ in work and organizational psychology. Furthermore, not only quantitative, but also and especially qualitative aspects of prior knowledge form the object of study. Interactions between prior knowledge and different kinds of new information, the learner is confronted with are the particular focus of recent research and theorizing. In this respect Vosniadou has made a distinction between initial or naive models, which represent students’ prior knowledge before they are exposed to science instruction and synthetic models, which result from students’ attempts to interpret scientific information within their existing frameworks (Vosniadou, 1994; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992; 1994). This process may give rise to the development of synthetic models which are formed when the knowledge students acquire during periods of formal science instruction is at odds with currently accepted scientific ideas. Synthetic models are one type of what has been known in the science education literature as misconceptions. This type of misconception is formed when students attempt “… to interpret scientific information within an existing framework theory that contains information contradictory to the scientific view’ (Vosniadou, 1994, p. 46). In other words, misconceptions are thought to result from negative transfer occurring while students are involved in learning from instruction (Vosniadou, 1996). In the meantime several researchers in different countries have documented student misconceptions with regard to science and technology-related phenomena (see, amongst others, Clement (1982) for an older study on physics student’s misconceptions of the relationship between force and acceleration and Biemans (1997), Pfundt & Duit (1991, 1994) and Vosniadou (1994) for more recent overviews). In these studies researchers describe and categorize student misconceptions in a variety of domains and try to find out more about the roots, functions and characteristics of misconceptions. In the domain of science there is a great deal of similarity in the kinds of explanations children and adults generate for physical phenomena, both before they are exposed to scientific information as well as in the way they misinterpret scientific explanations, In this regard Vosniadou (Vosniadou, op. cit; Vosniadou & Ionannides, in press) has argued that the process of acquiring knowledge about the physical world is constrained by persistent ‘entrenched presuppositions’ that are organized in a framework theory of naive physics. These presuppositions not only hold amongst different people in the same


123

culture, but also across different cultures, such as the presupposition that force, heat or pressure are properties of objects. Students’ general framework theories of physics as well as their specific personal theories pertaining to certain classes of events are assumed to play an important role in the way meaning is imposed on physical phenomena in everyday situations. Colloquial, nonscientific speech (e.g. animistic ways of talking about inanimate objects) and a tendency to describe things at a concrete and superficial level can easily contribute to ways of dealing with natural phenomena that are at odds with the ways scientists usually deal with and talk about these phenomena. However, the way subject matter is presented to students in textbooks (for examples with regard to chemistry, see Abraham, Grzybowski, Renner & Marek, 1992; with regard to biology, see Storey, 1992), the way teachers explain and coach students, and the way subject matter is organized all can contribute to the formation or preservation of misconceptions as well. As to subject matter organization, for instance, linear bit-by-bit subject matter sequences may not be beneficial in helping students to build up adequate and integrated mental models of fields of study and may, thereby, contribute to a poor conceptual understanding of subject matter components (e.g. Reigeluth, 1987; Van der Sanden & Van Bussel, 1995; Teurlings, Van der Sanden, Simons & Lodewijks, submitted). Also the breadth of coverage of science topics may play a role. According to Vosniadou and Ioannides (in press): ”..it may be more profitable to design curricula that focus on the deep exploration and understanding of a few, key concepts in one subject-matter area rather than curricula that cover a great deal of material in a superficial way”. Taking a developmental perspective researchers want to describe ‘… changes in students’ representations of the physical world as their qualitative understanding of the domain changes’ (Vosniadou, op. cit, p. 45), which usually is a slow process. Vosniadou (1994) supposes that it is not the misconceptions as such that are resistant to change, but that the ‘entrenched presuppositions’ behind misconceptions are difficult to change. The so-called confirmation bias (e.g. Byrnes, 1996) presumably contributes to this tendency to resist the exchange of personal misconceptions for formal scientific explanations: people tend to cling to preferred personal explanations or ways of handling things in spite of disconfirming evidence. Conceptual change is usually defined as the process of more or less gradual restructuring of preconceptions or naive theories, which occurs when these theories or their components no longer seem to function as useful frameworks for describing, explaining and predicting events or phenomena the learner is confronted with (e.g. Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982; Biemans, 1997). Vosniadou and loannides (op. cit.) emphasize the slow revision of initial conceptual systems, as opposed to Posner et al.’s tendency to focus

124


“… on the incompatibility between two distinct and equally well organized explanatory systems, one of which will need to be abandoned in favor of the other”. Vosniadou (1994) assumes that conceptual change proceeds ‘… through the gradual modification of one’s mental models of the physical world, achieved either through enrichment or through revision“ (p. 46). Enrichment refers to the process of assimilation or adding new information into and to existing frameworks; revision to the process of accommodation or altering existing frameworks in such ways that discrepant information can be incorporated. This is a broad view on conceptual change, because assimilation as well as accommodation are considered to contribute to the gradual process of deepening understanding (i.e. bringing preconceptions closer to scientific understanding). In a more restricted view only accommodation is held responsible for conceptual change: students need to perceive incongruency between preconceptions and new information, and as a consequence have to adjust their current frameworks to accommodate the new information (in a Piagetian sense). An instructional strategy for overcoming misconceptions and promoting conceptual change, which has provoked much discussion among researchers, is the so-called cognitive conflict approach (see Nussbaum & Novick, 1982; Strike & Posner, 1985; 1992). The CONTACT strategy, a process-oriented, heuristic activation model which was central to a number of studies performed by Ali (1990) and Biemans (1997) is an example of an instructional strategy based on this cognitive conflict model of conceptual change. Sixth and seventh graders were trained with a computer-assisted version of this instructional method. It was applied to basic physical geography and involved the following five steps: 1) searching for preconceptions; 2) comparing and contrasting preconceptions with new information; 3) constructing new conceptions, based upon the previous step; 4) applying new conceptions; and 5) evaluating new conceptions. In order to trace the effects of the various steps and to increase the effectiveness of the procedure as a whole Biemans (op. cit.) studied several variants of this instructional strategy. Acknowledging the high degree of external control of the strategy, he also designed training procedures by which external regulation was gradually diminished to foster self-regulation skills aimed at prior knowledge activation and conceptual change. Moreover, he was interested in differences between the way successful and less successful students performed the various steps of the strategy. The quality of step 2, and more particularly, the quality of student-generated elaborations when performing this step, was found to be the critical factor in the heuristic. Indeed, requiring a student to compare his own ideas to the ideas put forward in an instructional text, even if additional strategic help is available by means of ‘how’ and ‘why’ screens, as was the case in Biemans’ study, may not be enough to foster the process of conceptual change. It may be a step which is too big and/or too


125

difficult for students who have inadequate strategic knowledge and skills with regard to the integration and differentiation processes that are required for comparing and contrasting prior knowledge and new information. Apparently, for many students refinements or alternatives to the ‘classical’ Piagetian cognitive conflict approach are needed to provide them with experiences that are meaningful and motivating enough to help them understand the insufficiency of their knowledge base. Moreover, for conceptual change to occur, it is not enough for students to see the discrepancies between two sets of ideas. Students need to become aware of the underlying beliefs and presuppositions (as components of their framework theories) as well (Vosniadou & Ioannides, op. cit.). Co-operative learning environments and information technology can be of help here, because they offer ample opportunities for students to express their ideas and compare them to other students’ ideas. The same goes for the use of so-called bridging analogies (e.g. Clement, 1993): these are well-chosen intermediate examples or cases that bridge the gap between the student’s preconceptions and the ideas they are required to understand (see also D.E. Brown, 1992). Many instructional interventions aimed at overcoming misconceptions and promoting conceptual change require a high degree of teacher control and ample knowledge about the particular preconceptions that are typical of a certain group of students with regard to a certain domain. By means of gradual withdrawal of external control Biemans (op. cit.) managed to increase the quality of student’ selfregulated learning for conceptual change. Eventually, students themselves should be inclined to and capable of comparing new information with existing knowledge structures. This requires what Vosniadou & Ioannides (op. cit.) have called “metaconceptual awareness of ...the explanatory frameworks they have constructed...” and the acknowledgement “...that their explanations of physical phenomena are hypotheses that can be subjected to experimentation and falsification”. They advocate instructional interventions that make students aware of “…their implicit representations, as well as of the beliefs and presuppositions that constrain them…” (op. cit.) and provide students with meaningful experiences to promote insightful learning. However, not only do prior knowledge variables need to be taken into account, other student variables do as well. In the next section we will pay some attention to a set of student characteristics we consider relevant for the process of conceptual change.

126


THE ROLE OF GOAL ORIENTATIONS, LEARNING CONCEPTIONS, EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS AND APPROACHES TO LEARNING IN THE PROCESS OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

Recently, Gordijn (1998) has examined the effects on learning results of complex forms of feedback, which were added to computer-offered modules on engineering and technology in junior secondary technical education. Feedback was based on Merrill’s Component Display Theory (Merrill, 1983) and thought to promote insightful learning for all students. However, compared to students who learned under simple feedback conditions only students with reproductive learning styles (as measured by an adapted version of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles; Vermunt, 1992) were found to improve their learning scores on reproduction type questions. It seems that they managed to use the extra help and explanations offered by the complex feedback information not primarily for insightful learning (as intended by the researcher and the teachers involved), but for (their preferred ways of) reproduction-oriented learning. This study, set up from an instructional design perspective (Reigeluth, 1987; Dijkstra, 1997), unintentionally but nicely illustrates the role that student learning conceptions and motivational orientations play with regard to learning activities deployed and learning results obtained in teacher-designed learning environments. According to Vermunt’s learning style theory, learning styles are general, relatively consistent and characteristic combinations of learning conceptions, motivational orientations, preferred regulation activities and preferred subject matter processing activities (Vermunt, 1998). Higher education students with constructive learning conceptions appear to prefer self regulation and deploy ‘deep’ (Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984) meaning-oriented learning activities, whereas students with reproductive learning conceptions mainly rely on external regulation and prefer shallow reproduction-oriented learning activities (see also Slaats, Lodewijks & Van der Sanden (1999) for similar results in the field of senior secondary vocational education). Taking a more domain-specific perspective Prosser, Walker and Millar (1996) studied student conceptions with regard to learning physics as did Schoenfeld (1985), as well as Stodolsky, Salk and Glaessner (1991) with regard to learning mathematics. Pupils’ attitudes towards technology were investigated in a series of studies conducted at Eindhoven University of Technology (De Vries, 1988; De Klerk Wolters, 1989). In these studies age- and sex-related differences concerning the interpretation and appreciation of technology were central. Ng and Bereiter (1992) performed an in-depth study on the influence of goal orientations on learning activities and learning results. Adult subjects in this study voluntarily took a BASIC programming course. On the basis of thinking-aloud-protocols the researchers were able to determine three different goal-orientations: completing the tasks set by the teacher (task-completion goals), trying to reach the instructional goals set by the teacher (instructional goals) and striving for personal knowledge construction (personal knowledge-building goals). Subjects with personal knowledge building-goals obtained the best learning results. They were found to set goals for themselves and to actively use their prior


127

knowledge in solving the diversity of problems they were involved in. When judged appropriate they reconsidered and accommodated their preconceptions; moreover they themselves generated additional questions and posed themselves new problems, which they subsequently tried to solve. Ng and Bereiter characterized the learning situation these subjects created as a ‘…constructive interaction between prior knowledge and new information’ and as ‘… a dialectical process in which prior knowledge not only influenced new learning, but new learning was used to reconstruct prior knowledge’ (p. 258). Subjects with instructional goals restricted themselves to learning activities and issues, which were explicitly programmed. They, too, used their prior knowledge in solving the assigned problems, but they never appeared to reorganize or accommodate their personal frameworks, which guided their problem-solving actions. Students who set themselves task-completion goals were found to work diligently and purposefully and laid an emphasis on exercising. Out of the three goal-orientation groups they spent the most learning time on the BASIC course. They regularly asked themselves whether they were performing up to the standards set by the teacher. It appeared that they used their prior knowledge only in relation to solving small problems they were confronted with and not for gaining deeper insight into the BASIC programming language. The above-mentioned and other related studies provide interesting insights into the role student learning styles, learning conceptions and motivational orientations play in the different ways students interpret and approach learning situations. It is remarkable that conceptual change studies have not paid much attention to these variables up to now. It is obvious, however, that these variables are potentially relevant for researchers as well as teachers involved in the process of conceptual change, as are other student characteristics like, for instance, personality characteristics like uncertainty orientation (Sorrentino, Short & Raynor, 1984) and Big Five factor 5: ‘intellect/openness to experience’ (De Raad, 1996). Pintrich, Marx and Boyle (1993) and other researchers have criticized the dominant ‘cognition-only’ approach in the conceptual change literature. They have articulated that ‘.... the classroom community does not generally operate in the same fashion as the scientific community’ (p. 170) and that ‘....the assumption that students approach their classroom learning with a rational goal of making sense of the information and coordinating it with their prior conceptions may not be accurate (p. 173). Indeed, the classical cognitive conflict approach, as described in the previous section, is based on the assumption that humans react rationally to a situation of disequilibrium that comes about when new information conflicts with existing beliefs or ways of thinking. They will experience dissatisfaction with their habitual ways of seeing things and therefore will be amenable to alternative explanations (i.e. will be willing to accommodate their preconceptions). However, according to Pintrich et al. (op. cit.) student motivational factors, specifically goals, values, self-efficacy and control beliefs, should be treated as potential mediators of the process of conceptual change. Moreover, a number of

128


classroom contextual factors may play an important role in this process, i.e. task structures, authority structures, evaluation structures, classroom management, teacher modeling, and teacher scaffolding. When a broader perspective of conceptual change is taken, it is also interesting to take students’ epistemological beliefs into account (Van der Sanden, 1997; Vosniadou & Ioannides, in press). Schommer (1994) and Hofer and Pintrich (1997) recently reviewed the relatively scarce body of research on the relations between epistemological beliefs, learning activities and learning results. Epistemological beliefs have to do with the potentiality, nature, reliability, scope and origins of knowledge. According to Hofer and Pintrich (op. cit.) it is worth studying personal epistemological development to find out. ‘....how individuals come to know, the theories and beliefs they hold about knowing, and the manner in which such epistemological premises are a part of and an influence on the cognitive processes of thinking and reasoning’ (p. 88). Confining ourselves to research on the subject of science and technology, a study on the role of epistemological beliefs with regard to physics learning performed by Schommer (1990) serves as an illustration. Schommer postulates five more or less independent epistemological dimensions: certainty of knowledge, structure of knowledge, source of knowledge, control of knowledge, acquisition, and speed of knowledge acquisition. The latter dimension contrasts knowledge acquisition as a gradual and time-consuming process with knowledge acquisition as something that occurs quickly or not at all. In Schommer’s study students completed a questionnaire on epistemological beliefs, measuring the five dimensions mentioned above. Students were required to study a physics text at the end of which a conclusion was deliberately left out and were asked to formulate a conclusion for themselves. The more students gave evidence of the opinion that learning and understanding is an all-or-nothing process (‘quick learning’) the less elaborate their conclusions were, the more certain they were about their learning results and the worse they performed on a test regarding the physics text. In the previous section we dwelled upon the human tendency to develop individual theories to create a frame of reference for describing and categorizing things, people and phenomena, for explaining and anticipating differences between events and for undertaking purposeful action in a variety of situations when required (see also Driver & Easley, 1978). In the realm of human behavior Kelly’s cognitive theory of personality stands out as an early example of a scientific theory in which individual naive personality theories, consisting of systems of more or less related personal constructs, take up a central position (Kelly, 1955). A similar tendency to develop naive theories has been described with regard to everyday natural phenomena that are also studied from a scientific point of view (e.g. Carey, 1985, 1986; Vosniadou, 1994). We want to draw attention here to the operational or procedural side of these individual theories. Individual theories serve a conceptual-


129

declarative function, but usually also involve procedural blueprints or action scripts. In this respect the concept of action theory (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Van der Krogt, 1995), is gaining importance in the field of work-related organizational learning theory. Action theories refer to the more or less integrated and explicit set of personal goals, norms, convictions and rules that govern and authorize people s actions in work situations. From the research on learning conceptions, goal orientations and epistemological beliefs, it becomes apparent that individual theories operate with regard to learning and school-related issues as well. So, when one wants to understand and influence processes of learning and conceptual change it is fruitful to take students’ individual learning theories into account (cf. Van der Sanden, 1997). These individual learning theories serve as personal frameworks for learning and instruction with regard to a particular domain, are composed of conceptual as well as procedural elements, and may consist of a more or less integrated and more or less internally consistent set of: Ideas, beliefs and convictions about the entities and issues that are dealt with in a certain domain and, consequently, where learning in the domain is about (compare Vosniadou and Ioannides’ notion of ‘ontological presuppositions’ (Vosniadou & Ioannides, in press)). General and domain-related epistemological beliefs (cf. Vosniadou & Ioannides, in press). General and domain-related learning conceptions. Presumptions about the distinctive features of competent behavior regarding the subject matter area, about the typical difficulties involved in thinking and problem solving and about one’s subjective competence concerning the field. Individual goals and goal orientations (see also Boekaerts, 1998). Preferences for particular learning situations and learning activities. Preferences for particular instructional events and measures, and ideas about the role of experts, teachers and fellow students in acquiring competence. LEARNING FROM PROBLEM-SOLVING AND TASK-EXECUTION Solving problems, doing exercises and executing tasks are quite common activities in school-based science and technology courses. Students as well as teachers may even have a tendency to narrow down science and technology-related activities to exercising (Taconis, 1995; Taconis & Ferguson-Hessler, 1994). An illustration of this tendency is found in a study of diSessa (1985; quoted in Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996, p. 19-20). DiSessa compared the learning activities of two students enrolled in a college physics course. They differed with regard to their personal epistemological theories on the nature of the knowledge to be acquired in connection with the domain of physics. One student characterized himself as a ‘results man’; during the course he concentrated his activities on acquiring the ability to solve physics problems efficiently and correctly. The other student was focused on conceptual understanding and emphasized learning activities that led to an understanding of concepts and principles.

130


Interesting too, in this respect, is Schoenfeld’s study on student conceptions about learning mathematics (Schoenfeld, 1985). Schoenfeld noticed that many students thought that it is necessary to solve math problems in less than ten minutes and that it is useless to spend more time finding a solution. Schoenfeld attributes the development of this type of personal math theory to the common school practice of confronting students with large amounts of short problems (taking 2 minutes solution time, on the average). As a consequence of this praxis students come to erroneously believe that expert mathematicians are able to solve problems in a few minutes. In his study students as a rule were of the opinion that math competence essentially consists of knowing a sufficient number of standardized procedures and knowing which procedure to use for what type of problem. These examples point to two important issues: 1) different students can learn different things from solving the same problems and 2) the very praxis of having students do a lot of exercises can lead to an undesirable separation between conceptual and procedural knowledge. Students’ individual learning theories play a role here and may lead students to the shallow application of procedures instead of conceptual understanding. A well-organized knowledge base with strong internal connections between different types of knowledge is supposed to be an important prerequisite for effective problem solving and task execution (Boekaerts & Simons, 1993; Prawat, 1989; Taconis, 1995). Students, however, often are unwilling or incapable of building bridges between more conceptual and more procedural knowledge. Also they often do not manage to achieve a balance between contextualized and decontextualized knowledge. When practical assignments at school are more or less divorced from or not sufficiently tied to ‘theoretical’ lessons, students may experience too little support to lay relations between different types of knowledge or knowledge tied to different situations. Such school practice can contribute to the development of student learning theories in which learning and doing or experiencing (Slaats, Van der Sanden & Lodewijks, submitted) are disconnected or too loosely coupled. Probably objectivistic transfer conceptions are embedded in such individual learning theories: specific practice situations are viewed as occasions for applying previously learned knowledge, which is considered as general and ‘ready-made’. More constructivistic transfer conceptions, on the other hand, would lead to an interpretation of practice situations as settings in which new knowledge and skills can be constructed or prior knowledge be reconstructed, instead of settings that merely serve to apply previously acquired, not yet deeply rooted and personalized knowledge (Van der Sanden & Teurlings, 1998; compare also Ng and Bereiter’s students with personal knowledge building goals; Ng & Bereiter, 1992). It is remarkable that there also seems to be a gap between researchers studying science and technology with a conceptual change approach (e.g. Glynn, Yeany & Britton, 1991) and researchers with a more procedural problem-solving perspective. The latter as a rule adopt a strategy-oriented systematic problem-solving approach


131

(e.g. Mettis & Pilot, 1980; Kramers-Pals, 1994). They compare good and bad beginners’ approaches and solutions to expert performance and devise heuristicbased training programs to improve problem-solving skills. The same tendency is apparent in the work of researchers involved in studies on the learning and instruction of practical-technical skills and design skills (e.g. Van der Sanden, 1994; Doornekamp, 1997; Montague, 1988; Van Merriënboer, 1997). While cognitive and metacognitive strategies undoubtedly are important constituents of problem-solving competence, the quality of domain relevant knowledge plays a major role as well. Taconis (1995), for instance, has drawn attention to the negative role misconceptions can play in problem solving. He claims that ‘…studies on problem solving usually do not take the results of studies on misconceptions into account. Neither do studies on misconceptions explicitly take findings concerning problem solving into account’ (Taconis, 1995, p. 4546). Naturally, doing exercises or projects like solving problems (e.g. design problems), executing tasks (e.g. laboratory tasks) or, more generally, applying procedures to new situations may lead to rich and diverse learning experiences. Students may develop general and domain-specific strategic knowledge, and/or domain-specific declarative, procedural and situational knowledge (Ferguson-Hessler & De Jong, 1993). They may grasp the opportunity to reconstruct their knowledge base, test and adjust their individual learning theories, gain confidence etc. Such learning effects, however, too often do not come of their own accord and therefore explicit instructional measures to increase the odds that students learn optimally from practical assignments seem necessary. Preferably, such measures should be part of specific programs for learning to learn with regard to science and technology. In this respect we want to draw attention to two related points, which in our view are especially relevant for such programs, viz. (a) learning to integrate situational, episodic, conceptual and procedural information and (b) the development of individual learning theories in which problem solving and practical assignments figure as means to enhance both procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding. Process-oriented science and technology instruction and interactive learning groups composed of students with different learning styles (Boekaerts, 1996) are promising in this respect. Recently, process-oriented instructional approaches were applied to learning word-processing skills by Teurlings, Van der Sanden, Simons and Lodewijks (submitted; see also Teurlings & Van den Berg, 1995) and physics instruction (Brand-Gruwel, Van der Sanden, Teurlings & Vermetten, in press). In the former study the so-called Leittext-method (Selka & Conrad, 1987) was completed by a number of additional process-oriented instructional measures. In the latter study a special emphasis was placed on learning from previously solved science problems. Interesting too is Taconis’ program for understanding-based problem-solving (Taconis, 1995). In this program conceptual change and problem solving were integrated with regard to physics learning, emphasizing co-operative learning from solved physics problems and the development of cognitive and

132


metacognitive skills. Besides these embedded instructional approaches, specific science and technology-oriented thinking and learning skills programs, like CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education; Shayer & Adey, 1997) or ARL (Ateliers de Raisonnement Logique, Logical Reasoning Workshops; Attigui, Nasson & Boughers, 1995) may play a supporting role, provided that achievements of these stand-alone training programs are systematically tied too other science and technology courses. DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

While new learning theories, strategies and tools like constructivism, co-operative learning or educational technology often lead to positive effects on students' learning, research also shows that there are outcomes that are not intended and even contradictory to the expectations. The same instructional strategy, content, curriculum, textbook or educational technology produces different results for different categories of students e.g. boys and girls, students from high and low income families, high and low-ability students or students with different learning styles and orientations. These effects are often referred to as ‘Matthew effects’. Nowadays in the Netherlands two major innovations in secondary education are in the process of being implemented in respectively junior and senior high school education. Constructivist ideas are at the very heart of these innovations (Roelofs & Terwel, 1999). In the discussions involved there is serious concern that these constructivist ideas, if not rightly understood, may increase differences between the various student categories. Are educators and policy makers taking the wrong road in their eager embrace of constructivist ideas (Terwel, 1999)? The more the constructivist .doctrine is interpreted in a naive or radical way, the more educational outcomes may be detrimental to certain students. We will give a few examples. First, the case of certainty orientation. In constructivist and co-operative learning environments students always have to cope with uncertainty. These experiences may be stimulating for uncertainty-oriented students. With regard to science, mathematics and technology it can be expected that these students are interested in exploring multiple perspectives. On the other hand, certainty-oriented students, like diSessa’s ‘results man’, mentioned in section 3, may be more motivated by situations that do not entail ambiguity. Instead of favoring a ‘participation model’ low-achieving students may prefer and flourish under the conditions of a ‘transmission model’ in learning science, mathematics and technology (Huber & Sorrentino, 1996). Second, the case of ability in technology. The outcomes of a study of Van der Sanden (1986) show clearly differential effects for high and low-ability students. High-ability students are hindered by detailed prescriptions for performing a technical construction task, while the performance of low-ability students is enhanced by these guidelines. Third, the case of achievement in mathematics. From several studies it is known that high and low-achieving students differentially benefit from open, co-operative


133

learning environments in which mathematics is embedded in ‘rich’ contexts or daily life situations (Leechor, 1988; Hoek, Terwel & Van den Eeden, 1997; Hoek, van den Eeden & Terwel, 1999) Generally, high-ability students are more active in co-operative groups and provide more explanations than their low-ability peers. Van den Eeden and Terwel (1994) report similar results regarding the learning outcomes of high and low-achieving students in mathematics. The recent study of Terwel, Gillies, Van den Eeden and Hoek (1999) provides more insight into the crucial factors involved. In this multi-level analysis it is shown that the less effective (i.e., unsolicited) explanations were given more often by low-ability students. In the context of co-operative learning environments high-ability students tend to give more effective (i.e., solicited) explanations. As a consequence of these differences in participation between high and low-achieving students differences in learning outcomes occur. Furthermore, over and above the effects of student ability, the higher the class’ ability level, the more explanations were given by the students. The results of this study are useful in explaining why high-ability students benefit more from open, constructivist learning than low-ability students. Matthew effects also appear in applications of educational technology, like for instance in Integrated Learning Systems. ILS is an example of integrated, individualized software that is located on a central server which is linked via an electronic network to forty computers in a computer lab. ILS software contains instructions and problems for practice, covering the curriculum for one or more years. Lessons and previous accomplishments are automatically loaded into the computer when a student logs in. ILS provides a continuous assessment of students’ progress and learning needs (Havita & Lesgold, 1996). Educators expected lowachieving students to like ILS because unlike whole-class teaching they are not visible as losers. ILS proponents promised success for all because the computerized work was adapted to the needs and pace of each student while failures were not visible to others. However, the outcomes were different as compared to the intentions and expectations. The better students were highly motivated by ILS because of the competition induced by ILS. The same competition caused demotivation in the low-achieving students and the results of all students were far below the level of expectation (Havita & Lesgold, 1996). Although differential effects are rather persistent in new constructivism-based learning environments, research has shown that these Matthew effects can be overcome or mitigated by adequate training in social and cognitive strategies (Webb & Farivar, 1994; Hoek, Terwel & Van den Eeden 1997; Hoek, van den Eeden & Terwel, 1999). The lesson from these examples is that learning does not occur in a vacuum, but in a social context in which several variables are at work. Matthew effects seem to occur everywhere. As in society as a whole, most of the time the rich are getting richer from whatever innovation. These effects seem to be especially vital in subjects as mathematics, physics and technology. Matthew effects not only occur between achievement levels but also between male and female students (Webb, 1984; Canada & Pringle, 1995). Even in innovational situations that are designed to serve the needs of low-achieving students like co-operative learning or applications of educational technology, the outcomes are sometimes

134


contrary to the expectations. Skills training sometimes helps but low-achieving students often profit less from strategy training of most kinds (Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1996). Fortunately there are exceptions in which low achieving students were able to benefit and where Matthew effects could be mitigated (Chinnappan & Lawson, 1996; Webb & Farivar, 1994; Hoek, Terwel & Van den Eeden, 1997; Hoek, van den Eeden & Terwel, 1999). Also Taconis’ program for understandingbased problem-solving (Taconis, 1995; see also section 4) turned out to be especially helpful for students with relatively low grades for physics as well as for girls. Instead of creating different streams and ability groups for low and high-achieving students in which different curricula and teaching methods are offered, we propose another road to new learning in which all students can develop science and technology related competencies without being separated from their more or less able peers. In this view combinations of whole class instruction, discussion methods, guided reinvention methods, supervised participation in meaningful tasks, and working in co-operative groups are recommended. There are moments when it may be necessary to provide more guidance to students who do not have sufficient prior knowledge or the required skills and meta-cognitive strategies. If some students lack the prerequisite knowledge, the teacher can conduct the role of expert and model, and provide scaffolding for those students who cannot cope with a given task independently. In this way teachers play a central and guiding role in the learning processes of students: teachers are cognitive guides and living models, and students are sense-makers who have to learn to learn strategically in different instructional contexts. In this option the instructional process may start from the ‘bottom’ of the real-life world and proceed by designing intermediate models toward more formal structures and concepts of science and technology. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Because of the still rapidly growing importance of science and technology in the information society competencies for dealing with science and technology are becoming increasingly important. People should be able and willing to categorize, interpret, and predict science and technology related phenomena and events (science literacy), to act purposefully when required under diverse circumstances, and to learn (and keep on learning) actively and independently in a variety of situations (in and out of school, at work, or at home). Competence is often defined as ‘having sufficient skill’ or ‘being sufficiently qualified’ (Eraut, 1994). We prefer to take a broader perspective and point to the organized whole of knowledge, skills, attitudes and learning abilities that is typical of competence. Learning ability is deliberately included as an important aspect of competence. It is regarded as a mixture of metacognitive knowledge and learning skills, a disposition to apply and improve one’s learning skills in varied potential learning situations, an adequate individual learning theory and the willingness to test, elaborate, and refine this theory.


135

Taking this perspective, competence development with regard to science and technology means that students continuously make efforts to achieve personal growth in five related areas: X Building up a sound knowledge base, which requires conceptual change. X Acquiring understanding-based problem-solving skills, as well as research and technical design skills. X Coming to appreciate the value of science and technology. X Developing the ability to learn in the field of science and technology, including developing one’s individual learning theory (Van der Sanden, 1997). X Participating in ‘communities of learners’, which entails sharing ‘resources’, understanding each other, taking different perspectives, and giving explanations and adequate feedback in the process of coconstruction in science and technology education (Terwel, 1997). Designers of learning environments and teachers in the fields of science and technology should focus on competence development and foster the acquisition of a cohesive and coherent blend of knowledge, skills, attitudes and learning abilities (including adequate individual learning theories). Learning to learn is seen as an integral and important part of science and technology instruction. Influencing students’ individual learning theories should be an important issue, because these theories are the main determinants of learning activities students deploy (Vermunt, 1998). We reviewed a number of instructional approaches that are promising for competency-based science and technology instruction. Process-oriented instruction, interactive and co-operative learning, conceptual change-oriented instructional approaches and understanding-based problem-solving programs served as examples. In the previous sections we already alluded to several questions, that demand new research. Design experiments (A.L. Brown, 1992; Van den Akker, 1996) seem especially suited to us to develop action-relevant theories of learning and instructing science and technology. Longitudinal research designs, new forms of competency-based measurement (e.g. portfolio measures) and other non-traditional outcome measures (see also, Salomon, 1998, p. 10) are needed to study science and technology-related competencies over longer periods of time. In these longitudinal studies the role of teachers and new educational technologies in fostering learning ability of students with different ability levels deserves special attention. Paying attention to the social context in which science and technology is learned and used is of utmost importance for competency-based instruction. REFERENCES Abraham, M.R., Grzybowski, E.B., Renner, J.W., & Marek, E.A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,105-120.

136


Ali, K. (1990). Instructiestrategieën voor het activeren van preconcepties. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant. Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Attigui, A, Nasson, E., & Boughers, O. (1995). Logical Reasoning Workshops. In: J.M.M. van der Sanden, & F. J. J. van Bussel (Eds.), Atrium in Europe. The development of learning abilities in youth training (pp. 74-79). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Biemans, H.J.A. (1997). Fostering activation of prior knowledge and conceptual change. Arnhem. H.J.A. Biemans. Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning goes to vocational school: Intervention programs in Dutch schools. Paper presented at the symposium “New perspectives on learning and instruction go to schools”, XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada. Boekaerts, M. (1998). Boosting students’ capacity to promote their own learning: a goal theory perspective. In: M. Vauras (Ed.), Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction (pp. 13-22), Vol. 1. No. 1. Boekaerts, M. & Simons, P.R.J. (1993). Leren en instructie: Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces. Assen: Dekker & Van de Vegt. Brand-Gruwel, S., Van der Sanden, J., Teurlings, C., Thijssen, A., & Vermetten, Y. (in press). Het effect van procesgericht natuurkunde-onderwijs. Tijdschrift voor Didactiek der Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the learning sciences, 2, 141-178. Brown, D.E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17-34. Byrnes, J.P. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Canada, K., & Pringle, R. (1995). The role of gender in college classroom interactions: a social context approach. Sociology of Education, 68, 161-186. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123-1130. Chinnappan, M., & Lawson, M.J. (1996). The effects of training in the use of executive strategies in geometry. Learning and Instruction, 6 (1), 1-17. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 52, 66-71. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (10), 1241-1257. Commissie Toekomst Natuur- en Technische Wetenschappen (1997). Wetenschap en Techniek. Welvaart en Welzijn. Een verkenning van de oorzaken en gevolgen van de sterke doling van het aantal studenten in de natuur- en technische wetenschappen. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. De Klerk Wolters, F. (1989). The attitude of pupils towards technology. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. De Raad, B. (1996). Personality traits in learning and education. European Journal of Personality, 10, 185200. De Vries , M. (1988). Techniek in het natuurkunde-onderwijs. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Dijkstra, S. (1997). Theoretical foundations of Instructional Design: Introduction and overview. In: R.D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional Design: International perspectives. Volume 1: Theory, research, and models (pp. 19-24). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. diSessa, A (1985). Learning about knowing. In: E.L. Klein (Ed.), Children and computers. New directions for child development (pp. 97-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dochy, F.J.R.C. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning. Heerlen: Open Universiteit. Doomekamp, G. (1997). Probleemoplossen binnen het vak techniek. Een studie naar effectieve domeinspecifleke ontwerprichtlijnen voor onderwijsleerpakketten. Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12. Dudley Herron, J. (1996). The chemistry classroom. Formulas for successful teaching. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.


137

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Falmer Press. Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M., & De Jong, T. (1993). Het leren van exacte vakken. In: W. Tomic, & P. Span (Red.). Onderwijspsychologie. Beïnvloeding, verloop en resultaten van leerprocessen (pp. 331-351). Utrecht: Lemma. Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1979). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gauvain, M. (1998). Social context, mathematics, and cognitive development: a promising research direction. Learning and Instruction, 8 (6), 561-566. Glynn, S.M., Yeany, R.H., & Britton, B.K. (Eds.) (1991). The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In: D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (2), 99-136. Havita, N., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In: S.T. Kerr (ed.), Technology and the Future of Schooling (pp. 131-171) Chicago, Illinois: National Society for the Study of Education. Hoek, D., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (1997). Effects of training in the use of social and cognitive strategies: An intervention study in secondary mathematics in cooperative groups. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3, 364-389. Hoek, D., Van den Eeden, P., & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9, 427448. Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140. Huber, G.L., & Sorrentino, R.M. (1996). Uncertainty in interpersonal and intergroup relations. An individualdifference perspective. In: R.M. Sorrentino, & E.T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Volume 3: The Interpersonal Context (pp. 591-619). New York: Guilford. Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Kramers-Pals, H. (1994). Leren oplossen van verklaringsproblemen in het scheikunde-onderwijs. Enschede: Technische Universiteit. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leechor, C. (1988). How high and low achieving students differentially benefit from working together in co-operative small groups. Stanford: Stanford University, School of Education (ph. dissertation). Lintsen, H. W. (Ed.) (1998). Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw. Deel 1. Stichting Historie der Techniek/Walburg pers. Mayer, R.E., & Wittrock, M.C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In: D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In: C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279-334). London: Erlbaum. Mettis, C.T.C.W., & Pilot, A. (1980,). Over het leren oplossen van natuurwetenschappelijke problemen. Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Montague, W.E. (1988). Promoting cognitive processing and learning by designing the learning environment. In: D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (chapter 4, pp. 125149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ng, E., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Three levels of goal-orientation in learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 243-273. Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict, and accommodation: Towards a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (3rd edition). Kiel, West Germany: IPN. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (4th edition). Kiel: University of Kiel. Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211 -227.

138


Prawat, R.S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1-41. Prosser, M., Walker, P., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences in students’ perceptions of learning physics. Physics Education, 31, 43-48. Reigeluth, C.M. (1987). Lesson blueprints based on the Elaboration Theory of Instruction. In: C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action. Lessons illustrating selected theories and models (pp. 245288). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roelofs, E. & Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and authentic pedagogy: State of the art and recent developments in the Dutch national curriculum in secondary education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (2), 201-227. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. In: M. Vauras (Ed.), Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction (pp. 3-12), Vol. l.No. 1. Schliemann, A.D., Carraher, D.W., & Ceci, S.J. (1997). Everyday cognition. In: J.W. Berry, Y.H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. 2, pp. 177-216). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Schoenfeld, AH. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504. Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In: R. Gamer, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25-40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Selka, R., & Conrad, P. (1987). Leittexte - ein Weg zu selbständigem Lernen. Berlin: BIBB. Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1997). Large scale, long term effects of a cognitive intervention in the science curriculum on academic achievement in mathematics and English. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction in Athens (august 26-30). Slaats, A, Lodewijks, J.G.L.C., & Van der Sanden, J.M.M. (1999). Learning styles in secondary vocational education: disciplinary differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 475-492. Slaats, A, Van der Sanden, J.M.M., & Lodewijks, J.G.L.C. (submitted). De samenhang tussen leerconcepties en verwerkingsstrategieën bij leerlingen in het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. Sorrentino, R.M., Short, J.C., & Raynor, J.O. (1984). Uncertainty orientation: Implications for affective and cognitive views of achievement behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 15051518. Slodolsky, S.S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about learning math and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 89-116. Storey, R.D. (1992). Textbook errors and misconceptions in biology: Cell physiology. American Biology Teacher, 54, 44-47. Strike, K.A, & Posner, G.J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In: L.H.T. West, & AL. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). Orlando: Academic Press. Strike, K.A., Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In: R. Duschl, & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147176). Albany, NY: Suny Taconis, R. (1995). Understanding Based Problem Solving. Towards qualification-oriented teaching and learning in physics education. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Taconis, R., & Ferguson Hessler, M.G.M. (1994). Het belang van probleemoplossen voor het onderwijs in de technische en exacte vakken Tijdschrift voor Didactiek der 12, 172-194. Terwel, J. (1997). Grenzen aan de groep? Een onderwijspedagogisch perspectief op leren in contexten [Social contexts for learning]. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit (Inaugural lecture Free University Amsterdam). Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 195-200. Terwel, J., Gillies, R., Van den Eeden, P. & Hoek, D. (1999). Opening the black box: Processes in cooperative learning from a longitudinal multilevel perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Canada, Montreal, 1999, April 19-23. Teurlings, C.C.J., & Van den Berg J. (1995). The Leittext PLUS method. In: J.M.M. van der Sanden, & F.J.J. van Bussel (Eds.), Atrium in Europe. The development of learning abilities in youth training (pp. 6673). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.


139

Teurlings, C.C.J., Van der Sanden, J.M.M., Simons, P.R.J.., & Lodewijks, J.G.L.C. (submitted). Effects of a process-oriented learning environment based on cognitive apprenticeship: a study on learning to use a word processor. Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement-treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 46, 61-74. Van den Akker, J.J.H. (1996). Het Studiehuis: ook een leeromgeving voor docenten? Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Van den Eeden, P., & Terwel, J. (1994). Evaluation of a mathematics curriculum: differential effects. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 457-475. Van der Krogt, F.J. (1995). Leren in netverken: Veelzijdig organiseren van leernetwerken met het oog op humaniteit en arbeidsrelevantie. Utrecht: Lemma. Van der Sanden, J.M.M. (1986). Het leren van technische vaardigheden. Individuele verschillen bij het uitvoeren van praktijkopdrachten in het lager technisch onderwijs. Den Haag: SVO. Van der Sanden, J.M.M. (1994). Learning and instruction of motor skills. In: T. Husén & T. Neville Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 3950-3953). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Van der Sanden, J.M.M. (1997). Duurzame ontwikkeling van leervermogen. Leren leren in het technische domein. Intreerede. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Van der Sanden, J.M.M., & Van Bussel, F.J.J (Eds.) (1995). Atrium in Europe. The development of learning abilities in youth training. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Van der Sanden, J.M.M., & Teurlings, C.C.J. (1998). Developing competence during practice periods: the learners’ perspective. Poster presented at the European COST Conference on promotion of flexibility, transferability and mobility in vocational education and training. University of Newcastle, November, 1998 Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8, 473-488. Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83. Vermunt, J. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. Naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Vermunt, J.D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171. Vosniadou, S. (1991). Conceptual development in astronomy. In: S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany, & B.K. Britton. (Eds.). The psychology of learning science (pp. 149-177) . Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and instruction, 4, 45-69. Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6, 95-109. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W.F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W.F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123183. Vosniadou, S, & loannides, C. (in press). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. The International Journal of Science Education. Webb, N. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 33-44. Webb, N.M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in co-operative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In: D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148-185). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

140

JOHAN VAN DER SANDEN, JAN TERWEL AND STELLA VOSNIADOU AFFILIATIONS

Johan van der Sanden, Tilburg University and Eindhoven University of Technology, Institute for Teacher Training, Den Dolech 2, 5612 AZ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Jan Terwel, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Department of Educational Psychology, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Stella Vosniadou, University of Athens, Department of Philosophy and History of Science, 37 John Kennedy Street, Athens 16121, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]

GEERT TEN DAM, FONS VERNOOIJ AND MONIQUE VOLMAN

8. NEW LEARNING IN SOCIAL STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

New learning, as described in the first part of this book, is beginning to occupy an increasingly important place in educational practice. Attention to several elements of new learning is essential if pupils are to learn active and self-directed learning, in short, learn to learn. Learning to learn is considered to be important because pupils increasingly have to find their own way in the ever-growing body of knowledge (see chapter 1). Aims of new learning include the acquisition of learning, thinking and regulation skills. Efforts to introduce new learning therefore concentrate on making instruction more process-oriented. Attempts are also being made to give pupils more control of their own learning by paying more attention than previously to the meaning of what they learn. Situated learning and authentic learning figure prominently in these attempts. In recent decades all kinds of developments have taken place in school subjects which have incorporated aspects of new learning mentioned above (e.g. Cobb, 1996). Educational psychological theories (e.g. Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Weinstein & Van Mater Stone, 1996; Simons, 1996) are being implemented in specific subjects at the moment. This is happening in different ways in different subjects depending on the specific traditions of the subject, the curriculum as a whole, type of school and teaching methods. These traditions are partly culturally determined. The cultural context is particularly important in the domain of social studies because the subject matter is culturally contested more than that of many other subjects. Generally this domain pertains to dynamic social phenomena, interpretation of these phenomena and their meaning for citizenship (Berkowitz 1995; Ten Dam & Volman, 1998). The influence of the local context on the content and organization of social studies is reflected in the fact that the term ‘social studies’ has different meanings in different countries. In the United States, for example, the term social studies is used to denote a specific subject in secondary education (Voss, 1996). Yet in the Netherlands, social studies refers to a range of individual subjects which are taught by different teachers. It includes the subjects history, art history, geography, political economics and business economics, philosophy and sociology. New subjects and fields of learning have also been added to the social studies curriculum in secondary schools in recent years. As in many other countries at the moment, attempts are being made in the Netherlands to introduce new ways of learning. How and to what extent this is happening varies from subject to subject within the field of social studies. In 141


142


contrast to subject fields like mathematics and reading and writing, little empirical research has been done. Existing research in the field of social studies is mainly policy-oriented research examining the legitimacy of proposed and existing curricula. In addition to the general trend towards active construction of knowledge and self-regulation, attention to values education is particularly characteristic of recent developments in the social studies domain in secondary education. From the perspective of new learning, the question is how the acquisition of values can be stimulated through skills-oriented education (Oser, 1996). In this chapter, we discuss new learning issues in the domain of social studies. We will focus on both the specific difficulties and the opportunities which new learning in social studies presents. Then we will evaluate the issues of new learning that we have discussed, in particular the research that has been conducted both from a local, cultural context and from an international perspective. However, we will not discuss the whole range of discipline-based subjects in social studies in which new learning occurs but restrict ourselves to three case studies pertaining to secondary education. First, we concentrate on business economics as an example of a wellestablished, discipline-based and traditionally knowledge-oriented subject within the domain of social studies now facing the challenge of 'new learning'. Then the subject Care is discussed as an example of a new subject introduced into the common curriculum in the Netherlands in response to societal developments. Lastly, environmental education is analyzed as an example of a social theme which has acquired a multi-disciplinary place in the curriculum. In all three case studies we examine how attention is paid in research and in practice, to teaching learning, thinking and regulation skills (process-oriented instruction), to meaningful learning and to values education. NEW LEARNING IN ECONOMICS, CARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION: ACTIVE LEARNING, SELF-REGULATION AND VALUES

The case of business economics: resistance to change

The example of business economics shows some of the problems connected with the introduction of new learning in an established academic discipline. Business economics is taught in the second stage of Dutch secondary education1. The subject was reorganized as part of the restructuring of this stage of secondary education in the 1990s. The main goal of this restructuring was, and still is, to introduce elements of new learning, with an accent on learning, thinking and regulation skills, and situated learning into secondary education. Many of the original proposals for restructuring the economics curriculum met with limited success. With regard to learning to learn, a general shift from declarative knowledge to thinking skills was achieved at the level of the ideal and formal curriculum (Goodlad, Klein & Tye, 1979), but no mandatory requirements were made for evaluation and hence the proposed changes did hardly proceed to the operational curriculum level. The idea of ‘situated learning’ was incorporated in

NEW LEARNING IN SOCIAL STUDIES

143

the original proposals for the restructuring of the economics curriculum by introducing societal questions, rather than the academic discipline or subdiscipline, as the basic structure for the curriculum (SLO, 1995). With the introduction of societal questions, the issue of values education in economics would have become operational. However, no agreement could be reached on suitable topics. Attempts to facilitate a more situated approach were also made by proposing the integration of geography, history, economics and politics into one subject, 'humanities', thus promoting an interdisciplinary approach in social studies in which (social) themes rather than disciplines would be the building-stones of the curriculum. This idea, however, was thwarted by various teachers’ organizations that argued strongly in favor of the continuation of discipline-based subjects and by the vested interests in higher education, who did not sufficiently recognize the traditions of economics as an academic discipline. Nevertheless, changes have been realized into the curriculum of business economics. The emphasis on learning, thinking and regulation skills comes to the fore mainly as a focus on problem-solving skills. Instead of being given a list of examples and computations, students must now learn to alternate systematically between two levels of abstraction: generally defined procedures based on clear conceptual models and examples of computations using these procedures (Norman, 1983). In business economics different specialist vocabularies are used, each connected with specific conceptual models. These specialist vocabularies use the same words for different concepts, e.g. product cost, or use different words for the same concept, e.g. expenditures, expenses and costs (Vernooij, 1999). Problem solving in business economics requires therefore a specific kind of conceptual knowledge, i.e. the ability to distinguish between different specialist vocabularies. Vernooij (1993) analyses problem solving in business economics as a process of situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991) in which a generally defined procedure is translated into a specific algorithm to fit a concrete situation. The first step in solving computational problems is to analyze the problem in order to recognize the specialist vocabulary involved. Then, the meaning of the concepts used to formulate the problem must be derived from the situation identified. The next step is to choose the relevant conceptual model and adapt it to the constraints of the data in the defined situation. After that, a plan must be made of the steps to take when computing the answer. Once the answer has been found, a check of the problem-solving process is required, as well as careful reflection on the problem and its possible implications for the knowledge of the general procedures already acquired (Schoenfeld, 1989). Thus instruction becomes more process-oriented, focusing on the development of thinking skills and selfregulation. Students learn to describe and reflect on the necessary steps to solve problems; the role of the teacher changes from one of demonstrating the final computation to one of helping students develop their own problem-solving skills. In a research project in secondary education Vernooij (1993, 1995a, 1995b) investigated the influence of conceptual models in business economics. He compared the problem-solving skills of a group of students, who studied a chapter on accounting in the usual way, with a group of students who learned to verbalize the conceptual models required in the study assignments, before they computed the

144


answers. The chapter concerned contained a conceptual model for calculating net profit. In the pre-test and the post-test, questions were asked about chapters studied before and about the new chapter. It was found that the students in the group that had received explicit instruction on conceptual models performed better than the control group. However, this did not mean that they had absorbed the new knowledge better, rather that they had retained more of the knowledge acquired before making the pre-test. The explicit instruction in conceptual models helped the students in the experimental group to organize what they had learned in previous lessons, whereas the students in the control group were not able to distinguish between the different specialist vocabularies. The results of this research focus attention on the process of knowledge construction. Interesting questions concern the possible role of co-operative learning in the development of economic understanding. In the field of mathematics Dekker and Elshout-Mohr (1998) suggested a process model for social interaction and level raising (see also chapter 3). Students who are working together in groups can regulate each others learning process by asking questions about showing, explaining, justifying and reconstructing their work. This perspective opens up new research questions in the field of economics education. For example, are students able to make a better distinction between different specialist vocabularies if they have the opportunity to comment on each other’s solutions? To what extent does working in groups require a particular way of planning and self regulation (Elliott, 1995)? Further, co-operative learning raises questions about misconceptions (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). Misconceptions can be a logical step in the process of knowledge construction. Some misconceptions, however, are fatal, especially if they create ‘the illusion of knowing’ (see Garner, 1987). The illusion of knowing in business economics can emerge if the finding of a correct answer in a specific study assignment is generalized to a procedure at the abstract level without a proper integration on that higher level of knowledge. Further research is required to investigate the effects of co-operative learning in problem solving, especially as far as the process of knowledge construction is concerned. The results of this type of research do not easily find their way into educational practice. One of the biggest problems in the implementation of new learning in the economics-curriculum for secondary education, is that most teachers are not trained in process-oriented instructional strategies. They mainly derive their professional identity from their subject knowledge in relation to the academic discipline. In the current discussion on the innovation of school subjects, the accent on skills and learning strategies on the one hand and knowledge of the domain on the other is often seen as contradictory. Research, however, shows that domain-specific knowledge, general strategies and subject-specific strategies are not only all important but also that they are interconnected. Hence, skilful problem solving requires a well-organized and flexible knowledge base (see Boekaerts & Simons, 1995). At the moment the resistance in educational practice against the introduction of elements of new learning in business education has resulted in omitting the


145

examination of process-oriented goals from the new national examinations, at least for the next three years. Resistance to process-oriented instruction may seem a matter of course in school subjects based on academic disciplines, but it is not necessarily so. This is demonstrated by a subject like mathematics which has a firmly rooted constructivist perspective (e.g. Von Glasersfeld, 1991; Cobb, 1996).This may partly be ascribed to the fact that mathematics is a skills-oriented academic discipline. More critical in our view is the fact that in the Netherlands, leading mathematicians such as Freudenthal have influenced the development of the subject, taking educational psychological insights into account (see Vermeulen, Terwel & Volman, 1998). We can conclude from this that a bridge between the academic discipline and new learning is necessary at the theoretical level and that empirical research on domain-specific instructional strategies is required, if new learning is to become firmly established in the economics-curriculum.

The subject Care: daily life as an organizing principle for learning

The subject Care is a relatively new, interdisciplinary subject, which is free of the traditions and constraints of an academic discipline. The lack of a knowledge base in a single discipline, however, is precisely the reason why the subject's very right to exist continues to be contested. Elements of new learning like aspirations to meaningful learning and an emphasis on skills, especially practical skills, were woven into the very fabric of the subject from the outset. However, the subject Care clearly shows that this does not necessarily mean that attention is paid to learning to learn and self-regulated learning. The subject Care was developed as a compulsory subject for all pupils in the first stage of secondary education (age 12-15) when a common curriculum for all levels of secondary education was introduced in the Netherlands in 1993. Before the introduction of the common curriculum, Care was only included in the curriculum of certain lower vocational education schools. The Care curriculum could vary from pure home economics to a combination of home economics and health education, and could be placed in the tradition of courses which prepare pupils for traditional female work in the family and in the labor market (cf. Thompson, 1994). The new subject Care, however, was meant to include much more. A 'broad' subject was proposed at the end of the 1980s, in which pupils were to acquire practical knowledge and skills which would develop their problemsolving abilities in everyday life. In addition to traditional home economics themes such as nutrition and clothing and health education, topics in the field of sexuality, relationships, consumer affairs, the environment, leisure time and work in and outside the home were to be included (see Ten Dam & Volman, 1998). Care is a typical example of a subject introduced on the basis of societal arguments. The arguments advanced in favor of the introduction of the subject Care included the individualization of society, the emancipation of women, and the increasing complexity of daily life. These social roots of the subject have resulted in Care being regarded as inherently associated with values. The inclusion of the subject in basic education was seen as an expression of social recognition of the

146


knowledge and skills traditionally associated with women. At an individual level it was expected that boys would learn to appreciate the domain of care and caring if they knew more about caring activities, which would eventually lead to a more equal division of labor in society. Norms and values, however, have become associated more generally with the learning objectives of the subject Care. Care is, after all, about ‘being responsible for’ and 'considering others'. At the same time, the very value-linked character of Care is one of the most contentious issues surrounding the subject (see Ten Dam & Volman, 1998 for an analysis of the debate.) It is important to remember that the subject was developed in a period when research on the acquisition of values and the development of attitudes from the perspective of learning to learn (e.g. Oser, 1996) was still in its infancy. Besides societal arguments, educational arguments were also put forward for the introduction of Care in the common curriculum. It was argued that the inclusion of a subject in the common curriculum with its roots in vocational education and with a tradition of learning processes with a 'head, heart and hands' approach was important for less able pupils. Hence the idea that learning processes in Care had to be designed in a ‘new’ manner did not emanate from educational psychology. The reasoning derived from the subject itself and from the problems it faced as a compulsory subject: it would have to be a subject which lower vocational education pupils would find both attractive and manageable, and which was sufficiently challenging for general secondary education pupils (Ten Dam & Volman, in press). The subject Care endeavors to achieve meaningful and functional learning outcomes. Its central aim is to promote the agency of pupils in various care situations. Pupils must be able to apply the knowledge and skills they have learnt in their everyday lives. As a precondition for such meaningful outcomes, the development of knowledge, skills and attitudes was seen as mutually coherent; the plea was for the acquisition of problem-solving skills rather than learning disconnected factual knowledge or skills in isolation. This was illustrated by a model for a problem-solving approach pertaining to real care situations in pupils’ daily lives: being aware of the situation and goal-setting collecting and comparing information weighing up the situation, setting priorities and making decisions planning and organizing implementing evaluating and reflecting (Ledoux, Robijns, Volman & Meijer, 1989). Directly related to the quest for meaningful learning outcomes is the organization of the subject around recognizable, motivating themes from daily life such as housing, food and relationships. The learning of the theory and practice of care is ‘situated’ in themes which are closely related to the real world of 12- to 15-year-olds. Altogether, the subject Care was one of the first subjects in the social studies curriculum of secondary education which explicitly sought to incorporate new ways of learning. Meanwhile, however, it seems that the subject is suffering from its pioneering position. Recent developments in educational psychology have scarcely left their mark on the subject. Existing research mainly addresses the question of the subject’s legitimacy, investigated through the collation of opinions on the subject from diverse groups (Ledoux et al., 1989; Kok & Broens, 1995). Research has also been carried out on the process of implementation, which appears to be


147

problematic, particularly in general secondary schools in comparison to prevocational schools (Education Inspectorate, 1994). Our own research (Ten Dam & Volman, in press) addresses the question, 'What kind of learning processes are intended and realized in the subject Care in the common curriculum?'. The analysis focused on the ideal curriculum and the formal curriculum (Goodlad et al., 1979): attainment targets and teaching materials. In the research, the 'instructional-learning episodes' concept was used as defined by Elshout-Mohr, Van Hout-Wolters & Broekkamp, 1999ii, namely units that can be distinguished in the teaching-learning process. They developed a categorization system for the so-called instructional-learning episodes, based on the following five dimensions: learning domains (cognitive, psychomotor, social-affective), productive-reproductive learning, learning outcomes (knowledge-skills), extent of metacognition, and near-far transfer (Elshout-Mohr et al, 1999; see also Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993; Simons, 1996; Perkins & Salomon, 1996; Weinstein & Van Mater Stone, 1996). Our research results show that most learning processes in the subject Care (at the level of the formal curriculum), are aimed at the acquisition of knowledge (despite its intentions at the level of the ideal curriculum). This is even applicable to the social-affective dimension of learning: the emphasis is on 'knowing' about social and affective phenomena rather than 'being able' to act adequately when social skills are required. Moreover, while it is true to say that the envisaged learning processes are explicitly situated, namely in the context of everyday life, there is relatively little focus on active, constructive and reflective learning. Finally, it is shown that aspects such as long-term, flexible learning results, and in particular more generic outcomes such as learning, thinking and regulation skills, have received scarcely any attention on both the level of the ideal curriculum and the level of the formal curriculum in the subject Care. The emphasis is rather on reproduction of knowledge and skills (Ten Dam & Volman, in press). This is strange, given the stated intention of the subject to focus on a problem-solving approach, in which metacognitive skills such as planning, monitoring and control play an important role. Now that the subject Care has become part of the common curriculum in the Netherlands one may expect that this subject contribute, like all other subjects in this stage of education, to the development of active and self-directed learning for all pupils in the first stage of secondary education. Therefore, productive instead of reproductive learning, learning aimed at transfer and attention to metacognition deserve more attention, as these characteristics of learning processes are considered important in active and self-directed learning (Weinstein & Van Mater Stone, 1996). Some educationalists are of the opinion that productive learning aimed at transfer and metacognition is too ambitious for pupils who would previously have followed lower vocational education, i.e. the less-able pupils. We feel that it would make more sense to ask how to achieve this objective with these pupils. Assuming that a practical approach is particularly suited to the needs of pupils who would previously have followed vocational education (an assumption which is, incidentally, open to question), a subject as Care might offer a favorable starting point for the development of self-directed learning for this group of pupils. For the

148


near future, research on ways in which the development of learning, thinking and regulation skills can be stimulated in a subject like Care, can make a valuable contribution to including social and cultural differences between pupils in theories on new learning. Organizing the curriculum around social themes: the case of environmental education

Although social studies in the Netherlands primarily consists of distinct, separate subjects (history, art history, geography, political and business economics, philosophy, sociology and - recently - the subject Care), in the last ten years interdisciplinary social themes such as multicultural education, health education, education for peace, environmental education, etc. have also acquired a place in schools. These are not separate subjects in the curriculum, but themes which cross subject boundaries; they are taught in various subjects and in projects not related to any specific subject. In this section we discuss environmental education as an example of such an interdisciplinary social theme. The introduction of environmental education in the curriculum was based on criticism on the way in which schools contribute to the cognitive, social and moral development of pupils and to citizenship (cf. Berman, 1997). One point which constantly recurred in the debate was the feeling that the various subjects in the domain of social studies were largely isolated from society. This was attributed to the organization of the curriculum in disciplines, which leads to the dispersal of meaningful learning contents, and to insufficient attention being paid to the development of values and the skills required to develop values, and to the agency of pupils. Under the heading of ‘environmental education’, however, the explicit intention was to organize interdisciplinary learning processes around the environment as a social issue, and, moreover, to include the school as a community in the learning process. ‘Sustainable development’ is one of the core concepts of environmental education. The concept refers to development which provides for the needs of the present generation without damaging the ability of future generations to provide for themselves (OECD, 1994). In secondary education, this entailed both the introduction of environmental care at school (as expressed in environmental policy plans), and the integration of environmental education into various subjects in the first and second stage of secondary education (Stokking, Young, Van Zoelen, Leenders & Bastings, 1996). The attempts to develop meaningful subject matter for environmental education went hand in hand with a quest for new forms of learning. In recent years, arguments in support of environmental education in secondary schools have increasingly referred to the idea that social themes are an excellent medium for implementing ‘new learning processes’, particularly when forms of active learning, situated learning, and collaborative learning are used (e.g. Wals, 1994; Van der Velde & Wolfs, 1995; Margadant-van Arcken, 1996). Pupils investigating a specific theme or question in their own environment is a practical example of this ‘new learning’. As in projects, pupils work together in small groups. Elliott (1995)


149

uses the term collaborative action-research for the exchange of experiences and ideas; students analyze and discuss environmental questions together. Also characteristic of environmental education is that pupils look outwards in a literal sense (e.g. doing fieldwork, carrying out environmental and nature observations etc.). The explicit connection between environmental education and new learning is also evident in the multi-national education program ‘Environment and Schools Initiative’ (ENSI) of the OECDiii. The program aims at both the promotion of environmental awareness and of what is termed ‘dynamic learning qualities’, such as initiative, independence, commitment, and the readiness to accept responsibility, in other words, ‘general skills’ which pupils need as citizens in an increasingly complex society (see also Posch, 1994). An interdisciplinary approach is central to environmental education. The environment concerns a social theme which by definition spans several disciplines: ‘real problems are rarely simplified, fitting neatly into one discipline’ (Losito & Mayer in OECD, 1995, p.97). From the perspective of new learning, the environment forms an authentic context in which learning processes can be situated, thus making the learning content more meaningful to students. In turn this facilitates deep understanding of the subject matter (Brown & Campione, 1994). This approach not only does justice to the complexity of environmental issues, it also serves an educational goal, that of acquiring knowledge about complex issues (Posch, 1994, p.23). Wals (1994), however, argues that the design of meaningful learning contexts demands that teachers have a clear vision of what is meaningful to pupils. On the basis of qualitative research (participatory observations and interviews) he states that ‘environmental educators have little understanding of their students’ interactions with and perceptions of the environment and the ‘minitheories’ to which they lead. (…) This particularly holds true for environmental educators’ understanding of the environmental perceptions of ‘minority’ students who live in urban settings and who can be considered among the socially, economically and environmentally deprived.’ (p. 15) It is not only the prior knowledge about the environment of various groups of students that differs, but also their attitudes and experiences in relation to ‘nature’. Whereas for one group of students nature signifies ‘challenge’ (building huts, canoeing etc.), others associate nature with ‘unsafe’ green areas in the neighborhood (parks which are better avoided) (Wals, 1994, p. 138). In the near future research should focus on the development and testing of an instructional design which not only takes account of such differences, but which incorporates learning to deal with different perspectives on reality as a topic into the learning process. A specific kind of learning outcome in environmental education concerns values. While at the beginning of the 1990s environmental education principally focused on achieving a specific change in behavior of pupils (Wals, 1994), for example, keeping your immediate environment clean and separating different types of waste, in recent years the notion of developing skills for acquiring values has been at the center of attention. At issue are the values of pupils regarding sustainable development, pollution, one’s own responsibility and so on (see e.g. Mayer, 1995). Elliott (1995, p.23) relates an interdisciplinary approach to values: ‘when

150


environmental education is viewed as a process of looking at problems from different points of view, students come to realize how values enter into the selection and interpretation of the facts of the situation’. Values education, however, concerns an area which, didactically speaking, is still in its infancy. Empirical research is as good as absent. The issue of values is in addition inherently linked to the emphasis on the constructed nature of knowledge in the theory and practice of environmental education. At the theoretical level, Elliott (1995) refers to Dewey’s concept of pragmatism. According to a pragmatic theory of knowledge, ‘knowledge’ is dynamic, action-oriented and situated in the experiences of everyday life. This conceptualization of knowledge is at first sight the same as that which currently prevails in the field of educational psychology, termed as constructivism (Paris & Byrne, 1989; Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Brown et al, 1989). It is above all the active role of the pupil which is emphasized. Pupils learn by constructing the learning content themselves. Although this approach deals with the construction of knowledge, the nature of knowledge itself is not in question. Pupils must obviously be equipped to create their own knowledge and reasoning, but the boundaries are determined by ‘objective knowledge’ (cf. Roegholt, Wardekker & Van Oers, 1997). A term such as ‘misconception’ is illustrative of this. In the ‘theory of knowledge’ which underpins environmental education, there is a far less stringent assumption that there is a fixed body of knowledge which pupils - in a personal process of meaning and interpretation - must acquire. To a certain extent knowledge itself is in question. Ideally, pupil and teacher are jointly involved in constructing knowledge which is thought relevant to dealing with complex environmental issues as citizens. The developments described above raise the question of measuring the learning outcomes of environmental education. This is still largely unexplored territory; publications on environmental education are strongly prescriptive and normative. Effect measurements are few and far between. On the basis of evaluative research on environmental education, Stokking et al. (1996) came to the conclusion that the knowledge which students possess about nature and the environment increases with age; conversely, environmentally friendly behavior diminishes with age. Measured on scales for willingness to act, willingness to make sacrifices and behavior, it emerged that girls are more environmentally friendly than boys. It is open to question whether these effects should be ascribed to environmental education as students' knowledge of environmental issues is mainly acquired outside school (see also Education Inspectorate, 1997). In recent years, numerous people have stated that quantitative effect measurements, using knowledge tests and scales for the measurement of values and attitudes, do not do sufficient justice to the type of learning processes envisaged in environmental education. In particular, the aspect of a personal and meaningful construction of knowledge is difficult to rhyme with objective, unambiguous testing (e.g. Mayer, 1995; Elliott, 1995). Recently attempts have been made to develop more qualitative forms of assessment, such as working with student logbooks (Van Aert, 1996; Frijters, 1999). However, the development of instruments is still in the stage of formulating premises, such as the importance of measuring to what extent


151

students are able to reflect on their own learning objectives and their own learning processes (e.g. Mayer, 1994). CHALLENGES FOR ‘NEW LEARNING’ IN SOCIAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In the previous section we have discussed new learning in three case studies within the domain of social studies. Apart from the problems mentioned, which are specific to each of the subject areas (economics, care, environmental education), in this section we will discuss three cross-subject issues which new learning is struggling with in social studies. For each issue we will point out which themes in particular require further research. Implementation

To begin with, new learning in social studies is confronted with the problem of implementation. Developments in educational psychology concerning processoriented instruction - attention to active construction of knowledge, thinking and regulation skills – are directly relevant to subject-based teaching. Yet at the same time it is difficult to introduce the results of research in educational practice. As we said before, a factor which undoubtedly plays a role in this is that the majority of social studies teachers mainly identify with the content of an academic discipline (economics, history, geography, etc) as a result of their own university education. They are not trained in process-oriented instructional strategies. The teaching of skills and learning strategies on the one hand and knowledge of the domain on the other are still not seen as an interconnected whole. It would help if more knowledge was at hand on the domain-specific and the domain-exceeding components of skills and learning strategies and on teaching these skills and strategies effectively in social studies in secondary education. Access to such research results, however, would not guarantee change. Educational research is too far removed from educational practice for this. Thus our plea is not just for more research but for a particular type of research; research which from the outset takes account of the practical relevance and the conditions for successful implementation. We are referring here to developmental research (Richey & Nelson, 1996). Van den Akker (1998) identifies the most important characteristics of developmental research as a problem-oriented and interdisciplinary approach, and an interactive and cyclic approach to design and implementation. The fact that researchers, designers and teachers work together, for example, on the establishment and practical implementation of skills-oriented instruction, means that the conditions are present for research that is both theoretical and of practical relevance. Assessing

A second cross-subject issue is that new learning only has a chance of success in secondary education if we succeed in formulating new examination requirements and in developing new techniques to assess the learning outcomes. At the moment

152


the first steps in the direction of skills-oriented education are being taken in the various subjects in the domain of social studies. The subject business education is a clear example of this development. Teaching problem-solving skills is extremely important if education is to prepare pupils to apply their knowledge and skills independently in new situations (far transfer) rather than merely show pupils ways of solving standard assignments. In the case of business economics we have already described that the growing attention to problem-solving skills has not yet been incorporated in the national exams. The testing of declarative knowledge, while skills were the educational aim, throws its shadow ‘backwards’. Tests which do not measure what pupils are supposed to learn undermine the educational goals that have been formulated. The assessment of learning, thinking and regulation skills, skills which are necessary for independent problem solving, however, is still in its infancy. An important research issue is, therefore, the question of how these skills can be tested. For a discussion of the instruments currently available for measuring such skills, see chapter 5. In social studies, however, the learning processes envisaged do not only fall within the cognitive learning domain, but also in the so-called social-affective learning domain. By this we mean the learning domain comprising knowledge and skills pertaining to an individual's affective and social functioning, the interactions between people and the influence of society on these, and the values that play a role in this (Ten Dam & Volman, 1999 and in press). The testing of learning processes which concern aspects of social competence (e.g. social skills, communication skills) and the development of values constitute an important research issue for the near future. An example is the development of valid and reliable tests in which pupils must demonstrate the skills envisaged in real-life situations. Given the nature of these skills, these tests will almost by definition require social interaction. Values education

The last cross-subject issue we will discuss in this chapter is the aspect of values and values education. This is the most striking aspect of new learning in social studies, in comparison to science, mathematics and languages. The discussion on ‘values’ within social studies, however, hardly transcends the question whether values can or should have a place in education. Within an established subject like economics, values remain largely implicit. Even what initially appears to be 'objective, neutral knowledge', however, is value-linked as it represents a perspective on the world. In new subject areas such as Care and environmental education ways are sought to give values an explicit place in the curriculum. Such developments are certainly not unopposed. In the debate on the subject Care, values education is often equated with the transmission of values, which is closely followed by accusations of indoctrination. Transmission of values as an educational goal implies the teaching of specific values and norms (see Klaassen, 1996). In the United States this concept of values education is known as ‘character education’ (see Berkowitz, 1995). Educational practice, especially in environmental education, shows more evidence of Oser’s method of values communication (Oser, 1986 and 1996) than of the


153

character education described above. Pupils are encouraged to reflect on moral questions. Listening to each other's point of view, pupils learn together on an equal footing how to come to a reasoned judgement on values, norms and interests. General moral ideals such as 'respect', 'justice', 'responsibility' and 'care' are the ultimate criteria. From the perspective of fostering 'productive and meaningful learning' it is important to pay attention to the active involvement of pupils and the attribution of meaning. As in the case of knowledge, those values and norms which pupils have actively thought about and which are meaningful in the context of their own lives and personal experience are most likely to make a lasting impression. Teaching strategies for values communication deserve further attention. Oser has clearly taken the first steps towards a teaching strategy. For a more detailed analysis of the skills required, reference can be made to the work of the 'Critical Thinking Movement' (e.g. Paul, 1992; see also Veugelers, 1999). Just like Oser's method of values communication, however, the training programs which have been developed in the framework of 'Critical Thinking' generally lack a domain-specific grounding (Pressley & McCormick, 1995; for research on the integration of general skills in specific domains see e.g. Hattie, Briggs & Purdie, 1996). For moral reasoning a sound subject knowledge of the domain is required (see also Nucci, 1997). From a more general perspective on the effectiveness of values education, research is needed on the conditions in which pupils are receptive to the development of values and norms. Examples of research themes in this context are: how can we make active use of pupils' perception of the world and their phase of development; what is the role of the teacher as a model of socialization and as a credible tutor in values education? (Leune 1992; Battistich, Solomon, Watson & Schaps; 1997) Values education does not only assume that the development of values and the skills to do this is worked on at a micro level. Pupils must be able to experience values. Damon (1998) concludes on the basis of studies on cognitive, social and moral development that morality is predominantly learnt by active participation in the natural context of specific social interactions. The school as a community must provide pupils with the opportunity to demonstrate moral behavior in a social context (Power, Higgins & Kohlberg, 1989; Battistich et al, 1997). A relevant research issue concerns, for example, the interaction between the school level and the classroom level in values education. To conclude, in this chapter we have situated new learning in the context of social studies. We have pointed out on the one hand the obstacles encountered in new learning such as the fact that many of the school subjects curricula in question are based on knowledge from academic disciplines rather than on knowledge about learning and instruction, the lack of research on learning and instruction in specific subjects, and the shortcomings in teachers' knowledge and skills. On the other hand we have shown that the domain of social studies makes themes visible which, from the perspective of new learning, require further research. i.

As well as business education political economics is taught in secondary schools.

154


ii. The concept of 'instructional-learning episodes' was originally developed in an article published in a Dutch journal (Elshout-Mohr & Van Hout-Wolters, 1995). iii. Although ENSI is an international curriculum development project, curriculum is viewed as an expression of the culture of a society, and therefore reflects its values.

REFERENCES Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational School Communities, 32 (3), 137-151. Berman, S. (1997). Children's social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. Albany: State University of New York Press. Berkowitz, M. W. (1995). The education of the complete moral person. Aberdeen: Gordon Cook Foundation. Boekaerts, M., Simons, P. R. J. (1995). Leren en instructie. Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces. [Learning and instruction. Psychology of the pupil and the learning process.] Assen: Dekker & Van de Vegt. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, pp. 229-270. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of R. Glaser (pp. 393452). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cobb, P. (1996). Constructivism and learning. In E. de Corte & F.E. Weinert (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Developmental and Instructional Psychology (pp.228-341). Oxford: Pergamon. Damon, W. (1988). The moral child. Nurturing children’s natural moral growth. New York: The Free Press. Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (1998). A process model for interaction and mathematical level raising. Educational Studies in Mathematics (36), 303-314. Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. Educational Technology, 31, 7-12. Elliott, J. (1995). Teaching and learning in the environment. Reconstructing the environmental education curriculum: teacher’s perspectives. In: OECD (1995). Environmental learning for the century (pp.13-29). Paris: OECD. Elshout-Mohr, M., & Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. van (1995). Actief leren en studeren: acht soorten instructieleerepisodes. [Active learning and studying: eight types of instructional learning episodes.] Pedagogische Studiën, 72 (4), 273-302. Elshout-Mohr, M., & Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. & Broekkamp, H. (1999). Mapping situations in classroom and research: eight types of instructional learning episodes. Learning & Instruction, 9, 57-75. Frijters, S. (1999). NME, een multiculturele benadering. Environmental education, a multicultural approach.] Amsterdam: IVN, UvA/ILO. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M., Frances, Tye, K. (1979). Curriculum Inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effect of learning skills intervention on student learning: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99-136. Inspectie van het Onderwijs (1994). Basisvorming. Het vak Verzorging, inspectierapport 1994-1. [Basic education. The subject Care, Inspectorate report 1994-1.] De Meern. Inspectie van het Onderwijs (1997). Natuur- en milieu-educatie in de scholen voor mavo. [Environmental education in schools for lower general secondary education.] Zwolle. Kok, W. A. M., & Broens, M. L. (1995). Meningen over verzorging anno 1995. [Opinions on the subject Care in the year 1995.] Utrecht: Vakgroep Onderwijskunde/ISOR/Universiteit Utrecht. Klaassen, C. (1996). Socialisatie en moraal. Onderwijs en waarden in een laat-moderne tijd. [Socialization and morality. Education and values in a late-modern time.] Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant. Ledoux, G., Robijns, M., Volman, M., & Meijer, P. (1988). Verzorging, een vak apart? Een analyze van de discussie rond de plaats van verzorging in de basisvorming. [Care, a separate subject? An analysis of the discussion on the place of care in basic education.] Amsterdam: SCO.


155

Leune, J. M. G. (1992). Attitude- en persoonlijkheidsontwikkeling op school. [Attitude and personality development at school.] MESO Magazine, 12, 63, 2-7. Margadant-van Arcken, M. (1997). Wat is natuur- en milieu-educatie (NME)? Openbaar college. [What is environmental education? Public lecture.] Landbouw Hogeschool Wageningen, 26 februari 1997. Mayer, M. (1994). Evaluating the outcomes of environment and school initiatives. In: OECD (Ed.), Evaluating innovation in environmental education (pp.89-105) Paris: OECD. Mayer, M. (1995).Quality indicators and innovation in environmental education. In OECD (Ed.), Evaluating innovation in environmental education (pp.31-46) Paris: OECD. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In R. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (eds.), Mental Models, Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nucci, L. (1997). Moral development and character formation. In H. J. Walberg, G. D. Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 127-153). Berkeley: MacCatchan. OECD (1994). Evaluating innovation in environmental education. Paris: OECD. OECD (1995). Environmental learning for the century. Paris: OECD. Oser, F. (1986). Moral education and values education: the discourse perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.917-941). New York: MacMillan. Oser, F. (1996). Attitudes and values, acquiring. In Corte, E. de, & Weinert. F. E. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp.489-491). Oxford/New York: Pergamon. Paris, S. G., & Byrne, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman, H. Schunk (eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory research and practice (pp. 169-200). New York: Springer. Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa: The Foundation for Critical Thinking. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1996). Learning transfer. In E. de Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 483-488). Oxford/New York: Pergamon. Pintrich, R. P., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Posch, P. (1994) The study :Environment and School initiatives”: Phase one. In: OECD (Ed.), Evaluating innovation in environmental education (pp.21-28) Paris: OECD. Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press. Pressley, M., & McCormick, V. B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving, in Resnick, L. B., & Knopfler, L. E. (eds.), Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research, Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Richey, R., & Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1213-1245). New York: Macmillan. Simons, P. R-J. (1996). Metacognition. In E. de Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 441-445). Oxford/New York: Pergamon. Stokking, K., Young, R., Van Zoelen, L., Leenders, F., & Bastings, M. (1996). Eindrapport van het evaluatieonderzoek naar de invoering van natuur- en milieu-educatie in het onderwijs (1991-1995). [Final report on the research evaluating the introduction of environmental education in schools (19911995).] Utrecht: ICO, ISOR, CLU. SLO. (1995). Examenprogramma's Economie en Management & Organisatie [Economics and Management & Organization examination program] zoals voorgesteld door de Vakontwikkelgroep Economie en uitgebracht in opdracht van de Stuurgroep Profiel Tweede Fase in de reeks Advies Examenprogramma's HAVO/VWO. Enschede: SLO. Ten Dam, G. T. M., & Volman, M. L. L. (1998). 'Care' for citizenship. Curriculum Inquiry, 28 (2), 231-246 Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (1999). Scholen voor sociale competentie. Een pedagogisch-didactische benadering. [Schools for social competence. A pedagogical-teaching approach.] Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers. Ten Dam, G., Volman, M. (in press). Qualities of instructional-learning episodes in different domains: the subjects Care and Technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies. Thompson, P. (1994). Beyond gender: equity issues for home economics education. In Stone, L. (ed.), The education feminism reader (pp.184-194). London/New York: Routledge. Van Aert, L. (1996). Een formatieve evaluatie van het project ‘Zorgen voor de natuur’ te Limburg. [A formative evaluation of the 'Caring for Nature' project in Limburg.] Utrecht: ISOR/Onderwijsonderzoek.

156


Van den Akker, J. J. H. (1998). De uitbeelding van het curriculum. [The representation of the curriculum.] Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Van der Velde, J., & Wolfs, R. (1995). Samenhang in educaties. Waarom aandacht voor educaties in het onderwijs? [Connections between social themes. Why attention for social themes in school?] Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson H.D. Tjeenk Willink. Vermeulen, A., Volman, M. & Terwel, J. (1998). Success factors in curriculum innovation: Mathematics and science. Curriculum and Teaching, 12 (2), 15-28. Vernooij, A.T.J. (1993). Het leren oplossen van bedrijfseconomische problemen. Didactische problemen naar kostprijs- en nettowinstvraagstukken in het voortgezet onderwijs. [Learning to solve business economics problems. Instructional problems on cost price and net profit issues in secondary education.] Rotterdam: Ph.D. thesis. Vernooij, A.T.J. (1995a). Problem Solving in Management Accounting. Economia, The Journal of the Association of European Economics Education 5, Part 1, Summer 1995. Vernooij, A.T.J. (1995b). Problem solving strategies. In W. Gijselaers (Ed.), Educational Innovation in Economics and Business Administration: The Case of Problem-Based Learning (69-77). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vernooij, A.T.J. (in press). Tracking down the knowledge structure of students. In W. Gijselaers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual EDINEB International Conference. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Veugelers, W. (1999). Teachers, values and critical thinking. In Kincheloe, J.L. & Steinberg, S.R. (Eds.), Multi-Intercultural Conversations. New York: Peter Lang. Von Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.). (1991) Radical constructivism in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Voss, J. F. (1996). Social sciences, learning and instruction of. In Corte, E. de, & Weinert. F. E. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp.572-574). Oxford/New York: Pergamon. Wals, A.E.J. (1994). Pollution stinks! Young adolescents’ perceptions of natural and environmental issues with implications for education in urban settings. De Lier: Academic Book Center. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Towards a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63 (3), 249-294. Roegholt, S., Wardekker, W., & van Oers (1998). Teachers and pluralistic education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30 (2), 125-141. Weinstein, C. E., & Van Mater Stone, G. (1996). Learning strategies and learning to learn. In Corte, E. de, & Weinert. F. E. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp.419-422). Oxford/New York: Pergamon.

AFFILIATIONS

Geert ten Dam, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: gtendam@ilo. uva. nl

Fons Vernooij, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: vernooij @ilo. uva. nl

Monique Volman, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: mll.volman@psy. vu. nl

GERT RIJLAARSDAM AND MICHEL COUZIJN

9. WRITING AND LEARNING TO WRITE: A DOUBLE CHALLENGE

INTRODUCTION: THE EVER MORE COMPLEX WRITING CURRICULUM Several scientific paradigm shifts have influenced the teaching and learning of written composition. Inspired by developments in linguistics and language education, the writing-as-communication shift took place in the nineteen seventies. More stress was put on the (communicative) effect of the text than on its correctness; grammatical correctness made way for pragma(linguis)tical adequacy. This educational shift resulted in more realistic writings assignments, related to ‘real life’, in explicit attention for ‘audience’ and ‘purpose’ as criteria for effective writing, and in the integration of readers’ feedback in writing curricula (e.g. Elbow, 1973). In the nineteen eighties, an orientation on writing-as-a-process was added to the writing-as-communication paradigm. Cognitive psychologists like John Hayes applied Newell and Simons’s problem solving theory to writing and writing instruction as research domains. Together with a linguist, Linda Flower, Hayes conducted several studies, using the thinking-aloud methodology in order to describe the way in which experts and novices differ in their execution of writing tasks. Writing curricula developers paid more attention to the recursive character of writing and to various means for coping with cognitive constraints. Consequently, traditional ‘step-by-step’ instructional methods (‘think first, then write’) were refined and contextualized (‘in case X, it is worthwhile to just start writing, in order to generate new ideas’). This process-approach also demanded introspection by students, so that they could describe their writing processes and label the effectiveness of the constituting activities. It became clear that planning, evaluation and monitoring are key meta-activities in effective writing. Later on, (socio-)linguists developed their own branch within this paradigm (Flower 1994), describing how norms for genres are taught and learned within communities. This socio-historical paradigm was inspired by Vygotsky and Piaget. It is more strongly related to education than the problem-solving studies in the nineteen eighties, because teachers-student-interactions are often object of study. Studies on collaborative learning offer insight in the processes and products of knowledge acquisition, e.g. when discussions and negotiations of working groups are studied (Milian 1996, Saada-Robert 1999, Rouiller 1996, Rouiller & Allal 1997, Ribas, Farrera & Camps 1997; Camps & Milian, 1999; Allal 1999). A fourth paradigm emerged in the nineteen nineties, and originated in 157


158

GERT RIJLAARSDAM & MICHEL COUZIJN

educational science. We label it as the ‘self-regulated-learning paradigm’ (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; 1998; Lumbelli, Paoletti, Camagni & Frauzin ea. 1996; Rijlaarsdam forthcoming; Couzijn 1999). Keywords are learning strategies, metacognition, transfer, learning-to-learn, and active learning. More attention is given to the role of the learner within the teaching-learning process, and to longitudinal learning. This approach is not limited to the quality of writing products and processes, but incorporates the quality of learning products and processes within the domain of writing. The above paragraphs cannot serve as a full historical description of the developments of writing education research: it lacks the necessary breadth, complexity and thoroughness. Yet they show how a number of disciplines added a variety of perspectives on writing instruction, which is one of the subdomains of standard and second language curricula. This short introduction may also help to demonstrate how academical complexities reign the definition of what school subjects are about. It adds to this complexity that in educational practice, paradigms do not succeed each other. There is continuity and change, a necessity of conservatism and progression, and each new paradigm adds a slightly new meaning or content to the school subject. With the continuous professionalization of education, school subjects and their framing curriculum are getting more and more complex, like the perspectives on learners and the aims and methods of teaching and learning do. With the progression of the science of learning, we see that what we now call ‘new learning’ is definitively ‘complex learning’: modern teaching encompasses the best of past paradigms, so that writing instruction today is communicative as well as process-oriented, genre-dependent, interactive, selfregulated, and longitudinal. For language education and its students, it no longer suffices to be able to ‘write a correct essay’ as the sole outcome of the teaching-learning process. Students must learn how to write functional, communicative texts, to apply rhetorical strategies for suitable audiences, to apply various writing process strategies in different circumstances, to reflect on their writing behavior, and to extend their learning-towrite capacity in order to master future writing tasks. In sum, students have to learn more, and they have to learn it in a different way. In this chapter, we focus on ‘new learning’ in writing instruction along the lines of the self-regulated learning paradigm. We will demonstrate how fifteen-year-old students learn to write persuasive texts, in an experimental, reader-oriented writing curriculum, at the basis of which are two theoretical viewpoints. The first is the importance of role changes (writer-reader-commentator-instructor-reviser) to stimulate students in taking various perspectives on their writing. The second is what we call the double agenda of students in a learning-to-write situation. The writing-process paradigm showed how experts write, not how they learn to write. Student-writers, however, must perform both of these tasks in the writing classroom. Their material goal is to create texts for particular audiences and with particular communicative goals. But as learners, they have the cognitive goal of learning how to write: to acquire cognition and skillfulness. Because of the complexity of the writing process and the required cognitive load, it is difficult to

WRITING AND LEARNING TO WRITE: A DOUBLE CHALLENGE

159

balance attention for the writing and the learning agenda’s. This study focuses on an opportunity for students to handle the double agenda. We used so-called learner reports to recover the conscious knowledge about writing and learning-to-write that students acquired during the experimental learning activities. The curriculum focused on peer teaching: peers supplied feedback on each other's text, and then the student writers revised their own texts. Peer teaching has shown to be effective in writing education, specially when the activities are framed within specific, meaningful feedback procedures and criteria (Hillocks, 1986; cf. ‘reciprocal teaching’ in Palincsar & Brown, 1989). An empirical trial shows that the knowledge students acquired was influenced by various learning activities. Activities that ask for some reflection on particular writing activities (viz. 'reading peer texts', 'commenting on peer texts', and 'processing peer comments') led to a higher awareness of learning processes and outcomes. We report the data by one student ('Charlotte') whose written reflections are discussed. THE POWER OF PEER FEEDBACK IN LEARNING-TO-WRITE

Instructional methods for writing in secondary education consist mostly of ‘howto’-instructions and writing assignments. Educational principles are deductive, rule-based learning and learning-by-doing (Couzijn, 1995; 1999; Couzijn & Rijlaarsdam 1996). The traditional instructional sequence is ‘presentation of theory’, ‘practice’ and ‘feedback on results’ (see Hillocks 1986 for a meta-study of 'what works' in writing education). Handicaps of the traditional method are: there is little stimulation to reflect on the writing process; there are unclear criteria for 'good' and for 'weak' performance; evaluation activities are left to the teacher; students hardly detect or remedy the flaws in their writing; and feedback focuses on the product rather than the process (Couzijn & Rijlaarsdam, 1996). These handicaps restrain students' learning in several ways: they are not stimulated to gather information about their performance, or construct knowledge about writing strategies. A more or less satisfactory writing product does not guarantee that meaningful learning has actually taken place which can be used in novel situations. In sum, the weak spots of ‘learning-by-doing’ are a lack of monitoring activities (perceiving one's own task behavior), evaluative activities (assessing the quality of one's writing product or process) and reflective activities (making inferences regarding one's writing competence and/or learning). In a traditional pedagogy, such activities are left to the student’s initiative. Only 'good novices' will actively create opportunities to learn. They are able to handle the double agenda of writing and learning-to-write: they see to it that a text is produced and that learning takes place. 'Good novices' are able to ‘learn about writing’ while they write, i.e. to perceive a writing task as a learning task. Weaker students devote their cognitive resources only to text production rather than to monitoring, reflection and knowledge acquisition. This lack of attention for the 'learning' agenda seriously hampers the effectiveness of learning, since learning depends on its input from monitoring, evaluation and reflection regarding the performed activities.

160


Writing and Learning- to-write: juggling with parallel processes We will clarify our view of learning-to-learn in writing instruction by elaborating on the agenda-metaphor. If, as said, writers in a learning situation ideally fulfil two roles (the role of a writer who must produce texts as an assignment and the role of a learner who has to acquire cognition about writing, then for each role, they must set agenda's: a writing agenda, and a learning-to-write agenda (Espéret, 1999: 230). The differences in the two roles are congruent with two types of tasks (cf. Breen 1987a; 1987b): a language processing task (LPT) and a language learning task (LLT). Both tasks are problem-solving tasks (cf. Van Dijk & Kintsch 1983, Levelt 1989, Hayes & Flower 1980, McLaughlin 1987), the two problems being "how can I communicate effectively and efficiently with this particular goal and audience in mind?" and "how can I learn effectively and efficiently to master writing tasks such as this one?" Any particular writing task can be perceived from each of these two perspectives – even by professional writers who wish to develop their skill. For instance, a revision task is an LPT, because it should enhance the communication in a real or imagined context; it is an LLT because it is intended to improve the learner's writing or revision skill. In educational settings LPT's are embedded in LLT's. Therefore good students will perceive writing tasks as (more-encompassing) LLT's rather than (shorter-term) LPT's. They might even rework the task so that it serves the learning goal more than the communicative goal, for instance if they experiment with a more difficult writing strategy instead of simply choosing the easiest one and applying it. Our distinction between writing and learning agenda's resembles Bialystok's distinction between 'functional' and 'formal' practice (Bialystok 1978). She says LPT's should be defined within a functional context and can be characterized as 'whole language tasks'. The main goal of the activity is to communicate, whereas the main goal of a LLT is to learn how to communicate. Distinguishing categories of writers' knowledge We will elaborate on two issues. First, the various types of writer's knowledge used in order to complete LPT's; knowledge that is generated when working on LLT's. Second, we will discuss the morphology of LPT and LLT subprocesses, and the relationship between these subprocesses on the one hand and categories of writers' knowledge on the other. A writer’s or learner’s ‘skillfulness’ depends on the knowledge that he/she accumulated while gaining experience, and on the ability to retrieve and use the knowledge adequately in new situations. In order to formulate and investigate the variety and usage of such 'writer's knowledge', we developed a model for LPT’s and LLT’s in which several types of knowledge are distinguished as 'competencies'. If stored knowledge enables the user to solve classes of relevant writing or learning problems, it contributes to 'competence' for that particular class of problems (figure 1, taken from Oostdam & Rijlaarsdam 1995). The model guides research and interprets results within an explicit framework.


161

In this model, writers may acquire five competencies by accumulating writing experience. Linguistic competence includes (implicit and explicit) knowledge of grammar, lexicon, articulation, accentuation, punctuation and spelling. The student's competence is shown in his decisions on the correctness of sentences, choice of words and emphasis. This competence plays a role in formulating or coding (writing) as well as decoding (reading) (cf. Van der Pool & Van Wijk, 1995). Textual competence indicates knowledge enabling a language user to understand a text as a more or less coherent unity; to start, maintain and end a communicative transfer; and to produce coherent texts. Textual knowledge is also used to guide reading processes, to make inferences, interpretations, and converge meanings, while assuming a certain organization or coherence in text. Knowledge of text structures (e.g. patterns of cause-and-effect or advantages-disadvantages)

162


enable language users to anticipate possible content and read or write top-down. It is also referred to as formal schemata (Carrell 1984). Pragmatic competence refers to knowledge of rules for language use in sociocommunicative contexts: e.g. maxims for communication (Grice 1981), for politeness (Leech 1983), or preconditions for speech acts (Searle, 1979). On a formal level, it is about appropriate verbal means to express or understand speech. Pragmatic knowledge plays a role in the orientation stage of writing: the analysis of the communicative situation, the content that is negotiated with readers, and the usage of conventions. This orientation strongly governs and controls the actual writing process and product. Good writers - and good writing students - invest in getting a clear picture of the task conditions, and apply it in their writing. Socio-cultural competence refers to knowledge of the socially constructed world and social interaction. Social-cultural knowledge relates pragmatic appropriateness to certain language communities. In some countries it is inappropriate to start sentences with the word 'I'. Some Islamics use the word ‘party’ when they speak of burials. The French sentence 'Ne venez pas trop tard' when used to invite a Dutchman for dinner, will be understood as ‘about 5 p.m.’, while the French inviter probably had ‘about 7 p.m.’ in mind. Thus regarded, social-cultural knowledge is a necessary precondition for pragmatic competence. Finally, strategic competence plays a role in planning, executing, monitoring, and controlling writing activities. With a strategy we mean a mental plan of actions to reach a communicative goal or a learning goal. N.B. this is a broader interpretation than Stern‘s (1990, 411), whose use of 'communication strategy' is restricted to compensatory strategies: 'i.e., techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in an imperfectly known (second) language'. Strategic competence plays a role in directing processes of writing and reading. A writer may decide to write more top-down (following a text scheme) or more bottom-up (delaying text structuring activities), depending on the type of text, the socio-communicative context, or topical knowledge. The actual writing process can then be adapted or changed while composing: a continuous evaluation must take place in such a way that the adapted strategy may change at any moment the writer deems necessary. Featured in strategic competence is the cognitive strategy 'anticipating': anticipating the course of the communication transfer, anticipating content, and anticipating reader's reactions. Anticipation strategies can be invoked at any time during an LPT, and may influence the processing immediately. For instance, if a writer realizes she does not know the spelling of a particular word, she may choose another, or take refuge to a paraphrase. Language users make use of a large number of strategies to compensate for deficiency in the four aforementioned competencies. We think it is crucial to distinguish strategies for LPT's on the one hand and strategies for LLT on the other (Selinker 1972, Faerch & Kasper 1983 a, b). Language processing strategies are involved in using language in a (not necessarily educational) communicative context, while language learning strategies imply a (not necessarily communicative) schooling situation. Much more research has been conducted into LPT’s than into LLT’s.


163

Metacognition and control of learning

So far, we have presented and discussed the cognitive knowledge involved in writing tasks. That is: all types of knowledge that a writer requires to complete writing tasks, either conscious or automatic, declarative or procedural (Anderson, 1983; 1987; 1990). Another knowledge domain, however, is not strictly necessary to complete writing tasks, but may stimulate writers to expand their cognition. Metacognitive knowledge about writing is knowledge that writers (or writing students) have about themselves as writers (or learners): their level of skill, their competencies, their habits, preferences, or experiences. Metacognitive activities have proven to be very important during learning in complex domains like mathematics and composition (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998) (see Table 1). Metacognitive knowledge about writing influences the regulation of writing (sub)processes. At the same time it serves as an input for learning: by monitoring their own writing processes, evaluating them, and storing this output in long term memory, student writers develop new cognition for the domain of strategic knowledge. If in the learning process this newly acquired knowledge is evaluated as ‘interesting’, ‘useful’ or ‘unexpected’, it is likely to be labeled in such a way that it will be used in new writing tasks. This labeling activity is an example of building up metacognition about learning-to-write. We distinguish three categories of writing instruction, depending on the level of attention paid to the student’s metacognitive activity: 1. Traditional writing instruction aims at a limited number of cognitive activities (Figure 2, top; this figure is adapted from Oostdam & Rijlaarsdam 1995): subskills are practiced (rather than purposefully trained) by means of doing writing tasks, sometimes separately, but mostly in some combination.

2.

In process-oriented writing instruction, writing is regarded as a goal-oriented cognitive activity embedded in a regulative apparatus. Students are taught how

164

3.


to solve writing problems and how to regulate the problem-solving process accordingly (Figure 2, center). Students learn how to analyze their writing assignments, set rhetorical goals, develop a strategic plan, monitor the task execution, and adjust their plans during the writing process, so that the writing matches the plan. It is the student's job to take over the writing management: goal-setting, monitoring and evaluating. In learning-oriented writing instruction, students are gradually turned into autonomous learners in the field of writing. Many activities that are trained on purpose concern metacognition (Figure 2, bottom). At first, teachers offer pupils help with learning how to master new writing tasks, and then gradually get them to execute more of the learning management themselves. Learning develops from external management (by the teacher) to internal management (by the pupil). This is a longitudinal teaching-learning process which may well last until adulthood; yet it should start during the formal schooling years.

These regulative activities are in line with what is distinguished in recent educational-psychological research: good learners manage their learning by learning task analysis, goal-setting, monitoring, seeking feedback and evaluation. De Jong (1992) concluded that differences in learning results are related to the use


165

of regulative activities. Regulative activities like process monitoring, directing and testing appear to be particularly important determinants of learning. When teaching the writing process, then, these meta-cognitive activities must be activated with regard to the writing process, and also with regard to the process of learning-towrite. Efficient writing instruction teaches pupils how to manage their own learning-to-write functions. The more students fulfil the various learning functions, the more self-regulated learning becomes (Simons 1991). We will now address the morphology of LPT and LLT subprocesses, and offer a way to effectively combine them. In our view, the processing of writing tasks and learning tasks rely on the same basic cognitive and meta-cognitive activities (Rijlaarsdam 1989, Couzijn 1999): 1. executional activities: orientation on the writing/learning task, informationprocessing regarding writing (e.g. generating, structuring, formulating, coding, editing) or learning (e.g. conceiving, attributing meaning, connecting, labeling, storing, integrating) and revision of writing or learning (error detection, diagnosis and remedying); 2. monitoring activities (self-observation, evaluation of and reflection on writing/learning, informing the cognitive system about the writing/learning progress); 3. regulative activities (strategic control of the former types of activities, depending on how they are being evaluated). Figure 3 schematizes the development of strategic knowledge for writing (see also Couzijn, 1995: 66-67, 1999; Rijlaarsdam & Van den Bergh, 1996; Oostdam & Rijlaarsdam, 1994). Executional and monitoring activities are controlled by a regulator, which in turn is guided by strategic knowledge about the content (in our case: writing) and the acquisition and consolidation of learning (learning strategies). In this view this regulator effectively alternates executing (inclusive orientating) and monitoring activities for each of the agendas. Orientation on the task demands is the first step: an improper orientation on the writing task will lead to inefficient or even inadequate task behavior: e.g. no clear goals are set, available strategies are not activated, or a realistic plan is not made. For effective learning it is also necessary to get an orientation on the learning task. Students who display a learning goal orientation focus more on learning progress than on competitive outcomes, and learn more effectively than students with only performance goals (Zimmerman, 1998). After the task orientation, a learner doing a complex task must control a variety of executive activities. Writing calls for various (meta)cognitive subprocesses; their success depends on their strategic organization across time. A strategy-informed regulator is therefore desirable. For the learner to work efficiently, some of the organizational choices will be automated in order to keep going and to avoid cognitive overload. However, in almost all writing-learning situations a number of strategic choices must be made consciously, and they put a burden on the learner’s regulative capacities (Breetvelt et al, 1994; Rijlaarsdam & Van den Bergh, 1996). We consider monitoring as a key activity for the development of strategic knowledge. First, learners who observe and become aware of what they are doing (i.e. who actively monitor and reflect) have a higher chance to construct cognitive

166


representations of their working method that can sink into long-term memory (i.e. they conceptualize it). Second, if they both become aware of their method and evaluate it (are critical toward their writing/learning performance) it is more likely that they acquire better working methods and abandon inadequate ones. In our experience, students do not automatically monitor their own performance, particularly if external feedback is lacking, inadequate or remote, or if the student’s own evaluative capacities are not stimulated in the learning task (e.g. when they should simply deliver the product to the teacher without any prompted evaluation or reflection activities).

The connection between LPT and LLT lies in the writing experiences from which students can learn. To be instructive, writing methods, techniques and strategies must not only be executed by the writer (as in many learning-by-doing pedagogisch), they must also be monitored, conceptualized, and connected to their positive or negative effects. Autonomous writers use their ‘writing awareness’ (the


167

output of the monitoring process) as input for their learning. This awareness consists of conceptualized writing behavior (‘What am I doing now? What should I call it? Which strategy should I choose? Have I done anything similar before?’) and its evaluative labeling (‘This strategy was very time consuming, the brainstorm was, or was not, successful. Last time it did this, it turned out better.’). In this perspective, autonomous writers invest in their learning as well as their writing and set themselves the ‘double agenda’. This appeals strongly to the student’s selfmonitoring and self-regulative capacities. Some activities must be regulated for text production (writing) and other activities must be regulated in order to learn well. The regulator needs to control and balance executional and monitoring processes for each of the agendas. This raises the question whether the average student who focuses on writing an adequate text has sufficient regulative capacity to actually learn from the writing task. Most writers in a learning-by-doing environment are focused on the (short term) writing performance rather than on (long-term) learning performance. Most students consider their task as a ‘job’ that needs to be finished in order to get a grade and move on. Since their attention is on (completing) the writing product, they will invest little cognitive resources in attaining learning goals. In traditional writing instruction, the writing agenda will most likely dominate the learning agenda. We call this the ‘double agenda problem’. Only students who are prepared to identify and handle parallel agenda’s will profit fully from the learning environment (which is not the same as receiving a high grade). A possible solution for this problem may be to shift attention from executional processes (writing) to monitoring or evaluation (reflecting on processes and products). More focus on monitoring and evaluation yields a larger input for the learning process and may instigate more learning. For instance, a structured alternation of executing and evaluating activities may lessen the problem of task execution dominating learning. It means that the writing agenda is nested into the learning agenda. If students take part in the evaluation of products and/or processes, they learn to develop and apply criteria for ‘good task behavior’. Even if the products/processes evaluated are not the student’s own, they may define a repertoire of learning activities or strategies via implicit self-reflection: ‘Would I have done this in a similar way? Can I do it better? What must I remember from what I have seen?’. By stimulating them to alternate executional, evaluative and reflective activities, they pay more attention to their learning. More attention for the learning agenda: changing roles

A good writing curriculum stimulates metacognitive awareness about writing, so that it helps students to balance attention between the writing agenda and the learning agenda. A means to raise metacognitive awareness of students is to change their perspectives on the writing task. We will call this ‘changing roles’. It offers the opportunity to temporarily subordinate the writing agenda to the learning agenda. We present two configurations of roles in which the writer reflects on his writing activities and on the resulting text quality. Figure 4 shows a role-changing sequence of students who write (persuasive) texts for peers, and subsequently read

168


texts from other students in their role of intended audience. The students form communicative pairs, in an imagined way as is common in classroom situations.

Imagine a student (here: student B) taking part in a writing curriculum in the role of a writer, creating a persuasive text. A curriculum designer trying to enhance the curricular effectiveness could decide to add a 'role changing' activity to the curriculum, during which B temporarily acts like a reader. B’s reading task is to read and comment on several texts from peers (e.g. written by student A). B now has the opportunity to experience textual effects (‘What is the issue here?’, ‘Can I understand the argumentation?’, ‘Does this text persuade me?’ ‘Do I like the way in which I am addressed?’). B may prepare feedback for the writer (student A) and learn vicariously about B’s own writing. For instance, if student B reflects on her reading behavior, she may construct knowledge about communicative requirements for this kind of texts: about readers’ expectations, about the effect of certain textual elements, or about presumed effects of her own writing strategies. Next, the designer may want to add a consolidation task. B may consolidate her learning by communicating her reading experiences to the writer, A. The quality of the response task influences the extent of consolidation; if it only encompasses reading and providing the writer with any response, the responder does not need to theorize about effects of texts. Elbow (1972) has advocated such non-theory-guided, possibly ‘more authentic’ responses. However, if the response task demands reflection on theory or instruction (criteria for good texts), we expect consolidation of learning to be stronger: it is about the incorporation of new information into workable knowledge. By reflecting on the quality of the (persuasive)


169

communication, writer and reader perform monitoring and evaluation activities as part of the writing agenda. Consequently, writer B will also receive responses on her text (from students C, D etc.), creating an opportunity to compare her own reading experiences (‘what worked for me as a reader?’) and her expectations about the effects of her own text (‘which decisions did I take as a writer?’) with actual readings of her text (‘what do other readers say about my text?’). If our designer chooses for a more theory-guided response task – instead of, or added to the reader response step - then the commentator’s role will include elements of an instructor (see Sarbin 1976; Sarbin & Allan 1968). The feedback will more directly instruct writer A on ways to improve his text by explicitly referring to writing theory. The response act will then become an instructing act (Figure 5). B’s role is not just a - more or less natural - reader, but also a coach, instructor or advisor for A; B is not merely an addressee in the communication initiated by A, but becomes co-responsible for the communicative success.

In the instructor’s role, readers focus more on criteria for textual aspects as provided by the instruction or textbook. More specifically, they focus on those aspects that represent the learning aims of that particular writing assignment. Thus, reader and writer shift their attention to execution, monitoring and evaluation activities as part of the learning agenda. Finally, the designer wants to add a response-processing step to the didactic sequence: writers must revise their text in accordance with the feedback they have received from commentators (Communicative Pairs, Figure 4) or instructors (Instructive Pairs, Figure 5). Response processing serves as a consolidation task for the writer, and includes both selection and application of the received comments.

170


It is a key element in this didactic approach that every student experiences several roles: the writer’s role, the reader/commentator role, and the reviser’s role. As writers, they select and apply criteria for 'good texts'. As readers/commentators, they reflect on the meaning and application of these criteria in texts written by peers. And as writers/revisers they select from the responses to their own text, remedy the flaws, and reconsider their writing approach, writing decisions, or knowledge about ‘what works in such texts’. If every text is read and commented on by a number of readers, writers will experience a variety of responses, among which there will be some - convincing – overlap. Since readers and writers may differ in their interpretation of the text, it is legitimate for the writer to choose comments she considers as convincing or apt, while setting less relevant comments aside. In sum, we advocated the addition of a number of roles to the writing curriculum (besides the role of a writer) to shift the student’s attention from writing to learning: 1. The writing student as a reader-responder (Figure 4), responding without much contemplation to the communicative (here: persuasive) text quality. Learning takes place because writer and reader wrote about the same assignment, so they may compare their writing approaches. Readers experience other texts that are solutions for the same rhetorical problem they have tried to solve. Writers receive more or less authentic responses as feedback to their writing decisions. 2. The writing student as a commentator-instructor (Figure 5), responding to the text by referring to explicit learning aims, focusing on textual analysis driven by theory/instructions for ‘good persuasive texts' or ‘good writing strategies’. Some of the instructor’s findings may transfer to their own writing/revision behavior. Learning effects rely on the quality of the analysis apparatus: if comments/instructions are given in terms of the theoretical 'criteria for good texts', we expect a larger learning effect, because these criteria become more meaningful to the students. 3. The writing student as a writer-reviser (Figure 5), processing the feedback offered by peers. The student must write a 'final version' by understanding, selecting and processing the comments received, which means she has to evaluate their validity. THE EXPERIMENTAL WRITING CURRICULUM

Improvements of the minimal sequence: adding a reader, instructor and reviser role

We have argued that for many students, the executional agenda will dominate the learning agenda; and that the learning output can be enhanced by incorporating reflection on the learning aims in the writing curriculum by means of ‘rolechanging’ activities. We now present an experimental writing curriculum that


171

includes such role-changing activity in order to promote metacognition of writing and learning. Results from an experimental trial will be presented in section 4. Ninth-grade students (15 year; intermediate/high level) learned to write persuasive texts, including argumentation to support a standpoint. They received (and supplied) peer comments on first versions written by their classmates. The whole (cumulative) curriculum consisted of four modules, nine lessons each. Module 1 focused on 'Goal' and 'Audience'; module 2 on 'Organization' and 'Reliability'; module 3 focused on 'Newness' and 'Persuasive style'. Module 4 presented a synthesis of the whole. All modules were constructed along the same pattern (Table 2).

172


The nine lessons for each module were organized in four stages: Preparatory & writing lessons (steps 1-5), Commentary lessons (steps 6-10), Processing comments (step 11a-c) and Writing a final version (step 12). This sequence extends and optimalizes the 'minimal sequence', which is still common in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere), and which consists of step 2 (or step 12): a student writers only one version, which functions similarly as a draft or final version, and which is evaluated by the teacher. Typically, the student practices the task only once - while the curriculum formally demands 'training' of similar tasks. We attempted to include systematical improvements of this minimal sequence, based on a number of distinct instructional paradigms. A paradigm is reflected in the nature of the learning activities involved and their organization within the writing curriculum. We distinguish four paradigms: ‘task-execution only’, ‘stimulated self-reflection’, ‘active communicative writing’ and ‘reflective communicative writing’. We will demonstrate how each of these paradigms contributed in the design of our experimental curriculum. Instructional paradigm: task-execution only. We improved the minimal sequence by distinguishing between writing a draft (step 2) and a final version (step 12). This offers students the opportunity to start by freely conceiving of original content (brainstorming, developing meaning, problematizing, determining their viewpoints) and to concentrate later on the communicative and conventional text qualities (audience-orientation in step 12). Writing activities of ‘conceptualization’ and ‘audience-oriented communication’ can thus be distinguished in the writer’s mind and executed in an orderly way, so that they do


173

not interfere (cf. the transition from ‘knowledge telling’ to ‘knowledge transforming’, Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989). Instructional paradigm: stimulated self-reflection. We added another writing activity in step 4: preparing the text for a real audience (usually class-mates) to be read. The text moves from the individual, idiosyncratic domain to the public domain. We added a self-reflection activity (step 3) between step 2 and 4, which demands students to reflect upon the characteristics of writing their initial version: which problems and successes came up in writing the draft? By moving from 'execution' to 'reflection', students connect the writing agenda to the learning agenda. Instructional paradigm: active-communicative writing. In real life, writing is meant to be read. Step 6 serves to get a clearer picture of (communicating with) the intended audience. By acting as readers of their peers’ texts, students experience that writing is actually a communicative function, and that different texts 'work' differently. Moreover, they become aware that their own texts are read and understood by peers in a similar way. The 'reader feedback' varies from global to detailed, from written to oral, from expressive to contemplative. It stimulates reflection on ‘how texts work’, with possible transfer effects to writing and revision activities (Elbow, 1974). Instructional paradigm: reflective communicative writing. Step 8, which replaces or is added to step 6, facilitates meaningful learning of criteria for effective texts. Students who have learned about 'good introductions' will deepen their understanding if they observe and compare several attempts at writing good introductions. The writing theory presented at the onset of the curriculum (e.g. on ‘persuasive style’, ‘newness’ etc.) is used in step 8’s commentary tasks. A more inductive curriculum would leave out step 1 and focus the students on selected criteria in step 8, or could even leave the choice of criteria to the students themselves. In any case, an explicit 'theory' must be stated and used by the students when assessing their peers' texts. It serves as 'framework' or 'tool' for learners. The writing curriculum now moves from the 'active' communicative paradigm to a more 'reflective' communication-theory paradigm. We added step 9 by asking the student to formulate and convey his observations and positive/negative comments to the writer(s). This step consolidates learning, because readers must base their feedback on negotiated or instructed criteria. Moreover, it generates a new and communicative, at times persuasive, task: transmit your findings to the writers in such a way that they are understood and accepted. (From the writer's point of view: understand and evaluate what your commentator(s) tells you about your text.) After the reading/commenting activities, writers start working on their final version in step 12. Several items function as input for the revision task: their 'reader version' created in step 2 feedback consisting of authentic reader responses and theory-guided instructions their own experiences and considerations as (proof-)reader, observer and/or instructor.

174


The revision task can be improved by creating a revision plan in step 11. It encompasses several activities in order to take stock of and select useful feedback, and plan various revision/rewriting activities based on this feedback. So far, the improved sequence alternates between execution (step 2, 4 and 12) and - rather implicit - reflection (step 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11). Of course, writing activities may include reflective moments too, although the amount of reflection varies greatly from student to student. By decomposing the complete writingrewriting task in distinct steps, all students are provided with a greater transparency of the cognitive activities in writing. They learn to handle subsequent categories of activities, and thus reduce cognitive load. They have more opportunities for reflection, which facilitates keeping a good balance between the writing and learning agenda's. A stronger focus on an explicit theory about 'good persuasive writing' (in step 1 and/or step 8) enables the students to focus not just their writing, but also their learning. More improvements of the didactic sequence: adding reflective steps

More opportunities to consolidate learning experiences can be found in the addition of three explicitly reflective tasks (steps 5, 7 and 10): reflection on their experiences with the ‘writer role’: preparatory writing activities, text quality, writing-for-an-audience (step 5), reflection on their experiences with the 'reader role': text-audience-relations (step 7) reflection on their experiences with the 'commentator/instructor role': negotiating criticism (step 10). In the curriculum’s 12 steps, executional writing activities are structurally interwoven with implicit reflective activities (observing and evaluating the results of writing) and explicit reflective activities (observing and evaluating the results of learning). Some more characteristics of the curriculum we tested, were: Step 1: Studying. Students studied two new theoretical aspects of texts: 'Newness of information' and 'Style'. They also learned about writing processes. The content of the writing task was 'aggression on t.v. and in school'. Steps 2-5: Writing stage. The students writing task was to develop and support a point of view. After analyze of their draft, they wrote a reader version. Third, they reflected on the qualities of the text and their own writing process. Steps 6-7: reading texts. Students responded to each other’s texts by taking notes. They wrote a short statement about what they perceived as the writer’s aim, and presented impressions of their reading on a subjective reaction sheet (12 items; Table 3). In an explicit reflection task, they looked back on what they had learned from the reader role Steps 8-10: Commenting on texts. Students read the same essays as in steps 6-7 more closely and used a Comment Questionnaire to present more detailed feedback (Table 4 presents a sample of the questionnaire). The aspects on which comments were given corresponded with the theory in step 1, ‘Newness’ and ‘Persuasive Style’. Some questions forced the commentator to judge text features as either positive or negative, and to relate this evaluation to selected parts of the text After


175

commenting on three essays the students did a reflection task (step 10), in which they wrote about their learning experiences from the commenting activities.

Step 11: Processing comments. Writers received written feedback from their peers, and built a model of the final text (writing agenda) along with a theoretical reflection on persuasive communication, which they could test and modify (learning agenda). They did not know in advance what the reading/commenting activities would add to their learning. In order to get an overview of tendencies and variation of comments, the student summarized the readers/commentators'

176


responses for each of the six aspects (from ‘Goal’ to ‘Persuasive Style’). Students then evaluated the comments and separated accepted comments rejected ones. Step 12: Writing a final version. With the help of their rewriting plan, students wrote a final version, and collected all their work in a portfolio. The teacher evaluated the portfolios for each module for completeness, quality of the work (all assignments, reflections, commentaries, etc.), and neatness. Not all essays were evaluated on textual quality: at the end of every module, each student selected one of his essays for evaluation. EFFECTS OF CHANGING ROLES: WHAT DID THE STUDENTS LEARN?

Assessing learning effects: learner reports

We will present and discuss the additional learning gains of changing roles in this particular writing curriculum. We already know from other studies that peer teaching and peer evaluation can be effective ingredients in writing curricula (see Hillocks, 1986; Rijlaarsdam, 1999). But in many experimental studies, complexes of learning activities are compared with each other, which hinders the analysis of which activity generates which effect. Therefore we will present other data that helps us to understand better which ingredient or learner role is related with which learning effect. We asked students to write so-called ‘learner reports’, which are supposed to tap the conscious knowledge students acquired after a certain learning activity. A learner report can be considered as a questionnaire in which students report on their learning experiences by responding to open ended questions (Rijlaarsdam & Janssen, 1996, Janssen 1998). This method is based on Eisner’s ‘pedagogy’ of evaluation, developed by a Dutch psychologist De Groot (1978, 1980), and fits very well in the metacognitive hausse of the nineteen nineties. Why do we focus on consciously reportable knowledge as an operationalization of learning effects? According to De Groot, all desired teaching-learning effects should meet at least two conditions: 1) the student should have actually learned something, in the sense of a noticeable gain: one could say that the student can 'take a certain result away' after the learning activities are finished; 2) the learning effect - whatever its quality - is his mental possession; he can use it according to his own decisions, consciously and in freedom. Results of schooling which students themselves are not aware of, and cannot take a position to, do not fall in De Groot’s category of teaching-learning effects. He defines a teaching-learning effect as 'a desirable learning effect, which takes the form of a mental program, acquired by the student, and to be added to the total repertoire of mental acts already available to the student.‘ Acquired cognition on which the students cannot report is not considered as conscious knowledge and does not fall in the category of teaching-learning aims we take interest in. The learner report method takes a distinct form. There are a number of 'reporting sentences', which the student must complete (De Groot, 1980): I have learned that .... I have learned how .... And when affective teaching aims are involved:


177

I have experienced that I .... I found out that I..... We gained extensive experience with a variety of forms of this evaluation method (Kreeft & Rijlaarsdam, 1980; Janssen 1998; Janssen & Rijlaarsdam, 1990, 1992, 1996; Rijlaarsdam & Janssen, 1996). For this study we used a simple form: we asked the students three open questions, each of which is related to a particular stage in the writing curriculum: the reading stage, the commenting stage and the comments-processing stage. We expected each role to contribute to the perceived teaching-learning effects in students. In order to find which role stimulated learning about particular aspects of writing processes and text quality, we asked the students to respond to three very open questions: What did I learn by reading texts, written by peers for the same writing task? What did I learn by commenting on texts, written by peers for the same writing task? What did I learn by receiving comments from peers on my text? Students answered in writing. Based on a first set of learner reports we developed a coding scheme, consisting of nine categories of learning sentences. We will explain the categories when we present the results. For a more extensive explanation, see Rijlaarsdam & Couzijn, 1999. In total, 81 students (age 15, 3rd grade secondary schools, medium and higher streams) took part in the experiment. They followed the same experimental curriculum, and were taught in three different groups by one of the authors and two of his colleagues. After the course was completed, the students wrote a learning report. The reports were fragmented in semantically meaningful units. Two independently operating coders categorized the learning sentences in these 81 learner reports. The inter-rater reliability between the two coders was 0.75. RESULTS

In this section we explore the relation between the distinguished roles and the effects on writing and learning. We provide two kinds of data. We present and discuss the results of the learner reports, written after the whole curriculum. We also present, as a lively illustration, some excerpts from Charlotte’s portfolio. Like all students, Charlotte had to collect all written tasks in a ring binder, and hand in this process log to the teacher. Charlotte was a 15-year old 9th grade student in the higher educational streams, who had average grades in language arts. She was diligent and co-operative, although her self-esteem was not very high. The texts from Charlotte's portfolio are illustrative for the nature and depth of reflection. Charlotte gave permission to publish some of her writings. We took the excepts from the third module, after Charlotte had already gained some experience in reflecting tasks. For this chapter we selected the three more explicit reflective tasks from the 12 available in the portfolio.(step 5, 7, and 10; see table 2). They illustrate how a fifteen-year-old student generates and consolidates learning effects on writing and learning during the course.

178


Learning from reflecting on writing: the writer’s role

Longitudinal effects of traditional writing instruction rely on the learner’s capability and willingness to reflect on their writing. First we will present a sample of Charlotte’s portfolio in which she reflects on the writer’s role (Excerpt 1). Excerpt 1. Illustration of step 5: Explicit reflective task: Describe and reflect on text and writing process. In step 5, Charlotte wrote: ‘The subject seemed to be rather easy when I started. But after reading the documentation, I felt a bit lost. I didn’t know which position to choose. Finding a title is not too difficult for me. Most of the time I have about five titles in my mind, but then I can’t decide on which is the best. That’s how it went this time again. I always write the introduction in one part. I thought really hard about the central part of the text, and it is still not o.k.. It was difficult to work on newness of information and style in this essay. The ending is always rather easy: if the central part is done, the ending comes easily. The title is o.k. The introduction could be better, but it will do for now. I think the central part doesn’t fulfil the demands for newness of information (neither the introduction nor the ending!). I did include irony (style). I didn’t include a citation from the documentation, should be done in the next round. But I did use an example about decreasing the aggression effect, 10 sentences in total. Too long indeed. The ending is fine: a warning that you shouldn’t let the school board tell you what to do: this a more evil than violence!’ Discussion In this reflective excerpt, Charlotte is conceptualizing and evaluating features of her writing process and the quality of her texts and her learning. She is aware of some features of her writing process. There are some general features: some things always go the same way (finding a title, writing the introduction, the problems with the central part, the ease of writing the final part). There is also an incidental feature: she got confused about which position to take after reading documentation on the topic. She also shows that she knows which parts of the text are weak (introduction, central part), and which are satisfying (title, ending). She seems to evaluate the text from a pragma-linguistic perspective: some parts do not completely fulfil the communicative functions they should fulfil. Charlotte shows she can cope with weak text fragments: 'but it will do for now'. This is a sign that she is regulating between aims to reach, and task conditions, and has at least one strategy available to solve the conflict between aim and (temporary) result. She states explicitly a writing goal for the next version: the introduction needs to be better. Another object of reflection is her learning: she knows that some of the learning task demands were not fulfilled: she fears that some elements of the new theory on


179

persuasive texts (the aspects ‘newness of information’ and ‘style’) are not yet included. Another element, which she had to include, was included indeed, but will need some more work, she thinks. The whole excerpt contains indications of Charlotte's metacognitive competence, albeit more on writing processes than on learning. She represents the task as a writing task, as well as a learning task. Regarding the writing process, she evaluates and plans. For the learning process, her conceptualization does not reach so far: she evaluates where she is, but does not plan how to reach the aim to include some elements in the next phases of the learning-to-write process. Figures 6 shows the results of the learner reports’ analyses. They contain the number of learning sentences that the students attributed to each of the three roles they fulfilled in the didactic sequence. A striking result is the number of sentences in category 6, 'Application of criteria for revising'. About one third of all learning sentences falls within this category. According to the students, writing an essay, reading essays from their peers, and giving or receiving comments certainly helps them to improve their texts. These learning sentences refer at least to the (revision part of the) writing agenda. If students indicate that they learn from these particular writing experiences, students may serve their learning agenda’s as well. From the way in which students formulated their learning sentences we cannot say for certain whether they report short-term effects (on the revision of this particular text) or longer-term effects (on revising skill in general). Two other categories, 'Producing comments' and 'Models of texts', cover each about 15% of the learning sentences. These learning effects come closer to the learning agenda, because the content of learning (text models, commenting skill) transgresses this particular assignment. Another clear finding is that some learning categories are related to one role (categories 1-3 for instance are solely ‘caused’ by the reader role; category 7 solely by the commentator’s role), while others are effected by two or more roles. But even in these cases, one of the roles is prevalent (i.e. category 6 is caused by three roles, but mostly by the reviser role). In the next subsections we will have a closer look at the effects reported for each role. Learning effects attributed to the Reader role.

In Figure 6 we see that students attribute four categories of learning effects to the role of the reader. These are categories 1-3 on Writing en category 6 on Revising. Category 1: Writing Topic. All students in the group read articles and information about the same topic, and then they all wrote about the same rhetorical problem. Thus, when students read the three texts written by three of their peers, they read various texts on the same topic and in response to the same rhetorical problem. They experienced how different selections of topical information affected the reader, and they learned about various interpretations of and opinions on the topic:

180


‘By reading essays from my peers, it happened that my opinion about the topic changed; I learned what I really thought about the topic, and I could use this in my second version of my own piece of writing.’ ‘I saw that there were different opinions on the same topic, which I didn’t think of myself.’ Category 2: Writing Models (Models of texts). Each of the modules was aimed at learning certain rhetorical aspects of good argumentative texts (audience awareness, organization of texts etc.). Judging from the learner reports, it seemed to us that many students were aware of these learning goals. Students experienced that reading texts from peers could be used to give meaning to and relate concepts such as 'audience awareness' and 'text features'. Both positive and negative models were found. Positive: ‘I learned from reading how to write in a more audience-oriented way: when I find that an essay written by one of the other students does not interest me, I know how I should not write.’ Negative: ‘If you read someone’s essay, you get some ideas on how to revise your own text.’ Category 3: Ideas on Topic/Models. (Ideas, which is a mix of Models and Topic). This category consists of learning sentences in which a general 'idea' about writing was expressed, that could not be classified as specifically about Topic (cat. 1) or Models (cat. 2): ‘You get some new ideas, you see how others did it.’ Category 6 (Applying criteria in text revision) regarding revision skill. This category consists of learning sentences in which students expressed the use of the criteria in revision part of the writing cycle of this particular assignment. Once they start with the revision activities, the students use what they had learned while giving commenting to other writers:


181

‘I knew by the comments you gave what is ok in my own essay and what is not. It helped me to revise well.’ ‘When you have commented, you find many errors which you could recognize in your own essay’. ‘By using the commenting form, I found aspects to which I didn’t pay attention when I wrote my own essay. Then I knew that I would have to revise it.’ Some students reported that they had found inadequate parts in the essays they read, and recognized that they had made similar errors in their own essays: ‘Often I found something which didn’t working well in the texts I read, and I got the idea that my own essay contained the same problem.’ Learning effects attributed to the Commentator’s role The learning effects attributed to the Commentator’s role vary from category 4 to category 9, so they appear to be very different in nature. By commenting on their peers’ texts, students discover criteria for ‘good writing’ (cat. 4) and apply it to their own writing in general (cat. 5) and in the revision of their own text (cat. 6). This transfer from giving comments to getting more critical toward your own work seems to be aptly described as ‘what you give is what you get’. Unsurprisingly, students report that they learn how to give comments (cat. 9) in the Commentator’s role, but this effects transfers to the ability to receive comments (cat. 8) and some students report that it transfers to a more critical attitude in general (cat. 7). Excerpt 2 Charlotte’s learning effects of Reader’s role. What did I learn from reading another student’s texts? In step 7 (see table 2), Charlotte wrote about her reading experiences: ‘When I had read the three essays, I had learned that once again three totally different essays were written in response to the same task and the same documentation. I learned from reading the texts: 1. That it is o.k. for a reader if a text includes both difficult and easy language. For the writer it is not really a risk that the reader feels unrelated to the text or the topic (e.g. too childish or the opposite). 2. That ‘use question marks very often to attract readers’ attention’ does not always work. Until now, I found this language trick a splendid one!! 3. That the essay is much, much nicer and livelier and more attractive when some elements of newness of information are included. Special attention for: Irony Exaggeration Rhetorical summation (though it is difficult to use) 4. That I am not the only one who did not use the rhetorical summation and exaggeration. 5. For my rewriting plan, I did find some novelties: Insert that students do see violence on TV, and that a couple more films at school won’t make any difference.

182

GERT RIJLAARSDAM AND MICHEL COUZIJN I have to add some more elements from the counter-position: I only used facts and citations for my own position. So I have to use something like: ‘The school commission has a point when it says , but......”

Charlotte shows pragma-linguistic knowledge about communication: there is room for variety. There is not just one good solution for the writing task. And the quality of writing is not following one simple rule ('use plain language only'), but following more complex rules about alternation of complex and simple language. Then she notes that overgeneralization of a persuasion technique to attract a reader's attention (the use of questions marks) does not work. This may prepare here for learning the difference between 'general rules' and 'conditional rules'. She is also reflecting on the learning-to-write task, when referring to her appreciation of the examples of persuasion techniques that were introduced in the theoretical parts in step 1: Newness of information can be reached by some stylistic techniques, and she found some good examples in the texts she read. Her knowledge of effective communication may well have been deepened, her repertoire of examples may have been broadened. Then she moves to the field of metacognition: her knowledge about her learning-towrite efforts. She creates some self-comfort: she wrote earlier that she found it difficult to use these techniques in her texts. Knowing that some of her peers have had the same difficulties is reassuring. Charlotte is anticipating at her final version. She remembers a new argument from the texts she read, and decides to incorporate the antagonist's view in the argumentation.

Excerpt 3 Charlotte’s learning effects of Commentator’s role. Explicit reflective task: What did I learn from commenting on texts?

In step 10 (see table 2), Charlotte wrote about her commenting experiences: ‘From commenting on texts I have learned that: 1. It is not necessary that the ending of a text includes a summarizing sentence; it could also be joke. The ending doesn’t need to include a statement about your point of view either. 2. Using irony and exaggeration is not only effective in the central part of the text. Using a joke at the end of the text could be smart too (I am writing the same as in my first point! Oh well!) 3. It is very difficult to include unexpected, new information in your text, so that readers will have more knowledge about the topic. 4. It is very difficult to want the reader to turn in his thinking, to take a new view on the problem. 5. All three essays used different kinds of sentences: one had long sentences, the other short ones. When I prepare my final version, I will pay attention to: the sentences: variation of long and short sentences rhetorical summarization: trying to include one unexpected information: I will try to include a piece of unexpected information, which will result, I hope, in a reader’s reaction such as: ‘Hey! I didn’t know that!’ ‘ Charlotte is still developing her theory of persuasive texts. She found that some


183

techniques, introduced in the theory as being effective for some parts of the texts, appeared to be effective in other parts as well. What she is doing here is generalizing: she is redefining the specific domains of application for some rules. She is changing the conditional part of the production rules (if-then-rules; Anderson 1983). She also reflects on learning: she finds it difficult to reach some learning goals (to insert newness of information in the text, and to shake the readers' beliefs). Nevertheless, she plans to work on these goals in her final version.

Learning effects attributed to the Reviser’s role The strongest learning effect is, not surprisingly, on the ability to critically revise their own text (cat. 6). From learning sentences such as ‘When you have commented, you find many errors which you could recognize in your own essay’ it becomes clear that students’ revising ability in general has improved, along with the revision of this particular text. Furthermore, the revision activities helped students acquire criteria for ‘good writing’ (cat. 4) and the ability to use them in their writing (cat. 5, Application of Criteria for Writing in general). Category 4, - ‘Knowledge of criteria for 'good writing'’ - consists of learning sentences in which the students expressed that they had internalized some of the criteria for good texts: ‘You learned that your text needs a clear reference to sources. If you don't do that, the reader will get the idea that you are just knocked off.’ ‘I learned to understand words as structure, audienceorientation, goal orientation.’ Category 5 consists of learning sentences in which the students expressed that they had learned to apply the criteria in new writing situations; either before, during or after writing. ‘By using the commenting schemes, I learned how to assess the quality of a text, which helped me during writing my own text. Now I have a clearer idea about the quality of what I am producing.’ ‘I noticed that step by step I knew how to write better as a result of the comments I got. At one moment I found formulate my goal better, and the next moment the language I used and style improved.’ Finally, the Reviser’s role helped a number of students to acquire the ability to produce and process comments (cat. 8 and 9), although the Commentator’s role contributed much more to category 9. In category 8, - Processing comments learner sentences where found in which students mentioned an effect of the curriculum on their ability to receive and process comments: ‘By commenting other people's texts, you can better cope with the comments you receive yourself. You understand other people's comments better and better.’ ‘I learned to receive comments and to do something useful with the comments.’ ‘I learned not feel insulted when I receive the comments. When you get comments, they try to

184


help you, because you can use the comments to revise your essay, specially the errors in it.’ Category 9, - Producing comments, consists of learning sentences in which learners expressed that through the commenting activities in this writing cycle they developed (more fully) the ability to give comments: ‘I learned to take into account while I am commenting, that I shouldn’t be too crude, and that I should elaborate on my remarks.’ ‘I learned that you should comment as honestly as possible, because only then your classroom mates know where they and their essays stand.’ ‘I have learned to give comments: when I read particular things in the comments I received, I thought: ‘I should use this the next time when I am going to comment on texts myself.’ In sum, students working in this highly structured writing curriculum acquired a great deal of knowledge and skill regarding the complete writing cycle. The learning effects concern models of, and criteria for persuasive texts, along with the ability to revise critically. This is in line with the explanation provided by Hillocks (1986) when he commented on the strong effects of peer evaluation in his metastudy of experimental writing research. In the present experimental curriculum students could immediately apply what they had learned when they revised their own text, namely when they took up new writing tasks in subsequent modules. This is what we aimed for in our attempt to combine the writing agenda and the learning agenda. In their role of Reader, reading texts written by their peers, students detect problems and errors along with useful new ideas. Many of them realized that their own texts contained similar problems, or could use a few of the new ideas. Learning effects resulting from the role of Commentator were similar, although the problems discovered varied less, and were related to the specific set of criteria they applied to the texts. Some students discovered that they did not pay much attention to these criteria when they wrote their first version. The most significant learning activity, however, seems to be category 8, 'Processing Comments'. It seems that the ability to receive, evaluate, weigh, and incorporate structured peer comments to their texts does not only yield ‘short term’ knowledge - to be used in the revision stage of that particular text - but also more general, abstracted cognition, to be used in new writing tasks. Some students reported a more critical attitude in other tasks as well. A rather general skill in giving and receiving comments may result from the role of Commentator. Knowledge about criteria for good texts was gained by Reading activities and Producing and Processing Comments. Reading turned out to be a very significant learning activity. Just by acting as a serious reader of peers' texts - and not yet in the role of Commentator - peers learned about the quality of their own text. Quite naturally, they compare these texts to the text they had written themselves. However, the role of a Reader sometimes interferes with the role of Commentator, as evidenced by Charlotte’s reflections. In the beginning of the course, the students were more or less 'naive' readers, who gradually acquired more knowledge about


185

persuasive texts. Consequently, their natural 'reading behavior' changed into critical 'commenting behavior'. The effect from the Reader role on Topic knowledge, used in the revised essay, is probably an artifact. In this curriculum, all students wrote about the same topic, and had studied the same documents (citations, cuttings from papers and magazines, tables, and discussions) on the topic. It is not surprising that they will 'borrow' ideas from each other. This extended ‘topic knowledge’ will not transfer to other writing topics. An interesting finding is the reciprocal effect of Processing and Producing comments: it seems that students learned to Process comments by supplying them to others, and vice versa. So there is a possibility of some role transfer, which may even augment the learning effects related to each of these roles. DISCUSSION

This study was originally motivated by our perception of flaws within traditional writing instruction. It tends to take up much time and effort from students and teachers, while its effectiveness is often disputed (Hillocks, 1986). We diagnose these flaws as leading to an imbalance between attention for writing and for learning. The paradigm shifts of communicative and process-oriented writing have already done much good for the development of effective, longitudinal writing curricula. Similarly, it is now time to start developing learning-to-write curricula, if we want students to not just acquire a certain level of writing skill but also the capacity to increase and adapt that skill with a view to future writing tasks. In this perspective, ‘new learning’ is a double challenge: learning knowledge and skills within a content domain combined with deliberately learning how to expand one’s repertoire within that domain. The ‘complexity’ of new learning lies in a wellchosen intermingling of writing and learning activities to pursue both writing and learning goals within one and the same curriculum. In this study, we assessed cognitive effects from participating in such a curriculum. Over 80 students participated in a well-structured curriculum (four blocks of 9 lessons each). Most students developed an awareness of, and models for ‘good persuasive texts’, and learned to apply this knowledge in subsequent (re)writing tasks. We found differences between effects of the Reading Role and the Commenting Role. From a comparably limited reading task (students reading three essays and quickly reporting on their reading experiences (“I don’t feel persuaded by this text”) students learned criteria and models for good texts. Learning sentences about the commenting task show that students deepened their understanding of criteria studied in the beginning of the lesson block, and at which the comments were aimed. They applied these criteria rather than ‘experienced’ the text, i.e. they were not involved as a reader in the communication, but as an observer. Some of the learning sentences explicitly aimed at this position: students reported that their ‘way of looking at texts’ had changed. Students did not internalize the criteria for good texts in a rigid way: 35% stated to have learned that theory about criteria is ‘multi-interpretable’. They learned that different responses to the same text, or different rhetorical solutions for the same

186


communicative problem may all be valid. By reading and commenting on three different essays, they could compare different solutions to the same problem. As writers, they received responses from three peers; and again they could experience that communication is not unidimensional. We believe this should be a key element in secondary writing: learning how to develop, test and evaluate several solutions for communicative problems, and experiencing and responding to other students’ solutions. Such learning strategy resembles an empirical cycle: knowledge acquisition by putting instances of that – discovered or instructed - knowledge to the test. This is one of the ways in which methodical, if not scientific, thinking can be integrated in the language classroom. Besides, acting as a commentator for peers constitutes a realistic communicative situation in itself, a playground to learn the art of constructive feedback - which reminds us of the point that integration of social skills should also find its place in ‘new learning’. Further investigation could deepen our understanding of relations between metacognitive knowledge and writing performance. In this try-out stage of the experiment, we could not assess our subject’s writing performance. In similar studies, however, such relationships have been established (Schoonen & De Glopper, 1996). It is also interesting to separate the Reading and Commenting roles experimentally in order to gain more insight in differential effects on several types of cognition (being involved in the communication, or being an observer or evaluator). A further object of investigation could be the focus of the students’ observation. In this study students observed writing products. Couzijn (1995, 1999) developed and tested a curriculum in which students observed and evaluated writing processes. These students outperformed the students who actually executed the writing tasks: being an observer/commentator was more effective than being actively involved in the communication. It is another argument for the hypothesis that an over-reliance on executional processes may hamper learning, because the learning agenda always comes off worst. The challenge for ‘new learning’ will be to develop educational programs in which students are stimulated to pursue their learning agenda, so that in the longer term they will become able to maintain both agenda’s by themselves. REFERENCES Allal, L. (1999). Metacognitive regulation of writing in the classroom. In: O. Rijlaarsdam, & E. Espéret (Series Editors) & A. Camps & M. Milian (Vol. Eds.). Studies in Writing: Vol. 6 Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Anderson J.R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. (3rd ed.) New York: Freeman. Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cognitive Science Series, 5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Anderson, J.R. (1987). Skill acquisition. Compilation of weak–method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94, 192–210. Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language learning, 28, 69-83. Breen, M. (1987 a). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 1. Language Teaching (April). Breen, M. (1987 b). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 2. Language Teaching, (July). Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between Writing Processes and Text Quality: When and How? Cognition and Instruction, 12, (2), 103-123. Camps, A. & Milian, M. (1999). Introduction. This volume.


187

Camps, A., & M. Milian (1999). Introduction. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, & E. Espéret (Series Editors) & A. Camps & M. Milian (Vol. Eds.). Studies in Writing: Vol. 6 Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Carrell, P. (1984). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language learning, 34 (2), 87-112. Couzijn, M. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Learning to read and write argumentative text by observation. Rijlaarsdam, G., Bergh, H. van den & Couzijn, M. (eds.) (1996). Effective teaching and learning of writing. Current trends in research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Pp. 253-273. Couzijn, M. (1995). Observation of writing and reading activities. Effect on learning and transfer. Thesis University of Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Dorfix. Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes; Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction. [Special issue The Learning and Instruction of Writing ed. by D. Galbraith & G. Rijlaarsdam]. Pp. 109-142. Dijk, T. van & W. Kintsch (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. Elbow, P. (1973), Writing without teachers. Oxford University Press: New York. Espéret, E. (1999). Commentary. Teaching and learning to write: cognitive and social processes at work. Learning and Instruction, 9 (2), 229-233. Flower, L. S. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: a social-cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Grice, H.P. (1981). Logica en gesprek [Logic and conversation]. In F.H. van Eemeren & W.K.B. Koning (Eds.), Studies over taalhandelingen. Meppel: Boom. Groot, A D. de (1978). Wat neemt een leerling mee van onderwijs? Gedragsrepertoires, programma’s kennis-en-vaardigheden. [What profits do students take from education? Behavior, programmes, knowledge-and-skills]. In: Handboek voor de Onderwijspraktijk, 2, (januari), A.1-A.23. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. Groot, A.D. de (1980). Over leerervaringen en leerdoelen. [On learning effects and learning goals]. In: Handboek voor de Onderwijspraktijk [Handbook for Educational Practice], 10, (November), B.1-B.18. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. Hayes, J.R. & L.S Flower (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.). Cognitive processes in writing (3-30). Hillsdale N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, Ill.: NCRE/ERIC. Janssen, T. & G. Rijlaarsdam (1992) Het learner report in de praktijk van de bovenbouw. W. De Moor, & M. van Woerkom (red.) Literaire competentie. Het doel van literatuuronderwijs [Literary competence: The goal of literature education.]. Den Haag: NBLC p. 197-208. Janssen, T. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Students as self-assessors: learning experiences of literature teaching in secondary schools. E. Marum (Ed.). Children and books in the modern world: Contemporary perspectives on literacy. (98-115). London: The Falmer Press. Janssen, T. (1998). Literatuur bij benadering. Een empirisch onderzoek naar de vormgeving en opbrengsten van het literatuuronderwijs Nederlands in de bovenbouw van het havo en vwo. [Approaches to literature teaching. An empirical study of the form and results of Dutch literature teaching in higher general secondary and pre-university education]. Thesis, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. Janssen, T.M., G.C.W.Rijlaarsdam (1990). What pupils learn from literature teaching in the Netherlands. In: M. Hayhoe, S. Parker, Reading and Response. (94-106). Milton-Keynes-Philadelphia: Open University Press. Kreeft, H., & G. Rijlaarsdam (1980). Zelfevaluatie in het moedertaalonderwijs. [Self-evaluation in mothertongue education.] Levende Talen, 352, 397-417. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lumbelli, L., G. Paoletti, Ch. Camagni & T. Frauzin (1996). Can the ability to monitor local coherence in text comprehension be transferred to writing? In: G. Rijlaarsdam, H. v.d. Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.) Effective teaching and learning of writing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London/New York: Edward Arnold. Milian-Gubern, M. (1996). Contextual factors enhancing cognitive and metacognitive activity during the process of collaborative writing. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.)(1996). Effective Teaching and Learning of Writing. (372-378). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Oostdam, R., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1995). Towards Strategic Language Education. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

188


Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A.L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated learning. In L.B. Resnick & L.E. Knopfler (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. (pp. 19-39). Alexandria: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development. Pool, E. Van der, & Wijk, C. Van (1995) Proces en strategie in een psycholinguistisch model van schrijven en lezen [Process and strategy in a psycholinguistic model of writing and reading]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20, 200-214. Ribas, T., Farrera, N., & Camps, A. (1997). Metalinguistic activity in groups writing situations: the influence of didactic situations and group characteristics. Rodríguez Illera, J. L. & L. Tolchinsky (1997). Proceedings 1996 European Writing Conferences EARLI Special Interest Group –Writing & Writing and Computers Association. Barcelona October 23-25 1996. CD-ROM. Barcelona: ICE University of Barcelona. Rijlaarsdam, G. & Janssen, T. (1996). How do we evaluate the literature curriculum? About a social frame of reference. In E. Marum (ed.)., Children and books in the modern world. Contemporary perspectives on literacy. (75-98). London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press. Rijlaarsdam, G. & M. Couzijn (1999). Stimulating awareness of learning in the writing curriculum. In: Camps, A. & M. Milian (Eds.). Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Rijlaarsdam, G. & Van den Bergh, H (1996). An agenda for Research into an interactive Compensatory Model of Writing. Many Questions, Some Answers. C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell. The Science of Writing (107-126). New York (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.. Rijlaarsdam, G. (1987). Effects of peer evaluation on writing performance, writing processes and psychological measures. Convention on College Composition and Communication. Atlanta (April). Rijlaarsdam, G. (1989). Learning, whose learning? Autonomous learning in mother tongue education.

Paper International Convention on Language and Education. March (22nd-26th) 1993. Norwich U.K. Abstract (English, whose English? International Convention on Language in Education). Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Measuring Writing: Processes and Text Quality. Tasks and Essay Scales. Graduate School of Teaching and Learning: Amsterdam. Rijlaarsdam, G. (forthcoming). Learning from Peer feedback in writing. An empirical study. In S. Brindley & H. Van den Bergh (Eds.). The learning and teaching of skills in language arts. Rijlaarsdam, G. (Series editor). Research in the learning and teaching of language and literature. Volume II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Rouiller, Y. & Allal, L. (1997). Peer interaction in narrative text revision. Rodríguez Illera, J. L. & L. Tolchinsky (1997). Proceedings 1996 European Writing Conferences EARLI Special Interest Group – Writing & Writing and Computers Association. Barcelona October 23-25 1996. CD-ROM. Barcelona: ICE University of Barcelona. Rouiller, Y. (1996). Metacognitive regulations, peer interactions and revisions of narratives by sixth graders. In: Rijlaarsdam, G., H. van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.) (1996). Effective Teaching and Learning of Writing (273-287).Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Saada-Robert, M. (1999). Effective means for learning to manage cognitive load in 2nd grade school writing: a case study. Learning and Instruction. [Special issue The Learning and Instruction of Writing ed. by Galbraith, D. & G. Rijlaarsdam]. 189-208. Sarbin, T.R. & V.L. Allan (1968). Role Theory. In: G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. 1. (488-567). Reading. Sarbin, T.R. (1976). Cross-Age Tutoring and social Identity. In: V. L. Allan (Ed.) Children as Teachers. Theory and Research. (27-40). New York. Schoonen, R., & De Glopper, K. (1996). Writing performance and knowledge about writing. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.). Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (87-108). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.), (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman. B.J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning, from teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press. Searle, J.R (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selinker, L. (1971). The psychologically relevant data of second language learning. In Pimsleur, P. & Quinn, T. (Ed.), The psychology of second language learning Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simons, P.R.J. (1991, May). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments, Louvain, Belgium.


189

Stern, H.H. (1990). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

AFFILIATIONS

Gert Rijlaarsdam, University of Amsterdam, Graduate school of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 2-4, 1091 GM Amsterdam. +31 20 5251288 (phone) / 5251290 (fax), E-mail: [email protected]

Michel Couzijn, University of Amsterdam, Graduate school of Teaching and Learning, Wibautstraat 2-4, 1091 GM Amsterdam. +31 20 5251288 (phone)/ 5251290 (fax), E-mail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This chapter is a shortened and revised version of Rijlaarsdam & Couzijn (1999). We want to thank Marta Milian and Anna Camps and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of that chapter and Robert-Jan Simons and Jos van der Linden for their enthusiastic stimulation to rewrite that chapter for this book. We also want to thank the two coders of the learning reports, who did a very intensive and difficult job. Without the generosity of Charlotte, whose learning log was the basis of the excerpts we presented in this chapter, this chapter would not have existed.


TON MOOIJ, JAN TERWEL AND GÜNTHER HUBER

10. A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE ON NEW LEARNING

INTRODUCTION According to Simons (1997), schools need ‘process-oriented instruction’ to let pupils learn in a new learning way. He defines this instruction as: “(…) focussing on the further development of the processes of thinking, learning and selfregulation integrated in regular domain-specific instruction (…) it also tries to hand over responsibility for learning and teaching to the learner gradually.” (o.c., p. 12). With young pupils, teachers initially act as external monitors, but gradual scaffolding and metacognitive guidance help pupils to become self-regulators. Moreover, teachers should organize positive self-evaluation and reflection by pupils (o.c.). A change towards new learning will also influence the social characteristics inherent in learning and teaching. Compared to traditional learning, qualities of the social behavior of pupils and teachers, but also the social conditions within the teaching and learning situation, will look differently in process-oriented instruction. This will be true in school but also outside school, i.e. at home and in working places. In this contribution we want to elaborate on social characteristics of, and social conditions relevant to, the new learning approach in educational practice. First, we introduce some theoretical terms to order potentially relevant social characteristics of new learning processes and outcomes. Second, we present different research examples, from different kinds of educational practice. We successively analyze the examples, to illustrate meaningful empirical varieties in the general significance of the social perspective on new learning. THEORIZING ON SOCIAL ASPECTS OF NEW LEARNING Learning is embedded in a social relationship between different actors, for example between a child and a parent or a teacher, between children within a small group or within a whole class (cf. Kounin, 1970), or between learners within a working place. The social relationship can also be structured in indirect ways, as occurs when a learner or group of learners is interacting with multimedia software. An actor is generally defined as a person, a group of persons, a category of persons, or a medium representing one or more persons, doing something in relation to another actor or partner. The social behavior of a learner can be analyzed according to different characteristics (cf. Mooij, 1997): 191

R. J. Simons et al. (eds.). New Learning, 191-208. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

192

TON MOOIJ, JAN TERWEL, GÜNTHER HUBER

actors involved: the person(s), group(s), category (categories), or medium included; content or type: e.g., verbal, nonverbal; psychological, physical; or combinations of these; orientation: varying on a scale from prosocial, cooperative to antisocial or aggressive; intensity: varying from not intensive or independent, to extremely intensive; location: the place, or places, where the behavior occurs; duration: from short-term to long-term; frequency: how often does the behavior take place in a certain period of time? The persons or groups involved in learning can show comparable kinds of social behavior with the same or different kinds of intentions, or different kinds of behavior with comparable intentions. For example, a teacher may use a very conscious and responsible pedagogic strategy to integrate a socially problematic child in positive learning processes with the other pupils, despite the manifest antisocial behavior of the problematic child. This social pedagogic behavior of the teacher may work out positively for the problematic child, but the initial negative learning consequences for the whole group may be large. The mutual relationship and the respective learning behavior are influenced by the meanings of the social situation for the actors involved, whereas these meanings may influence the social behavior and the learning and other outcomes. For example, in a new learning situation a pupil actively constructs his or her learning processes and outcomes, while the teacher supports these construction processes from the beginning at school. In traditional learning the teacher is the most active person. In designing instructional situations and learning processes, different levels of analysis can be used to model or analyze learning processes concerning e.g., social, motivational, and cognitive behaviors and the respective learning outcomes. Different but related kinds of levels, operating simultaneously, can be distinguished (cf. Mooij, 1987): first, an intra-individual level is necessary for the analysis of longitudinal, interactional processes integrating for example social, emotional, motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive or self-regulative elements in the development of a pupil; second, the individual or pupil level represents the unifying structure for the intra-individual processes on the one hand, and the links with the outside world on the other hand. Here relationships with other persons e.g., parents, a friend from a peer-group, the teacher, other pupils in class, or via a learning medium, have social and emotional functions which also are fundamental to adequate cognitive and self-regulative learning; third, the small group level is the level on which a pupil may be integrated to cooperate with other pupils within class, for example; fourth, the whole group or class level can be used to practice or develop emotional, social, or cognitive experiences; fifth, the school level represents common experiences for the pupils and teachers within the same learning environment and school building. This level

A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE ON NEW LEARNING

193

symbolizes the feelings, attitudes, and norms in getting along with each other in e.g., social, behavioral, cognitive, and organizational ways; sixth, the neighborhood or community in which the school is situated is relevant for its daily influencing of most of the concrete and practical experiences of pupils, teachers, parents, and peers; seventh, in a wider context, societal characteristics and developments are related to the developments on the other levels (cf. also Collier, 1994). An example is the study of Mulder (1996) concerning educational policy; eighth, in a still wider context, international characteristics and developments are becoming more and more important. From pedagogical, educational, and new learning points of view, instructional processes and learning outcomes should be designed optimally for every pupil. However, ‘hidden’ social characteristics of instructional processes, like continual competition and comparative judgement of learning achievement, counteract positive social and learning development of all pupils in a class or groups of pupils over schools (Ames, 1984; Garnier, Stein, & Jacobs, 1997; Mooij, 1992). To gather information about the validity of this theorizing with respect to new learning, but also to check possibilities to optimize educational practice, we report about different kinds of empirical research. We begin with exploratory research carried out in kindergarten. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PUPILS IN EARLY EDUCATION

Three examples

Mooij (1999a, 1999b) carried out observations in five Dutch kindergartens. The qualitative observation was done by event sampling: attention was concentrated on natural processes and effects assumed to be important given the focus on social and cognitive characteristics of pupils, and of the kindergarten situation. Notes were made of relevant events and circumstances. If necessary, personal or situational characteristics, or instructional or didactic procedures, were clarified in short explanatory interviews with the teacher. Furthermore, written and oral information from parents or the teacher could be added to the event observation in class. We present three summaries of ‘conspicuous’ children and begin with Henry. Four-year-old Henry is stringing beads. The beads are large, about three cm in diameter. The opening is about 1 cm in diameter, the thread is about 0.5 cm. The stringing activity seems to be too difficult for Henry: he does not bow the end of the thread in the right direction. The teacher sees this and helps him out for a moment. Henry makes a second attempt to string the bead. He fails again and gets angry, drops the appliances on purpose, and walks to a group of pupils nearby. These four classmates are stringing much smaller beads of about 0.5 cm in diameter. Henry knocks on their table and their beads jump around. The teacher quickly intervenes and shows him for the second time how to work with his own appliances. Some minutes later,

194


however, Henry still cannot do his activity on his own and drops his materials for the second time. He walks again to the table of the four classmates and throws their beads on the floor. The teacher comes running and restores order. The group of four helps in collecting beads. The teacher concentrates on Henry for about one minute, but in her classroom with 32 four-year-old children she can not stay with Henry. We see that the class situation is a social situation par excellence, characterized by different kinds of actors, with different or common intentions, with different or comparable behaviors, all functioning at the same time. At first Henry adjusts to the social situation as desired by the teacher and tries to string, but the required motor skill is too demanding, also from a cognitive point of view. The teacher assists his learning activities twice, but she has many children in her class and has to neglect Henry now and then. His failure to string on his own leads towards frustration, which is acted out in negative social behavior towards the children who can string. The teacher has not enough time to spend on him, even after his aggressive acts. It seems that Henry clearly is at risk from motor, cognitive, and social points of view. The social and other conditions in his kindergarten situation seem too bad to compensate for his relatively low developmental levels, which can be expected not to improve on their own. Nina, the second example, is in the same kindergarten class as Henry. Four-year old Nina is observed while making a puzzle of eight pieces. She cannot bring the puzzle to an end. Her neighbor is nice and helps her out. The teacher happens to see this and tells the two children that the neighbor is allowed to help, but only for one piece. Then the teacher leaves for another child and Nina tries again. The neighbor helps with one piece, but Nina still can not do the rest of the puzzle on her own. Because her neighbor really is nice, after two minutes he again completes the puzzle within about two seconds. The teacher sees this for the second time, comes again, and repeats what she said before. Then Nina crosses her arms and looks outside. After the teacher has gone Nina keeps on neglecting the puzzle, with her head on her crossed arms. The interpretation is that Nina, in her puzzling behavior, cannot function on the same cognitive level as most of her age mates. Her perception of her relative lack of ability seems strengthened by the repeated assistance of the teacher and her neighbor, and by the circumstance that even this assistance does not help her out. After the second trial she seems to be de-motivated. She withdraws from the activities in class and socially isolates herself. The next example summarizes the first six months in kindergarten of Paul, a child functioning at developmental levels above most of his peers. Upon entering kindergarten, when Paul has just turned four, his mother describes him as clearly ahead of his peers from a very young age onward. His interests and expressions of stages of development are much more


195

advanced than his actual age. This relatively advanced development is confirmed by the teacher's description of Paul. According to her, Paul has already passed the magical-thinking phase but, in the teacher’s words, he ‘can be brought back to it’. From the description by the teacher it also appears that the levels of his motor movements, social skills, reading and arithmetic conditions, and language, are high. His achievements are not out of place for a six-year-old pupil in the first grade of elementary school. Yet, after six months in kindergarten, the teacher emphasizes to the mother what Paul cannot do, even when this is not required of a kindergarten child. The teacher’s description of Paul’s work attitude is also informative. Paul completes all the regular kindergarten assignments because he has to, and his work attitude is average. He is underachieving and shows conforming behavior. The mother’s and teacher’s information shows that this blocking of Paul’s development in kindergarten soon results in emotional, social, cognitive, and motivational problems (see for details Mooij, 1999a). His problems largely manifest themselves at home, where he is becoming less and less cheerful since he started kindergarten. Emotional instability, more dependent behavior, and demotivation regarding kindergarten have come about. He does not express these feelings at school but to the one person he really trusts, his mother. The teacher does not recognize his behavioral signs of discomfort because she does not ‘know’ how Paul could behave, or used to behave, at home. In other terms: the social adjustment of Paul in kindergarten is detrimental to his development and potential functioning. Discussion The examples show how play and learning behavior of a four-year-old pupil in kindergarten is influenced by his own motor or cognitive activities and aptitudes. Also, social instructional process characteristics including the activities and social relevance of the other pupils and the teacher in class are relevant. The pupil’s reactions to learning outcomes, evaluated within this social multilevel context, strengthen specific emotional, motivational, and social behavioral developments and reactions. From the point of view of new learning, the aggressive behavior of Henry can be interpreted as a co-construction of social meanings, based on Henry’s actual learning behavior, the learning appliances used, the teaching behavior of his teacher, and the social and learning behavior of relevant other children in his class. In this class, the teacher has more than 30 children to deal with at about the same time. Working with small groups of pupils enhances her span of control, but she still cannot help Henry as much as required given his relative low capabilities. Comparable research is done by Durkin (1966), Jewett, Tertell, King-Taylor, Parker, Tertell, and Orr (1998), Skinner, Bryant, Coffman, and Campbell (1998), and Walker, Kavanagh, Stiller, Golly, Severson, and Feil (1998). Skinner et al. (1998) state: “That a child can be on a trajectory for school failure by the age of 5 has led us to examine closely how various meanings and practices, which are historically and culturally constructed, work to define both kindergarten teachers

196


and children, and place them in certain relationships vis-à-vis one another." (p. 307). The research clarifies that, generally, early education teachers experience the ‘extra’ efforts necessary because of ‘conspicuous’ children as a very demanding task. However, if these extra efforts do not take place, or only to a low degree, the same kinds of de-motivation and social isolation processes happen with pupils ‘deviating’ below or above the mean level of their peers, from the beginning in kindergarten. Another exploration concerns social processes and skills shown by pupils in a small group learning situation in elementary education. EXPLORING COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION IN SMALL GROUPS

Kynigos (1998) presents qualitative research into the social interaction of collaborative pupil groups in a Greek elementary school. According to this author, Greek education is characterized by a national curriculum, individualized learning, competition between pupils, and dependency on the teacher. Kynigos focuses on small group interaction in computer-based learning activities. Each group has to draw a cat with Logo on a computer screen. In each group three pupils participate, who should rotate roles. The roles are: keyboard controller, record keeper, and activity controller. The social behavior and discussions between four groups of pupils aged 8-11 are analyzed from an insider's perspective, an interactionist perspective, and a social norms perspective. The results are as follows. First, attention is given to the social interaction within the small groups. At the pupil level, role protection and role claims were contrasted with using threat and criticism as goal strategies. At the relational level, different criticisms of role performance between group members and claims to role change were made. Hardly any coordination of the small group effort, in terms of decision making and action planning, were found. At the small group level, social interaction within groups went in four directions: communication of personal ideas, communication between the group and the teacher, communication between the group and the classroom, and action planning and performance evaluation. Second, all small groups shared some social interaction patterns. The first pattern is group-think (members strive towards consensus while failing to evaluate realistically all options and alternatives available). The second is demand for teacher intervention e.g., provision of information, direction about how to proceed, or management. The third pattern is role conflict and vagueness (resolved by role rotation, role sharing, role suitability, and role assignment). The fourth refers to small group and classroom social norms. Given traditional Greek education, the pupils felt relatively lost in the collaborative work. Kynigos writes: “(…) there was a natural tendency to avoid confrontations with situations requiring deep thought, accepting uncertainty, experimenting and exercising creativity (...) Since pupils lacked wide and lengthy exposure to the concepts, practical skills and role models for effective collaboration and how it works, collaboration at a group level seemed to take the form of individualistic coexistence and interaction characterized by role confusion. (...) In fact, it seemed that the social norms related to positive and


197

negative social behavior had emerged from a background characterized by low frustration tolerance and impatience.” (p. 15). Kynigos (o.c.) concludes that social interaction and the building up of social skills within a collaborative small group may lead towards an uneven role distribution, with negative consequences for group members and undesired learning processes and outcomes. He relates these processes to the usual classroom processes in Greek education. It seems that, in order to promote collaboration between pupils in a stable and longitudinal way, social, cognitive, and self-regulatory instruction have to support the development of desired social skills and cognitive and other outcomes. In the next two sections we present examples of such planned instructional changes within small groups. SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE COACHING IN SMALL GROUPS

Exploratory talk in elementary school

Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1998) develop two educational software programs to coach the use of ‘exploratory talk’ in small group work in elementary school. The pupils are aged between 9 and 10. These English researchers propose and use seven pragmatic ground rules for exploratory talk. The first three rules should bring the group together, rules 4 and 5 focus on explicit reasoning, rule 6 is based on collaborative problem solving, and rule 7 reflects empirical research on working with children. The rules are, respectively: 1. All relevant information is shared; 2. The group seeks to reach agreement; 3. The group takes responsibility for decisions; 4. Reasons are expected; 5. Challenges are accepted; 6. Alternatives are discussed before a decision is taken; 7. All in the group are encouraged to speak, by other group members. The effectiveness of each coaching program was evaluated in target-class groups and in control groups by videotaping small groups working together on Raven’s reasoning tests. Within the context of the first program, in the area of citizenship, Wegerif et al. (o.c.) show that combining software design with offcomputer coaching of exploratory talk enhances the quality of social interactions between pupils at the computer. With respect to the second science program the researchers demonstrate that computers can be used to stimulate collaborative learning and to direct this social-cognitive learning towards curriculum goals. Constructive social structuring of learning activities in small groups of pupils may thus enhance both social and cognitive learning outcomes. In the next section curricular structuring is used to support the cooperation in small groups.

198


Adaptive curriculum and cooperative learning in secondary education

A series of projects by Terwel and his coworkers (see below) focussed on social and cognitive competencies of pupils in small group cooperative settings. In each project a pre-test / post-test / control group design was used. The numbers of pupils varied between about 400 and 800. The experiments were conducted in secondary education in the Netherlands. In a first project a mathematics curriculum was developed. The main characteristics of the curriculum reflected learning in real-life contexts, in small cooperative groups. The outcomes showed that pupils in the experimental groups out-performed the pupils in the control group (effect size .22). However, lowachieving pupils profited less from cooperative learning than high-achieving pupils (Terwel, 1990; van den Eeden & Terwel, 1994). In the second project an instructional model (AGO-model) was developed in which whole-class instruction, learning in small cooperative groups, and individual work, were combined. This model is a whole-class model allowing for pupil diversity through ad hoc remediation and enrichment within small groups, on a daily basis. The AGO-model consists of the following stages: 1. Whole-class introduction of a mathematics topic in real-life contexts; 2. Small-group cooperation in heterogeneous groups of four pupils; 3. Teacher assessments: diagnostic test and observations; 4. Alternative learning paths depending on assessments consisting of two different modes of activity: a) individual work at individual pace and level (enrichment), in heterogeneous groups with the possibility of consulting other pupils, or; b) opportunity to work in a remedial group under direct guidance and supervision of the teacher; 5. Individual work at their own level in heterogeneous groups with possibilities for pupils to help each other; 6. Whole-class reflection and evaluation of the topic; 7. Final test. The model provides for diagnostic procedures and special instruction and guidance by the teacher in a small remedial group for low-achieving pupils. In this project an effect size of .68 was found. Low-achieving pupils profited less from learning in small groups than high-achieving pupils (Terwel, Herfs, Mertens, & Perrenet, 1994). In a third project a modification of the AGO-model was used (Hoek, Terwel, & van den Eeden, 1997). Pupils were trained in social and cognitive strategies for problem solving from real-life contexts in cooperative groups. Special attention was dedicated to the analysis of differential effects for high- and low-achieving pupils. The outcomes show the expected positive effects (effect size .52). In addition to this main effect, the low-achieving pupils in the experimental condition out-performed their counterparts in the control group, so the special training and remedial instruction of low-achieving pupils had a compensating effect. The aim of the fourth study was to assess the effects of the social and cognitive training as combined in one program. This integration of programs should be more


199

powerful than the separate social or cognitive program in the third study (Hoek, van den Eeden, & Terwel, 1999). It turned out that combining the two strategies benefited the high achievers rather than the low achievers. This seems reasonable in view of the high cognitive demands made by the integrated program. Low achievers in particular seem to profit from strategy training as long as the instruction is not too complex and as the student composition of the small group allows for a rich learning environment in which high achieving students can serve as role models. The conclusion is that characteristics of the experimental programs seemed to produce positive social and cognitive outcomes by using real-life situations and learning in small co-operative groups (see also chapter 3). The promotion of learning by training social and cognitive strategies seems to be an attractive avenue for further development and research, in particular to support low-achieving pupils. These experiences are in line with other studies, for example, Cohen (1994), Cohen and Lotan (1995), Good, Mulryan, and McCaslin (1992), Slavin (1997), and Webb and Farivar (1994). Changing social, didactic, and organizational characteristics on the school and class level can also be used to realize desired learning outcomes with pupils. In the next section we give two examples. SOCIAL AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SCHOOL

Multilevel intervention to support prosocial pupil behavior

Mooij (1999c, 1999d) hypothesized that social-pedagogical school characteristics and social-pedagogical and didactic class characteristics influence the development of a pupil’s social behavior from the moment the pupil starts school. Covariables assumed to be relevant were the pupil’s social behavior in class 1, that is the initial social competence, and variables related to the home situation and friends (cf. Garnier et al., 1997). So variables from the school level, class level, individual level, and the intra-individual level, were hypothesized to influence the development of a pupil’s social competency. Changing school and classroom characteristics by intervention measures in a prosocial or cooperative direction should then effect prosocial changes in the social behavior of the pupils in the course of time, while controlling for the covariables or other potential sources of influence. Figure 1 models this hypothesis. Interventions were carried out in four experimental secondary schools with pupils scoring high on aggressive behavior, whereas three comparable schools served as control schools. In both types of schools pre-tests were held in 1995 with pupils in the first grade (aged about 12) and teachers in grades 1 to 4; in all schools post-tests were held in 1997 with pupils in grades 1 and 3 and teachers in grades 1 to 4

200


To realize the intervention, within each experimental school a working group on ‘social behavior’ was set up among teachers and school staff. If possible, the same occurred with respect to ‘cognitive learning behavior’. Within each working group, teachers were given tasks to work out a set of classroom rules put forward by the pupils themselves, to pay attention to the formulation of rules in ‘positive’ ways, to increase pupils’ responsibility for and control of their ‘own’ rules and the changing of these rules, to work on positive didactic rules with the pupils; or to transform regular school tasks into a more individually based curriculum with more attractive didactic features, including small group work to vary social processes during lessons. Concepts of rules and examples of curricular renewals were presented to the whole school team by the working groups, to inform other teachers about what was done, how, and why. Parents were also informed about the pedagogical, procedural, and didactic developments and changes. Finally, the new characteristics and ways of functioning were included in school policy documents. The intervention processes and results were rather school specific (Mooij, o.c.). The main quantitative effects of the intervention on the development of a pupil’s social behavior are rather clear. First, after controlling for the pre-test and a covariable in school year 1, intervention effects were found with the prediction of being a perpetrator of aggressive behavior at school, outside school, and criminal behavior, in year 3. Fewer or hardly any intervention effects were found with victim variables. Second, personal continuity of social behavior scores in the first year was more important than either covariable effects or intervention effects. This finding underlines the primacy of individual ‘social variables’ compared to environmental influences on a person’s social behavior (cf. Goleman, 1995). It also makes clear that preventing antisocial behavior, or promoting prosocial behavior, should begin as early as possible in a child’s life (cf. Walker et al., 1998).


201

Third, home variables such as talking with parents about leisure time and school in year 1, and positive school experiences in year 1, had a prosocial effect, whereas the degree of problematic behavior of friends in year 1 had an antisocial effect on the development of a pupil’s social behavior. It was also found that, at the intervention schools, the prediction at the pre-test was generally higher than at the control schools, whereas the mean effect was lower. This outcome led to the interpretation that the pupils scoring highest on antisocial behavior at the pre-test should receive more personal attention on top of the group attention they received in the intervention. Social die-hards seem to need both group and personal support to behave more prosocially, from the beginning in school onwards. Finally, from a longitudinal point of view, parents and peers did play a role in influencing a pupil’s social behavior. They should therefore be included systematically from the very moment a pupil starts school. Strategies to integrate home and peer variables in optimizing ways can also profit from other research (cf. Cowie, 1997; Farrington, 1993; Lim & Deutsch, 1996). Fractal learning in a cooperative school: The impact of individual differences

Huber (cf. Herold, Landherr, & Huber, 1997) supervised a project concentrating on the use of cooperative learning to overcome the organization of teaching according to school subject matter areas (cf. Ratzki, Keim, Mönkemeyer, Neißer, Schulz-Wensky, & Wübbels, 1996). The goal was to develop and implement cooperative learning, which changes the organizational structure of teaching as well as the roles of teachers and pupils. Because similar structures and processes are created within all organizational units, from staff level to the level of cooperative teams of pupils, these researchers call their model a fractal model of teaching and learning. An organizational framework was developed to meet the demands of modern conceptions of active learning (self-regulatory competencies; cf. Stern & Huber, 1997), of employers (action competencies), and of information society (media competencies). All pupils of grade 12 were assigned to three so-called ‘learning islands’. These units comprehended subject matter areas which, from the point of view of a particular overlapping theme, offer optimum opportunities for creating linkages. In grade 12, pupils may for instance access the topic of ‘energy’ under the perspectives of natural sciences / mathematics, linguistics, and social sciences. A team of teachers introduced the overlapping topic (‘energy’) in the form of a general overview. This introduction served as an ‘advance organizer’ (Ausubel, 1974) and accentuated the linkages between formerly isolated subject matter areas. The pupils took turns as inhabitants of each of the learning islands. Like in a modified version of Jigsaw learning, each pupil had to complete the assignments of one of the disciplines represented on the learning island. So he or she became an ‘expert’ concerning the particular subject matter area. Other pupils on the same learning island became experts for the other subject matter areas. Later, back in their ‘basic teams’, they shared their different expert knowledge, teaching each other and learning from each other with increasing self-responsibility. The teachers

202


were available during this phase of learning, as moderators of group dynamics or learning procedures and - if necessary - as the real experts in their particular subject matter domain. Most interesting among the empirical results were interactions of cooperation and individual uncertainty- versus certainty-orientation. Pupils used a small rating scale to evaluate the cooperative processes in their learning groups. Significant differences between the ratings indicated that uncertainty- as compared to certaintyoriented pupils experienced to a higher degree that their team mates understood and accepted their suggestions, were more convinced that they influenced decisions, and were more content with their share in the group’s decision making. This kind of orientation-treatment-interaction was investigated in detail in another study including 209 students (Huber, Scholz, Kahlert, Schmidt, Standke, & Stauche, 1995; cf. Huber & Roth, 1999). Individual uncertainty orientation versus certainty orientation was assessed with a 15 item rating scale. Three clearly uncertainty oriented pupils and three clearly certainty oriented pupils were identified in each classroom. They were confronted individually and in homogeneous groups of three with comparable tasks from three subject matter domains: German, Social Studies, and Mathematics. After small group sessions each member had to complete a questionnaire assessing the social climate during the small group work. The pupils’ activities were videotaped and transcribed. Later these transcriptions were analyzed by the software tool AQUAD Five for Windows (Huber, 1997). In the total sample there was no difference in intelligence between uncertaintyand certainty-oriented pupils. The German language task was a low structured task. As expected, an analysis of decision making during preparation for an oral presentation about ‘Our life in 10 years’ time’ showed hardly any difference between uncertainty- and certainty-oriented pupils when working individually, but very important differences when working in small groups. If each pupil had to decide on his or her own about the topics of presentation, there were hardly any interactions between demands of the situation and personal prerequisites in terms of individual tendencies to analyze controversial issues versus maintenance of one’s own point of view. However, if the learning situation was characterized by challenging controversies, that is, when the pupils had to solve their task in small groups, these contradictory tendencies became important in decision making, leading to poorer processing of the task by certainty-oriented pupils. In the social sciences case, a medium structured task, the pupils had to organize optimum small groups of four to five pupils each in their classroom. The task offered fewer degrees of freedom for decision making because the characteristics of class mates are well known, so there are no unlimited combinations of team members. Consequently, there should be less ambiguity and challenges in decision making. The researchers found fewer pronounced differences between frequencies of categories in individual and group situations. Uncertainty-oriented pupils elaborated more on their suggestions than did certainty-oriented pupils when working on their own. The transcriptions of the pupils’ thinking-aloud in individual sessions and of group discussions were analyzed to find out how the pupils assigned class mates to particular small groups. Uncertainty-oriented pupils


203

tried to arrange well achieving teams, whereas certainty-oriented pupils tried to minimize controversies by assigning team members primarily according to the perspective of social relations. As a last and well structured task, the pupils had to solve mathematical word problems individually and in small groups. Typical mathematical tasks in school at this age level are highly structured and do not define a situation of uncertainty. It is not clear whether an individual problem-solver or a group of problem-solvers will be able to find the solution. As expected, there were no differences at all between uncertainty-oriented and certainty-oriented pupils in individual as well as in team situations. Within the context of the school-wide intervention, learning in small groups of pupils therefore instigated different processes in uncertainty-oriented vs. certaintyoriented learners. Interestingly, the differences in decision making faded out with increasing structure of learning tasks, as the theory of uncertainty tolerance suggests. The most remarkable differences were found in the lowly structured language task (preparing for an oral presentation in German), minor differences in a social sciences task (arranging learning teams in their own classroom), and no differences in well structured tasks of solving mathematical problems. In the following section we illustrate a potentially next step to realize new learning. AGE-INTEGRATED CURRICULUM AND PUPIL-BASED EDUCATION

Bergqvist and Säljö (1998) report about participant observation carried out in grades 1-3 of four elementary schools in Sweden. The schools use an individualized curriculum in an age-integrated classroom and the pupils are aged seven to nine. The researchers concentrate on pupil and teacher cooperation in talking about the pupil’s weekly planning and working, or, in new learning terms, about learning to self-regulate the schoolwork. Their qualitative observation reveals that many responsibilities are conveyed from the teacher to the pupil. The researchers conclude that different intellectual, organizational and procedural skills were demanded from the pupils. Those who were considered successful were talked about by the teachers as ‘good at planning’. So planning in itself became a target. Bergqvist and Säljö (1998) therefore show that social, pedagogical, and learning roles are intricately related to the didactic, curricular, social, and schoolwide organization of both teaching and learning. Of course, age-integrated working is not restricted to using an individualized curriculum. Working with small groups is also attractive (see also Lando & Schneider, 1997). Mooij (1995, 1999a, 1999b) argues that optimizing kindergarten and school effects first of all requires a positive and open pedagogical school climate. All persons in school should get along with each other in respectful and prosocial ways (Alschuler, 1980). Pedagogically, the educational situation should promote the harmonious growth and support of every pupil on all relevant aspects e.g., cognitive, social, emotional, creative, athletic or sensory-motor, and motivational characteristics. To direct this school developmental process, Mooij (o.c.) develops five theoretical guidelines to support the functioning of each pupil and teacher and

204


to prevent traditional problems of marginal pupils in particular. These guidelines are: 1. Promote prosocial and pedagogical rules and procedures; 2. Use an intake procedure for every pupil; 3. Combine free play and instructional lines in the curriculum; 4. Use quality criteria to support each pupil from the beginning; 5. Plan and evaluate educational transformation on different levels. Education according to these guidelines can be called ‘pupil-based education’ in which the social and cognitive competencies of all pupils are being promoted, from the beginning in early education. For this reason an intake procedure was developed, using research results based on 966 four-year-old children (Mooij & Smeets, 1997; cf. Tymms, Merrell, & Henderson, 1997; Walker et al., 1998). Since 1995, 14 Dutch kindergartens annexed to elementary schools are cooperating to realize pupil-based education (cf. Mooij, 1999a, 1999b). Their goal is to develop age-integrated schooling, to transform traditional education into a child-friendly system for all pupils (see also Entwisle & Alexander, 1998). A computer program is being developed to support both pupils and teachers. Instructional lines in the prototype are made up of different educational play and structured learning contents: motor behavior, social-emotional development, projects, language, (preliminary) arithmetic, (preliminary) reading, and (preliminary) writing. Activities or tasks within each line are visually represented by a photograph of the object as present in class. To stimulate pupils adequately, variations of the same lines refer to different developmental levels e.g., regularly developing pupils, pupils who need remedial activities, or pupils who are advanced on the topic of the line. A pupil’s progress can be checked regularly by integrating diagnostic tests and normalized or standardized achievement tests in the instructional lines. The test scores are quality indicators of a pupil’s school career which, controlling for his or her entrance levels, express the rate of a pupil’s progress over the course of time. The software acts like a planning and registration system for both pupils and teacher. The pupil gets more responsibility for his or her own learning processes while the program, partly substituting the teacher, assists and manages the learning progress. The main advantage is that the teacher can concentrate more on the pupils who really need her or his assistance. Moreover, the didactic and organizational structure of the play and other activities is being supported. The frontiers between kindergarten and elementary education can be changed into ageintegrated, continuous developmental paths. Accurate information about the social processes taking place between the pupils, between the pupils and the teachers, and at home, can be obtained by using another computer program (Mooij, Mooij, & Smeets, 1997). With 9 to 15 year-olds in elementary and secondary education this program measures the type and amount of pro- and antisocial behavior e.g., bullying, the places where the behavior occurs (at school, outside school, at home), as well as actions taken against antisocial behavior. The results are recorded and percentages are compared per class and over a number of classes, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Specific results can be used as a standard for reaching agreement between the pupils and the teacher


205

with respect to reducing future degrees of antisocial behavior. In this way the pupils are given more responsibility with respect to their positive social behavior. When the program is completed regularly e.g., once within each quarter of a year, the pupils’ self-evaluation can show progress in a prosocial direction which can stimulate the improvement in social skills for the next measurement. CONCLUSIONS The information in this chapter supports the view that social, emotional, cognitive, and self-regulative characteristics are essential in process-oriented instruction. Relevant variables play a role on different levels in both the teaching situation and the learning situation. Intra-individual processes, pupil level processes, small group processes, class processes, and school processes, but in particular interactions between characteristics on these levels, are relevant. Social and other variables from these different levels interact with each other in different ways, at about the same time. Simultaneously, outside-school influences from the home situation and from peers are important. A first conclusion is therefore that longitudinal, multivariable, and multilevel theorizing is required to model and test instructional and learning processes and outcomes within the new learning approach. Second, while controlling for beginning competencies of a pupil, relationships between intra-individual and pupil level characteristics on the one hand, and social, instructional, and curricular or organizational characteristics on the pupil, small group, class, school, regional, national, or international level on the other hand, can be used to analyze, evaluate, or plan, the quality of education for a pupil, a small group of pupils, or a class or more pupils (see also Cronbach, 1983). Such quality indicators are essential in e.g., pedagogical, didactic, and organizational policy processes, and in the determination of policy effects on these different levels. Here new learning could also play an important role in the future. Third, educational practice can profit from this quality-oriented methodological strategy. From the above we learn, for example, that a pupil’s social and emotional behavior partly depends on social relationships, processes, and effects within the small group or class, including the teacher herself or himself. The relevance of this point is that, with respect to social and emotional measures in particular, much observation and screening occurs in kindergarten and elementary school (Laevers, 1992). Because this effort is concentrated on individual pupils only, the groupdependency of the pupil’s behavior seems to be excluded which may lead towards false conclusions. For example, in the case of Henry the teacher may concentrate on his aggressive behavior, that is on the symptom instead of on the cause of his aggression. What is really needed, of course, is a change or reduction in the number of children in the class. This number should be based on the quality of the social and other characteristics of the children actually present. Fourth, experience in developing educational practice teaches us that prosocial and constructive new learning processes should be developed in collaboration between teachers and school staff, pupils, researchers, and parents or caretakers. These partners have their own complementary roles and competencies in the required developmental processes (cf. Hatch, 1998).

206

TON MOOIJ, JAN TERWEL, GÜNTHER HUBER REFERENCES

Alschuler, A. S. (1980). School discipline: a socially literate solution. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, co-operative and individualistic goal structures: a cognitive-motivational analysis. In R. Ames and C. Ames (Eds.), Student motivation (pp. 177-207). New York: Academic Press. Ausubel, D. P. (1974). Psychologie des Unterrichts [Psychology of teaching]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Bergqvist, K., & Säljö, R. (1998). Construction of curricular content in the individualized age-integrated classroom. Paper presented on the 'European Conference on Educational Research' (ECER), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 17-20 September 1998. Linköping / Göteborg, Sweden: Linköping University / Göteborg University. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99-120. Collier, G. (1994). Social origins of mental ability. New York: Wiley. Cowie, H. (1997). Perspectives of Teachers and Pupils on the Experience of Peer Support against Bullying. Paper for the 7th Conference of the 'European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction'. Athens, August 26th-30th 1997. London: Roehampton Institute London. Cronbach, L. J. (1983). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press. Eeden, P. van den, & Terwel, J. (1994). Evaluation of a mathematics curriculum: differential effects, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 457-475, Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. A. (1998). Facilitating the transition to first grade: The nature of transition and research on factors affecting it. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 351-364. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and justice. A review of research, 17, 381-458. Garnier, H. E., Stein, J. A., & Jacobs, J. E. (1997). The process of dropping out of high school: A 19-year perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 395-419. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Good, T. L., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for Instruction in Mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 165-197). New York: MacMillan. Hatch, Th. (1998). The differences in theory that matter in the practice of school improvement American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 3-31. Herold, M., Landherr, B., & Huber, G. L. (1997). Fraktale Lernorganisation in der gymnasialen Oberstufe: Ergebnisse eines Schulversuchs [Fractal learning organization in grade 12: Results of an experiment in schools]. Paper presented at the ‘6. Conference of the Fachgruppe Pädagogische Psychologie’, Frankfurt am Main. Tübingen, Germany: University of Tübingen, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft. Hoek, D. J., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (1997). Effects of training in the use of social and cognitive strategies: an intervention study in secondary mathematics in co-operative groups. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(4), 364-389. Hoek, D., van den Eeden, P., & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 427-448. Huber, G. L. (1997). Analysis of qualitative data with Aquad Five for Windows. Schwangau, Germany: Huber. Huber, G. L., & Roth, J. H. W. (1999). Finden oder suchen? Lehren und Lernen in Zeiten der [To find or to search? Teaching and learning in times of uncertainty]. Schwangau, Germany: Huber. Huber, G. L., Scholz, G., Kahlert, M., Schmidt, M., Standke, C., & Stauche, H. (1995). Entscheidungsprozesse von Schülern in Lernsituationen [Pupils' processes of decision making in learning situations]. Tübingen / Jena, Germany: Universität Tübingen / Universität Jena. Jewett, J., Tertell, L., King-Taylor, M., Parker, D., Tertell, L, & Orr, M. (1998). Four early childhood teachers reflect on helping children with special needs make the transition to kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 329-338. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.


207

Kynigos, C. (1998). Perspectives in analyzing classroom interaction data on collaborative computerbased mathematical projects. Paper presented on the 'European Conference on Educational Research' (ECER), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 17-20 September 1998. Athens, Greece: University of Athens, Computer Technology Institute. Laevers, F. (1992). Welbevinden en betrokkenheid [Well-being and involvement). In B. van Oers and F. Janssen-Vos (Eds.), Visies op onderwijs aan jonge kinderen [Visions on early education] (pp. 36-52). Assen / Maastricht, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Lando, B. Z., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Intellectual contributions and mutual support among developmentally advanced children in homogeneous and heterogeneous work / discussion groups. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(1), 44-57. Lim, Y. Y., & Deutsch, M. (1996). Examples of school-based programs involving peaceful conflict resolution and mediation oriented to overcoming community violence. Columbia: Teachers College, International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution. Mooij, T. (1987). Interactional multi-level investigation into pupil behavior, achievement, competence, and orientation in educational situations. 's-Gravenhage, the Netherlands: Instituut voor Onderzoek van net Onderwijs. Mooij, T. (1992). Predicting (under)achievement of gifted children. European Journal for High Ability, 3(1), 59-74. Mooij, T. (1995). Student differences and instructional optimalization. Paper presented on the European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen, August 1995. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: ITS. Mooij, T. (1997). Safe(r) at school. Summarising report. Contribution to the EU expert conference held in Utrecht, the Netherlands, February 24-26th 1997. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS. Mooij, T. (1999a). Integrating gifted children into kindergarten by improving educational processes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(2), 63-74. Mooij, T. (1999b). Supporting pro-social behavior of preschoolers at risk. Risk Management: An International Journal, 1(2), 49-61. Mooij, T. (1999c). Promoting prosocial pupil behavior: 1: A multilevel theoretical model. British Journal of Educational Psychology (in press). Mooij, T. (1999d). Promoting prosocial pupil behavior: 2: Secondary school intervention and pupil effects. British Journal of Educational Psychology (in press). Mooij, T., Mooij, J. M., & Smeets, E. (1997). Computerprogramma 'PestTest®' voor basis- en voortgezet onderwijs [Computer program ‘Anti-bullying®' for primary and secondary education]. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: ITS. Mooij, T., & Smeets, E. (1997). Beginkenmerken van leerlingen in de basisschool [Entry characteristics of pupils in kindergarten]. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, ITS. Mulder, L. (1996). Meer voorrang, minder achterstand [More priority, less disadvantage]? Nijmegen, the Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, ITS. Ratzki, A., Keim, W., Mönkemeyer, M., Neißer, B., Schulz-Wensky, G. and Wübbels, H. (Eds.) (1996). Team-Kleingruppen-Modell Köln-Holweide. Theorie und Praxis [The team-small-group-model KölnHolweide: Theory and practice]. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Simons, P. R.-J. (1997). From romanticism to practice in learning. Lifelong learning in Europe, 1, 8-15. Skinner, D., Bryant, D., Coffman, J., Campbell, F. (1998). Creating risk and promise children’s and teachers’ coconstructions in the cultural world of kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 297-310. Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stern, D., & Huber, G. L. (Eds.) (1997). Active learning for students and teachers. Reports from eight countries. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Terwel, J. (1990). Real Maths in Co-operative Groups in secondary Education. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Cooperative Learning in Mathematics (pp. 228 - 264). New York: Addison-Wesley. Terwel, J., Herfs, P. G. P., Mertens, E. H. M., & Perrenet, J. Chr. (1994). Co-operative learning and adaptive instruction in a mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum studies, 26(2), 17-233. Tymms, P., Merrell, C., & Henderson, B. (1997). The first year at school: a quantitative investigation of the attainment and progress of pupils. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(2), 101-118. Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(2), 66-80. Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting Helping Behavior in Co-operative Small Groups in Middle School Mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 369-395. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1998). Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 199-211.

208

TON MOOIJ, JAN TERWEL, GÜNTHER HUBER AFFILIATIONS

Ton Mooij, ITS, University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 5, NL 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Jan Terwel, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and learning, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Psychologie en Pedagogiek, Afdeling Onderwijspedagogiek, Van der Boechorststraat 1, NL 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Günter Huber, University of Tübingen, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft, Münzgasse 22-30, 72070 Tübingen, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

JAN VERMUNT AND LIEVEN VERSCHAFFEL

11. PROCESS-ORIENTED TEACHING

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary conceptions of teaching, a central place is given to the quality of student learning. Whereas, in the past, theories of teaching and theories of instructional design were mostly based on the knowledge-transmission model, today many such theories find their inspiration in the knowledge-construction model (Lowyck & Elen, 1993). One reason for this change is epistemological in nature: research results have made it clear that the quality of knowledge gained by active knowledge construction is better (i.e., more accessible, coherent, usable…) than knowledge acquired by the passive intake of knowledge. A second reason is societal in nature: fast changes in work, technology, and society make it more necessary than before for people to keep acquiring new knowledge after their school career. It is obvious that they should learn at school the knowledge and skills needed for this lifelong process of learning. From an epistemological perspective, it is important that teaching is aimed at fostering learning processes characterized by active knowledge construction. From a societal point of view, it is important that education takes care that students learn to self-initiate such types of learning. In this way, students acquire a disposition to keep acquiring new knowledge actively and self-directedly after their formal education has come to an end. Learning to learn has increasingly become a major educational goal. This calls for teaching theories and instructional design models that are specifically aimed at promoting learning-to-leam processes in students. In this chapter, we will discuss a teaching model that is well suited to meeting this objective: process-oriented teaching. It is based on research and theories on student learning processes and the interplay between self-regulation and external regulation of learning. Process-oriented teaching is aimed at the integrated teaching of learning and thinking strategies, on the one hand, and domain-specific knowledge, on the other. It is an instructional model in which learners are taught to employ suitable learning and thinking activities to construct, change and utilize their knowledge of a particular subject domain. This type of teaching is called process-oriented teaching because it focuses on learners' processes of knowledge construction and utilization. The emphasis is on a gradual transfer of control over thinking and learning processes from the teacher and/or other instructional agents to students. The underlying regulation conception assumes that it is impossible, but also undesirable, to carry out the learning processes for students and to exert maximum control over them. The main teacher tasks in this conception are 209 R. J. Simons et al. (eds.), New Learning, 209-225. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

210


initiating and supporting the thinking activities that students employ in their learning (Simons, 1997). In the first part of this chapter, the underlying rationale for the model is described. Afterwards, the phases and principles of process-oriented teaching are discussed, together with the research on which they are based and examples of applications in various learning environments. The chapter concludes with a selection of recent research studies on the implementation and the effectiveness of process-oriented instructional programs, followed by some suggestions for further research. Throughout the chapter, we will use the term ‘teaching’ to refer to what a teacher does, while the term ‘instruction’ is used in a broader sense. This refers not only to what a teacher does, but also to what other instructional agents, such as textbooks and computer programs, ‘do’ to help students learn. THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING

Process-oriented teaching is based on the interplay between self-regulation and external regulation of learning. This interplay may either give rise to congruence or to friction between learning and teaching strategies (see Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Two kinds of friction are discerned: constructive and destructive. Constructive friction can stimulate students to employ learning and thinking strategies that they have not used before, and hence give rise to an increase in the use of those strategies. Destructive friction occurs, for example, when a teacher takes over learning activities from students that they are already used to employing of their own accord. This friction may result in a decrease in students' use of learning and thinking activities (see also Clark, 1990). Friction of a destructive nature may also occur when the distance between the level of self-regulated learning that the teacher expects from the students, and the self-regulatory skills these students possess, is too great. As a central position is given in process-oriented teaching to the thinking activities that students use to learn, an important question addressed in previous research within the process-oriented teaching tradition was about the nature of these activities. A review of the literature indicated that, in general, three types of these learning and thinking activities were discerned: cognitive, affective, and regulative activities (see, for example, Short & Weisberg-Benchell, 1989; Wagner & McCombs, 1995). In a series of empirical studies, both qualitative and quantitative in nature, Vermunt (1996, 1998) investigated how students employed these activities in their normal studying behavior and how the use of these activities was related to internal and external sources. The results indicated that three main cognitive processing strategies could be discerned: (a) a deep processing strategy, which combines the learning activities ‘relating’, ‘structuring’, and ‘critical processing’; (b) a stepwise processing strategy, consisting of the learning activities ‘analyzing’ and ‘memorizing’; and (c) a concrete processing strategy, with ‘concretizing’ and ‘applying’ as major learning activities. With regard to regulation strategies, it was found that the distinguishing dimension was internal versus external control of learning processes. Three main strategies were also consistently observed here: (a) a self-regulated strategy, in which the students perform most

PROCESS-ORIENTED TEACHING

211

regulation activities themselves; (b) an externally regulated strategy, in which students let their learning process be regulated by teachers, books, etc.; and (c) lack of regulation, manifested when students are unable to regulate their learning processes themselves, but also experience insufficient support of the external regulation as provided by teachers and the learning environment in general. The use of these processing and regulation strategies turned out to be consistently associated with students' mental models of learning and with their learning orientations. A mental learning model can be described as a coherent system of conceptions about learning and related phenomena, e.g., conceptions of oneself as a learner, of learning objectives, of learning activities and strategies, of learning tasks, of learning and studying in general, and of the task division between students, teachers, and fellow students in learning processes. Learning orientations refer to the whole domain of students’ personal goals, intentions, motives, expectations, attitudes, concerns, and doubts with regard to their studies (Beaty, Gibbs & Morgan, 1997). Vermunt (1996, 1998) uses the term ‘learning style’ as a superordinate concept in which the cognitive and affective processing of subject matter, the metacognitive regulation of learning, mental learning models, and learning orientations are united. In several studies, he found four such learning styles: undirected, reproduction-directed, meaning-directed, and applicationdirected learning. From the viewpoint of high-quality learning, the last two ways of learning are more desirable than the other two. Research conducted by Vermetten, Vermunt, and Lodewijks (1999) showed that these learning styles are not unchangeable but develop over time and that this development can be influenced by instructional features. Categories that are very similar to those found in the literature on learning activities show up in the literature on teaching activities. For example, Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) give the following instances of good teaching activities: explaining relationships within the subject matter, giving examples, planning the learning process, monitoring students’ progress, and motivating students. It seems that learning and teaching activities can be described in the same terms. Hence, one can speak of teaching/learning functions. Shuell (1996; see also Simons, 1997) uses the term learning functions to refer to the functions that need to be fulfilled for high-quality learning to take place and that can be executed either by the learner or by the teacher. These learning functions can be divided into processing, affective, and regulation functions, a distinction that parallels the distinction between cognitive, affective, and metacognitive (regulative) learning activities. Teaching functions refer to those functions which promote high-quality student learning. The processing functions of teaching concern presenting and clarifying the subject matter. The affective functions refer to creating and maintaining a positive motivational and emotional climate for learners. The regulation functions are aimed at steering students' learning processes. From the viewpoint of their influence on the thinking activities students use to learn, different teaching strategies can be distinguished. They can be placed on a dimension ranging from strongly teacher-regulated to shared regulation to loosely teacher-regulated (compare Biggs, 1996). In the case of loose teacher regulation, the need for studentregulation of learning is high. These teaching strategies, or more general

212


instructional strategies, constitute different levels of external regulation and therefore also of the degree of control students are expected to exert over their own learning (for an elaborate discussion of the interplay between self-regulation and external regulation of learning, see Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). In terms of the quality of student learning, process-oriented teaching is aimed at stimulating the development of meaning-directed and application-directed learning and discouraging undirected and reproduction-directed learning. Processoriented instruction can be applied in different kinds of learning environments, such as teacher-guided, co-operative, and self-instructional learning environments. Table 1 summarizes the major principles of process-oriented teaching, which we describe in greater detail below. PRINCIPLES OF PROCESS-ORIENTED TEACHING

The principles of process-oriented teaching can be divided into more general and more specific principles. General principles, which are always in operation, include the following: a focus on learning and thinking activities, a gradual transfer of control over learning processes from the instructional agents to the students, the development of students' mental model of learning, and a taking into account of their learning orientation. Specific principles are employed in a particular phase during a limited time period of the teaching/learning process. The first phase is the preparatory or tuning phase. In this phase, the teaching strategies are tuned to students' learning strategies and styles: the learning and thinking strategies of students are diagnosed, possible destructive frictions between learning and teaching strategies are identified and avoided, and congruence and constructive friction between these strategies are created. In the second phase, the actual learning phase, learning functions that students do not yet sufficiently master are taught together with, and embedded in, the subject-matter domain. First, the teacher or another expert overtly and explicitly models one or more learning functions, while the students serve as observers. Gradually, this modeling decreases and students are increasingly activated to use these learning activities themselves while doing learning tasks and solving problems on the subject domain. In the meantime, the teacher or another instructional agent gives them process-oriented feedback on the quality of their performance. Later on, this activating support is also gradually withdrawn. Thus, regulation of learning changes from an initially strong but explicit control by the teacher (modeling) through shared control (activating) into loose control (capitalizing). The third phase of the teaching/learning process is the evaluation phase. In this phase, the degree is assessed to which students' skills in employing learning functions and their knowledge of the domain have increased. The first (preparatory/tuning) and last (evaluation) phases are teaching-oriented in nature, while the middle (actual learning) phase is learning-oriented.


213

General principles

Focussing on learning and thinking activities. Process-oriented teaching is focused on the activities and strategies that students use to learn and think. Cognitive processing activities are those thinking activities that students use to process learning contents. They directly lead to learning results in terms of knowledge, understanding, skill, etc. Typical examples are looking for relations among parts of the subject matter, selecting main points, thinking of examples, and looking for applications (e.g., Geisler-Brenstein, Schmeck & Hetherington, 1996). Affective activities are directed at dealing with emotions that arise during learning, and lead to an affective state that may work out positively, neutrally, or negatively on the progress of a learning process. Examples are activities like motivating oneself, attributing learning results to causal factors, attaching subjective appraisals to learning tasks, and mastering blocking emotions (e.g. Boekaerts, 1995). Regulation activities are directed at steering the cognitive and affective activities and,

214


therefore, indirectly lead to learning results. Examples of such activities are orienting on a learning task, monitoring whether the learning process proceeds as planned, diagnosing the cause of the difficulties one encounters, and changing learning activities during learning (e.g., De Jong, 1995). Gradual transfer of control over learning processes. Process-oriented teaching is characterized by a gradual shift in the task division in the teaching/learning process from the teacher to the students. First, an explicit external control structure is provided for students and subsequently this external support is gradually withdrawn. Simultaneously, students are taught how to exert control over their own learning (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Simons, 1993). Learning to learn, then, means the gradual transfer of learning functions from the teacher to the students, a gradual transition from external to internal regulation of learning (see Figure 1). In addition, cognitive, regulative, and affective activities are taught in connection with the context in which they are to be used. In this way, training in learning and thinking strategies is integrated and intertwined with the teaching of the subject matter, so that domain knowledge and strategic knowledge are taught in continuous coherence (Bransford, Vye, Kinzer & Risko, 1990; De Corte, 1995). The role of the teacher is one of diagnostician, challenger, model, activator, monitor, and evaluator of students' learning and thinking strategies (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999).

Developing students' mental model of learning. The way in which students interpret a learning situation and the teaching measures that form part of it determines to a large degree the learning and thinking activities they perform.


215

Because their mental learning model governs these interpretations, process-oriented teaching pays attention to developing correct, usable, and complete mental learning models. Articulation of, and reflection on, learning and thinking strategies are important mechanisms to in achieving this (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989; Korthagen, 1993). Having to put into words one's own approach makes it possible to reflect on it. Students are stimulated to reflect on the thinking strategies that they use, on their own learning style as well as on that of others. By dwelling on learning and thinking activities they had not thought of before, by comparing their own task approach, learning orientation, and learning conceptions with those of others, students gradually become more aware of their own and other possible learning and thinking activities (Vermunt, 1995). This is especially important in ensuring the durability and generalization of learning and thinking strategies being taught. Many authors stress the importance of this development. According to Marton, Dall'Alba and Beaty (1993), for example, realizing that there are several ways of thinking and dealing with a learning task can be a very efficient method of not only increasing the understanding of the particular learning task, but also transcending it. Taking into account students' learning orientation. The way in which students appraise a learning situation and the teaching measures that form part of it also determines, to an important extent, the learning and thinking activities they are willing to employ. Because these appraisal processes are mainly governed by students' learning orientations, students' personal goals and intentions are taken into account in process-oriented teaching. The promotion of intrinsic orientations is the main aim, recognizing that these may, for example, have a vocational, academic or personal nature. In the manner in which students' mental learning models may be developed by stimulation of reflective activities, the development of intrinsic orientations may be promoted by stimulating affective activities. Appraisal processes can, for instance, be influenced by giving students freedom of choice in determining their learning contents, activities, goals, and pace (Morgan, 1988). Tasks may be given through which students can realize their personal goals, such as writing an essay on a subject they themselves choose. In professional training, teaching may be tailored to the concerns students encounter in their work experiences (Korthagen, 1993). Intrinsic motivation can also be strengthened by stressing students' personal responsibility for learning (McCombs, 1991). The general principles of process-oriented teaching described thus far can be used during all phases of the teaching/learning process. Specific principles, described below, are employed in a particular phase during a limited time period. SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES

Phase 1: Tuning teaching strategies to learning strategies

Diagnosing learning and thinking strategies. This principle has to do with learning to know the students, with the purpose of avoiding destructive friction between

216


learning and teaching strategies (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). The teacher's role is one of diagnostician. As the occurrence of friction originates in conflicts between teaching strategies and students' learning strategies, adequate diagnoses of thinking strategies and learning styles of students are necessary in order to avoid friction. These diagnoses show which learning and thinking activities students have mastered, how they think about learning and teaching, and what their learning orientations and personal goals are. They make it possible to adapt to, and depart from, students’ existing learning and thinking strategies (Kember, 1991). In this fashion, teaching can be efficiently tailored to developing those learning and thinking strategies students have not or not sufficiently mastered. For example, this diagnosis may show that, in a particular domain, students are quite skilled at discovering conceptual similarities and differences between various theories about a subject (‘relating/structuring’). It may also show that these students are not very good at translating these conceptual theories into practical applications (‘concretizing/applying’). If it were, however, considered important for students to develop applicative skills, then process-oriented teaching would in this case be tailored to the development of concretizing/applying learning strategies. With regard to the ‘relating/structuring’ learning function, a loose teacher control strategy would in this case be considered the best solution to avoid destructive friction, because students are capable of self-initiated usage of this activity. Avoiding destructive friction. Students differ in the learning and thinking activities they employ on their own initiative (Janssen, 1996; Oosterheert, 1998). To avoid destructive friction, process-oriented teaching is tailored to the learning and thinking activities that students master and use. This may be done on a student level as well as at a course level, with regard to the learning content, learning goals, learning activities, and learning pace (Corno & Snow, 1986; Martens, Valcke, Poelmans & Daal, 1996). Based on diagnoses of their learning style and prior knowledge, different students, for example, get different assignments, tasks, and questions. In some learning environments, this individual differentiation, however, is more feasible than in others. Computer-based instruction is well suited to it, while a lecture for 500 students is less suitable. In cases like these, processoriented teaching is adapted to the group level. Teaching is tailored to the mean learning style of a group of students. For example, suppose that adult students with work experience are more application-directed in their learning than adolescent students, who are more meaning-oriented in their learning. In this case, with the group of adult students, the teacher will capitalize on their application skills and try to model and activate learning functions belonging to the meaning-oriented style (e.g. ‘relating/ structuring’, ‘critical processing’). With the group of adolescent students, the teacher can do just the opposite. The subject matter itself (the textbooks, learning materials, etcetera) can be exactly the same for both groups, but the way in which the teacher directs the processing of this subject matter differs, depending on students' mastery of the various learning functions. The most global form of avoiding destructive friction is adapting to the mean or dominant learning style of the entire group of students.


217

Creating congruence and constructive friction. Sometimes constructive friction may be necessary to make students willing to change. Learning and study habits in particular that have existed for a long time are not always easy to alter. In such cases, constructive friction may be helpful to make students realize that their present ways of learning and thinking no longer suffice. The teacher's role is one of challenger. Constructive friction could, for example, be created by capitalizing on skills students have not mastered or by activating such skills. Students then enter a phase of reflection on their current approach, and of exploration of alternative learning and thinking strategies, in which they are most open to new possibilities (Collins et al., 1989). Correct diagnoses of their learning styles may prevent these frictions from working out destructively. Friction often occurs when students enter a new type of education, for instance, after the transition from secondary to higher education. Initially, students who move from secondary to higher education often continue to use their habitual, reproductive, externally regulated way of learning that was effective in secondary education. After a few months, some of them realize that the amount and the nature of study material makes their learning approach inadequate. For other students, however, this transition proceeds less automatically. They do not realize that there is a problem, or they do realize it, but cannot think of alternative actions. Adaptation to the new environment is lacking, which may result in student dropout (Vermunt, 1996). An example of teacher-created constructive friction is to ask students who are used to, and therefore good at, memorizing, to discuss the arguments for and against a certain point of view, after this type of critical processing has been demonstrated to the students in some way (e.g., by the teacher, or fellow students). Another example is to ask students who prefer to get specific guidelines for approaching learning tasks, to make a plan for studying an issue by themselves, and then help them to improve that plan. Phase 2: Teaching learning functions

Teaching cognitive, affective, and regulative activities in coherence. These three types of learning activities are mutually coherent. Affective activities may hinder or promote the effective use of cognitive activities. Regulation activities do not take place in a vacuum, but are directed at the cognitive and affective processing of subject matter. Training isolated cognitive activities, without paying attention to their regulation, has proved to be hardly successful. On the other hand, there is little sense in teaching students how to regulate cognitive activities that they do not master. Process-oriented teaching is aimed at promoting a flexible, versatile, selfregulated way of thinking and learning. In view of the mutual relations among these three types of learning activities, cognitive, affective, and metacognitive activities are taught in cohesion in this model of teaching. This integrated teaching method has proved to be most successful, in terms of improvement of the learning results, durability in the spontaneous utilization of the newly acquired cognitive, affective, and metacognitive skills, as well as transfer to different tasks (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1996).

218


Demonstrating usually covert learning and thinking activities overtly and explicitly. Taking over thinking activities from students does not contribute anything by itself to the development of the skill in using these activities, and may cause destructive friction when this strong teacher control strategy is employed in isolation. However, taking over learning strategies as explicitly and overtly as possible may function well as a model. By demonstrating the different activities by which subject matter may be processed, problems solved, and learning processes regulated, the teacher makes overt and explicit those knowledge construction and utilization activities that usually stay covert and implicit (Palincsar & Brown, 1989; Volet, 1991; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). By temporarily taking over learning activities from students, the teacher's role is one of model learner and thinker, who demonstrates learning and thinking activities that are important for the subject domain. The teacher shows students, for example by thinking aloud, how they can structure the central concepts of a domain into a scheme, think of concrete examples for difficult subject matter, tackle a certain kind of problem, motivate themselves and concentrate, plan realistic learning objectives, and test their understanding of the subject matter. When teachers demonstrate these learning functions within the context of subject-matter teaching, students are confronted with a broad variety of examples from the different subject domains. Activating to use learning and thinking activities. Having demonstrated learning and thinking activities, teachers should gradually activate students to use them. Teaching strategies move from explicit, strong control to shared control. By means of questions, assignments, study tasks, ways of presenting an argument, etcetera, students are stimulated to use thinking activities they usually do not employ when learning. For example, the teacher instructs students to make a scheme, think of examples, plan learning goals, or invent test questions. In this way, students get the opportunity to increase their skill in these activities by exercising them. The teacher has the role of activator and coach here. He or she acts as external monitor and provides students with feedback on the quality of their performance and of the underlying thinking activities, so that they may adjust the execution of these activities if necessary (Volet, 1991). Lonka (1997) showed that activating principles can be applied, even in large-scale lectures. Capitalizing on learning and thinking skills. If skills are not regularly practiced, they may deteriorate. A surgeon must perform a minimum number of operations a year to maintain his or her surgical skills. The same holds for thinking and learning skills. After students have developed these skills, they should also get the opportunity to employ them regularly. After a phase in which teachers activate students' learning activities, this form of teacher-regulation is gradually withdrawn too. By creating a challenging environment, the teacher capitalizes on students’ spontaneous and correct employment of these activities (loose control). The call on self-regulated use of these learning activities will then increase proportionally. Teaching is now shaped in such a way that the newly acquired learning and thinking skills are continually addressed and students need them. Learning tasks, for example, are now defined at a more global level, with less explicit directions for


219

how to approach them. This means that the degree of control students may exert over their learning also increases, and that choices regarding learning and thinking activities, learning contents, goals, and the learning pace are more and more in the hands of students. In Shuell's (1996) terms, the call on student-initiated use of learning functions increases. This opportunity for self-regulation given to learners may promote their intrinsic motivation, may have a beneficial effect on their confidence, and may stimulate the use of deeper processing strategies (McCombs, 1991). The teachers can now shift their attention to other learning functions that have not been mastered yet, or to the application of the strategies learned to more complex learning tasks.

Third phase: assessment of learning functions

Testing of thinking activities. Students' learning behavior is strongly regulated by expectations regarding the test or exam (e.g., Van Berkel, Nuy & Geerligs, 1995). The expectation that they will get an examination that mainly tests knowledge of facts and details, exerts great pressure on students to use ‘memorizing’ activities during learning. However, when exams are oriented towards understanding and application, students are stimulated to use ‘relating’, ‘structuring’, and ‘concretizing’ processing activities. For process-oriented teaching, this means that the employment of thinking activities at which teaching is directed, should be awarded by a good test result. Tests may be composed, and marks may be given, on the basis of the processing functions described earlier. For example, students are asked to describe similarities and differences between particular theories, summarize the main points, give concrete examples, invent applications of what they have learned, or derive their own conclusions about certain facts, and compare them with the author's conclusions. The assessment of regulatory and affective skills is more complicated. Advances in this field are, for example, portfolio assessments (e.g. Krause, 1996), which are used to assess reflective skills and, recently, also affective skills. In sum, process-oriented teaching is a model of teaching that incorporates and extends contemporary procedures for the teaching of (meta)cognitive strategies (e.g. Collins et al., 1989). It incorporates teaching procedures such as modeling of strategies, coaching, and fading. It extends them because learning and teaching are described on the same dimensions (teaching/learning functions), and because the focus is on the interplay between learning and teaching strategies: the avoidance of destructive friction and the balanced creation of congruence and constructive friction. Much attention is paid to stimulating the development of students' mental learning models and learning orientations. In this way, a long-lasting development resulting in a stable style of learning is strived for, a style characterized by studentinitiated use of learning functions. The principles of process-oriented teaching may be applied within a variety of learning environments, such as teacher-guided, cooperative, and self-instructional environments.

220

JAN VERMUNT AND LIEVEN VERSCHAFFEL RESEARCH ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESS-ORIENTED TEACHING PROGRAMS

Factors that hinder the implementation of process-oriented teaching in schools and universities may have to do with teachers, students, learning materials, and the school context. Teachers may have conceptions of learning and teaching that are different from the conceptions that underlie process-oriented teaching (e.g. Beijaard & De Vries, 1997). Moreover, they may lack the skills to play the different roles demanded by process-oriented teaching (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Students too may have conceptions of learning and teaching that are initially opposed to those that fit in with process-oriented teaching (Vermunt, 1996). Moreover, many learning materials have not been designed to foster process-oriented instruction and self-regulated learning. For example, printed learning materials often have a rather constant, non-adaptive way of regulating students' learning processes throughout the whole teaching/learning process. In these materials, the didactic approach to the regulation of student learning processes does not change throughout the program or textbook. Finally, the school context and culture may be obstacles to process-oriented teaching, for example, by splitting the school day into lessons of 50 minutes, using lectures to large groups of students, applying a school evaluation system that neglects process-oriented variables, etcetera (Riemersma & Veugelers, 1997). To implement process-oriented teaching successfully, these factors have to be recognized and dealt with. There have been many recent initiatives to implement process-oriented teaching principles in education. Especially in higher education, there are some nice examples of innovation programs that are process-oriented in nature. For example, Schatteman, Carette, Couder, and Eisendrath (1997) implemented process-oriented teaching in the form of interactive working groups at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Brussels, Belgium. The major goal of these interactive working groups was to promote in-depth learning by training general and specific learning skills in a content-specific context. The working groups were organized in parallel with the regular courses in physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology. The instructor interacted on a metacognitive level with the students and the method induced the active participation of the students in regulating their learning processes. Schatteman et al. compared the learning styles and exam performances of an experimental group of students, who had participated in the working groups frequently, with those of a group of students who had not participated in these working groups at all. The results showed that participation in the interactive working groups induced positive effects on learning approach and regulation, effects that induced an increase in students' performance in examinations. Lonka and Ahola (1995) conducted a longitudinal study on the effects of an educational innovation at the Department of Psychology of the University of Helsinki, Finland. The innovation had many process-oriented features (e.g., diagnosing and activating conceptions, fostering the learning process and reflective thinking, giving feedback, and challenging misconceptions), and was intended to induce the employment of deep and self-regulated learning strategies in students.


221

The authors compared the new teaching methods with more traditional courses in terms of student evaluations and exam achievements. Interestingly, their results showed that, in the beginning, this type of teaching slowed down the study pace of students, but after a while, exam results were better than those of students before the innovation had been. Probably, the attention needed in the beginning to acquire new learning strategies was paid at the expense of attention for the learning contents. After those strategies had become more automatized, the students were rapidly rewarded with qualitatively better learning processes. Volet, McGill, and Pears (1995) studied the effects on learning strategies and exam results of processoriented instructional principles built into regular university courses in computer science at Murdoch University, Australia. Their studies showed, like those of Lonka and Ahola, that the quality of university education can be improved considerably by changing to a process-oriented direction. At Tilburg University, The Netherlands, Vermunt (1995) studied the effects of a program focused on changing Psychology students' conceptions of learning in a constructive direction. The instructional program consisted of a diagnostic learning style instrument, a learning guide, and tutorials. The linking of a thorough diagnosis of students’ own learning style and their preconceptions about studying to individually tailored instructional measures, turned out to be an powerful way to activate students to reflect on their own way of learning and on alternative possibilities. Moreover, the results showed different learning effects for different types of students. Students with undirected and reproduction-directed learning styles changed their learning conceptions in a constructive direction. For students with meaning-oriented and application-directed learning styles, the program resulted in a higher degree of integration and usability of their constructive learning conceptions than before its introduction. The program also resulted in transfer effects that were reflected in higher exam scores in another course. Theophilides (1997) implemented process-oriented innovations in an introductory course on the foundations of education at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Cyprus. Through individual and group work, students had to pinpoint main ideas, compare and contrast information, draw their own conclusions, and test the validity of these conclusions. Research results showed that the course promoted deep understanding and metacognition, and that the students regarded the instructional process applied in the course positively: they liked the diversity and originality of the learning activities, endorsed participation in the instructional process, and enhanced their self-actualization feelings. In secondary education in The Netherlands, a national innovation program was started in September 1998, in which the higher classes of senior general secondary education and pre-university education were transformed into a so-called 'study house'. The underlying pedagogical-didactic ideas of this innovation are based on process-oriented principles like the ones described above. Bolhuis and Kluvers (1997) are currently conducting a research project on the way schools and teachers implement this innovation. Among other things, they are trying to find out how schools and teachers realize process-oriented teaching, and how the views of teachers on learning are related to the realization of this innovation. Riemersma and Veugelers’ (1997) research is aimed at identifying the necessary conditions for

222


successfully implementing process-oriented instruction in this ‘study house’. As a first step, they are conducting case studies of schools that are in different phases of implementing process-oriented teaching. At the elementary school level, several design experiments have recently been set up aimed at the development, implementation, and evaluation of 'powerful learning environments' for mathematical problem-solving and text comprehension in middle and upper elementary school children. These studies have convincingly shown the efficacy and practical feasibility of experimental programs based on the principles of process-oriented instruction, or of those of the related “cognitive apprenticeship” model of instruction of higher-order skills, in fostering self-regulated learning and academic learning achievement in elementary school children too. For instance, Verschaffel, De Corte, Van Vaerenbergh, Lasure, Bogaerts, and Ratinckx (1999) set up a design experiment in which an experimental program for learning how to model and solve mathematical application problems was developed and tested in four fifth-grade classes. Pupils were taught a series of cognitive strategies (heuristics) embedded in an overall metacognitive strategy for solving unfamiliar and complex mathematical application problems. The design of the experimental program was based on three pillars: (a) the use of a varied set of non-stereotyped, authentic problems; (b) the application of powerful and highly interactive instructional techniques aimed at the development of valuable (meta)cognitive skills, attitudes and beliefs (like modeling, scaffolding, coaching, fading, articulation, and reflection); and (c) the installation of a new classroom culture supporting the intended learning goals. The implementation and effectiveness of the experimental learning environment were tested in a study with a pretest-posttest-retention-test design, with an experimental group consisting of the four fifth-grade classes, and a comparable control group. The results indicated that the intervention, which took place in an ecologically valid setting, had a significant positive effect on different aspects of pupils’ mathematical disposition, such as their capacity to solve new mathematical problems, their effective use of valuable (meta)cognitive strategies, and their beliefs about, and attitudes towards, (teaching and learning) mathematical problemsolving. For similar examples of successful design experiments about fostering learning and problem-solving skills in the domain of language (text comprehension, writing...) at the elementary school level, we refer to BrandGruwel, Aarnoutse, and Van den Bos (1997), and Scardamalia and Bereiter (1985). FURTHER RESEARCH

Process-oriented teaching is a rather new form of teaching, so it is not surprising that many aspects of it have not yet been well researched. For example, how different degrees of self-regulation and external regulation of learning operate in relation to each other, and whether this happens differently in distinct types of learning environments, are important issues for further study. Future research should also be directed at the way the transfer of external to internal regulation of learning and thinking processes can be concretely realized in different types of learning environments. The power of the various process-oriented teaching


223

principles should be established in research too, as well as their optimal combination and integration. Possibly, particular instructional principles are more relevant in certain learning environments than in others. The role and possibilities of new information technologies deserve special attention in this respect. Further research is also needed on the implementation of process-oriented teaching programs, on obstacles that hinder this implementation, and on possible ways in which these obstacles can be overcome. Taking into account the nature of these obstacles, it is very important that this research is executed in ecologically valid educational settings. Last but not least, research has to be done on the nature of the new roles that are expected from teachers in process-oriented teaching, and on the way teacher education programs have to be designed and conducted to teach the necessary knowledge and skills to student teachers and experienced teachers. REFERENCES Beaty, L., Gibbs, G., & Morgan, A. (1997). Learning orientatioas and study contracts. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd edition) (pp. 72-86). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364. Beijaard, D., & De Vries, Y. (1997). Building expertise: a process perspective on the development or change of teachers’ beliefs. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 243-255. Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 30, 195-200. Bolhuis, S., & Kluvers, C. (1997, August). Learning theory: an integrative perspective as a fundament for process-based instruction. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Association of Research on Learning an Instruction (EARLI), Athens, Greece. Brand-Gruwel, S., Aarnoutse, C., Van den Bos, K. (1997). Improving text comprehension strategies in reading and listening. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63-82. Bransford, J.D., Vye, N. Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, R.E. (1990). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathantics. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, S.N. Bennett & H.F. Friedrich (Eds.J, Learning and Instruction: European research in an international context. Volume 2.2 (pp. 1-22). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Collins, A, Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction - Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Corno, L., & Snow, R.E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edition) (pp. 605-629). New York: MacMillan. De Corte, E. (1995). Fostering cognitive growth: A perspective from research on mathematics learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 37-46. De Jong, F. (1995). Process-oriented instruction: some considerations. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 317-323. Geisler-Brenstein, E., Schmeck, R.R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual difference perspective on student diversity. Higher Education, 31, 73-96. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99-136. Janssen, P.J. (1996). Studaxology: The expertise students need to be effective in higher education. Higher Education, 31, 117-141. Kember, D. (1991). Instructional design for meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 20, 289-310. Korthagen, F.A.J. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 317-326. Krause, S. (1996). Portfolios in teacher education: Effects of instruction on preservice teachers' early comprehension of the portfolio process. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 130-138.

224


Lonka, K. (1997). Explorations of constructive processes in student learning. Doctoral thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland. Lonka, K., & Ahola, K. (1995). Activating instruction - How to foster study and thinking skills in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 351-368. Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundation of instructional design. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments far constructive learning (pp. 213230). New York: Springer Verlag. Martens, R., Valcke, M., Poelmans, P., & Daal, M. (1996). Functions, use and effects of embedded support devices in printed distance learning materials. Learning and Instruction, 6, 77-93. Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300. McCombs, B.L. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 117-127. Morgan, A. (1988). Course design and students' approaches to study. In D. Sewart & J.S. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education, (pp. 315-318). Oslo: International Council for Distance Education, Oosterheert, I. (1998, August). Learning to teach: Individual differences in the process. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the EARLI-SIGs ‘Higher Education’ and ‘Teaching and Teacher Education’, Leiden, The Netherlands. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching. Volume 1 (pp. 35-67). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press. Riemersma, F., & Veugelers, W. (1997, August). Necessary conditions for implementing process-oriented instruction: six case studies. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Association of Research on Learning an Instruction (EARLI), Athens, Greece. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edition) (pp. 376-391). New York: MacMillan. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283. Schatteman, A., Carette, E., Couder, J., & Eisendrath, H. (1997). Understanding the effects of a processoriented instruction in the first year of university by investigating learning style characteristics. Educational Psychology, 17, 111-125. Short, E.J., & Weisberg-Benchell, J.A. (1989). The triple alliance for learning: Cognition, metacognition, and motivation. In C.B. McCormick, G.E. Miller & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 33-63). New York: Springer. Shuell, T.J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 726-764). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Simons, P.R.J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 291-314). New York: Springer. Simons, P.R.J. (1997). From romanticism to practice in learning. Lifelong learning in Europe, 1, 8-15. Theophilides, C. (1997, August). Freshmen students’ reactions to constructivist approaches to learning and to process-oriented instruction. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Association of Research on Learning an Instruction (EARLI), Athens, Greece. Van Berkel, H.J.M., Nuy, H.J.P., & Geerligs, T. (1995). The influence of progress tests and block tests on study behavior. Instructional Science, 22, 317-333. Vermetten, Y.J., Vermunt, J.D., & Lodewijks, H.G. (1999). A longitudinal perspective on learning strategies in higher education - Different viewpoints towards development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 221-242. Vermunt, J.D. (1995). Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 325-349. Vermunt, J.D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25-50. Vermunt, J.D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171. Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.


225

Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Lasure, S., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Learning to solve mathematical application problems. A design experiment with fifth graders. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1 (3), 195-229. Volet, S.E. (1991). Modeling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university students' learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319-336. Volet, S., McGill, T., & Pears, H. (1995). Implementing process-based instruction in regular university teaching: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 385-400. Wagner, E.D., & McCombs, B.L. (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(3), 32-35.

AFFILIATIONS

Jan Vermunt, Maastricht University, Department of Educational Development and Research, Universiteitssingel 50, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected].

Lieven Verschaffel, University of Leuven, Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, Vesaliusstraat 2, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: Lieven. Verschaffel@ped. kuleuven. ac. be


MIEKE BREKELMANS, PETER SLEEGERS AND BARRY FRASER

12. TEACHING FOR ACTIVE LEARNING

INTRODUCTION In the previous chapters new kinds of learning processes were described and analyzed. Greater emphasis on new learning asks for new forms of teaching. This chapter focuses on teaching for active learning. The authors start with a description of two different perspectives that can be used to study teaching: the interpersonal perspective, describing teaching in terms of the relationship between the teacher and his or her pupils and the learning activities perspective, focusing on the way the teacher elicits learning activities with pupils. Taking these two perspectives on teaching as a frame of reference, the authors take a closer look at teaching for active learning. In the second part of the chapter, the relation between the two perspectives on teaching for active learning as hypothesized by the authors is empirically verified. The chapter ends with consequences for classroom practice. Some practical possibilities for teachers to promote active learning are described. A MULTI-PERSPECTIVE VIEW ON TEACHING The typical classroom consists of a teacher and 20 to 30 pupils working together in a relatively small room. In such an environment it is inevitable that the individuals involved and what they learn are influenced by a variety of (interpersonal, emotional, cultural) factors in addition to the cognitive factors associated with classroom learning (e.g. Shuell, 1996). In this context, the teacher is one of the elements contributing to the opportunities for pupils to learn. Studying the role of the teacher in this multi-factor classroom environment implies a multi-faceted conception of teaching. Consider a classroom where a teacher is lecturing during the whole of the lesson. One can analyze whether or not the content he or she presents is correct from the point of view of the structure of the subject matter: what content is selected by the teacher, what concepts are being used. One can also study the effects of the behavior of the teacher on the relationship with his or her pupils: are the pupils impressed by this teacher, do they see him or her as someone that really understands their problems? It can also be analyzed what type of learning activities this teacher is eliciting: do pupils have to rehearse information or do they have to organize characteristics or objects? Or one can focus on the values that are communicated by the teacher: for instance, does his or her behavior shows respect for differing opinions? 227

R. J. Simons et al. (eds.). New Learning, 227-242. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

228

MIEKE BREKELMANS, PETER SLEEGERS, BARRY FRASER

The example illustrates different facets of teaching that operate simultaneously (e.g. Doyle, 1986). We think it is important to study these facets both separately and in their interconnections. For that we use multiple perspectives, each focusing on different facets of the behavior of the teacher. In most studies behavior of teachers is studied from only one perspective. Studying teaching from more than one perspective makes it possible to analyze the complementary contribution of each perspective to the understanding of teaching. Besides, it enables us to use various theories to describe and study the different functions of teaching. The different perspectives that can be used to study teaching are connected to different competency areas of teachers. Important perspectives are: a subjectspecific perspective that analyses teaching from the specific situation of the subject matter, a learning activities perspective that describes teaching in terms of the way the teacher elicits learning activities with pupils, an interpersonal perspective that describes teaching in terms of the relationship between teacher and pupils, a moral perspective describing teaching in terms of the values a teacher is communicating to pupils, and an organizational perspective focusing on the teacher as a member of the school organization. In this chapter the focus is on two perspectives, an interpersonal and a learning activities perspective. A learning activities perspective is dominant in recent literature on active learning. The importance of an interpersonal perspective in analyzing teaching and explaining differences in cognitive and affective outcomes was demonstrated in several empirical studies (e.g. Brekelmans, 1989; Van Amelsvoort, Bergen, Lamberigts and Setz 1993; Wubbels and Levy, 1993). We will use both perspectives to gain a deeper insight into the main principles of teaching that promotes active learning of pupils. We start with a more detailed description of both perspectives. AN INTERPERSONAL PERSPECTIVE ON TEACHING

An interpersonal perspective on teaching describes teaching in terms of the relationship between teacher and pupils. In our conceptualization of the interpersonal perspective on teaching some concepts of the so-called systems approach to communication (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967) are important. In line with the systems approach to communication we conceive classroom groups as ongoing systems. For ongoing systems a certain stability is important1 for their continued existence. When pupils meet a teacher in a new class, they will be relatively open to any impression the teacher can make. Relatively because the context of the classroom will raise certain (stereotypical) expectations for the role of the teacher. After the first lesson the pupils will have tentative ideas about the pattern of relationship with this particular teacher, based on experiences during the first lesson. The second lesson the teacher may behave differently and pupils may consequently adjust their ideas about the teacher. After a few lessons in a new class tentative ideas about the teacher will have stabilized and pupils can tell what kind of teacher someone “is”.

TEACHING FOR ACTIVE LEARNING

229

This stability of perceptions equally applies to the teacher’s ideas about the pupils. The first day (see also Brooks, 1985) or few lessons set the tone for the rest of the year. Once the tone is set, it is difficult to modify. Both pupils and teachers resist against changes (see also Blumenfeld and Meece, 1985; Doyle, 1983). To describe these kinds of processes, the systems approach to communication distinguishes different levels of communication. The lowest level consists of messages, one question, assignment, response, gesture, etc. The intermediate level is that of interactions, chains of several messages. When the interactions show recurrent patterns and some form of regularity one has arrived at the pattern level. It is this pattern level that is important in describing the rather stable interpersonal relationships that determine the working atmosphere of classrooms. In the systems approach to communication the focus is on the effect of communication on the persons involved (pragmatic aspect). This pragmatic orientation shows up in our conceptualization of the interpersonal perspective in the importance of the perception of pupils of the behavior of their teacher2.

To be able to describe the perceptions pupils have of the behavior of their teacher, Wubbels, Créton and Hooymayers (1985, see Wubbels and Levy, 1993) developed a model. They applied a general model for interpersonal relationships designed by Leary (1957) to the context of education. The Leary model has been extensively investigated in clinical psychology and psychotherapeutic settings (Strack, 1996). It has proven to be a rather complete model to describe interpersonal relationships (see e.g. Foa, 1961; Lonner 1980). In the Leary model, two dimensions are important. Leary called them the Dominance-Submission axis and the Hostility-

230


Affection axis. While the two dimensions have occasionally been given other names - Brown (1965) used Status and Solidarity, Dunkin and Biddle (1974) used Warmth and Directivity - they have generally been accepted as universal descriptors of human interaction. The two dimensions have also been easily transferred to education. Slater (1962) used them to describe pedagogical relationships, and Dunkin and Biddle (1974) demonstrated their importance in teachers’ efforts to influence classroom events. Adapting the Leary Model to the context of education, Wubbels et al. used the two dimensions, which they called Influence (Dominance-Submission) and Proximity (Opposition-Cooperation) to structure the perception of leadership, helpful/friendly behavior, understanding behavior, giving pupils freedom and responsibility, uncertain, dissatisfied, admonishing and strict behavior. Figure 1 shows a graphic representation of the model of Wubbels et al., the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior. The sections are labeled DC, CD, etc. according to their position in the co-ordinate system (much like the directions in a compass). For example, the two sectors “leadership” and “helpful/friendly” are both characterized by Dominance and Cooperation. In the DC sector, the Dominance aspect prevails over the Cooperation aspect. A teacher displaying DC behavior might be seen by pupils as enthusiastic, motivating, and the like. The adjacent CD sector, however, includes behaviors of a more cooperative and less dominant type; the teacher might be seen as helpful, friendly, considerate. The model can be used to describe teaching at the message, interaction and pattern level. When describing patterns in interpersonal relationships in classrooms, eight different types of relatively stable patterns could be distinguished in both Dutch and American classes (Brekelmans, 1989; Brekelmans, Levy and Rodriguez, 1993), named Directive, Authoritative, Tolerant and Authoritative, Tolerant, Uncertain/Tolerant, Uncertain/Aggressive, Drudging, and Repressive. These patterns can be characterized in terms of the two dimensions in the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior. In Figure 2 we summarize each of the eight types by means of a main point indicated by the first letters of their names in the co-ordinate system of the two dimensions. The Authoritative, the Tolerant and Authoritative and the Tolerant type are patterns in which pupils perceive their teachers relatively high on the Proximity Dimension, with the Tolerant type lowest on the Influence Dimension. Less cooperative than the three previous types are the Directive type, the Uncertain/Tolerant and the Drudging type, with the Uncertain/Tolerant type lowest on the Dominance Dimension. The least cooperative pattern of interpersonal relationships have Repressive and Uncertain/Aggressive type classes. In Repressive type classes, teachers are the most dominant of all eight types. In Figure 3 some of the types are also characterized by means of graphic representations using the eight sections of the Model of Interpersonal Teacher Behavior. The greater the shaded part in each section the more the pattern of interpersonal relationships is characterized by this sector (see Figure 1).


231

A LEARNING ACTIVITIES PERSPECTIVE ON TEACHING

Following a constructivist approach to learning, we assume that the learner is the constructor of his or her knowledge and that nobody else can do this. This assumption is confirmed by research into learning, which has shown that the

232


acquisition of knowledge and skills is an effect of mental activities of the learner rather than the result of a direct transmission of the learning material (Brown, 1987; Shuell, 1988; Wang, Haertel and Wahlberg, 1993). In such an approach, learning can be conceived of as the performance of learning activities by the pupils (e.g. Boekaerts and Simons, 1993; Shuell, 1993, 1996). Our conceptualization of the learning activities perspective on teaching is inspired by this recent shift in psychological thinking on learning and instruction. Starting from this approach teaching can be conceptualized as the way the teacher elicits learning activities with pupils. We use two central dimensions: the type of learning activities that is elicited, and the degree to which the teacher delegates the elicitation of learning activities to pupils (e.g. Den Brok, Brekelmans and Wubbels, 1997). To analyze the type of learning activities elicited, we follow a/o Boekaerts and Simons (1993), Oxford (1990), Vermunt (1995), Weinstein and Mayer (1986), and make a distinction between three types: cognitive, affective and regulative learning activities. The distinction of these types of learning activities is based on information processing models (Marshall, 1989; Wenden, 1991), but can also be found in literature on learning actions (Haenen, 1996) and learning styles theories (Vermunt, 1995). Cognitive activities are directed at the processing of information and include activities such as rehearsing, retrieving, organizing, elaborating, concretizing and applying information. Regulative activities are directed at managing the cognitive activities and include orientating or planning, monitoring, adjusting and evaluating. Affective activities deal with the processing of emotions and include maintaining concentration and motivation, and developing attitudes (Den Brok, Wubbels and Brekelmans, 1997; Oxford, 1990). Learning activities can be elicited mainly by teachers, teachers and pupils together and mainly by pupils themselves. In this context, a useful distinction is made by Simons and De Jong (1992) who distinguish three ways in which instructional systems can have an influence on the learning functions or learning activities3: taking over, activating and stimulating. “Taking over” refers to an instructional system in which the teacher initiates and fills in the learning activities of pupils. “Activating” refers to an instructional system in which pupils are forced to use certain learning activities in a specified way. Pupils must perform the assigned learning activities, for instance making a scheme of the concepts discussed in a text-book. “Stimulating” refers to an instructional system in which pupils are stimulated to perform certain activities. It concerns either general advice to execute certain learning activities and leave out some other, or training pupils to perform the learning activities. According to Simons and De Jong (1992), this latter instructional system is only successful when pupils are able to fulfil several of the necessary learning activities on their own. The distinction between these instructional systems can easily be integrated into our learning activities perspective on teaching. Because the three different instructional systems differ in the extent to which teachers enlarge the opportunities for pupils to choose and to perform learning activities themselves, they differ in the degree to which the teacher delegates the elicitation of learning activities to pupils.


233

In the taking-over instructional system pupils have little opportunity to make their own choices and are not challenged to perform learning activities themselves. The degree to which teachers delegate elicitation of learning activities to pupils is very small. In the activating instructional system pupils are forced to perform learning activities as assigned by the teacher. This means that teachers and pupils share control of the learning process. Vermunt (1992) uses the term partial steering which reflects that pupils have a part in initiating and performing of the learning activities (see also Lodewijks, 1996; Simons, 1996; Van Amelsvoort, Bergen, Lamberigts and Setz, 1993). So, activating enlarges the opportunities for pupils to choose and to perform certain (types of) learning activities themselves. In this instructional system, the teacher delegates the elicitation of certain learning activities more explicitly than in the taking-over system. In the case of stimulation, the learning activities are chosen and performed by the learner as much as possible. The role of the teacher is to train pupils to perform certain (cognitive, regulative, affective) activities when they are not able to perform them on their own and to advise them when performing the learning activities themselves. As a consequence, pupils can set more goals of their own, their performance of learning activities will be more learner-intended and pupils can gradually take more responsibility for their own learning process (‘shifting control’). So, in this instructional system the elicitation of learning activities by the teacher is reduced a lot, enlarging the opportunity for pupils to perform and to choose learning activities themselves as much as possible. This distinction between three different instructional systems, corresponds with the specific principles which are in operation during the second phase of processoriented teaching (teaching learning functions) as described by Vermunt and Verschaffel in their contribution for this book (see chapter 11). Going from a taking over to a stimulating instructional system pupils are more actively involved in their learning process. Taking as a frame of reference the interpersonal and learning activities perspective on teaching described above, we will take a closer look to teaching for active learning. A MULTI-PERSPECTIVE VIEW ON TEACHING FOR ACTIVE LEARNING

In this section we will analyze from both a learning activities and an interpersonal perspective how teachers can promote active learning of pupils. Activating instruction: one way to conceptualize teaching for active learning

The recent shift in thinking on learning and instruction, as described above, has important implications for teaching and the role of the teacher. Teaching is now viewed more as a task of orchestrating a complex environment of learners and activities rather than an assembly line in which knowledge is transferred (disseminated) from someone who knows (the teacher) to individuals who don’t (the students) by means of a monologue (teaching by telling) (Shuell, 1996, 743).

The teacher is supposed to become more a facilitator, creating rich learning environments for pupils, rather than being merely the deliverer of knowledge (see

234


also Vermunt & Verschaffel, in chapter 11). New psychological theories about learning and instruction stress the need for alternatives to traditional conceptions of teaching (direct instruction, teaching by telling). Acknowledging that teaching, by its very nature, involves some sort of intervention, more emphasis need to be placed on instructional variables and teacher behaviors that influence learning activities or learning functions (Shuell, 1996). Because of the dominance of traditional direct teaching in daily practice in secondary schools in the Netherlands, teachers have to change their behaviors in a very fundamental way to promote active learning. This change can be described in terms of a shift from a more teacher-centered approach into a more pupil-centered approach. In this context, the concept of activating instruction is one useful way to conceptualize teaching for active learning. Starting from the learning activities perspective on teaching, we conceptualized teaching as the way the teacher elicits learning activities with pupils. Following Simons and De Jong (1992) we distinguished three instructional systems which differ in the degree to which the teacher delegates the elicitation of learning activities to pupils. Going from taking-over, through activating to stimulating, there is a growing degree to which teachers delegate the elicitation of learning activities to pupils. The distinction between these instructional systems and the notion of delegation of learning activities are useful analytic tools for relating learning theory to instructional practices and teacher behaviors. The stimulating instructional system is most consistent with current psychological theories of learning and teaching. This instructional system corresponds with the more discovery-guided view on teaching. It is an instructional system in which the intervention of the teacher is kept to a minimum and in which the degree of eliciting the learning activities by the teacher is reduced a lot. The taking-over instructional system is the opposite of the stimulating system and can be compared with the teacher-centered (traditional) view on teaching. The activating instructional system lies somewhere in between the other two instructional systems or views on teaching. During activating instruction, teacher and pupils share control over the learning. Activating instruction concerns an intermediate instructional system that can be placed in the middle of the dimension as distinguished by Shuell (1996) that runs from a teacher-centered (traditional, direct instruction) view on teaching on the one hand to a more pupil-centered (guideddiscovery) conception of teaching on the other hand. Activating instruction integrates elements of traditional and new views on teaching. (Derksen, Engelen, Sleegers, Bergen and Imants, 1999). Given the fact that in every day practice, traditional direct teaching is still dominant, activating instruction can be a useful concept to help teachers to develop their actual teaching behaviors towards more stimulating instruction. Interpersonal perspective

In answering the question which pattern of interpersonal relationships facilitates an activating instructional system we think the following considerations to be important: In situations in which learning activities of pupils are activated, they have (to learn)


235

to make more choices by themselves. This requires a learning environment where pupils feel safe to experiment with new tasks and activities. A teacher who is perceived by pupils as a person who understands them and is willing to help, can contribute to this learning environment. As to the pattern of interpersonal relationships this corresponds with a high score on the Proximity Dimension. As to the consequences for the Influence dimension we think the kind of social systems that our present educational context creates is very important. Pupils usually learn in a classroom together with 20 to 30 other pupils and a teacher. Which pattern of interpersonal relationships is most adequate is mainly determined by this specific kind of organization of our current schools and factors as the (expected) role of the teacher (as the person in charge) and the age of the pupils. So we expect relationship patterns where pupils perceive their teachers relatively high on the Influence Dimension to be most adequate. Looking at the eight types of relationship patterns we expect that the Tolerant and Authoritative type will be most adequate for active learning. This pattern is highest on the Proximity Dimension and relatively high on the Influence Dimension (see Figure 2). Tolerant and Authoritative teachers take a personal interest in pupils. They maintain a structure supporting responsibility and freedom for pupils, but also being well-structured and task-oriented. Rules and procedures are clear and pupils don’t need to be reminded (Brekelmans, Levy and Rodriguez, 1993). We expect the Uncertain/Aggressive type to be the least adequate type for active learning. This interpersonal pattern is lowest on the Proximity and relatively low on the Influence Dimension (see Figure 2). Classes with this interpersonal pattern are characterized by an aggressive kind of disorder. Teacher and pupils regard each other as opponents and spend almost all their time in symmetrically escalating conflicts. Students seize nearly every opportunity to be disruptive, and continually provoke the teacher by jumping up, laughing and shouting out. This generally brings a panicked over-reaction from the teacher which is met by even greater misbehavior of pupils, because s/he often manages to miss the real culprits. Rules of behavior aren't communicated or explained properly (Brekelmans, Levy and Rodriguez, 1993). For the importance of both Proximity and Influence dimension in establishing an adequate learning environment there is some support from empirical research. When asking a large group of teachers from all kinds of schools in the Netherlands, with all kinds of different curricula what their perception is of the ideal interpersonal relationships pattern, more than 90% of the teachers comes up with the Tolerant and Authoritative pattern (75%) or the Authoritative pattern (23%). Pupils agree with the ideal patterns of teachers, when asked to give a description of the interpersonal relationship pattern in classes of their best teachers (Brekelmans and Wubbels, 1994; see also Levy, Créton and Wubbels, 1993). In a study investigating the relation between interpersonal relationships in classes and achievement and attitudes of pupils, classes with teachers perceived as relatively dominant had highest scores on pupils’ achievement tests, while classes where teachers were perceived as relatively cooperative had pupils with the highest scores on a test measuring pupils’ attitudes towards the subject taught (Brekelmans, 1989; Brekelmans, Wubbels and Levy, 1993). The sample included classes with

236


both an experimental and a more traditional curriculum. A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTIVATING INSTRUCTION AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS Most literature on active learning analyses teaching only from a learning activities perspective. There are not many studies using other perspectives (e.g. Den Brok, Brekelmans and Wubbels 1997). In a study by Van Amelsvoort, Bergen Lamberigts and Setz (1993) data were gathered on teaching from both an interpersonal and a learning activities perspective. We used these data to empirically analyze the relationship between activating instruction and interpersonal relationships. Research question In our considerations on the consequences for active learning, we hypothesized that more activating instruction will go together with interpersonal patterns with higher scores on both Proximity and Influence dimensions. We expected that a Tolerant and Authoritative interpersonal pattern would be the most adequate for activating instruction, an Uncertain/Tolerant the most inadequate. Instrumentation To gather data on teaching from an interpersonal perspective a questionnaire was used based on the Model of Interpersonal Teacher Behavior (Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction, QTI). The Dutch version4 of the QTI used in the study consists of 48 items5 which are answered on a five-point Likert scale. These items are divided into eight scales conforming to the eight sectors of the model. Table 1 presents a typical item for each sector scale and the number of items in each scale.

The QTI was administered to pupils and scale scores of pupils from the same class were combined to a class mean. Several studies have been conducted on the


237

reliability and validity of the QTI. They have included Dutch (e.g. Brekelmans, 1989; Brekelmans, Wubbels and Créton, 1990; Créton and Wubbels, 1984; Wubbels, Brekelmans and Hermans, 1987; Wubbels, Créton and Hooymayers, 1985), American (Wubbels and Levy, 1991) and Australian (Fisher, Fraser and Wubbels, 1992) samples. The internal consistencies of each of the eight groups of items (Cronbachs class level) are generally above 0.80. In this study (48 item version) Cronbachs varied from 0.79 to 0.95. To examine the validity of the QTI structural analyses were conducted on correlations between scales. The Leary model requires the eight scales to be arranged in a circular order in the two dimensional coordinate system. In terms of correlations between scales, this means that each scale should correlate highest with the scale next to it. As you move away from a scale the correlations should become lower until they reach the lowest point (highest negative). Apart from minor irregularities this requirement was met throughout several studies (Créton and Wubbels, 1984). Factor analysis on class means and LISREL analyses (Brekelmans, 1989; Wubbels, Créton, Brekelmans and Hooymayers, 1987) confirmed the two factor structure. Similar results were obtained for the American version (Wubbels and Levy, 1991). Figure 4 presents the theoretical expected arrangement of scales and the factor analyses results for Dutch and American data.

In the study we analyzed the interpersonal relationship patterns on the basis of dimension scores. To summarize the scale scores by means of dimension scores we used linear combinations of the scale scores. We designated the two linear combinations of the eight scores as an Influence (DS)-score and a Proximity (CO)score. The higher these scores, the more dominance (DS) or cooperation (CO) is perceived in the relationship between teacher and pupils. We also assigned each class to one of the eight interpersonal patterns of our typology (IPRtype). To gather data on teaching from a learning activities perspective, we used

238


pupils’ perceptions of activating instruction in their learning environment. We selected 10 items of the Questionnaire on Instructional Behavior (QIB) (Derksen et al., 1999) These 10 items refer to different aspects of activating instruction like for example teacher behavior that involves pupils more strongly into the lesson, that forces pupils to perform reflective learning activities, that arranges working with other pupils. Pupils were asked to rate the frequency (five point Likert scale) of these aspects of activating instruction. To get an indication of the degree of activating instruction in classes we combined pupils scores (sum of the 10 items) to class means (AI). The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.92 (Cronbachs alpha, class level) Sample

Data were collected in 69 classes of 69 secondary schoolteachers from 20 Dutch schools, in four different subject areas. 1816 first-, second- and third-form pupils participated in the study.

Results

To analyze the relation between activating instruction (AI) and the patterns of interpersonal relationships, we compared the AI-means of the eight types of patterns by means of an analysis of variance. The results are in Table 2.

The results of Table 2 show a significant relation between degree of activating instruction and the type of relationship between teacher and pupils. Activating instruction is highest for classes with a Tolerant and Authoritative pattern and lowest for the Uncertain/Aggressive pattern. Effect sizes are large (Cohen 1988). Classes with a Tolerant and Authoritative pattern have activating instructionscores that are 0.7 standard deviations higher than those of classes with an


239

Authoritative pattern and more than 3 standard deviations higher than the pattern where the degree of activating instruction is the lowest. The (linear) relation between the learning activities and the interpersonal perspective is also analyzed by computing the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between the AI-scores and the Influence (DS-)and Proximity (CO-) Dimension-scores. The correlations were both strong (Cohen 1988), 0.77 for the Proximity dimension and 0.58 for the Influence Dimension. Both dimension scores together explain 69% of the variances in the activating instruction-scores. The results of the analyses support our expectations. It seems that activating instruction goes hand in hand with establishing a classroom-atmosphere in which pupils perceive their teachers as cooperative, coupled with a sufficient degree of dominance. CONSEQUENCES FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

What are consequences for classroom practice when teachers want to enhance activating instruction? In present Dutch classroom practice an instructional system where learning activities are often taken over by the teacher is still prominent. This very 'controlled' (no delegation, teacher-initiated) way of teaching is often the result and consequence of a vicious circle. Teachers want to activate their pupils and want to give them responsibility for performing certain learning activities independently. What happens in many instructional settings, however, is that teachers notice that pupils do not respond in the way they intended. As a consequence, they feel obliged to take over learning activities and perform them as instructional activities themselves, because they observe that pupils are not able to perform (relevant) learning activities when activated. Because of this, pupils don’t get much opportunity to perform and choose learning activities themselves. What can be done? To promote active instruction the teacher starting from a more direct teaching situation has to introduce a series of instructional activities in a step by step manner. In general it is important that the teacher provides a clear structure, makes sure that there is enough time for practice, gives a summary of the most important subject-matter at the end of the lesson, and pays attention to the homework assignment. He can tell the pupils how much time they should spend on their homework, what he expects them to do (read, understand, memorize), how they can tackle a problem, and how they can plan their homework. When both cognitive, affective and regulative functions have been trained, pupils gradually can perform more learning activities themselves, get more choices, can set more goals of their own and their performance of activities can be more learner-intended. The results of our study suggest that teachers who want to realize a more activating instructional system should create a learning environment where pupils feel safe to experiment with new tasks and activities, coupled with a sufficient degree of dominance. To establish this classroom atmosphere it is important to realize that, although a Tolerant and Authoritative atmosphere is probably best for all kinds of learning processes in classrooms, it has to be established differently

240


when teachers are involved in direct teaching practice when in a more active learning practice. To establish a certain classroom atmosphere whole class teaching moments where the teacher is in front of the class are especially important. At these moments, a working atmosphere is created that lasts the whole of the lesson and beyond (Van Tartwijk, Brekelmans, Wubbels, Fisher and Fraser, 1998). An activating instructional system implies a much more decentralized position for teachers in classrooms. So it will become more important for teachers to choose the right moments to put themselves on stage in front of the classroom. At those moments they have to show behavior that not only is perceived as dominant by the pupils, but most certainly as cooperative. It is important that teachers systematically look and walk about the classrooms, that they are aware of what happens in class (‘withitness’, Kounin, 1970) and can choose the right moment to interfere. It is crucial that the teacher does not disrupt the working process. If the teacher wants to say something to the whole class, s/he has to announce this explicitly. In research on the importance of non-verbal behavior of teachers for interpersonal relationships in classrooms (Van Tartwijk 1993; Van Tartwijk, Brekelmans and Wubbels, 1993), it was found that behavior such as looking at pupils continuously and speaking out loudly and emphatically, are related to a relatively strong dominance perception of interpersonal messages. Important in creating a cooperative atmosphere is for example that the teacher listens to the pupils, waits after posing an open-ended question. Pupils then feel that the teacher is taking them seriously and that they are involved in the classroom process. REFERENCES Amelsvoort, J. van, Bergen, Th., Lamberigts, R., & Setz, W. (1993). De invloed van de kwaliteit van instructie op de motivationele oriëntatie en de schoolcarrière van leerlingen - deelrapport 1: docentgedrag, leerlingmotivatie en schoolprestaties. [The influence of the quality of instruction on the motivational orientation and school career of pupils.] Nijmegen: VON/ITS. Blumenfeld, P. C & Meece, J. L (1985). Life in classrooms revisited. Theory into Practice, 24, 50-56 Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P. R. J. (1993). De psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces. [The psychology of the pupil and the learning process.] Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt. Brekelmans, M. (1989). Interpersoonlijk gedrag van docenten in de klas. [Interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom.] Utrecht: W.C.C. Brekelmans, J. M. G., Wubbels, Th., & Créton, H. A. (1990). A study of students perceptions of Physics Teachers behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 335-350. Brekelmans, M., Levy, J. & Rodriguez, R. (1993). A typology of teacher communication style. In Th. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? (pp. 46-55). London: The Falmer Press. Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (1993). Student performance, attitudes, instructional strategies and teacher communication style. In Th. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? (pp. 56-63). London: The Falmer Press. Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, Th. (1994). Veranderingen in het interpersoonlijk gedrag van docenten gedurende hun beroepsloopbaan [Changes in the interpersonal behaviour of teachers during their teaching career]. Pedagogische Studiën, 71, 242-255. Brok, P. J. den, Brekelmans, J. M. G. & Wubbels, Th. (1997, august). Studying teacher behaviour from multiple viewpoints. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece. Brooks, D. M. (1985). The teachers communicative competence: the first day of school. Theory into Practice, 24, 63-70. Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. London: Collier-McMillan. Brown, A. L. (1987). Self-regulation and other mysterious mechanisms. In F.Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.) Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.


241

Créton, H., & Wubbels, Th. (1984). Ordeproblemen bij beginnende leraren. [Problems of classroom discipline with beginning teachers.] Utrecht: W.C.C. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hildsdale: Erlbaum. Derksen, K., Engelen A., Sleegers, P. , Bergen, Th., & Imants, J. (1999, april). The effects of a coaching programme to promote activating instruction. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Association of Educational Research, Montreal, Canada. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic Work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 51-62. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (third edition) (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan. Dunkin M. & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Fisher, D., Fraser, B. & Wubbels, Th. (1992). Teacher Communication Style and School Environment. In Tj. Plomp, J. M. Pieters & A. Feteris (Eds.), European Conference on Educational Research (p. 936). Enschede: University of Twente Foa, U.G. (1961). Convergence in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior. Psychological Review, 68, 341-353. Haenen, J. (1996). Piotr Gal’perin: psychologist in Vygotsky’s footsteps. New York: Nova Sciences Publishers, Inc. Kounin, J.S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: The Ronald Press Company. Levy, J., Créton, H. A., & Wubbels, Th. (1993). Perceptions of interpersonal teacher behavior. In Th. Wubbels, & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? (pp. 29-45). London: Falmer Press. Lodewijks, H. (1993). De kick van het kunnen, over arrangement en engagement bij het leren. [ The kick to learn, about arangement and commitment to learn]. Tilburg: OKZ Lonner, W.J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In H.C. Triandis & W.W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology (vol.1) (pp. 143-204). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Marshall, S. P. (1989). Affect in schema knowledge: source and impact. In: D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.): Affect and mathematical problem solving: a new perspective. New York: Springer Verlag, 4958. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc. Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 276-295. Shuell, T. J. (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist,28, 291-311. Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-763). New York: Macmillan. Simons, P. R. J. (1988). Leren doen ze zelf [Learning is something they have to do on their own]. In L.W.F. de Klerk, P.R.J. Simons, & J.G.G. Zuylen (Eds.), Huiswerkbeleid van scholen [Homework olicy of schools]. Heerlen: Mesoconsult Simons P. R. J., & Jong, F. P. C. M. de. (1992). Self-regulation and computer-aided instruction. Applied Psychology: an international review, 41, 336-346. Slater, P.E. (1962). Parental behavior and the personality of the child. Journal of Genetical Psychology, 101, 53-68. Strack, S. (1996). Special series: Interpersonal theory and the interpersonal circumplex: Timothy Leary’s Legacy, Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 211-307. Tartwijk, J. van. (1993). Docentgedrag in beeld: de interpersoonlijke betekenis van nonverbaal gedrag van docenten in de klas. [Sketches of teacher behavior: the interpersonal meaning of non-verbal teacher behaviour in the classroom.] Utrecht: W.C.C. Tartwijk, J. van, Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, Th. (1993, november). Differences in the molecular behaviour of student-teachers and more experienced teachers. Paper presented at the Australian Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Fremantle, Australia Tartwijk, J. van, Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, Th., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal style: The front of the classroom as the teacher’s stage. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 607-617. Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs: naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken. [Learning styles and the steering of learning processes in Higher Education: towards process-directed instruction in independent thinking.] Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger BV.

242


Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1995). Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 325-349. Vermunt, J.D., & Verschaffel, L. (1999). Process-oriented teaching. In P.R.J. Simons, J.L. van der Linden & T. Duffy (Eds.) New Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wang, M. C., Haertel G. D. & Wahlberg, H. J. (1993), Toward a knowledge base for school-learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (third edition) (pp.315-327). New York: Macmillan. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall. Wubbels, Th., Créton, H. A. & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985). Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behavior mapped out. Paper presented at the AERA Annual meeting, Chicago. Abstracted in: Resources in Education, 20, 12, p.153, ERIC document 260040. Wubbels, Th., Brekelmans, J. M. G., & Hermans, J. J. (1987). Teacher behavior, an important aspect of the learning environment? In B.J.Fraser (Ed.), The Study of Learning Environments, 3 (pp. 10-25). Perth: Curtin University. Wubbels, Th., Créton, H., Brekelmans, J. M. G., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1987). De perceptie van de leraarleerlingrelatie; constructie en kenmerken van een instrument. [The perception of the teacher-pupil relationship; construction and characteristics of an instrument] Tijdschrtft voor Onderwijsresearch, 12, 3-16. Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 1-18. Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (Eds.), (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London: The Falmer Press.

AFFILIATIONS

Mieke Brekelmans, Utrecht University, IVLOS, Institute of Education, P. O. Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Peter Sleegers, University of Nijmegen, Department of Education, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Barry Fraser, Curtin University of Technology, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, G.P.O.Box U1987, Perth Western Australia 6845, Australia. Email: B. Fraser@smec. curtin. edu.au

FRED KORTHAGEN, CEES KLAASSEN AND TOM RUSSELL

13. NEW LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

The concept of new learning, central to this book, creates the need to prepare teachers for a changing role. Compared to one or two decades ago, teaching is becoming a different profession. Many practitioners working in education have not been prepared for their present role during their preservice teacher education. As a consequence, the change from the traditional view of the teacher as a transmitter of knowledge towards a view of the teacher as a facilitator of learning and a coach or guide demands inservice programs for teachers and new approaches to preservice teacher education. It is not sufficient to ‘show and tell’ teachers how to deal with new conceptions of learning and teaching. “Teachers teach as they are taught” (Blume, 1971), so if we wish to introduce the idea of new learning into the schools, we should begin by introducing new ways of learning into teacher education itself. This is the principle of congruency, requiring a translation of the ideas developed in the previous chapters to the work of teacher educators. (Compare Richardson, 1997, pp. 10-11, who discusses the same idea in the context of what she calls constructivist teacher education). In the present chapter we focus on the shift to the level of teacher education, elaborating the notion of new learning from three perspectives. First we look at teacher education from a cognitive-psychological, and second, from a social-pedagogical viewpoint. Finally we look at the necessity of an education for teacher educators themselves. A COGNITIVE-PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

In this section, we take a cognitive-psychological stance. We first analyze a concrete example of new learning, viz. one that has been developed in mathematics education. Building on this analysis we consider the consequences for learning and teaching processes in teacher education. New learning in mathematics education

One of the most impressive recent developments in education has been the introduction of so-called 'realistic mathematics education' (Freudenthal, 1991). It can be characterized by a complete break with the traditional approach, which goes from mathematical 'theory' (principles, rules, theorems) to 'practice'. The Dutch 243


244


mathematician and mathematics educationalist Hans Freudenthal analyzed the transfer problem in mathematics education and pointed out how it was created by the traditional didactic approach. Moreover, he stressed that the traditional approach contradicted the essential nature of mathematics. In his view, mathematics is not "a created subject" to be transferred to children, but "a subject to be created". In his line of thinking, mathematics becomes, or rather has always been, a human activity, based in the reality of the world around us. (This is why he called the approach "realistic".) Activity leads to consciousness of structures underlying the problems at hand. These structures, constructed by the learner, represent his or her idiosyncratic way of making meaning out of a problem situation. This means that these cognitive structures are closely connected to the way the learner will deal with similar problem situations in the future. An important starting point in the realistic approach is the assumption that students can and should themselves develop mathematical notions on the basis of practical experiences and problems. Problems are presented within a context recognizable for children, and are often taken from everyday situations. Emphasis is put on the practical use of mathematics, inquiry and reflection, group work and hands-on activities. Freudenthal characterizes the resulting teaching and learning process as one of guided reinvention. To put it in starkest terms, the realistic approach goes from practice to theory. An interesting aspect is that the gap between theory and practice disappears, although it is better to say that it is not created by the educational process itself, as is the case in the traditional approach. We turn now to the question of what we can learn from this development in mathematics education for teacher education. Learning and teaching in teacher education

During the twentieth century, teacher education gradually developed into an enterprise in which experts in certain scientific fields, preferably working within universities, teach scientific theories to teachers. The rationale behind this approach is clear and obvious: there is a large amount of empirical knowledge about teaching and learning that could inform the practitioner. The idea seems to have been that by teaching such knowledge to teachers, they would be able to use it as soon as they were in their own classrooms. This approach to teacher education is called the deductive approach and it is depicted in Figure 1. Schön (1987) called it the “technical-rationality model”. Imig and Switzer (1996, p. 223) state that, in many places in the world, the tendency to focus on knowledge bases to be taught to prospective teachers has become even stronger. Gradually, however, both researchers and practitioners are becoming aware of the drawbacks and even the complete failure of the deductive approach. The most important problem appears to be the lack of transfer from traditional, deductive teacher education to practice, which has become apparent through many research studies into the effectiveness of teacher education. Indeed, the gap between theory and practice has become one of the most pressing problems in teacher education. We next analyze this problem more concretely.

NEW LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION

245

To begin, if there is no congruence between the approach to teaching and learning that teachers experience in their own education and ideas about new learning they are supposed to use in schools, the message of teacher education gets lost. In such cases, the “hidden curriculum” of teacher education seems to express a didactic view of teaching, which matches the teaching that most of them experienced as students and is easily viewed as most suitable for practice. The “officially” explicated ideas about new learning are interpreted as “theoretical”. Stofflett and Stoddart (1994), for example, argue that teachers’ conceptions of teaching subject matter are strongly influenced by the way in which they themselves learnt this subject content. They have shown that student teachers who themselves experienced learning in an active way are more inclined to plan lessons that facilitate students’ active knowledge construction. Huibregtse et al. (1994) showed that, even with experienced teachers, there is a strong relationship between their preferred way of teaching and the way they themselves are used to learning: they have a limited view of the learning styles of their students and tend to project their own way of learning on to the learning of their students. But even if teacher education tries to set an example of new learning, there is often a large gap with the practice teachers encounter as soon as they go to the schools. Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981), for example, showed that many notions and educational conceptions, developed during teacher education, were "washed out" during field experiences (compare Bullough, 1989). Lortie (1975) presented us with another early study into the socialization process of teachers, showing the dominant role of practice in shaping teacher development. At Konstanz University in Germany, research has been carried out into the phenomenon of the "transition shock" (Müller-Fohrbrodt et al., 1978; Dann et al. 1981). It showed that, during their induction in the profession, teachers encounter a huge gap between theory and practice. As a consequence, they pass through a quite distinct attitude shift during their first year of teaching, in general creating an adjustment to current practices in the schools and not to recent scientific insights into learning and teaching. Although the gap between theory and practice is a well-known problem in teacher education and even though its causes have been thoroughly researched, it is

246


remarkable that many teacher education programs still reflect the traditional deductive approach (Korthagen & Russell, 1995; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Still we think that much can be learned from the development towards realistic mathematics education described above. In Freudenthal's terms one could say that in the deductive approach, knowledge about teaching is considered as a created subject and not as a subject to be created by the learner, i.e. the student teacher. An approach to teacher education that would be more in line with Freudenthal's ideas about learning is depicted in Figure 2:

This realistic approach to teacher education takes its starting point in real problems met by student teachers during practical experiences. The student teachers develop their own knowledge in a process of reflection on the situations in which a personal need for learning was created. As is the case in realistic mathematics education, in this approach to teacher education the emphasis shifts towards inquiry-oriented activities, interaction amongst learners, and the development of reflective skills. During the learning processes involved, the teacher educator has an important role, a role that is quite different from the traditional role of the lecturer. The kind of support that he or she should offer (including theory!) has to be very much adjusted to the specific problems the student teachers are having. Theory and theory

As a consequence, the nature of fruitful "theory" shifts dramatically from that in the traditional approach. Clark & Lampert (1986, p. 28) state that once inside school, teachers “are expected to accomplish complex and even conflicting goals. Under these circumstances, a priori knowledge identified by researchers about the relationship among particular decisions or actions and their outcomes is of limited worth”. Teachers need quick and concrete answers to situations in which they have little time to think. This type of action-guiding knowledge is rather different from the more abstract, systematized and general expert-knowledge that teacher educators often present to student teachers. Kessels and Korthagen (1996) go back to Aristotle’s concepts of episteme and phronesis to explain the difference. If a teacher educator offers epistemic


247

knowledge, he or she uses general conceptions, applicable to a wide variety of situations; this knowledge is based on research and can be characterized as "objective" theory, theory with a big T. This is the type of knowledge that plays a central role in the traditional approach and that should certainly not be omitted from teacher education programs: student teachers should be helped to see the larger picture of educational knowledge. More often, however, they need knowledge that is situation-specific and related to the context in which they meet a problem or develop a need or concern, knowledge that brings their already existing, subjective perception of personally relevant classroom situations one step further. This type of knowledge is called phronesis. We could also call it “theory with a small t”. The character of phronesis is more perceptual than conceptual: often quite unconsciously, it focuses the attention of the actor in the situation on certain characteristics of the situation, characteristics important to the question of how to act in the situation. To put it concisely, episteme aims most of all at helping us to know more about many situations, while the emphasis of phronesis is more on perceiving more in a particular situation and finding a helpful course of action on the basis of strengthened awareness (compare Marton & Booth, 1997). The promotion of reflection

As phronesis, or theory with a small t, is meant to be of help in the process of perceiving practical situations, it can only be relevant to teachers if it builds on their existing perceptions. This requires (1) that teachers become aware of their perceptions of practice, and (2) that they be helped to restructure these perceptions if another way of perceiving is more fruitful. This points to the central role of reflection in teacher development. In order to escape from the often vague discussions in the literature about this concept, we define reflection as the mental process of trying to structure or restructure an experience, a problem or existing knowledge or insights (Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990). Fundamental to our conceptualization of the process of reflection is the close relationship between teachers' actions, their perceptions of these actions, and the possibility of refraining these perceptions. We conceive the reflection process as a spiral (Fig. 3). This phase model is called the ALACT model, after the first letters of the five phases. Its use in concrete program elements has been described by Korthagen (1985) and evaluated in a series of studies (see for an overview Korthagen & Wubbels, 1995). An important aspect of a realistic approach to teacher education is that teachers are not only stimulated to reflect, but also that they learn to master the process of reflection itself. Only then can we speak of learning how to reflect. In that case, teacher education promotes a second order change in teachers: they acquire the ability to direct their own professional development and take responsibility for it (growth competence).

248


A PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Our desire to promote a growth competence in teachers is not rooted in cognitivepsychological considerations alone. It is also based on a social-pedagogical view, to be discussed next. As in our cognitive-psychological analysis of teacher education, we begin by looking at the work of teachers and the learning of students in schools and then analyze the consequences for teacher education. The pedagogical mission of the school

During recent decades little attention has been paid to the social-pedagogical element in education, the place of norms and values in the school and the moral role of the teacher. In thought and action, 'instrumental rationality' has gained the upper hand in education. More and more, social and pedagogical aspects of the teacher's role seem to have moved to the background. There is a danger that the instrumental teacher, confronted with the 'new student', is left empty-handed as far as social-pedagogical qualifications are concerned (Bottery, 1990; Klaassen, 1996). Only recently, under the influence of the social and political debate on citizenship and the moral fundament of society, the pedagogical mission of the school has come to the fore again. More attention is now being paid to questions of morality in schools, the teacher's personal morality and the teacher's role in relation to the moral education of the student. A plea is made for explicit moral or character education in the school (Rusnak, 1998). In this context, the development of a sense of values and norms in children is considered to be one of the social tasks of education. We believe that, apart from the development of knowledge and skills,


249

education in values and norms is of great importance for the functioning of society, and especially for the preparation of students for their participation in social life and their individual development as human beings. As a consequence, the pedagogical dimension of new learning should receive attention. Pedagogical professionality

This development requires much attention for the connection between the actions of the individual teacher and the school culture and organization and leads to a fundamental question concerning the kind of professionalism that is desired. If teachers are educated within the model of restricted professionality (Hoyle, 1975), they are inadequately prepared to carry out the pedagogical mission of the school. This model refers to the type of teacher who adopts an autonomous attitude and considers sound teaching of subject matter to be the key to good education. The 'restricted professional' is mainly focused on the content of his or her school subject and on teaching methodology. Practicing the profession in the classroom is at the center of attention and there is only a limited involvement in activities other than teaching. Issues of moral education virtually always fall out of this perspective, or remain restricted to classroom control. In order to meet the requirements embedded in the pedagogical mission of the school, another type of teacher is needed, namely one who is directed towards what Hoyle calls extended professionality. This refers to teachers who consider a united school policy useful and necessary. Considering, consulting and deciding together with colleagues in relation to the school's objectives, both those belonging to and those exceeding separate school subjects, is thought to be very important. In other words, this type of teacher tends to relate classroom events to the policy and the objectives of the school as a whole. Professional cooperation is emphasized and one is focused on functioning as a member of the school organization. The distinction between limited and extended professionality also leads to a different way of framing the teacher’s task. Due to their primary orientation to the daily work in the classroom, ‘limited’ professionals define their work mainly in terms of teaching activities. Seen from the perspective of the pedagogical mission of schools, this approach is too narrow. Teachers with an extended professionality, on the other hand, define their work not only in terms of activities that are restricted to specific lessons, but also in terms of other activities. For the realization of the pedagogical task, such a broad perception of the teacher’s role is important, as conscious pedagogical action in the field of moral education must be supported by a conscious student-oriented and value-directed arrangement of the school organization. There should be continuous awareness of relationships between individual teachers’ professional performance and the creation of a moral climate in the school as an institution. The moral culture in the school

This requires a joint effort of teachers and school management, and calls for mutual cooperation and collegiality. A democratic internal organization of the school forms

250


an important condition and characteristic of the 'just community approach' proposed by Power, Higgins and Kohlberg (1989), by which they mean the development of a school towards a moral community of high quality. The aim of such a democratic organizational structure should be the establishment of a specific school climate or culture based on consensus of opinions of teachers and school managers. In this way the school can develop its own identity and operate as a unity, both externally and internally. In other words, the school then develops its own moral culture. This term refers to the norms, values and systems of meaning that members of the school share. In order to build a supportive social climate, the school should be organized in such a way that it encourages the students to have, for instance, a feeling of responsibility, community spirit, respect for other people and tolerance. To reach this, it is necessary for the teachers within a school to intensely and constantly consider the values that they find important and to decide together which values they want to develop in their students, for example through explicit formulation of norms or rules of conduct. Such reflection on the values endorsed by teachers in a school ought to go together with a professionalization process concerning the actions by which the staff tries to build on these values. We are now speaking of what we call the styling of the pedagogical or philosophical identity of the school. The pedagogical dimension in teacher education

Attention to the pedagogical mission of education raises expectations regarding the (re-)professionalization of teachers. In particular, it is important to elaborate the concept of reflection, described above, into the pedagogical dimension. The renewed pedagogical mission of education could also contribute to greater prestige for the profession and could even stimulate teachers to develop a new professional elan (Lisman, 1991). Preservice teacher education is the place to begin such development. An important condition for a sound interpretation of pedagogical professionality is that teachers themselves consider the moral mission as an important aspect of their role (Goodlad, Soder & Sirotnik, 1990; Sockett, 1993). If teachers, in their performance, set an example regarding values and norms, behavior and opinions, they can stimulate children in their social and moral development. Every former student will remember a teacher who functioned as a model in this respect. Reflection on such role models in relation to one’s own behavior as a teacher is a necessary element of teacher education programs. Special attitudinal requirements are also to be set for the teacher. Stimulating value development of students, for instance, draws on the teacher's empathic ability. The teacher can also be willing and inclined to actually give students room for variation of perspective in moral disputes. During teacher education, teachers should not only learn techniques associated with pedagogical professionality, such as leading a discussion about moral dilemmas, but they should also be able to bring value problems into education in a pedagogically sound way. In other words, they should be able to "make hay while the sun shines", namely,


251

when in class, at school or in a broader community a moral dilemma occurs in a concrete (not artificial) setting. Then they should be able to discover, generate and discuss such a dilemma in the real social context. Here again, a realistic approach to teacher education is helpful, which means that specific situations encountered by student teachers during field experiences are used for reflection and discussion. This can be even more effective if such a discussion takes place at a moment in which the student teacher still has an opportunity to use whatever he or she has learned in the same school context. In order to be able to do all this, student teachers can learn a great deal about themselves. They must learn to reflect on their own personal characteristics, actions and identity. Being a teacher means that one is engaged in a very 'interactive' profession. Many student teachers experience teacher education as a social and emotional process that influences self-understanding quite dramatically. Teacher educators have the task of stimulating self-analysis and helping student teachers develop their own professional identity as a pre-requisite for pedagogical sensitivity. This is the awareness of and ability to reflect on the pedagogical aspects of teaching and learning situations and problems of interaction . We have already discussed the meaning of the moral culture in the school. This, too, has consequences for teacher education. During preservice teacher education, student teachers should make a start with reflecting upon the issues related to building a moral school climate. This means that their personal reflection should reach out beyond classroom performance and include commitments to colleagues and parents, and beyond that, reflections on the social meaning of education. In conclusion, prospective teachers should learn to reflect on the pedagogical dimension of the teaching profession and become aware of the fact that a teacher does more than pass on knowledge or develop skills and that every teaching and learning process is filled with values and norms. During teacher education prospective teachers should become aware of the fact that during their profession they will regularly be confronted with moral dilemmas related to their work. To illustrate, consider a high school student who complains to a student teacher about the poor teaching of Mr. Williams, a colleague of the student teacher. This student teacher now faces the dilemma of not wanting to betray his colleague, but, on the other hand, having the child’s interest at heart. In addition to this type of moral dilemma, dilemmas typical of the subject matter to be taught should also be reflected on. In this way, by means of concrete practical cases, as experienced in practice, prospective teachers can learn how to discuss dilemmas concerning school and to lead moral discussions with the help of systematic guidelines. Finally, the hidden curriculum of the school deserves a clear place in the teacher education program. Teachers need to become aware of the different elements of the hidden curriculum and of the latent way in which this transfers and confirms norms and values again and again (Klaassen, 1992). Through the hidden curriculum the participants in the educational process are continuously conditioned into certain values and norms. Also, teachers themselves are important sources of the latent socialization students are exposed to. Not only by setting an example as a 'role-model' for the students does the teacher form an important pivot in the latent

252


moral socialization of students (cf. Giroux & Purpel, 1983). Also, by passing on knowledge and, in doing so, inevitably coloring the educational content of the official curriculum, the teacher shows which values he or she thinks are important. Understanding of values and norms that are not only explicitly but also implicitly present in the subject matter also belongs to the teacher’s professionality. Of course, many a teacher or student-teacher realizes that values and norms play a part in the everyday teaching process, but more thorough and systematic insight into the role of values embedded in the subject is often absent. INTRODUCING NEW LEARNING INTO TEACHER EDUCATION

Integrating these ideas within teacher education programs

Integration of the two perspectives within teacher education implies that student teachers are stimulated to systematically reflect on their teaching experiences in an integrated way. Teaching experiences can not only be reflected on with the aid of psychological frameworks or from a subject oriented point of view, but, by reflecting on their daily practice, student teachers can learn to see that the educational process is filled with norms and values and that their actions have a pedagogical impact. Teacher educators can create a stable base for the learning processes of student teachers by showing a strong character and a reflective attitude as a teacher, and at the same time creating an atmosphere of mutual trust. A realistic teacher education program aims at reflection which include the social, economic, political and cultural conditions in which education occurs (cf. Klaassen, 1997). In other words the process of (re)structuring that we defined above as being the essence of reflection implies the framing of practical situations and actions in a wider social context (Popkewitz, 1987) and the linking of different aspects of the teacher’s work to each other (Giroux, 1988). Shulman (1987), with his conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge, has already pointed out the importance of reflection on such relationships. The ideas described in this chapter are not only philosophical reflections on teacher education: they are built on actual implementations of the realistic approach into teacher education, especially at Queen’s University in Canada and Utrecht University in the Netherlands. We will now briefly describe the first experiences with this approach and some research findings. The program at Queens’ University

At Queen's University in Canada, the Faculty of Education introduced a new teacher education program structure, with a pilot program in 1997 paving the way for full implementation of the new structure in 1998. The central feature of the new structure is "early extended teaching experience" in which candidates are placed in schools, in cohorts of six to ten, from the opening day of school in September until the holiday break in December. A week of orientation precedes the entry into schools, and candidates return to the university for two weeks near the midpoint of


253

the 15-week Fall Term placement. Two field-based courses are completed while in schools. The Winter Term includes more traditional education courses, although these are made different by the extensive experiences of candidates in schools. The Winter Term also includes two shorter teaching practice periods; a four-week placement at the conclusion provides an opportunity to experience just how much has been achieved over the entire program. An extensive period of faculty-wide preparation preceded the full implementation of the new structure. Several retreats were held, and every member of staff was involved in one or more committees to prepare for the transition. Many refinements were made during the pilot program involving 10% of our 1997 candidates. Nevertheless, when full implementation occurred, personal experience generated a host of fundamental issues that require openness, trust and patience of all staff to achieve mutual understanding and shared commitment to the new structure. While many attempts were made to take charge of the personal development of each teacher educator, it remains obvious that the task may always be more challenging than we are willing to admit. At the present stage, some colleagues report dissatisfaction with the major changes involved with the experience-first approach to pre-service teacher education. For one of us, the shift to a new structure was extremely satisfying. By virtue of significant involvement with a small cohort of experience-rich teacher candidates in 1994-96 and by virtue of his involvement in self-study of teacher education since 1992, Tom Russell found himself ready and able to build on teacher candidates' Fall Term experiences. Working with a group of 26 candidates in chemistry and physics methods, substantial success was achieved by focusing on the significance of pedagogy and on the development of resources in response to questions generated by teaching experiences. In sum, the shift from a deductive to a realistic approach was successful for this teacher educator and virtually all members of the class group. In a report on this experiment (Russell & Bullock, 1999) the most obvious finding appears to be that early extended teaching experience removes many barriers for student teachers that in previous years made the process of professional development difficult. These barriers can be formulated in terms of assumptions about preservice teacher education that are overcome by the realistic approach, assumptions such as “teaching can be told”, “learning to teach is a passive process”, “theory is largely irrelevant”, “experience cannot be analyzed”. In a deductive approach students develop a dependency on external authority and prepositional knowledge which in fact does not help them very much in practical settings. The realistic approach appears to generate in student teachers a sense of what Munby and Russell (1994) call the authority of experience: they start to see their own experiences and as valuable ingredients of the process of learning to teach. The Utrecht program

The teacher education program at Utrecht University preparing for secondary education, has more gradually developed towards the approach described in this

254


chapter. This development was marked by the publication, in 1985, of a national report which presented the desired outline of the one-year-post-degree course for prospective teachers at Dutch universities. The report consisted of a clearly described professional teacher profile from which professional competencies were deduced that teacher education should develop. A lot of emphasis in the profile was put on the ability to reflect. For most teacher educators, this was fresh ground. The flow of publicity on reflection by teachers emerged only at the beginning of the 1980’s, and much practical experience did not yet exist. Therefore it was decided to combine the introduction of a new teacher education program at Utrecht University with training courses for teacher educators and teachers who supervise the student teachers in the schools. These courses aim at the development of the supervision skills needed for the improvement of reflection on the part of student teachers in their teaching practice. Much attention is being paid to the promotion of reflection on one's own ideals, values, and norms as well as on daily moral dilemmas (the pedagogical dimension). Moreover, a lot of energy is put in meetings of teacher education staff, teachers and school administrators, in which they together formulated the structural characteristics of the program and the approach to be followed. This led to a realistic program built around two main teaching practice periods. The first is a four-months period in which the student teachers go to the schools in closely collaborating triads, and gradually start to teach whole classes. Regularly they come back to the institute for group discussions, inquiry about their teaching and structured reflection. The theory provided at the institute is built as much as possible around the student teachers’ experiences, questions and concerns. After reflecting on their experiences, the students are helped by theory with a small t, provided in an integrated way: the very same teaching experiences are considered from different perspectives, amongst which the pedagogical perspective. After a two-months period at the institute, devoted to workshops on specific educational issues, further reflection, a small research project and theory based on the experiences from the teaching practice period, the Final Individual Teaching Practice Period starts. During four months the student teacher gets full responsibility for a few classes and is supervised “at a distance” by the teacher who does not visit the lessons. This means that the supervision draws heavily on the student’s experiences and reflections. During the whole year much attention is devoted to learning how to reflect, especially on pedagogical issues and the role of the school climate, and to the development of a personal identity as an ‘extended professional’. (For more details see Koetsier et al., 1997). An important question is: what are the results of this program? Focusing especially on this question, we briefly present an overview of several published evaluative studies of the Utrecht program. An national evaluation study carried out by an external research office (see Samson & Luijten, 1996) of all Dutch teacher education programs preparing for secondary education has shown that 71% of a sample of graduates of the Utrecht program (n=81) scored their professional preparation as good or very good (the two highest scores on a five-point scale). This is a remarkable result, as in the total sample of graduates from all Dutch teacher


255

education programs preparing for secondary education (n = 5135) this percentage was only 41% (p < 0.001). A fundamental question is: Does the realistic approach indeed reduce the gap between theory and practice? Several studies focused on this more specific question. In 1991, an evaluative overall study among all graduates of the Utrecht University program between 1987 and 1991 showed that 86% of the respondents considered their preparation program as relevant or highly relevant to their present work as a teacher (Koetsier et al., 1997). Hermans et al. (1993) illustrate this finding with more qualitative data of an experiment with a group of 12 student teachers strictly incorporating all the principles mentioned in the two previous sections. All 12 student teachers reported a seamless connection between theory and practice, a noteworthy result, given the many research reports from all over the world showing the problematic relationship between theory and practice. Some quotes from student teachers' evaluations are: "The integration theory/practice to my mind was perfect"; "Come to think of it, I have seen and/or used all of the theory in practice"; "The things dealt with in the course are always apparent in school practice”. However, there are also many problems and things that have to be worked out. First of all, it is difficult to develop a form of implementation of the realistic approach that is really supported by the entire staff. Different staff members do not always agree on the degree to which the pedagogical view described above should be emphasized: some take a slightly more technical stance towards teaching. Moreover, lack of financial resources make it necessary to work with teachers in the schools who are not always competent in promoting reflection and not willing or able to attend a training course in supervision skills. Another fundamental question is whether the professional community would consider the knowledge base offered to the student teachers at Utrecht University, which is strongly connected to the student teachers’ experiences, to be sufficient. Some valuable indications may be derived from two external evaluations, in 1992 and 1997, by two official committees of experts in teacher education, researchers and representatives of secondary education, instituted by the Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU). The program received very positive assessments. For example, in 1997 the program scored ‘good to excellent” on 25 out of 34 criterion variables, including the criteria ‘value of program content’ and ‘professional quality of the graduates’. On the other 9 criteria it received the assessment “sufficient”. No other Dutch university teacher education program received such high scores. However, the 1992 committee did comment on the fact that the final objectives of the program were not formulated at an explicitly concrete level. This was recognized by the program staff. It is a difficulty almost inherent to the realistic approach that it is hard and perhaps even counterproductive to state in advance what the exact course content will be. Perhaps this is the price to be paid for the shift from an emphasis on episteme towards the development of knowledge, skills and attitudes which are really being used in practice. On the other hand, after 1992, years of experience with the realistic approach have helped the program staff to become able to predict rather precisely what types of problems and concerns are

256


generated by what kinds of practical experiences of student teachers as well as what kind of "theory" can effectively be connected to these problems and concerns. This made it possible to formulate the program objectives more precisely in advance and to not only follow the student teachers' concerns, but also generate them (Van der Valk et al., 1996). This led the 1997 committee to score the degree of “completeness and clarity of the program goals” as good to excellent as well as the degree to which the program goals were achieved. We believe that this is another indication that a new and sound "pedagogy of realistic teacher education" is now evolving. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The realistic approach to teacher education aims at having teachers experience themselves many of the relevant characteristics of new learning, a principle recently also advocated by Meyer-Smith and Mitchell (1997). Such an approach gives them personal experience with a shift of control of the educational setting from the teacher (educator) to the student (teacher), and with forms of interactive teaching and collaborative learning. They become accustomed to a more guiding role of the teacher, and they experience how theory can be built on reflections of the learner. Last but not least, student teachers experience and learn the art of reflection themselves, making them more aware of the powers and difficulties related to meta-cognitive thinking. Through our description of the pedagogical dimension of teacher education and methods of value communication, we illustrated that during their professional education, teachers can learn skills that go hand in hand with the aims of new learning. For example, they experience the process of open inquiry themselves. Moral dilemmas and problems of norms and values are explored from different angles and are analyzed in a systematic way in a communicative process. This is exactly what is asked from students in school when teachers try to create learning environments that stimulate new learning. Through the use of methods of value communication, student teachers can also learn how to direct and structure classroom discussions and how to promote interactions between learners, especially if they are put in a position to lead such a discussion with fellow-students. We showed that the realistic approach does indeed narrow the gap between theory and practice, but that there are certain issues that need special attention. In this respect it is important to refer to an extensive study carried out by Brouwer (1989) into the relationship between program design and effects of 24 teacher education curricula (related to 12 different school subjects), in use at Utrecht University during the 1980’s, i.e. the years in which the realistic approach started to develop. Concrete learning effects on the work of the graduates during their first year in the profession appeared to depend primarily on the degree to which theoretical elements in their preparation program were perceived by the student teachers as functional for practice at the time of their student teaching, and on the cyclical alternation between school-based and university-based periods in the program, Also, a gradual increase in the complexity of activities and demands on


257

the student teachers appeared to be a crucial factor in integrating theory and practice. We would like to add that from the point of view of promoting new learning in the schools, it is important to make the congruency principle explicit to the student teachers. They should be helped to reflect on their own ‘new learning’ process in teacher education and to make the translation from their personal experiences of open inquiry, value communication, interactive teaching, and metacognitive skills to their present and future teaching and learning situations in school. Finally, the principles discussed in this chapter put high demands on teacher educators: they must serve as role models and be willing and able to put more responsibility for the learning process in the hands of their students, to create safe learning environments and a climate for reflection and interaction, and to teach students how to develop the metacognitive skills necessary for reflection and for developing a growth competency. Most of all, they must be conscious of the pedagogical dimension in their own relationships with student teachers and be aware of the moral culture within the teacher education program and its links to a broader perspective on education and society as a whole. This also requires that teacher educators can connect several educational, pedagogical, psychological, and social perspectives and academic disciplines. Obviously, this requires more from teacher educators than is generally part of their preparation for the profession. It is remarkable that, although much attention is being paid to student learning in schools and the professionalization of teachers, the professionalization of teacher educators is hardly ever discussed (Wilson, 1990). Almost everywhere, becoming a teacher educator without a specific education for this profession is still a reality (Guilfoyle et al., 1995; Korthagen & Russell, 1995). As we do have personal experience with giving training courses to teacher educators in many different countries, we close by emphasizing that, in our view, the education of teacher educators is the necessary starting point for development towards new learning. The congruency principle is also important on the level of the education of the educators. Teacher educators, too, learn the most by being stimulated and supported to learn from their own practices by means of reflection, value communication, open inquiry, and the development of metacognitive skills. Not only do we think that what they learn in this ‘realistic’ way is more helpful for their practice; most of all we believe that new learning should be practiced on all educational levels in order to become a guiding concept in education. REFERENCES Blume, R. (1971). Humanizing teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan 53, 411-415. Bottery, M. (1990). The morality of the school. The theory and practice of values in education. London: Cassell. Brouwer, C.N. (1989). Geïntegreerde lerarenopleiding, principes en effecten. [Integrated teacher education, principles and effects]. Amsterdam: Brouwer. Bullough, R.V., Jr. (1989). First year teacher: a case study. New York: Teachers College Press. Bullough, R.V., Jr., & Gitlin, A.D. (1994). Challenging teacher education as training: four propositions. Journal of Education for Teaching 20(1), 67-81.

258


Clark, C.M. & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 37 (5), 27-31. Dann, H.D., Müller-Fohrbrodt, G., & Cloetta, B. (1981). Sozialisation junger Lehrer im Beruf. Praxis-schock drei Jahre später [The socialization of beginning teachers. Three years after the transition shock]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 13, 251-262. Ducharme, E.R., (1993). The lives of teacher educators. New York: Teachers College Press. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. New York: Bergin & Carvey. Giroux, H. & Purpel, D. (eds.) (1983). The hidden curriculum and moral education. Berkeley: McCutchan. Goodlad, J., Soder, R. & Sirotnik, K. (eds.) (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Guilfoyle, K. et al. (1995). Becoming teacher of teachers: the path of four beginners. In: T. Russell & F. Korthagen (eds.), Teachers who teach teachers (pp. 35-55). London: Falmer Press. Hermans, J.J., Créton, H.A., & Korthagen, F.A.J. (1993). Reducing the gap between theory and practice in teacher education. In: J.T. Voorbach (ed.), Teacher education 9, Research and developments on teacher education in the Netherlands (pp. 111-120). De Lier: Academisch Boeken Centrum. Hoyle, E. (1975). Leadership and decisionmaking in education. In M. Hughes (ed.), Administering education: international challenge (pp. 30-44). London: The Athlone Press. Huibregtse, I., Korthagen, F. & Wubbels, Th. (1994). Physics teachers’ conceptions of learning, teaching and professional development. International Journal of Science Education 16(5), 539-561. Imig, D.G., & Switzer, T.J. (1996). Changing teacher education programs. In J. Sikula (ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd edition, (pp. 213-226). New York: Macmillan. Kessels, J.P.A.M., & Korthagen, F.A.J. (1996). The relationship between theory and practice: back to the classics. Educational Researcher 25, 17-22. Klaassen, C. (1992). The latent initiation: Sources of unintentional political socialization in schools. Politics and the Individual, International Journal of Political Socialization and Political Psychology 2(2), 4165. Klaassen, C. (1996). Education and citizenship in a post-welfare state. Curriculum 17(2), 62-73. Klaassen, C. (1997). Empowerment and social responsibility in the learning society. In: D. Wildemeersch, M. Finger & T. Jansen (eds.), Adult education and social responsibility. Reconciling the irreconcilable? (pp. 221-236). Berlin-New York: Peter Lang. Koetsier, C.P., Wubbels, Th., & Korthagen, F.A.J. (1997). Learning from practice: the case of a Dutch postgraduate teacher education programme. In: M.I. Fuller & A.J. Rosie (eds.), Teacher education and school partnerships (pp. 113-132). New York (etc.): Edwin Mellen Press. Korthagen, F.A.J. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education 36(5), 11-15. Korthagen, F.A.J., & Kessels, J.P.A.M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher 28(4), 4-17. Korthagen, F.A.J., & Russell, T. (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: some final considerations. In: T. Russell & F. Korthagen (eds.), Teachers who teach teachers (pp. 187-192). London: Falmer Press. Korthagen, F.A.J. & Wubbels, Th. (1995). Characteristics of reflective practitioners: towards an operationalization of the concept of reflection. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice 1(1), 51-72. Lisman, C. (1991). A critical review of the moral dimensions of schooling. Educational Theory 2, 227-234. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meyer-Smith, J.A. & Mitchell, I.J. (1997). Teaching about constructivism: using approaches informed by constructivism. In: V. Richardson (ed.), Constructivist teacher education (pp.129-153). London: Falmer Press. Müller-Fohrbrodt, G., Cloetta, B. & Dann, H.D. (1978). Der Praxisschock bei jungen Lehrern [The transition shock in beginning teachers]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods course. Journal of Teacher Education 45(2), 86-95. Popkewitz, T. (1987). Critical studies in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Power. F., Higgins, A. & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press. Richardson, V. (ed.) (1997). Constructivist teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Rusnak, T. (ed.) (1998). An integrated approach to character education. London: Corwin Press/Sage. Russell, T., Munby, H., Spafford, C., & Johnston, P. (1988). Learning the professional knowledge of teaching: metaphors, puzzles, and the theory-practice relationship. In: P.P. Grimmett & G.L. Erickson


259

(eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 67-89). Vancouver/New York: Pacific Educational Press/Teachers College Press. Russell, T. & Bullock, S. (1999). Discovering our professional knowledge as teachers: Critical dialogues about learning from experience. In: J. Loughran (ed.), Researching teaching (pp. 132-151). London: Falmer Press. Samson, L. & Luijten, R. (1996). Wie gaat er in het onderwijs werken? [Who is going to work in education?], part of the report specifically focusing on the Utrecht program. Leiden: Research voor Beleid. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L.(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. In: Harvard Educational Review 57(1), 1-22. Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press. Stofflett, R. & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(1), 31-51. Van der Valk, T., Somers, Th., Wubbels, Th., & Korthagen, F. (1996). Commuting between practice and theory in an immersion teacher education program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Wilson, J.D. (1990). The selection and professional development of trainers for initial teacher training. European Journal of Teacher Education 13(1/2), 7-24. Wubbels, Th. & Korthagen F.A.J. (1990).The effects of a pre-service teacher education program for the preparation of reflective teachers. Journal of Education for Teachers 34(3), 29-43. Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education washed out by school experiences?

AFFILIATIONS

Fred Korthagen, IVLOS Institute of Education, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands, email: [email protected]

Cees Klaassen, University Nijmegen, Department of Education, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands, email: [email protected]

Tom Russell, Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada, email: [email protected]


DOUWE BEIJAARD, NICO VERLOOP, THEO WUBBELS AND SHARON FEIMAN-NEMSER

14. THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS

INTRODUCTION

Because of new trends in thinking about student learning, it is important that inservice teachers continue to develop professionally. In order to help their students develop new learning processes, many in-service teachers will have to change their current teaching practices and beliefs about their roles. Most in-service teachers were educated in a teacher-centered climate, during their own time as students as well as student teachers. As a result of their personal and professional history, many in-service teachers see themselves as the source and provider of information. Since this view of teaching and learning is so deeply rooted, it is not likely to change unless alternative experiences challenge its validity (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996). In addition, innovation theory indicates that teachers do not adopt innovations merely because of mismatches between these innovations and their own thoughts or preconceptions (e.g., Van der Berg & Vandenberghe, 1995). In this chapter, we address the following questions: (1) Are in-service teachers developing their teaching practice and beliefs about their teacher roles?, and (2) How can such development be promoted? The first question will be answered by exploring whether and how in-service teachers naturally learn in practice as well as the way they develop professionally throughout their careers. For this purpose, we will refer to several studies conducted by our research groups on teacher learning and professional development. In answering the second question, we particularly refer to the literature on the promotion of in-service teachers' learning of new roles. The methods of promoting this learning that are highlighted will be object of our research in the near future. Extra attention is paid to teacher learning in networks because this kind of learning has also been the object of a study in our research groups on teacher learning. This chapter ends with a discussion about in-service teachers' professional development related to the trends in new learning processes of students. It is also argued that teachers’ definitions of themselves as professionals need to be carefully considered as a starting point for the promotion of teacher learning and professional development.

261

R. J. Simons et al. (eds.), New Learning, 261 -274. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

262


TEACHER LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

In their review study on teachers’ professional development, Sprinthall et al. (1996) distinguished a variety of theories and models that can be used as perspectives for researching teachers’ natural learning and professional development. In the research projects presented in this section, we used two such perspectives: a cognitive development perspective and a perspective consisting of a combination of career development, age, and phase theories. Based on the first perspective, we studied in-service teachers' natural learning in terms of belief development. Against the background of the second perspective, we describe three studies on in-service teacher learning that is inherent in their career development and their lives as teachers: one study deals with teachers' development of their professional identity; the other two studies focus on teachers' development of their interpersonal behavior. The theoretical backgrounds, design, and results of each study will be briefly described. Teachers' development of beliefs

In-service teacher learning is closely related to the way teachers build up practical knowledge. This knowledge is inherent in intelligent action; it guides practice and is built from personal and professional experience (Johnston, 1992; Verloop, 1995; Beijaard & Verloop, 1996). Practical knowledge is action-oriented knowledge that allows individuals to achieve goals which they personally value (Sternberg et al., 1995). Teachers' practical knowledge is above all experiential and implicit. At this time, we have only a limited understanding of the processes involved in interpreting and personalizing knowledge and integrating it into conceptual frameworks that guide teachers' actions in practice (cf. Eraut, 1994). Teachers' beliefs play a very important role in building practical knowledge. As parts of practical knowledge, both beliefs and knowledge are closely interwoven, but the nature of beliefs make them the filter through which new knowledge is interpreted (Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). This filtering effect of beliefs then shapes thinking and learning. Beliefs, therefore, play a central role in organizing knowledge and defining behavior (Richardson, 1996). Pajares (1992) identified a number of commonalities among the definitions of beliefs: (1) they are highly individual, deeply personal, and seem to persist, (2) they are formed by past experiences, and (3) they represent an individual's understanding of reality enough to guide thought and behavior and to influence learning. In one of our studies, we explored eight secondary school teachers' beliefs about student learning (Beijaard & De Vries, 1997). The central question addressed in this study included not only how the teachers' beliefs about student learning have developed over time, but also their intentions regarding further development of them. The study started with the identification of the participating teachers' beliefs about student learning. These beliefs could be inferred from their broader conceptions of education (De Vries, forthcoming). Teachers' conceptions of education also encompass other educational beliefs, such as their beliefs about subject matter, educational objectives, and interaction with students.

THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS

263

Individual open interviews were arranged for the collection of data. Each interview started with a short conversation about the researchers' written reconstruction of the teachers' beliefs about student learning as part of their more encompassing conceptions of education. This was done to check whether this reconstruction had been done well. The interview was organized around six topics (see Beijaard & De Vries, 1997). The interview focused on what teachers knew and could say about their own learning in practice. The interviews each took about one and a half hours. Audio recordings of the interviews were made in order to produce transcripts for analysis. It appeared that the eight teachers all held conscious beliefs about student learning. The interview data clearly showed that almost all of them thought very little about student learning in the first one or two years of their career. Instead, they focused most of their attention on their own survival in the classroom and on becoming a real member of the staff, paying less attention to promoting student learning. This finding is in line with the results of research on teachers’ concerns that had already been done a long time ago (e.g., Fuller, 1969). After their first few years, most of the teachers started to think about student learning and began to develop their beliefs about student learning. This development was often the result of problems they identified or feelings of dissatisfaction about a situation, followed by attempts to improve this situation. As such, most of the teachers involved learned cumulatively from experience. The development of their beliefs can be considered the result of learning from experience based on reflection on action (Schön, 1983), but usually not on enhanced reflection: most of the participating teachers did not explicitly discuss their experiences with colleagues or study literature that could help them to reach decisions (cf. Airaisian et al., 1995). Among the relevant reasons for teachers to develop their beliefs are: origin (internally or externally inspired development), motive (leading to radical or gradual development), context (developing individually or collaboratively), and content (the extent to which something is found relevant). Based on this distinction, it was possible to identify some patterns of development of teachers' beliefs about student learning. Most frequently, however, the participating teachers’ development of their beliefs about student learning was internally driven, occurred gradually, and took place in a highly individual context. All the teachers attached a great deal of importance to the issue of student learning. At the same time, however, it appeared that they possessed rather undeveloped beliefs about student learning. During the interviews, for example, only some of the teachers expressed their thoughts about learning styles, learning strategies, and other matters that are emphasized in the more recent literature about student learning, while others did not do that at all. Finally, some of the participating teachers talked about their intentions to further develop their actual beliefs about student learning, while others said they were focusing on other aspects of their profession. Although the study described above is based on a limited number of teachers, the results suggest that we should not share the pessimistic point of view of some researchers (e.g., Pajares, 1992; see also Richardson, 1996) that teachers do not tend to develop their beliefs. However, it is particularly their own teaching practice that causes this belief development, and not new information from outside that is necessarily seen as very relevant.

264


Teachers' development of their professional identity This study was designed against the background of career development theory (e.g., Fessler & Christensen, 1992; Huberman, 1993). Career development theory focuses on ages and phases of occupational progression and addresses changes in teachers' professional experiences throughout their career. Like Huberman (1993), we also made use of principles belonging to life span theory when designing the study. This theory is based on the fact that experiences and events impact a person's development, and on how he or she interprets the meaning of these experiences and events (Sprinthall et al., 1996). The focus of the study was teachers' prior experiences and current perceptions of their professional identity. Conceptualizing the way teachers perceive their professional identity can be considered as one of many possible efforts to contribute to the enhancement of professionalism in teaching, a concept which, however, lacks a good definition (cf. Kompf et al., 1996). After a review of the literature (Beijaard, 1995), 14 aspects of teaching were formulated that together represent teachers' professional identity. These aspects of teaching were derived from the literature on teachers' identity in general (two aspects, e.g., functioning in the school organization), the subject they teach (three aspects, e.g., status/social esteem of the subject), their relationship with students (five aspects, e.g., interaction with students), and their role or their conception of their role (four aspects, e.g., commitment to service). In total, 28 experienced teachers from five secondary schools participated in the study; their average length of service was 21 years. The procedure for the collection of data was as follows. First, the researcher presented and explained to the teachers the aspect of teaching about which data had to be collected. Second, the teachers were requested to evaluate and clarify their current perception of this aspect of teaching. Third, concerning the same aspect of teaching, the teachers were asked to draw a socalled story line in a graph. A story line is assumed to represent a teacher's evaluation of a series of experiences or events on the vertical line of the graph (in our study, on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 which is very negative to 7 which is very positive); this evaluation was plotted in time on the horizontal line of the graph (in our study, the number of years the individual worked as a teacher). The teachers were asked to draw the story line from the present to the past because, by starting from the present, knowledge about the aspect of teaching in question was activated from which the line could be drawn towards the past; a reverse procedure appears to be more difficult (cf. Butt et al., 1992). Fourth, the teachers had to clarify the high(est) and low(est) points in their story line in writing. They were asked to do so even if the story line was stable or flat. The teachers had to follow this data collection procedure for each aspect of teaching. In general, drawing and clarifying story lines by respondents can be considered a narrative research method (see Gergen, 1988; Beijaard, Van Driel & Verloop, 1999). The teachers' current perceptions of all aspects of teaching were positive: on the seven-point scale, their scores on all the aspects were above average. On the basis of the teachers’ clarifications of their current perceptions of their professional identity, it can, in general, be concluded that these perceptions were positively influenced by: (1) the transition in schools from teacher-centered to student-centered education, (2) the schools' directedness towards student-counseling, (3) cooperation between colleagues, (4) the


265

option of having additional tasks in or outside the school, and (5) the opportunity to influence the development of school policy. Progressive story lines in teachers’ careers, generally changing from negative in the beginning to positive in later years, were usually the result of a gradual setting into the profession from a novice to an experienced teacher. When clarifying these story lines, the teachers frequently referred to the problems they had to overcome as beginners, such as, conflicts with students, feelings of uncertainty, having no self-confidence, being afraid to demonstrate involvement with students, not knowing what is going on in students' minds, and being too subject-oriented (see also the results of the previous study in this chapter). Unlike the high(est) points in teachers' story lines, which developed rather gradually, the low(est) points, excluding the previously mentioned beginner problems, often surfaced suddenly and usually only lasted short periods. These points were mostly due to personal or private circumstances and aspects of the task environment, including losing additional tasks in the school and, as a consequence of a merger, having to teach other, unfamiliar groups of students. In general, it can be said that a high degree of stability in teachers' careers (i.e., positive flat story lines pertaining to many aspects of their professional identity for a long time) is closely linked to their relationship with students and the way they function in the school organization. As soon as one of the two aspects changes, a (new) period of instability in a teacher's career surfaces (i.e., a low point in many story lines). Both aspects are also related. For example, several teachers who have experienced a poor bond and interaction with students, particularly in the beginning of their careers, also tended to perceive their contribution to the school organization as inadequate. In light of this article, it can furthermore be concluded that changes in the direction of student-centered education and an increasing emphasis on individual students' concerns positively influence teachers' perception of their professional identity. In developing their professional identity, however, they seem to attach most value to their relationships with students. When thinking about new teaching roles it seems to us that these relationships determine the extent to which they are able and willing to change their existing teaching roles. A good relationship between teacher and student seems to be a prerequisite for professional development. On the other hand, one may wonder whether teachers who have good relationships with students are willing to change their teaching role, thus running the risk of altering their relationships with the students. Below, these teacherstudent relationships will be more closely examined from an interpersonal perspective. Development of interpersonal behavior An important aspect of teaching is the interpersonal relationship between the teacher and his or her students (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986). Research has shown that good interpersonal relationships are important in preventing discipline problems and fostering professional development (Rosenholtz et al., 1986). In the previous section, this factor was mentioned as a prerequisite for role change and professional development. In this section, we describe results of a Dutch research program that focuses on these relationships. The program has theoretically analyzed and empirically studied teaching from an interpersonal perspective (see Wubbels & Levy, 1993). This perspective focuses on the teacher’s degree of influence on his or her students (dominant versus submissive

266


teacher behavior) and on the proximity of the teachers to their students (cooperative versus oppositional behavior). Data on the teacher behavior have been collected in the form of student and teacher perceptions of current teacher behavior and teacher perceptions of the behavior they would like to display (their ideal). There is ample evidence in the literature that students' perceptions are a better measure of the current learning environment than teacher perceptions (e.g., Marsh, 1984). In one study (Brekelmans & Créton, 1993; Brekelmans & Wubbels, 1994), the development of teacher behavior was studied in a combined cross-sectional and longitudinal design. In the cross-sectional part, data on 573 teachers with varying degrees of experience (from 0 to more than 20 years) were compared. In the longitudinal part, the development of 51 teachers was followed for between 2 and 9 years. The results of this study showed that teachers' ideals about their interpersonal relationship with their students were rather stable during their career. Teachers, irrespective of their experience, wanted to act friendly and understanding, and be good leaders for their students. The current interpersonal behavior, however, changed according to both the students and the teachers themselves. Most teachers became more dominant in their behavior during the first eight years of their career with the most striking changes between the first and second year: their leadership behavior intensified so they became more strict. This is a shift towards the teacher's ideal and in a direction that has been shown to be profitable for the student as well (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). It can be concluded that teachers' relationships with students improved in this respect. Changes in the perception of their current behavior were less prominent for the proximity than the influence dimension. On the proximity dimension, teachers did not move towards their ideal of a strong, cooperative relationship with their students. If there was a change on the proximity dimension, it was in the direction of less cooperative. This shift was observed only in the cross-sectional part of the study for teachers with a lot of experience (more than 12 years of service) compared to their novice colleagues. This can be interpreted as a slight deterioration of the relationships with students. It should be emphasized that the changes in the behavior were minor, except for intensification of the dominant behavior early in the career. The stability mentioned in the previous section was by and large corroborated by the results of this study. A second study focused on long-term changes in the behavior and opinions of physics teachers (Wubbels & Brekehnans, 1997). This study was undertaken because an analysis of the science and physics curriculum had shown that developments in the last decade require a change in teacher opinions as well as their teaching style. The science curriculum no longer targets only the most able students, but all students. This curriculum is more grounded in the everyday experiences of students and connected to observable aspects of the environment than older curricula and has become more student-centered. If these developments are taken seriously and are combined with constructivist ideas about learning, as is suggested in the recent literature on science teaching and learning, the new roles of teachers in the classroom must be adapted. Wubbels and Brekelmans (1997) argue that the teacher has to be viewed as a facilitator of knowledge construction processes and that teachers and students are partners in the teaching and learning process. Consequently, students have to be given more command of their own learning and more responsibility for it. Relations between students and teachers need to be more symmetrical than those in more traditional teacher-dominated


267

classrooms. An active student role has to be promoted and teachers will have to focus more on active participation and they themselves will have to listen more in order to find out how to build on the students’ understanding. Observed from the interpersonal perspective, they have to play a less dominant and at the same time more understanding role. Teachers will have to allow students more responsibility. Similar changes can also be expected for other subjects. These changes in some respects conflict with the developments in interpersonal behavior that were described above. In the study of physics teachers and their ninth-grade students, the teachers’ opinions of how they should relate to students and the student and teacher perceptions of the interpersonal teacher behavior were investigated. These data were compared with similar data gathered in a study of physics teachers and their students in 1984. The 1984 and 1993 samples were carefully matched on the basis of teacher background variables and characteristics of the schools in which they taught. The only difference between the teachers in the two samples was in age and experience: the teachers investigated in the 1993 cross-sectional study were, on average, about four years older than in the 1984 study and, similarly, they had an average of four years’ more experience. Despite these slight differences we think that the results of the study indicate the degree of development of teachers over a ten years period, although the comparison is not based on a longitudinal design. The teachers' opinions about their relationships with students and their own perceptions of their behavior did not differ significantly between 1984 and 1993. Teachers thought the same about how they wanted to behave in 1993 and in 1984. Their scores on influence and proximity were rather high as in the first study. They wanted to be strong leaders in the classroom, and wanted to act friendly and understanding. According to the teachers' perceptions, their behavior is pretty much the same in 1984 and 1993. Student perceptions showed, however, that teachers taught differently in 1993 compared to 1984. They were less dominant and more cooperative towards students, which is what could be expected on the basis of the changes in the intended curriculum. We therefore assume that teachers have changed over the last decade and that the results of this study give reason for optimism about the teachers' capacities to adapt their teaching to new curricula. This optimism is supported if we compare the shift in interpersonal behavior over a ten years period with the development connected to aging as described in the first study. From that study, it appeared that teachers, as they get older, displayed a slight shift towards a less cooperative attitude towards students. It is encouraging that despite this tendency, in general, teachers have become more cooperative. Conclusion The studies described above were based on different theoretical perspectives regarding in-service teachers’ professional development. Together, these studies show ways in which in-service teachers naturally change or develop during their careers. The first study on teachers’ belief development strengthens our own belief that many teachers see the development of their beliefs (about student learning) as a necessary part of their profession. The second study on the development of professional identity has shown that students are a critical factor' in a teacher's professional development. A good

268


relationship with students is strongly linked to career stability, but it is also a prerequisite for development To some extent this may be a dilemma: it is most likely that teachers who have achieved stability in their relationship with students do not take the risk of changing their role and, therefore, destabilize their relationships with students. From one of the studies on development of interpersonal behavior, it has become clear that inservice teachers’ development of stability in their relationship with students throughout their careers is not always a positive one. This is particularly true of the development of the proximity dimension of teachers’ relationship with students. This development of interpersonal relationships might be seen as positive by the teachers themselves, but at the same time this point of view may hinder their ability to change their roles, facilitating new learning processes for students. The results of this study conflict somewhat with the second study on development of interpersonal behavior. This study indicates that a teacher’s interpersonal behavior changes slightly throughout his or her career, in interaction with national curricula reforms (in a certain subject domain) and through the eyes of students; this change, however, is more in line with facilitating new learning processes. In conclusion, there are indications that in-service teachers develop professionally, also in an externally guided direction. At the same time, there are indications that it is necessary to promote this development. Below, some suggestions for changing in-service teachers' roles (by themselves) are described. We discuss some strategies for professional development which connect the learning of new knowledge and skills with teachers’ own teaching practice. PROMOTION OF TEACHER LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT A teacher’s practical knowledge increases as a function of experience; meanwhile, however, the variety within this knowledge decreases. This phenomenon is known as knowledge concentration: people gradually 'feel more at home' in an area that becomes smaller (cf. Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993). Consequently, it becomes more and more difficult for someone to move into an area of experience he or she is not familiar with. In this respect, beliefs play an important role in learning: based on what one believes, he or she makes sense out of new information. Against this background it is no matter of course that teachers are able and willing to learn new roles. Though we are not too pessimistic about this, as is the case in many belief change studies (cf. Richardson, 1996), we argue that this learning or development can and should be promoted. In this section, the emphasis will be on some strategies for learning and professional development which have been the object of study in our research groups, or which will be the object of research in the near future. We focus particularly on teachers' learning and professional development in networks and, to a lesser extent, on strategies for conceptual change and peer coaching among teachers. Teachers' learning and professional development in networks In the last decade, a variety of research has been carried out on collegial learning in school networks. Cooperation in school networks seems to be a good way for in-service teachers to learn from each other. Until recently, there were very few of these networks for secondary schools in the Netherlands; they only existed in the field of primary


269

education (Galesloot et al., 1997). School networks can be defined as more or less formalized structures in which participants aim for previously formulated objectives for a particular period of time; networking can be interpreted as a way of systematically learning from and with each other as colleagues (Galesloot, 1994). In other words, networking is characterized by 'horizontal learning' in contrast to Vertical learning', i.e., learning conducted by an (external) expert. Galesloot (1994) investigated under what conditions the cooperation on subject areas in school networks functioned as a form of professional development of experienced teachers. For this purpose, four secondary school networks were set up; 14 schools participated in these networks. The networks were set up on the basis of a 'naive model': their arrangement was not based on scientific theories, but on acceptable basic assumptions from school practice (cf. Miles & Huberman, 1985; Evans, 1993). The networks focused on the support of students and the improvement of study skills in a number of subjects. The participants determined the form and content of the network meetings. Over a period of three years, data were collected by participatory observation, interviews with participants, and the analysis of school documents. From the interviews it appeared that systematic exchange of knowledge and experience could lead to reciprocal learning and a growth in knowledge, particularly when participants shared similar school tasks but had different experiences in coping with them in their own schools. In cases where knowledge and experience more or less coincided, the effect of recognition was often accompanied by comfort, stimulation, and activation. The participating teachers considered this kind of socio-cmotionai support a very important benefit of a network, since teachers usually live very isolated professional lives. Issues of subject content and school organization also surfaced, which were of concern to several of the participating schools. In this case, the support of an expert outside the network was enlisted. According to the participants, a shared problem across schools makes it more acceptable to ask for external help. The analysis of the data also led to the identification of several categories of behavior that stimulate learning in a network. These categories were confidence in the usefulness of one's own experience for colleagues, an open attitude (e.g., daring to take a vulnerable position), preparing oneself before bringing in experiences, sharing practical experiences, actively listening and intensively questioning, agreeing on concrete innovations in practice, and sharing new experiences. At first sight, these categories may seem to be a trivial enumeration of behavior based on observations and interviews. Apart from the fact that they appear to be important for professional development, they also match aspects of the theoretical framework for teaching (older) adults (cf. Thijssen, 1988 and 1996). It can be concluded that networks of schools offer 'natural' opportunities for effective and pleasant learning with and from each other as colleagues: teachers establish goals that are important to them, introduce knowledge and experience from their own practice, and express these in a common language. The natural resistance to changes and innovations, particularly by experienced teachers, can be reduced by this method of horizontal learning. In this context, teachers do not seem to hesitate to consult external experts, which, in fact, might be seen as a form of vertical learning, though based on the teachers’ own needs. Future research should not only focus on how and what teachers learn in networks, but also on the requirements and conditions that have to be met to

270


establish well-functioning horizontal learning in a network as a relatively new structure of continuing education. Conceptual change Strategies for conceptual change are generally known as ways to promote new visions among learners. Conceptual change is based on the idea that changing learners' conceptions or beliefs depends on their recognizing discrepancies between their own views and those underlying new visions. This change is more likely to occur when alternative visions are vivid, concrete, and detailed enough to provide a plausible alternative (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996). We know much more about conceptual change in teacher education than in the professional development of in-service teachers. In teacher education programs, it is increasingly acknowledged that student teachers' conceptions or beliefs should be the starting point for learning to teach. If it is not, student teachers tend to be sensitive to only that new information that fits and can easily be adapted to their existing conceptions or beliefs (Tillema, 1997). Therefore, it is essential to restructure pre-existing conceptions or beliefs with regard to teaching and learning. Some practitioners feel this is even more important in teacher education than providing student teachers with new information (cf. Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). In teacher education, strategies of conceptual change can be very successful. In support of this, we refer to work on influencing student teachers' preconceptions (e.g., Wubbels, 1992), and techniques for stimulating reflection in teacher education (e.g., Korthagen, 1992). Very little is known about the use and effects of conceptual change strategies with in-service teachers. Due to the concentration of knowledge and experience, as mentioned earlier, we expect that strategies of conceptual change have fewer positive learning effects on these teachers than on student teachers. In the case of experienced teachers learning new roles, we consider it extremely important that these roles be well supported empirically by many examples of 'good practice'. We expect that experienced teachers do not tend to change their existing conceptions or beliefs if they are not convinced of the benefits of the alternatives. However, if effectively convinced, we think they would be more willing to change than student teachers, and that this change will positively affect their classroom behavior (see also Dolk, 1997). Peer coaching Horizontal learning not only takes place in networks, but in other settings as well, for example in schools with peer coaching. Peer coaching can be seen as a process of cooperation between two or more colleagues in which they exchange ideas, attempt to implement these ideas, reflect on their own teaching practice, etc. (Bergen, 1996). Peer coaching requires that the peers interact on an equal basis, and that coaching has nothing to do with performance evaluation. In this respect, coaching differs from mentoring, because there is no hierarchical relationship between the coach and the one who is being coached. Being a coach for a colleague calls for a systematic approach agreed upon by both participants (for example, the way feedback is given on a lesson observed by the coach). A teacher acting as coach contributes not only to the professional


271

development of a colleague, but to his or her own professional growth as well (cf. Philips & Glickman, 1991; Bergen, 1996). In general, collegial coaching can be considered a rather simple strategy for learning and professional development. In reality, however, it may have a great impact on how teachers function in schools: most teachers are 'professionals in isolation', and are not used to talking about their work (cf. Clandinin, 1986). Peer coaching, therefore, also implies that certain working conditions are met and implemented by school leaders, so that it becomes part of the whole school culture. In addition, not every teacher can be coached successfully. Coaching entails commitment by the one being coached to his or her task as well as to other people (students and colleagues). Teachers who do not show this commitment are better off with a mentoring process that precedes the process of coaching (cf. Veenman, 1995). A research project has been planned for the near future which emphasizes the influence of ‘cognitive coaching’ of new teacher roles on teachers' change of beliefs about these roles and their behavior in the classroom. In our opinion, cognitive coaching is important, because many in-service teachers seem to lack the necessary knowledge and skills that are needed to implement new roles that reflect the theories and experiences as described in other chapters of this book. DISCUSSION Based on the studies presented in this chapter, we conclude that in-service teachers are willing and able to change their existing teaching practice and beliefs about their teaching roles. However, this change does not necessarily need to be directed toward the implementation of new learning processes. Teachers are positive about student-centered education, but at the same time, they become more dominant in the classroom throughout their career. In their relationship with students, it is this behavior that leads to stability in their career. We argue that teachers do not automatically or naturally change this behavior in a direction desired by 'others' (i.e., the facilitation of new learning processes of students). Based on the studies presented in this chapter, we also found some evidence that in-service teachers' concerns are not (only) related to student learning, and that many of these teachers lack the necessary knowledge and skills to implement new learning processes or possess undeveloped beliefs about this issue. There are several ways in which the role change of in-service teachers can be promoted. We described research results on teacher learning and professional development in networks. It appears that, under certain conditions, networks do stimulate learning and professional development. We assume that this also applies to peer coaching. An essential characteristic of both strategies is that a teacher’s practice forms the starting point for change. We think that this change can be promoted by strategies for conceptual change. In line with these strategies, learning in networks and learning through peer coaching can take place with input from experts (i.e., colleagues who are externally trained or external experts hired from outside institutes). It is essential that the input from experts is seen by the teachers as a valid alternative, so that they are willing to exchange their own knowledge and beliefs about their teacher roles with new knowledge and beliefs. The result of such exchange processes will usually lead to an

272


improved or alternative practice, and to an adaptation of theoretical insights about what is possible in practice as well. We should be aware of the fact that many studies on teacher learning and professional development reveal great discrepancies between theory and practice. In theory, a number of methods are described which result in professional development, while in practice significant sources for this development (e.g., feedback, joint work, and external contacts) are almost absent (cf. Kwakman, 1999). The workplace as a place to learn requires a lot more attention than it is getting now. In addition, we find it important that teachers’ definitions of themselves as professionals need to be carefully considered as a starting point for role change. In this chapter it has become clear that teachers often define themselves in terms of their relationships with students. They do not necessarily see themselves as bearers of dominant opinions held by others in publicpolitical and scientific areas; rather, they are practitioners equipped with ‘field’ knowledge drawn from experience which does not automatically match the knowledge of politicians and researchers (see also Ulich, 1998). Notes 1

Other important characteristics for the systems approach of communication of Watzlawick et al. are: the impossibility of not communicating in the presence of others, circularity of processes, report and command aspects of communication

2

The intentions that guide the behaviour of the teacher are not used for the direct description of the relationship. These are considered important variables in explaining differences in the relationship between a teacher and his or her pupils or important factors for designing education in order to change patterns in interpersonal relationships between pupils and teachers.

3

Simons and De Jong use the term learning activities as well as the term, learning functions. Following Shuell (1992), they define learning functions as psychological functions to be performed during learning by the learner. In line with our learning activities perspective on teaching, we prefer to use the term learning activities

4

There is also an American version which has sixty-four items and a similar response scale.

5

There is also a Dutch version with 77 items

REFERENCES Airasian, P., Gullickson, A., Hahn, L, & Farland, D. (1995). Teacher self-evaluation: The literature in perspective. Kalamazoo: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation. Beijaard, D. (1995). Teachers' prior experiences and actual perceptions of professional identity. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 281-294. Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (1996). Assessing teachers' practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 275-286. Beijaard, D., & De Vries, Y. (1997). Building expertise: A process perspective on the development or change of teachers' beliefs. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 243-255. Beijaard, D., Driel, J. van, & Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of story-line methodology in research on teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 47-62, Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court Bergen, Th.C.M. (1996). Docenten scholen docenten: Over de professionele ontwikkeling van docenten door middel van peer coaching (Oratie). KU Nijmegen: Benda Drukkers BV.


273

Brekelmans, M., & Créton, H. (1993). Interpersonal teacher behavior throughout the career. In Th. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do You Know What You Look Like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp.81-102). London: Falmer Press. Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, Th. (1994). Interpersonal behavior of teachers in the first decade of their professional careers. Paper presented at the twentieth annual conference of the British Educational Research Association. Oxford Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: MacMillan. Butt, R, Raymond D., McCue, G., & Yamagishi, L. (1992). Collaborative autobiography and the teacher’s voice. In I.F. Goodson (Ed.), Studying teachers' lives (pp. 51-98). London: Routledge. Clandinin, D.J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London and Philadelphia: Falmer Press. De Vries, Y. (forthcoming). Leraren over hun onderwijs: Een praktijktheoretisch onderzoek naar de onderwijsconcepten van leraren en de ontwikkeling van expertise (Dissertation). Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen: Leerstoelgroep Agrarische Onderwijskunde. Dolk, M. (1997). Onmiddellijk onderwijsgedrag: Over denken en handelen van leraren in onmiddellijke onderwijssituaties (Dissertation). Culemborg: Technipress. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer Press. Evans, T.K. (1993). School-based inservice education: Case studies and guidelines for implementation. Culemborg: Phaedon. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F.B. Murray (Ed), The teacher educator's handbook(pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Fessler, R., & Chistensen, J. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and guiding the professional development of teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6,207-226. Galesloot, L.J. (1994). Collegiale netwerken van ervaren docenten en schoolleiders: Een veldonderzoek gecombineerd met een literatuurstudie over beroepsvervolmaking (Dissertation). De Lier: Academisch Boekencentrum. Galesloot, L.J., Koetsier, C.P., & Wubbels, Th. (1997). Handelingsaspecten bij het wederzijds leren van ervaren docenten. Pedagogische Studiën, 74,249-260. Gergen, M.M. (1988). Narrative structure in social explanation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing social explanation (pp. 94-112). London: Sage. Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the practical knowledge of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8,123-136. Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62,129-169. Kompf, M., Bond W.R., Dworet, D., & Boak, T. (Eds.) (1996). Changing research and practice: Teachers' professionalism, identities and knowledge. London/Washington: Falmer Press. Korthagen, F.A.J. (1992). Techniques for stimulating reflection in teacher education seminars. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8,265-274. Kwakman, K. (1999). Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan (Dissertation). KU Nijmegen. Marsh, H.W. (1984). Students evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,707-754. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1985). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. London: Sage Publications. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. Philips, M., & Glickman, C. (1991). Peer coaching: Developmental approach to enhancing teacher thinking. Journal of Staff Development, 12(2), 20-25. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan. Rosenholtz, S.J., Bassler, O., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1986). Organizational Conditions of Teacher Learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 2,91-104. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Sprinthall, N.A, Reiman, A.J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 666-703). New York: Macmillan. Stemberg, R.J., Wagner, RK., Williams, W.M., & Horvath, J.A (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912 -927. Thijssen, J.G.L. (1988). Bedrijsopleidingen als werkterrein. Den Haag: Delwel/Roi.

274


Thijssen, J.G.L. (1996).Leren, leeftijd en loopbaanperspectief (Dissertation). Tilburg: KU Brabant. Tillema, H.H. (1997). Promoting conceptual change in learning to teach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(1), 7-16. Ulich, M. (1998). Taking a new look at cultural attitudes in multilingual settings: Stories and storying in teacher education. InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 29,25-39. Van den Berg, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Wegen van betrokkenheid: Reflecties op onderwijsvernieuwing. Tilburg: Zwijsen. Veenman, S. (1995). The training of coaching skills: An implementation study. Educational Studies, 21, 415-431. Verloop, N. (1995). De leraar. In J. Lowyck & N. Verloop (Red.), Onderwijskunde: Een Kennisbasis voor professionals (pp. 108-150). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Wubbels, Th. (1992). Taking account of student teachers' preconceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 137149. Wubbels, Th., & Brekelmans, M. (1997). A comparison of student perceptions of Dutch physics teachers' interpersonal behavior and their educational opinions in 1984 and 1993. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 447-466. Wubbels, Th. & Levy, J. (Eds.) (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer Press.

AFFILIATIONS Douwe Beijaard, ICLON, Graduate School of Education, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Sharon Feiman-Nemser, Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 306 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1111, USA. E-mail: snemser@pilot. msu. edu Nico Verloop, ICLON, Graduate School of Education, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Theo Wubbels, IVLOS, Institute of Education, Utrecht University, PO Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

SUBJECT INDEX

(acquisition of) values (see values education) 143, 144, 147, 148 activating instruction 222, 233-240 active construction of knowledge 144, 152 actor 193, 195 adaptive curriculum 198 affective functions 25 affective learning activities 89 age-integrated curriculum 202 aggressive behavior 196, 200, 204 AGO-model 198, 199 antisocial behavior 194, 200, 201, 203, 204, 210 AQUAD Five 202, 209 assessment method 85, 89, 92-97 assessment 219 authority of experience 253, 261 beginning competencies 204 business-economics 143-146, 149, 153, 156 care as a subject 142-145, 148, 151, 152 case studies 93, 94 certainty orientation 201 co-construction 44, 47 cognitive functions 25 cognitive strategies 87, 97, 98 collaborative argumentation 72, 84 collaborative learning 55, 56, 58, 67-69, 73, 75, 78, 255 collaborative writing 56, 69-73, 76, 83 collective argumentation 44, 45 communicative goal 160, 162, 164 competency-based instruction 136 computer mediated communication (CMC) 67, 73 computer simulations 56, 58, 62, 77, 82 computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 82 conceptual change 121, 123-132, 144, 269-271, 273 congruence 212-214, 217, 219, 227 congruency 245, 256 constructive friction 212-214, 217, 219 cooperative learning 37-42, 44, 46, 49-51, 198, 201 deductive approach 246, 247, 253 destructive friction 213, 216, 219 diagnostic evaluation 85 differential effects 122, 132-134, 141, 199, 209 direct instruction 234, 235 discovery learning 56, 58, 62-64, 67, 77, 78 275

276

early education 195, 197, 203, 209 educational measurement 119 elicitation of learning activities 233, 234 environmental education 144, 149-153, 155, 156 episteme 248, 255 equality 43, 44 executive learning functions 25, 26 exploratory talk 44, 198 extended professionality 250 external regulation 210-213 eye movement registration 92 formative evaluation 85 fractal learning 201, 209 goal orientation 167, 176, 182 growth competency 256 guided discovery 155 hidden curriculum 252, 261 high- and low-achieving pupils 199 independent work 21, 22, 24, 29, 32 individual learning theories 130-132, 135 influence dimension 232, 235, 236, 238 innovation programs 32 in-service teachers 263, 268-271 instructional activities 239 instructional design 211 instructional paradigm 174 instructional system 233-235, 238, 239 instructional-learning episodes 148, 154, 156 interpersonal perspective 229, 230, 234-236, 238 intervention effects 200 learner control 21 learner reports 160, 177-180 learning activities 229, 230, 232, 233-239 learning and instruction 57, 58, 62, 75-77, 83 learning conception 215, 220 learning environment 234, 235, 237, 239, 243 learning from problem-solving 130 learning function (s) 213, 214-219 162, 164, 166, 167, 169, 180, 182, 184, 186 learning goal learning orientation 212-216, 219, 222 learning oriented writing instruction 165, 166 learning situation 1793, 194, 197, 202, 204, 209 learning skills 85-88, 93, 95, 96, 98 learning strategies 24, 25, 30-32, 34 learning strategy 184 learning style 212, 215-217, 220, 237 learning to learn 143, 144, 147, 157, 215

277

meaningful learning 144, 147-150, 153 mental model of learning 213 metacognition 164, 165, 172, 181, 221, 227 metacognitive knowledge 29, 31 metacognitive strategies 87, 97 model for interpersonal teacher behavior 231 monitoring 159, 161, 164-171 moral culture 250, 251, 256 multilevel intervention 199 multilevel theorizing 204 multiple representations 56, 57, 59, 83 multiple-choice test 92, 93 mutuality 43, 49 networks 263, 269-271 new learning 193, 194, 196, 202, 204 new technologies 55-80, 76 non-evaluative assessment 86, 96 observation 91-93 off-line methods 89 on-line methods 89 oral interviews 91 parallel processes 161 pattern of interpersonal relationship 232, 235, 238 pedagogical mission 249-251 pedagogical professionality 250, 251 peer coaching 269, 272 peer feedback 161, 186 peer interaction 40, 50 peer-tutoring 41 performance assessment 89, 93, 98, 101, 104-110 phronesis 248 portfolios 89, 92, 94, 98, 101 practical knowledge 264, 269, 272 pragmatic competence 163, 164 problem solving 145, 146, 153, 156 process-oriented instruction 30, 33, 34, 193, 204, 211, 213, 220-222 process-oriented teaching 211, 212-217, 219-222 professional development 263, 265-268, 272 professional identity 263, 265-268, 272 prosocial pupil behavior 199, 210 proximity dimension 232, 235, 238 psychometric quality 96 pupil-based education 202, 203 quality indicators 203, 204 questionnaire on instructional behavior 237 questionnaire on teacher interaction 236 questionnaires 85, 89-91, 94, 95, 97

278

realistic mathematics education realistic teacher education reflection

245, 247 252, 255 161, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172-176, 178, 179 184, 246-249, 251, 252, 254-256 regulation 143-146, 148, 149, 152, 153, 156, 165, 185, 186, 191 regulative learning activities 233 research skills 113 resource management strategies 87 restricted professionality 250 role change 266, 271 science and technology 121, 122, 124, 129-132, 134, 136 scripted cooperation 41, 50 secondary education 88, 93, 98, 104, 108, 109, 115 self-directed learning 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32 self-regulated learning 29-33 self-regulation 144-146, 211-213, 218, 221, 240 shared understanding 43 situated learning 144, 150 skill development 107 skills 143-155 skills-oriented education 144, 152 small group learning 197 social behavior 193-197, 199, 201, 203, 204, 209 social characteristics 193, 194 social conditions 193 social interaction 197 social multilevel context 196 social norms 197 social perspective 193 social relationship 193, 204 social skills 196, 197, 204 social-affective learning 143 socio-constructivism 57 socio-cultural competence 164 stimulating instruction 234, 235 strategic competence 164 strategy instruction 209 summative evaluation 86 systems approach to communication 230 taxonomies 86, 88, 95 teacher control 22 teacher education 215-219, 245-256 teacher learning 271, 273 teaching function 213, 227 teaching model 211 textual competence 163 thinking 143-145, 148, 149, 152-154, 156

279 thinking-aloud method traditional writing instruction transfer of control uncertainty orientation value communication verbal reports video registration writing written composition

89, 91, 101 165, 166, 169, 178, 184 211, 213-215 201 255, 256 89 91 157-186 159, 186

New learning

Learning Disabilities: New Research

Transformative Learning for a New Worldview: Learning to Think Differently

New Technologies, New Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education

Designing New Media - Learning, Communication and Innovation

Interactive Learning and the New Technologies

Learning Irish, New Edition: Text (Yale Language)

New Directions in Human Associative Learning

Educating new Americans: immigrants lives and learning

New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies

Learning

Learning

Learning

Learning

Learning

Supporting Lifelong Learning: Organising Learning

Russia's Transition to a New Federalism (Wbi Learning Resources Series)

New Supervisor Training (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series)

Measuring College Learning Responsibly: Accountability in a New Era

On-Demand Learning: Training in the New Millennium

Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics

Independent Language Learning: Building on Experience, Seeking New Perspectives

SMEs and New Technologies: Learning E-Business and Development

New Employee Orientation Training (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series) (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series)

New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning (Third Edition)

Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a New Learning Science

Spirited Leading and Learning: Process Wisdom for a New Age

New Science of Learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education

Digital Academe: New Media in Higher Education and Learning

Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics

Robert Smithson: Learning from New Jersey and Elsewhere

New learning

Learning Disabilities: New Research

Transformative Learning for a New Worldview: Learning to Think Differently

New Technologies, New Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education

Designing New Media - Learning, Communication and Innovation

Interactive Learning and the New Technologies

Learning Irish, New Edition: Text (Yale Language)

New Directions in Human Associative Learning

Educating new Americans: immigrants lives and learning

New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies

Learning

Learning

Learning

Learning

Learning

Supporting Lifelong Learning: Organising Learning

Russia's Transition to a New Federalism (Wbi Learning Resources Series)

New Supervisor Training (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series)

Measuring College Learning Responsibly: Accountability in a New Era

On-Demand Learning: Training in the New Millennium

Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics

Independent Language Learning: Building on Experience, Seeking New Perspectives

SMEs and New Technologies: Learning E-Business and Development

New Employee Orientation Training (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series) (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series)

New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning (Third Edition)

Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a New Learning Science

Spirited Leading and Learning: Process Wisdom for a New Age

New Science of Learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education

Digital Academe: New Media in Higher Education and Learning

Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics

Robert Smithson: Learning from New Jersey and Elsewhere

Recommend Documents