Upload
roland-munson
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, &
Student Learning
A Study of Text-Based Writing Tasks in Reading Instruction
Elaine WangUniversity of Pittsburgh
Learning Sciences & Policy Ph.D. ProgramMilestone Two Presentation
August 23, 2012
Defining the Issue
Image from http://reversethinking.typepad.com/weblog/brain/
Schemas for teaching &
learning
policy
curricula
= motives or goals
Perceived Constraints
Enacted PracticeStudent
Learning
Purpose of Study This study aimed to investigate and generate hypotheses
about the relationships among teachers’ schema of effective practice, their enacted practice, and student learning, specifically around text-based writing tasks in reading instruction at the fourth grade.
Some questions the resulting hypotheses might address: Do particular teacher schemas seem associated with
particular student learning? Which factors might moderate the relationship between
teachers’ schema of effective practice and enacted practice? Which elements of schema of effective practice might be
more susceptible to constraints in enacted practice? What might (mis)alignment between teacher’s schema and
enacted practice mean for student learning?
Significance of StudyBetter understanding of the relationship
between teachers’ schema of effective practice and enacted practice could improve student learning
Identification of constraints that hinder teachers from enacting ideal instruction could lead to interventions or PD that explicitly address these concerns and perceptions
Recognizing role of teachers’ schema has implications for supporting instruction aligned with approach advocated by standards and frameworks
Schema Theory Schemas help individuals understand the world by
organizing one’s assumptions or accumulated knowledge into distinct and strongly interconnected patterns that are later accessed (Anderson, 1977; Bartlett, 1932; Piaget, 1926).
Schemas have the potential to instigate action; they can function as motives or goals (d’Andrade, 1992).
Areas of theoretical work on teaching reflecting this function of schemas: Mathematics teaching and learning (Ernest, 1988) Teacher decision-making framework (Bishop & Whitfield 1972) Policy implementation research (Coburn, 2004; Spillane,
Reiser, & Reimer, 2002)
Research on & Frameworks for
Examining Writing TasksExamination of writing task includes characterizing
cognitive demand of prompt, rigor of evaluation criteria, accepted student responses (Doyle, 1983; Matsumura, 2003), and teacher feedback (Hattie & Gan, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007)
Writing Task
Instruction
Evaluation Criteria
Feedback
Student Responses
Prompt
Characterizing Cognitive Demand of Tasks
Ambiguity and risk (Doyle, 1983;Doyle & Carter, 1984)
Cognitive rigor (Matsumura et al.,2003)
Taxonomy of Skills for Reading and Interpreting Fiction (Hillocks& Ludlow, 1984)
Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2011)
Depth of Knowledge (Webb, 2002)
Research Design,Context & Participants
Qualitative exploratory comparative case study (Yin, 1994); theory-building case study (Einsenhardt, 1989)
Three 4th grade language arts teachers from three schools in a public district in mid-Atlantic state Second-year participants in larger project Sample representative of larger group of 59 teachers
Name1 M/F
Race Degree
Yrs.Exp.
Class Size
A-A Free/ Red.Lunch
Prior Achiev.(Basic-Prof.-Adv.)
Factor Score (%tile)
Arlene F Cauc. Doct. 30 22 100% 73% 36%-50%-5% 42nd
Christine
F Cauc. Bach. 6 22 68% 55% 5%-64%-23% 73rd
Julie F Cauc. Mast. 9 25 64% 9% 5%-68%-27% 26th
Data CollectionSchema of Effective Practice
Enacted Practice
Perceived Constraints
Student Learning Outcome
Quantitative(from larger study)
- 2 sets of survey items
- 6 task ratings
- 1 set of survey items
- 2010 & 2011 Standardized test scores- RTA ratings (class set)
Qualitative - 2 60-min semi- structured interviews
- 6 tasks - 2 60-min semi- structured Interviews
- RTA (class set & focal responses)
- What ought to be the role or purpose of text-based writing tasks?
- What should an effective text-based writing task look like?
- Plus artifact-based q’s
- Cover sheet- Task - Assessment scheme- 4 pieces of graded
student work (2 med., 2 high)
- “Overall, how do you think Otis feels about his decision to hire the Tomcat? Explain…using 3-4 examples” (Correnti et al., 2012)
- RTA (class set & focal responses)
Focal StudentsSex A-A Free/Red
LunchAvg 2010State Test Score
Avg GainScore 2010-11
Arlenen=6
4M, 2F 6 (100%)
5 (83%) 416.00 9
Christinen=6
3M, 3F 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 424.50 2
Julien=9
1M, 8F 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 422.67 17
Qualitative Data Analysis
Transcription
Multiple re-readings, analytic memos, iterative inductive coding, constant comparative method
Descriptive case study write-ups
Cross-case comparisons with matrix displays
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994)
Schema of Effective Practice: Sample
Categories & Codes1. Main goal of reading instruct.
2. Role of text-based writing tasks
3. Ideal form of text-based writing prompts
4. Ideal text-based writing prompts
1.1 Comprehend text literally
2.1 To confirm understanding of plot & characters
3.1 Brief constructed responses
4.1 Comprehen-sion of discrete information
1.2 Apply strategies & skills
2.2 To convey in writing ideas from discussion
3.2 Response journals
4.2 Summary of plot events
1.3 Make text to self connections
2.3 To explore ideas freely
3.3 Extended essays
4.3 Descriptive Characterization
1.4 Understand big ideas/themes
2.4 To argue a point of view
3.4 Multiple-choice responses
4.4 Analysis of how text elements
1.5 Apply themes to real life
2.5 To form an opinion based on ideas in text
3.5 Graphic organizers
4.5 Opinion-based interpretation / application of text
Enacted Practice:Sample Category Codes
Writing Task
Instruction
Evaluation Criteria
Feedback
Student Responses
Prompt
- cognitive demand - skill- form of task - focal literary element- type of writing - required use of text
- pre-writing instructional activities
- form of scheme- criteria- levels
- quality of high vs. medium- variation
- amount- nature- level
Perceived Constraints: Sample Categories &
Codes
State District School Classroom/Teacher
Student
Policy/Organizational
State testing
Formative testing
Departmentalization
Rules & routines
Curricular State standards
Framework
Pacing Support Resources
Environmental
General Climate
General Climate
Ability grouping
Class size
Human Resources
Support Personnel
Support Personnel
Colleagues
Support Personnel
Instructional
Inter-grade coordinat.
Grading
Intrapersonal
PatienceTeaching strategies
Behavior Prior knowledge
(Buechler, 1991; Duffy & Roebler, 1986)
Student Learning Outcome
Sample CategoriesUnderstanding of nuance of text
Cognitive level at which students approach task
Extent to which prompt is addressed
Claims made
Reasons given in support of claims
Relevance and nature of textual evidence
Explanation of inferences
Schema of Effective Practice & Enacted
Practice
Element
Schema Enacted Schema Enacted Schema Enacted
Main goal of reading inst.
comprehend text literally /summarize accurately
comprehend text literally, on a surface level
learn & apply reading strategies & skills
apply reading strategies
make thematic connection & application to real life
apply big ideas to real life
Role of text-based writing tasks
communicate freely, authentically; communicate ideas from discussion
identify fragmented text info about characters and plot
communicate ideas from discussion
explain how elements help readers; comprehend plot
express supported opinion
express opinion about big ideas in text
Prompt: Cognitive Process
summary / analysis
basic comprehension
analysis basic inference; BCR
opinion-based interpretation
opinion-based interpretation
Prompt: Form
authentic, non-formulaic, BCR
graphic organizers
multi-part, open ended; BCR
BCR; graphic organizer
open response
short open responses
Coded Arlene Christine
Julie
Representative Enacted Writing Task
Prompt Form Focus
Arlene Name three traits for a character, and identify one piece of textual evidence for each trait.
Graphic Organizer
Character
Christine
Explain how the author uses sensory details to help readers visualize. Provide supporting details from the text.
BCR Author’s craft / Text element
Julie Respond to one of four opinion-type questions on big ideas addressed in the story. Provide text support. (e.g., Why is it important for everyone to have something to believe in?)
Short answer
Big idea
Schema of Effective Practice & Enacted
PracticeElement Schema Enacted Schema Enacted Schema EnactedInstruction /Guidance
discuss prompt; model w/other text
discuss prompt; group work w/prompt; model w/text
discuss prompt; group work w/prompt; model response
discuss prompt; graphic org.; model w/text
ensure und. of prompt
discuss text; complete graphic org for text; no direct teach-ing of prompt
Feedback Form/Process
conference; peer feedback; “authentic”
limited conferences
post exemplary responses, comments in margins, conference, allow rewrite
written comments
conference,narrative comments, allow revisions
discuss response w/peer& revise before submission, written comments
Coded Arlene Christine
Julie
Coherence Between Schema & Enacted Practice
Coded Element
Arlene Christine Julie
Prompt Content weak/med. med. strong
Form weak med. med./strong
Instruction
Process strong strong strong
Assessment
Content med. med. med.
Form weak weak strong
Feedback Content n/a med. strong
Form/Process med. med. med.
Overall Trend
weak/med. med. strong
State District School Classroom/Teacher
Student
Policy/Organizational
Curricular
Instructional
Intrapersonal
ARLENE
ARLENE
CHRIS.
CHRIS.
CHRIS.
JULIE
Perceived Constraints
Arlene
ArleneJulie
Julie
JulieJulie
Student Learningn Fully
addresses prompt w/full text
Partially addresses prompt w/part of text
Characterization of Character’s Feelings
Summary
Personal Response
Copied Text
Arlene
20 15% 25% 40% 10% 5% 5%
Chris. 21 19% 38% 29% 5% 10% 0%
Julie 22 45% 32% 5% 14% 5% 0%
n Fully addresses prompt w/full text
Partially addresses prompt w/part of text
Characterization of Character’s Feelings
Arlene 6 0 33% 66%
Christine 9 17% 50% 33%
Julie 9 56% 33% 11%
Emergent Hypotheses of Relationships Among
Constructs1. Enacted practice at least partially aligns with or
follows from schema of effective practice.
2. Enacted practice significantly influences student learning.
3. Perception of high-level policy-oriented constraints is associated with greater inconsistencies between schema of effective instruction and enacted instruction.
4. The content and form of the prompt (along with the feedback process) are most susceptible to perceived constraints.
…Emergent Hypotheses of Relationships Among
Constructs5. Coherence among elements of the schema is
associated with stronger practice and student outcome.
6. Prioritizing tasks requiring analysis or interpretation of text is associated with better student outcome.
7. A schema of effective instruction (and enacted practice) that focuses on providing extensive, explicit guidance on the given prompt hinders students’ development of higher-level thinking skills.
Methodological Limitations
Small sample size
Inter-rater agreement pending
Focus on text-based writing tasks
ReferencesAnderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (1984). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press. Bishop, A. J. & Whitfield, R. (1972). Situations in teaching. London: McGraw Hill. [out of print] Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification for educational goals. New York: David McKay Company. Buechler, M. (1991). Constraints on teachers’classroom effectiveness: The teacher’s perspective. Policy Bulletin. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Education Policy Center. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244. Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., Hamilton, L., & Wang, E. (2012). Combining multiple measures of students’ opportunities to develop analytic text-based writing. Educational Assessment. (in press). D’Andrade, R. G. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In R. G. D’Andrade, & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models, pp. 23-44. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of educational research, 53, 159-199.
Doyle, W, & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129- 149.
Duffy, G. & Roebler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education. 37(1), 55-58. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.) Mathematics Teaching: The State of the Art, pp. 249-254. London: Falmer Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 249-27). New York: Routledge. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Hess, K. K. (2009). Cognitive rigor matrix. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/CRM_ELA_KH11.pdf Hillocks, G. Jr., & Ludlow, L. H. (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 7-24. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313. Matsumura, L. C. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 207–229. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. B. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions ‘at-scale’. Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267-300.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A., Levison, A., Peterson, M., Resnick, L, & Junker, B. (2006). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment Toolkit to investigate the quality of reading comprehension assignments and student work. (CSE Technical Report #669). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schutzwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1182-11. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387-431. Webb, N. L. (2002). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.