Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 06 October 2014, At: 03:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cambridge Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccje20
The teacher's role and approaches in aknowledge societySteen Beck aa University of Southern DenmarkPublished online: 27 Nov 2008.
To cite this article: Steen Beck (2008) The teacher's role and approaches in a knowledge society,Cambridge Journal of Education, 38:4, 465-481, DOI: 10.1080/03057640802482330
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057640802482330
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The teacher’s role and approaches in a knowledge society
Steen Beck*
University of Southern Denmark
(Received 15 December 2007; final version received 22 April 2008)
This article is about changes in teaching and learning. It is argued that a pluralistapproach, stressing differences in qualities and problems is favourable. The paperis based on a research project regarding changing conditions for teachers andprofessional identity in the Danish upper-secondary school. Both theoretical andempirical points from the research project concerning teaching and learning in anarea of reform are presented. The main purpose is to develop reflections onvarious approaches to method and learning styles in relationship to teacher andstudent roles.
Keywords: learning theory; approaches to learning; teacher’s role; competencies;meta-cognition and psycho dynamics; Piaget; Vygotsky and Kolb
Introduction
Educational systems are currently being restructured in many countries. Employing
‘lifelong learning’, ‘flexibility’, ‘innovation’ and ‘usability’ as keywords, the
modernization discourse is related to visions of constructing a new kind of learning,
which fits into knowledge society. Teachers are asked to focus upon competence
building, problem solving and the use of Information Communications Technology
(ICT) and cross-curricular activities.
In Denmark, the 2005 reform of the upper-secondary school may be seen as an
ambitious project employing a similar discourse, all the while the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) and other international comparative
studies indicate that Danish students are not even close to being among the best in
traditional subjects, such as mathematics and physics. The same research even shows
that one-fifth of all young people in Denmark leave compulsory school as functional
illiterates. This suggests that the teaching of traditional and basic skills must also beenhanced, which in turn forces us to ask how pedagogical and didactical thinking
may respond to demands pointing in more than one direction.
One point of view is that it is not constructive to suggest new approaches to
replace old ones (see for instance Barr and Tagg (1995) where a new ‘paradigm’ is
introduced in a rather simplifying way). Nothing seems to indicate that students will
acquire the necessary competencies by replacing for instance deductive and teacher-controlled approaches with inductive and student-controlled ones. My suggestion is
that ‘traditional’ methods (for instance presentation and instruction) must be
combined with newer ones, such as projects, in order to create the kind of
progression that is necessary to make competency building possible, i.e. by
combining different and yet equally necessary teaching strategies. An increasing
*Email: [email protected]
Cambridge Journal of Education
Vol. 38, No. 4, December 2008, 465–481
ISSN 0305-764X print/ISSN 1469-3577 online
# 2008 University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education
DOI: 10.1080/03057640802482330
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
awareness of complexity (Luhmann, 1984/1999; Rasmussen, 2004) is a constructive
approach to the demand for new competences in knowledge society, not a new
simplicity.
Research questions and methodology
This article discusses relations between the teacher’s role, methods in the classroom
and students’ competencies and knowledge. This will be done from a theoretical and
empirical perspective.
This article is based on two research questions:
N What kind of knowledge may be related to differing approaches, and which
student competencies may be seen as the result of differing teaching strategies?
N Which strengths and weaknesses exist within the different work methods?
The data, upon which this article is based, stem from a research group (Zeuner,
Beck, Frederiksen, & Paulsen, 2006; Beck, 2007; Beck & Frederiksen, 2008)
working on a four-year project on changing teacher roles in an era of reform. The
group has carried out both qualitative and quantitative research, starting with a
survey followed by qualitative approaches. The qualitative research has been
carried out in 16 schools. The group observed lessons and interviewed teachers and
students. Each member of the research group carried out observations and
interviews in four schools where after the results were analysed and evaluated in
the research team.
The qualitative section of data gathering has been theoretically informed. In
order to study the mechanisms of differing methods, learning theory and didactical
theory have been employed. The data collected in the field were analysed in relation
to the theoretical discussions and categorisations. The theory was used to create
hypotheses and as a guide for our semi-structured interview. In return, our
observations and interviews inspired theoretical studies and refinement of the model
which will be presented later in this article. In continuation of this hermeneutic
process, a novel theory of learning and teaching has been developed, which is
sensitive to teacher reflection; particularly reflection on possibilities and problems
within differing methods and the teacher competencies needed to create successful
practice.
Linking theory and data analysis, the research team has used ‘Ideal Types’,
which may, paraphrasing Weber, be described as a one-sided emphasis on one or
more points of views or positions by making a synthesis from many concrete and
unique phenomena and situations (Weber, 1904–1917/1949). While reality is more
complex than ideal types allow, they are exceedingly useful, since they permit us to
reflect and evaluate features of real life.
From this starting point analytical interest concerning data has pointed in three
directions. The first issue was conceptual: is it meaningful to analyse the data in
terms of Ideal Types and may these Ideal Types be used to answer the hypothesis?
The second was explorative: Which kinds of problems and possibilities could be
observed and were discussed by teachers and students in the interviews concerning
the different approaches? The third interest was pragmatic: Will the discussion about
‘good teaching’ be enlightened by this kind of reflection on the relationship between
the teacher’s role, approaches and learning?
466 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
The disposition of this article is as follows: First I will discuss some general
theories of teaching and learning. The hypothesis is that there is a connection between
students’ learning in using different methods and the teacher’s way of handling the
cognitive and emotional challenges of different kinds of knowledge within these
methods. Also, the students obtain different kinds of knowledge and competencies
from these methods, making it highly important to reflect on the output of different
methods and consider this as being important to progression. Using the theoretical
apparatus, we may now begin to see how complexity is handled in real teaching
situations. This is done by using four Ideal Types of methods in relation to the
teacher’s role and student learning. Thirdly, I will use data collected in the research
project on teacher roles to exemplify actual teaching practiced within the four
approaches. Issues concerning student learning and motivation towards the methods
will also be discussed.
Theory – development of analytical variables
Teachers and students are involved in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger,
1991) in which both parties have roles to play and activities to perform. The teacher
teaches and the students learn. Teaching can be defined as an intentional act, the
purpose of which is to stimulate students to learn (Qvortrup, 2001; Rasmussen,
2004), for instance by communicating and choosing a learning context. In school
(but not necessarily in other aspects of life), teaching is a necessary and yet far from
sufficient condition for learning. Learning is what happens when the learner changes
an understanding or a practice, either by assimilation or accommodation (Piaget,
1947/2001).
What aspects must the teacher consider in order to facilitate the student’s
learning processes? Three fundamental dimensions of the teacher’s role are
important here, namely cognitive scaffolding, stimulation of different learning styles
and emotional containing.
The cognitive scaffolding is related to the issue of method and didactics,
namely the manner in which the teacher facilitates the cognitive learning of the
student.
Cognitive skills are not, according to the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1978),
primarily determined by intra psychological factors, but are the results of the
activities practised in the social institutions of the culture in which the individual
grows up. From this social constructivist position, Vygotsky defines the function of
the teacher as being the instructor whose responsibility it is to place the learner in the
developing zone between what she is capable of doing by herself, and what she can
do only with help from others, either more able learners or the teacher. Vygotsky
calls the mental and social space for learning the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD). Inspired by Vygotsky, the American learning theorist J. Bruner speaks about
learning as a scaffolding process, meaning that other people become a framework for
the individual learner, helping to structure the learning process for the individual
learner (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). It is important to emphasize the difference
between helping, as something others do to the individual and scaffolding, as
something which makes the learner become a more able student. Helping in the
above-mentioned sense may maintain the learner in a condition of dependence, while
scaffolding is a process leading the learner to a situation where he or she achieves
Cambridge Journal of Education 467
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
independence from others (Linden, 1996). Thus, progression is an integral part of the
scaffolding practice.
Vygotsky stresses the importance of the teacher scaffolding the student’s learning
process by presenting exercises and supporting the student’s performance without
having all the necessary competencies. In a learning process the point is to weaken
the teacher’s control, facilitating a reduced need for external support, and hence
making it possible for the student to take responsibility for his or her own learning.
Therefore, the development from high teacher-control to high student-control or
from externalisation to internalisation may be seen as the ideal progression in this
pedagogical approach. An important feature of the dialectics between teacher-
initialized and student-initialized methods seems to be the presence of both inductive
and deductive thinking; one securing the knowledge system, and the other enforcing
the student to learn and think for him or herself. Pointing out the two opposite
directions of learning from this cognitive point of view, enables us to distinguish
between learning based on high teacher-control of the output and learning based on
high student-control of the output.
Stimulation of different learning styles is important in schools where competency
goals are to be connected to learning.
Learning may, according to Kolb (1984), be understood as a refinement of
experience, including both understanding and the manipulation of objects. With
this ambitious aim, he seeks to combine the theories of Dewey (1930), Piaget
(1947/2001) and Lewin (1951). In his now famous ‘cycle of learning’, Kolb points
out the central principle in his experiential learning theory, expressed as a four-
staged cycle of learning in which immediate or concrete experiences provide a basis
for observation and reflection. These observations and reflections are assimilated
into abstract concepts, producing new implications for action, which may be
tested.
In addition to the learning circle, Kolb speaks of learning styles; this is the
manner by which the student combines ways of learning. Kolb distinguishes between
the following styles: divergent learning having one input and many outputs,
combining experience and reflection on the one hand; and convergent learning with
one input and one output, combining theory and experience on the other.
Convergent and divergent learning seem similar to what is usually called deductive
and inductive learning. With Piaget he also distinguishes between assimilative and
accommodative learning. In assimilative learning, reflections are adapted to theory,
combining reflective and theoretical style. It is questionable whether the word
assimilation is adequate however; some aspects of it are rather reminiscent of
hermeneutics. In accommodative learning, experiments are made in order to create
new experiences.
Kolb’s point is that learning always contains elements of divergent, assimilative,
convergent and accommodative styles. It is not fair to say that one of these is better
than the other. On the contrary, all of them are important in experiential learning.
This means that school subjects should be taught in more than one way. There are
dimensions of school subjects that are related to all of the four ways of learning.
Whether the teacher actually realizes the ‘virtual’ possibilities within the subjects
depends on a number of things; e.g. his or her values towards the teacher profession,
socialization as a teacher, education, etc. This seems to be a very important point in
discussing the relationship between teaching and learning. How does the real teacher
468 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
relate to the learning process? Is his teaching oriented towards divergent,
assimilative, convergent, or accommodative learning?
Emotional scaffolding is related to the way the teacher and the students
communicate, and the way other persons – not least the teacher – contain the
emotions of students in often frustrating and identity challenging learning process.
The school class is a socio-psychological field where individuals interact, use and
develop their emotional and motivational behaviour. Theoreticians like Kolb (1984)
and Vygotsky (1978) clearly underestimate the emotional mechanisms in learning.
As long as learning theory maintains this reduced approach to learning, it will be
impossible to understand motivation as an important factor in learning.
In a psychoanalytic perspective ‘scaffolding’ is much more than simply connected
to learning as a cognitive task. The German psychologist Kohut (1977) uses the word
‘self object’ in order to pin down the meaning of ‘other persons’ to the development
of the individual. The Danish pedagogical researcher Tønnes Hansen (2000)
differentiates between two processes in student learning. To learn is to learn
something, suggesting a cognitive dimension. But to learn is also a question of
developing being-in-the-world through insight into own motives – why to be a student
at all. Learning to be in the world implies, for example, concepts of identity,
motivation, but also the ability to function in the world. In other words, the ‘will’ –
being a very important precondition for learning – is not created in isolation, but in
interaction: it is developed from birth until we die; it changes in relation to
meaningful ‘others’ who challenge and recognize who we are. These ‘others’ are
therefore highly important to our intra-psychological development. It can be said
that we are each other’s psychological-existential nourishment or oxygen and, in this
way, the process of becoming ‘me’ is a situated one. In school, the teacher and other
learners can be said to function as ‘self objects’ to the individual student. The
absence of a teacher being able to function as a ‘good enough’ self object, may
jeopardize the learning processes, as the necessary recognition and idealization in the
learning process will be missing.
Teacher communication, calculating on student need for forming meaning in
relation to self-objects, can take place in different learning environments (Aspelin,
2004). Nevertheless, there seem to be conditions for working with emotions and
motivations, which are a matter of professional judgement. For instance, it seems
important for teaching based upon emotional relations to value direct communica-
tion between teacher and students. From this point of view, long periods without
‘contact’ between teacher and learner may make it difficult to maintain the
important relation leaving the student with no ‘mirror’ to reflect his or her own
motivations and self-image. But from the same point of view, too much face-to-face
contact between teacher and student may be a problem if, for instance, the teacher
takes over and controls the relationship, which would make the student dependent.
Students being socialized into thinking that knowledge is teacher’s possession, to be
transmitted to them by the ‘almighty’ other, may seriously damage the learning
process (Salzberger-Wittenberg, 1983).
As mentioned in the introduction, it is my hypothesis that there is a connection
between methods and the teacher’s ‘objective’ possibility to function as a ‘self object’
to the students. The hypothesis is relevant, because it relates these theoretical
structures in a way, which may be tested empirically through these variables. Some
learning methods – for instance the class dialogue between teacher and students or
Cambridge Journal of Education 469
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
the kind of group work where the teacher makes his presence felt in the background
– enable the kind of communication characterized by closeness between teacher and
student. Other learning methods are characterized by distance between teacher and
student and therefore by situations where the student learns to handle learning with
emotional distance between student and teacher. To work with progression, not only
towards cognitive dimensions, but also towards emotional and motivational
dimensions, therefore also challenges student development from dependence to
independence from the teacher. The reason being that the scaffolding is only
distinguished from dependence in so far as the fading of the teacher, as an important
other, is incorporated in the pedagogical thinking. In this perspective it is the
professional task of the teacher to establish learning processes that shift between
security zones and challenge zones (Ziehe & Stubenrauch, 1982).
In the following section, a learning circle pointing out the ideal typical structure
of methods combined with the teacher’s role, learning styles, teaching methods and
types of communication will be presented. The model will be explained in detail
afterwards.
Model 1. The learning circle.
470 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
When teachers and students use the presentation-based approach, the dominating
learning style may be called deductive (or convergent in Kolb’s terminology). The
teacher represents the doxa of the subject to the students, and the theory is tested.
The teacher’s role is that of the presenter, as s/he presents the discourse of the subject.
In the presentation-based approach, the teacher takes control as the dominating
party. However, in order to use this approach with success s/he has to make sure that
the communication is intact, for instance by asking control questions and using
redundancy in order to protect the discourse from ‘noise’ (Luhmann, 1984/1999;
Rasmussen, 2004). Therefore student-presentation with the teacher as an examinator
is an important aspect of this teaching.
The presentation-based approach is characterized by a high level of teacher
control in relation to the input and output in the classroom. The teacher
structures the lesson or sequence, deciding both angle and pace in the treatment
of a certain subject. Also, the teacher explains, demonstrates and controls the
learning process in the classroom by changing between monologue and
examination. Communication between teacher and student is marked by distance.
The distance in communication is given by the circumstance that this method is
practised as teaching in the classroom with one teacher and many students, and
therefore a very low degree of individualization in communication. However, with
a successful use of the presentation-based method the teacher may correct
answers and introduce new theory and perspectives in a systematic and effective
manner. From a psycho-dynamic perspective, this approach offers a variety of
possibilities to work with the production of meaning and motivation in the
classroom: the teacher may present thoughts and methods to the students, which
they did not know in advance, and has rich opportunity to create collective
meaning and engagement, using his or her authority to motivate by making the
subject fascinating.
The core student competence needed to learn from the presentation-based
approach is the receptive competence and the goal of teaching is knowledge.
In the exercise-based approach, both deductive (convergent) and inductive
(divergent) learning styles can be used, depending on whether the teacher poses open
or closed questions. Students are to apply theoretical and methodical skills to new
materials or to combine pre-understanding with analysis. This method often follows
the presentation-based approach in a course involving presentation and practice. In
using exercises, the teacher may be called an instructor – s/he challenges the students
to the limit of their knowledge and competencies, working with them in their
approximate zone of development.
The exercise method is, like presentation, characterized by a high level of teacher
control as regards inputs for learning. This approach is used when the students are
asked to apply knowledge to relatively simple problems, often using skills of analysis
in demonstrating their understanding of the issue. By asking questions to be
answered, the teacher controls the input, while retaining focus upon their activities
and learning. Communication between teacher and individual student or student
group is characterized by closeness. While students answer questions individually or
in unison, the teacher makes his or her presence felt in the background by assisting
students who are having problems understanding or in implementing learning
strategies. At the same time the more able students scaffold the less able in an
informal process based on problem-solving communication.
Cambridge Journal of Education 471
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Working in this manner, the students learn how to transfer knowledge to new
situations in relatively simple ways. The core student competency to be developed
from this approach is application and the ability to manage simple problems.
Like the transmission-based approach, dialogue-based learning has its place in a
classroom of one teacher and 25–30 students. The place of the dialogue-based
approach is similar to that of the presentation-based one, namely the classroom, i.e.
students and a teacher. This kind of learning is first and foremost inductive (or
divergent). Students discuss or develop ideas, typically in relation to issues with no
precise answer. Compared to the presentation-based learning method this is aimed
more towards the student’s active construction of meaning, given its inductive
aspirations. The teacher’s role may be called participatory, in that discussing with the
students helps them combine analysis and theory. The dialogue approach is
characterized by low teacher control and therefore high learner control in relation to
the input and output of learning. The learners are asked to make informed guesses
and to question each other’s interpretations; in return the teacher takes part in the
discussions. However, it is important to distinguish between procedural and content
control. The teacher loosens the content control, but still conducts classroom
management by moderating the discussions and providing an inclusive atmosphere.
Communication is then characterized by closeness between teacher and students. The
teacher takes part in discussions, but instead of telling the students something they
didn’t know as in the presentation-based approach, the teacher participates in the
discussions and scaffolds the student’s efforts. For instance, by defining concepts to
support student experiences, the teacher functions as a catalyst for the students’ own
knowledge seeking. Also, the teacher discusses his or her own preferences of, for
instance aesthetic, political or moral character, pointing to the connection between
academic skills and personal preferences.
The student competence to work with within this approach is argumentation. By
working with the subject within the dialogue-based approach, the students learn how
to analyse, argue and connect experience and theory in a predominantly inductive
way. The competence to learn is argumentation and the ability to reflect.
The fourth approach is the project-based approach. Here, students learn how to
handle a complex learning process. Knowledge is created by the learner from the
study question and all learning styles are used. More learning styles can be integrated
in projects. The divergent learning style is relevant in the phase where the problem to
be worked with is being pinned down, and the research question is being formulated.
Assimilative learning is important when the theoretical categories to be used and
tested are found, while the convergent style is important when theory is being tested,
as in empirical studies based on hypotheses. Also, the accommodative learning style
may be used, for instance, when the students use technological knowledge to create
knowledge which is new to them. Learning is then said to be student initiated, and
the teacher’s role therefore becomes that of a consultant.
The project approach is characterized by low teacher control as regards inputs
and outputs. As students work, often for longer periods of time than in any of the
other methods, the teacher’s task is to increasingly weaken his or her control and
allow the students to experience the process. Mostly, teachers pre-define a
progression of events within this approach by controlling some phases of the
project in the beginning. This could be, for instance: framing the research question
and finding information – and only letting the students take control later on in the
472 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
process. The project-based work can be seen as the most challenging to the student;
the teacher’s function as facilitator and the teacher status as a ‘self object’ is
weakened – the students have to handle their learning and emotions for themselves.
The core competency to be learned from the project-based method is to handle
complex problems and to produce knowledge.
Data analysis
I will now present and discuss four empirical cases. The purpose is to illustrate how
the theoretical understanding being presented in the theoretical part of the article can
be used to analyse teaching and learning in real life. Also the purpose is to discuss
advantages and problems for students’ learning within the four methods. I have
chosen to present teaching being carried out by skilful and professional teachers. The
reason for this is that I want to analyse and discuss the different approaches to
learning when they basically seem to be successful and not when they are
problematic.
The presentation-based approach
Fieldwork has provided an excellent case for the presentation-based approach in a
maths lesson. The lesson was formed as an examination combined with teacher
explanations, sequenced into various parts. The first sequence consisted of two
student presentations on the blackboard. The first student performed a sum, while
there was silence and concentration in the classroom. The student does well – only
when he has problems does the teacher help him, until he is able to continue on his
own. After having finished, the student returns to his seat following which theteacher comments on the presentation and gives him a grade. The same procedure is
repeated with another student. The sequence is marked by high teacher control and
distance from the students in the class, except for the students being examined. The
next sequence is an examination of the whole class followed by teacher explanations.
The students each give a brief contribution to the treatment of homework. Most of
the students seemed well prepared, except for three students in a row who had not
done their homework and were therefore not able to contribute. The teacher passes
the first of the students without commenting, but as the next two students are in thesame situation, he changes his mind and returns to the first student. Perhaps because
he feels that it will undermine his authority not to react, or maybe to give these
students a chance to experience that the exercise is not as difficult as they may think.
The teacher’s mission succeeds: the three students answer the question, being visibly
relieved. In the third sequence, the teacher sums up the learning results of the lesson,
making some points clear and asking some hard questions, probably wanting to give
the clever students an opportunity to perform at a more advanced level than up until
now. The class reaches the end of the lesson, and the students seem to be quiteexhausted by the high degree of concentration and input required for the lesson.
Some of them are speaking of other things, and the teacher is forced to ask for
silence, while finishing his examination.
It is not difficult to see the advantage of this approach. The teacher controls
actual student understanding of the homework – by asking and commenting, he
corrects misunderstandings and scaffolds the students being examined. Also, this
kind of teaching makes it possible to work with the role repertoire of the students.
Cambridge Journal of Education 473
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
When the teacher examines all the students it is difficult ‘to hide’ and it is clear what
is expected from well-prepared students. Observations in this and other classes
revealed that the disciplinary function of the class examination was not necessarily to
create an over all atmosphere of anxiety, but rather to function as a very important
condition for the efficiency and focus of the presentation-based method. The
tendency to create nervous students not concentrating on the subject but rather
fearing the teacher is a conceptual relic from the days of a more authoritarian school
system. This seems to have been weakened nowadays, liberating the potential for self
reflection of the individual student while listening to the teacher or other students
being examined. To be a student learning from the presentation-based approach
seems very hard, no matter how good the teacher is at communicating. Even though
the lesson is sequenced within the frame of examination with large amounts of
feedback, the students are tired after 60 minutes, and observations show an
increasing number of students becoming distracted as the lesson proceeds. One
reason may be that the teacher creates a progression by changing subject or level of
abstraction within the single lesson, which is hard for some students to adapt.
Another reason may be that some students are not able perform the necessary inner
dialogue with themselves, and as the feedback from the teacher is only directed
towards very few students it seems easy for these students to lose concentration.
These students may have problems retaining motivation, wherefore they require
additional support and recognition by the teacher. Too much time without being
recognized by self objects seems to be a demotivating factor, when a method based
on distance between teacher and student is used. The very limited possibility for the
individual learners to express themselves and hereby control own understanding in
dialogue with others is yet another reason why students may have concentration
problems.
The exercise-based approach
Let us take a closer look at another case, also a lesson in mathematics, but with
another teacher, another class and in another school. Here, the teacher starts by
handing back papers to the students. Moving down the classroom, she comments on
the individual students’ papers, and afterwards she presents some of the more
principal questions at the blackboard, following which she asks the students to do
four exercises. It is not clear if these are to be solved in groups or individually; the
students may obviously choose the formality of the collaboration themselves. After
some bustle the students start working. There seems to be a strong concentration
among almost all the students. The teacher walks around, assisting anybody in need
of help. Learning is deductive, but the relation between teacher and students is based
on closeness: the teacher scaffolds according to the needs of the individual student.
One group with six girls mix individual and group work. They solve their exercises
individually, but several of the students ask the others when they have problems, and
small conversations develop. Typical comments are: ‘Try to have a look here …’,
‘What do you do when …’. One of the girls clearly has bigger problems
understanding than the rest, and she asks several times – also to the teacher. She
observes how the other students work and asks some questions, which are answered
in a very serious way by two students, and then returns to her own work. This is an
excellent example of students scaffolding each other in the learning process. The
474 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
lesson is finished by a shift to a more presentation-based method. By ending the
lesson using direct control with student understanding the teacher is making sure
that students having problems understanding in the first session, comprehend in the
second round.
This math lesson seems very efficient to the observer. Apparently, it is a class
where the students are used to working individually and in groups: they help each
other without the need for formalized group work, which is an everyday example of
what Lave and Wenger (1991) call ‘legitimate peripheral learning’. The student uses
his or her classmates as scaffolding in an effort to understand. This approach
enhances differentiated learning, where students contribute to the group or work for
themselves according to their academic level.
In the interviews many teachers speak positively of the exercise-based approach:
sequences are often short and the teacher controls inputs and degrees of difficulty. At
the same time the teacher can scaffold events, while maintaining a high level of
activity among the students. Exercises seem to be a compromise between a
curriculum-based and an activity-based approach, being most valuable when it
comes to simple application of subject knowledge. However, observations indicate
that exercise-based work is insufficient when it comes to individual self regulation of
learning.
The dialogue-based approach
In a case taken from a Danish lesson, the students receive evaluation of their essays,
and the class discusses issues pertaining to these. In his introduction, the teacher
informs that, in general, he finds the essays to be well written, and he explains why
the various grades were given. He continues by focusing on the topic of the essays,
namely the art of argumentation. One student says that she has once tried to have a
letter to the editor published in a newspaper. There is a short discussion between
teacher and student about the possible reasons of the refusal. Then one student asks
what the difference between a feature article and a letter to the editor is. This is an
example of the inductive elements of the dialogue-based method: student interests
and problems are important elements in the learning process. The teacher gives an
example, which leads to a class discussion of genres. The students, taking part in the
discussion, are praised by the teacher for their ability to distinguish between text
genres they have not yet learned about. The teacher reads aloud from a report
exemplifying language where the writer very effectively uses her own words instead
of academic words. Other students read from their reports and it comes to a
discussion about their language. After some time the teacher takes the lead and
transforms the students’ comments into more precise academic concepts, showing
that theory can be based in experience. Here the hermeneutic process of
understanding is built into the communication between teacher and students. An
intense discussion occurs between two students about how to use experiences in
writing. The teacher tries to bring the discussion to a new level by appointing two
students with different opinions as ‘advocates’. The teacher takes the role of
chairman and at the same time he intervenes and complements the students’
argumentation, supplementing with exact academic phrases. After this, the teacher
introduces the upcoming theme: the relationship between the local and the global.
The teacher asks three students from Russia, Bosnia and Africa respectively to
Cambridge Journal of Education 475
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
describe their relations to places of birth and their place in Denmark where they
currently live. He uses the positive classroom atmosphere, with its openness, to
different individual experiences, to integrate students who probably have problems
using their background in the ordinary lessons. Using ordinary words the three
students tell intense stories, capturing the whole class. The teacher points to some
authors who have written about living between cultures. Finally, he briefly tells
about his own childhood in Copenhagen and what happened to him when he moved
to the countryside as an adult. He acts as a participant, giving his contribution to the
experience-based learning. All this is put into perspective by relating it to a coming
theme on how fiction can make distance from your own beliefs possible in a
decentring way.
This lesson may be described as a class dialogue with several sequences. The form
is inductive and divergent as the students use experiences and reflections to
understand. Student experiences are combined with academic reflection and
concepts by the teacher, who scaffolds the assimilation of theory to experiences
and uses closeness in communication to integrate students who are normally found
in the periphery of the class.
Seen from a teacher’s perspective, the success of this manner of teaching is a
question of engaging the students by asking interesting questions and allowing the
students’ discussion to become the motor of the lesson. Every time the students reach a
limit, the teacher switches to something else, creating new ‘tiny’ zones of development.
From a psycho-dynamic perspective, it is clear that the teacher allows a lot of time for
the individual student to present himself and to feel connected to the rest of the group.
From the observations, it may be seen that the dialogue-based approach is excellent
when the students’ communicative and argumentative skills are to be developed. Also,
this learning method is efficient when the students must develop their ability to make
qualified guesses in hermeneutic knowledge processes. In order to use the dialogue-
based learning method, it is necessary for the teacher to promote reflection and
argumentation in the classroom by posing open questions and relating discussions to
the students’ own experiences. From research (Trondman, 1998), we know that there
are differences in learner strategies relating to ‘critical reflection’ and learner strategies
relating to ‘right answers’, which may be socially determined. It is therefore clear that
this approach is not motivational for all students. There seems to be a downside to such
dialogues, in that more privileged students find it interesting to discuss and make critical
arguments rather than, for example, solving problems and reaching hard conclusions.
Perhaps the Danish teacher in this case asks students of foreign origin in order to
prevent such problems. The teacher uses his procedural control to involve the whole
class by picking out students to make introductions to discussion or taking ‘roles’.
The project-based approach
My last example is taken from another class in another school, where students and
teachers were conducting a cross-curricular project on physics, social science and
English in regard to global warming. This kind of project work has become
obligatory following the 2005 reform of the upper secondary school. Seven groups
were formed, and they designed their study question, culminating in a synopsis. The
observer and social science teacher were located in the classroom where
consultations between teacher and some student groups had been arranged. When
476 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
the teacher and observer entered the class, a group of three students had arrived. One
student mentions that the other groups are either in other places at the school or at
home. The teacher speaks with the group about their research question, which is
based on a paper. The teacher says that the approach to the problem is too general
and should be more specific. In this circumstance, it is clear that the teacher’s
function is to be a catalyst for discussion – once the students get started they are left
to themselves. The teacher acts as a consultant, assisting the project groups for a
short while and then leaving the students to their own reflections. Some students
work in various places at the school, while others have chosen to work at home,
which is allowed in this project. In one group the students seem to work hard,
wanting to discuss a problem with the teacher. In other groups things progress at a
slower pace. Two boys using a computer seem completely flaccid. As the teacher
passes, indicating that she is ready to speak with them, one of the boys says
apologetically: ‘We are tired – haven’t slept much last night.’ The science teacher
finds a group of girls in a very communicative mood. One asks a question, which the
teacher answers and thereafter walks away. In the classroom, the social science
teacher instructs two students next to the blackboard. They have problems
understanding a formula and are in need of help. Two students enter the room.
They tell the teacher they needed his help yesterday and sought to find him, but in
vain. The teacher replies that he really does not understand why they could not find
him, as he was at school all day.
From the conversation it is clear that some subjects are easier to practice in a
project format than others. In the above-mentioned project, where social science and
physics were being used together, the students found it much easier to use concepts
from social science than those from physics. The reason may be that in this class the
students have only been taught intermediary physics, while they had followed
advanced social science. Being challenged in this way the students therefore seem to
‘slide’ into social science, repressing the parts of the project that relate to physics.
Some students were even observed giving up, because it was too challenging for them
to work without a teacher’s guidance for such a long period. Long periods with
distance in communication between students and teacher seem to make some
students give up. In spite of this, groups were seen to manage the use of methods
from the pertinent subjects and to discuss these at an advanced level.
In this project, the idea of student responsibility for their own learning is almost
fully realized. Although teachers may help the students in the various phases of their
project, for instance when they have a meeting or the teacher passes on his ‘rounds’,
it is obvious they have loosened control on the learning process in a radical way,
handing over the responsibility to the students.
Some teachers notice many students in the upper secondary school who have
enough personal and academic self-confidence and social skills to manage this
challenging method. The teachers hold a more problem-oriented attitude when it
comes to students with low motivation and academic self esteem. A more
scaffolding-oriented teacher is required than circumstances allow, when using the
project-based approach. Teachers also emphasize the fact that the project method is
only intermittently effective. In order to create good projects, the students require
sufficient subject knowledge, not least regarding methodology. In the terminology of
this paper it appears that project-oriented learning is only possible if students have
competencies being taught within the three other methods.
Cambridge Journal of Education 477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Table 1. The four ideal types in relation to data.
Presentation Instruction Dialogue Project
High teacher control/distance High teacher control/closeness Low teacher control/ closeness Low teacher control/distance
Presenter Instructor Participant Consultant
Variations N Lecture Management in relation to: N Conversation Management in relation to:
N Examination N Content (open/closed
questions)
N Teacher/student lecture with
discussion
N Length of the project
N Deductive experiment N Communication (teacher–
student discussion)
N Choice of materials
N Research question
N Product to produce
N Student–teacher discussions
during the process
Core competencies
to develop
Reception: Application: Interpretation: Production:
N To listen N To learn from working with
others
N To argue N To learn from working with
others
N To ask N To solve a specific problem N To reflect N To ask research questions
N To understand N To discuss N To solve a complex problem
N To apply N To combine theory and
analysis
Suitable when: N Difficult theory is being
learned and
demonstrated
N Students have to work with
their understanding of a
particular problem
N Students are to develop their
verbal competencies
N Students have to work with
transfer of knowledge
N Control with individual
understanding is
important
N Student experiences have a
high priority
N Students have to learn how
to work in a ‘scientific’
manner
N Students need the teacher in
order to conceptualize their
reflections
47
8S
.B
eck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Problematic when: N Teaching turns into
monologue or long
sequences with only one
student
N Students’ motivations differ N Students are afraid of
performance due to
inappropriate classroom
culture
N Students lack subject skills
to answer research
questions
N Too many students are
unable to concentrate due
to passivity
N Exercises are either too easy
or to difficult
N Teachers favour certain
students
N Students lack metacognitive
skills in order to control the
project process
Table 1. Continued.
Ca
mb
ridg
eJ
ou
rna
lo
fE
du
catio
n4
79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Conclusion
The most important findings from the research data on the relation between
methods, the teacher’s role, student competencies and challenges can be seen in
Table 1.
What may be learned about effective teaching from the theoretical considera-
tions and data analyses presented in this article?
Being a good teacher includes the capacity to make use of all major approaches and
to refine each of them according to the mechanisms that pertain to them. In other
words: working with student competencies and learning means being able to stimulate
the learners’ ability to reproduce existing knowledge, discuss and challenge existing
knowledge and to apply subject discourses to simple and complex problem solving. All
of these capacities should be activated if effective learning is to be realized.
In this perspective it would be too simple to overemphasize the dichotomy
between productive and reproductive knowledge or between deductive and inductive
learning. Rather the different types of knowledge should be seen as related in a
taxonomical and synergetic way, being connected and made productive to the
learner in learning processes. For instance, presentation and project work may be
combined in such a way that the course introduction managed by the teacher leads to
project work managed by the students. And the simple application may lead to more
advanced application. Such combinations can take place in ambitious courses lasting
weeks or months; however, they may also take place in smaller courses lasting only
one lesson. In fact, one lesson involving presentation, a small group work and class
discussion involves three of the methods analysed in this article. It seems to me that
the question about the relationships between approaches must be investigated
further in future research to find out the mechanisms of such shifts in order to tell
what ‘best practice’ is.
References
Aspelin, J. (2004). Stolthed og skam i undervisningen. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change,
November/December, 13–25. Washington DC: Heldref Publications.
Beck, S. (2007). Lærings – og undervisningsfeltet. In L. Zeuner et al. (Eds.). Lærerroller i
praksis (pp. 275–380). Odense: Syddansk Universitet.
Beck, S., & Frederiksen, L.F. (2008). Teaching, leadership and school culture – From loose to
tight couplings. International Journal of Management in Education, 2(1), 1–13.
Dewey, J. (1930). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action.
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiental learning – Experience as the source of learning and development.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; Selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.).
New York: Harper & Row.
Linden, N. (1996). Scaffolding children’s learning. Vygotskian perspectives. Bergen: Caspar
Forlag.
Luhmann, N. (1984/1999). Soziale systeme. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Piaget, J. (1947/2001). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge.
480 S. Beck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Qvortrup, L. (2001). Det lærende samfund. Copenhagen: Unge Pædagoger.
Rasmussen, J. (2004). Undervisning i det refleksivt moderne. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels
Forlag.
Salzberger-Wittenberg, I., Williams, G., & Osborne, E. (1983). The emotional experience of
teaching and learning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Trondman, M. (1998). Kultursociologien i praktikken. Lund: Studentforlaget.
Tønnes Hansen, J. (2002). Stilladseringens selvobjektdimension. In J. Tønnes Hansen (Ed.),
Stilladsering – en pædagogisk metaphor (pp. 97–126). Aarhus: Klim.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (1904–1917/1949). Objectivity in social sciences. In E.A. Shils & H.A. Finch (Eds.),
Max Weber on the methodology of social sciences (pp. 88–99). New York: Free Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Zeuner, L., Beck, S., Frederiksen, L.F., & Paulsen, M. (2006). Gymnasiets dilemmaer –
lærernes positioner. Odense: Syddansk Universitet.
Ziehe, T., & Stubenrauch, H. (1982). Pladoyer fur ungewohnliches lernen, ideen zur
jugendsituation. Hamburg: Reinbek.
Cambridge Journal of Education 481
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alga
ry]
at 0
3:06
06
Oct
ober
201
4
