A Deeper Look inside Teaching Scripts: Learning ...

Cornelia Geller, Knut Neumann and Hans E. Fischer

A Deeper Look inside Teaching Scripts: Learning Process Orientations in Finland, Germany and Switzerland

Abstract Based on the basis model framework for teaching and learning processes (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001), this study focused on learning process orientations as one aspect of teaching scripts. Drawing on previous studies (Reyer, 2004; Gerber, 2007), four types of learning process orientations were analysed in frequency and effectiveness in Finland, Switzerland and Germany. High-inference video analysis revealed that in Germany a rarely concept building orientation is preferred. This orientation can also be related to lower learning gains in students’ content knowledge. However, differences in these learning process orientations may also be connected to other instructional characteristics with remarkable country effects. Such possible relations could be addressed in further research.

1

Theoretical Background

1.1 The Concept of Teaching Scripts In the beginning of previous video-based comparative research, the analysis of teaching patterns—sequences of instructional activities in the course of a lesson— led to the concept of national teaching scripts that represent the typical teaching approach in a country (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). But as further studies revealed more than one teaching pattern in a country (Givvin, Hiebert, Jacobs, Hollingsworth, & Gallimore, 2005; Pauli & Reusser, 2003), this concept is extended to teaching scripts which are less constituted by national cultures than by “cultures of teaching theories” (Pauli & Reusser, 2003, pp. 242). With reference to theories of teaching and learning, teaching scripts are elements of teachers’ professional knowledge and can not only be conceptualised at the surface structure, but also at the deep structure of instruction (cf. Pauli & Reusser, 2003; Seidel & Prenzel, 2006; Fischer, Neumann, Labudde, & Viiri, this volume): According to this conceptualisation, teaching scripts ideally consist of sequences of activities and their functional impacts on students’ learning (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001). Thus, more recent international studies of science instruction have attempted to analyse these conceptualised teaching scripts. For instance, students in Finland (as a high performer in PISA) reported about highly inquiry-oriented science lessons, which are rarely found in other OECD countries (Kobarg et al., 2011). In contrast, a

Neumann.indb 73

18.02.14 10:49

74 |


substantial amount of video recorded science lessons in the United States (as a low performer in TIMSS) lacked in a conceptual orientation of instructional activities (Roth et al., 2006). On the assumption that these country differences in classroom activities are the effects of teachers’ orientation on different kinds of intended learning processes, research of country comparisons has to take into account the different corresponding teaching approaches. However, comparative research on instruction in diverse countries is typically—if at all explicitly—referring to only one teaching approach, for example, scientific inquiry (Kobarg et al., 2011) or direct instruction (Herweg, 2008). This is remarkable as there is evidence for differential effects of specific teaching approaches on students’ outcomes (Hattie, 2008). In order to explain country differences in students’ outcomes—as intended in the whole project (see Fischer et al., this volume)—different teaching approaches have to be considered in this study. According to Hugener et al. (2009), deep structure aspects of instruction are seen as particularly relevant, therefore, this study focused on teachers’ intentions for different learning processes as one aspect of the deep structure of teaching approaches. As a part of teaching scripts and in congruence with the project goals (see Fischer et al., this volume), these intentions for learning processes were investigated with regard to possible country differences and their effectiveness for students’ achievement and these are reported in this chapter.

1.2 Learning Processes according to the Basis Models As a theoretical basis for the study, a framework is needed which describes different teaching approaches at the deep structure of instruction. This framework of this study was founded on the basis model theory by Oser and Baeriswyl (2001). Independent from concrete instructional activities (i.e., the surface level structure), this theory proposes different sequences of students’ cognitive processes as ideal types of learning processes. These so-called basis models are derived from other teaching approaches, for example, problem-based learning or discovery learning. Therefore, the specific basis models of this theory are not newly constructed, but integrated in an overarching framework by relating different sequences to specific kinds of learning goals. These specific learning goals can be interpreted as different types of knowledge (see Table 1 for three selected basis models). For each single process, Oser and Baeriswyl (2001) proposed that the teacher should organise a sequence of functional elements to offer to the students the opportunity for running through the process in an optimal way.

Neumann.indb 74

18.02.14 10:49

Teaching Scripts

| 75

Table 1: Brief description of ideal sequences by their functional elements (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001) mapped to intended types of knowledge (formulated by the authors) Basis model

Sequence of functional elements

Intended type of knowledge

Concept Building (CB)

CB 1. Activation of pre-knowledge CB 2. Elaboration of a prototype CB 3. Analysis of essential categories and principles CB 4. Active dealing with the concept CB 5. Application in different contexts

Conceptual knowledge – high linkage within the semantic memory

Learning through experience (LE)

LE 1. Anticipation/ planning of actions LE 2. Performance of actions LE 3. Construction of meaning for the activity LE 4. Generalization of the experience LE 5. Reflection of similar experience

Experiential knowledge – high linkage between episodic and semantic memory

Problem solving (PS)

PS 1. Presentation and specification of the problem PS 2. Search of possible approaches PS 3. Test of approaches PS 4. Evaluation of solution(s)

Procedural knowledge – high applicability of declarative knowledge

Concept building—the most frequently used basis model—is ideally organised by the sequence as shown in Table 1 (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001). After activating the pre-knowledge, the new concept is elaborated at a prototypic example; and then from this concrete level the concept has to be inferred by analysing essential categories. This is the central step of defining the concept which is then followed by two phases of using the concept in different ways (near and far from the prototypic situation) in order to decontextualise the knowledge for flexible use. Whereas this sequence of students’ cognitive processes is describing the deep structure of instruction, the surface structure can be organised in different ways, for instance, as direct instruction—an effective approach for content learning (Hattie, 2008). In contrast, the sequence of learning through experience (for details about the functional elements, see Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001) can be related to the conceptions of discovery learning or practical work which are seen as less successful for constructing conceptual knowledge (Hattie, 2008; Abrahams & Millar, 2008). The basis models are not specific for science instruction, but teaching approaches for science instruction can be represented by specific combinations of the basis models (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001). For instance, the 5E learning cycle of scientific inquiry (Bybee et al., 2006) can be conceptualized as a process of concept building, in which the elaboration of a prototype and the active dealing with the new concept are substituted by a sequence of learning through experience or problem solving. This concept of scientific inquiry as a combination of two basis models allows separating different functional elements and avoiding the often claimed ill-definition of inquiry-based approaches (Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010). An additional advantage of the basis model framework is its potential for describing physics instruction as Reyer (2004), Gerber (2007), and Wackermann, Trendel and Fischer (2010) could show in their studies. Based on these findings, physics instruction is mostly structured as a combination of concept building and learning through experience, whereas problem solving is only rarely implemented. Therefore, Gerber differentiated between three types to describe physics lessons

Neumann.indb 75

18.02.14 10:49

76 |


under a learning process perspective namely concept building, first concept building, then learning through experience and first learning through experience, then concept building. As this is the only systematic differentiation of physics instruction—based on the sequence of instructional elements and the sequence in particular is seen as a relevant aspect in country comparisons (Givvin et al., 2005)—this differentiation was used for the present study (see table 2). Additionally, the third type first learning through experience, then concept building was further differentiated on the present study because of PISA’s international results on scientific inquiry patterns (Kobarg et al., 2011). According to students’ perception of the frequencies of inquiry-based activities in PISA 2006, a so-called blended pattern with the highest amount of scientific inquiry activities was very seldom observed in Finland but more common in Germany and Switzerland. This finding is similar to the results of Gerber (2007) and Reyer (2004) that there are relevant numbers of lessons consisting mostly of learning through experience and with only a small role of concept building. As these lessons are all part of the third type in Gerber’s system, it was further divided for this study in a type rarely concept building and another type concept building as continuing part (see Table 2). This differentiation is especially important concerning differential effects for students’ learning, as this blended pattern comes along with lower levels of students’ scientific literacy (Kobarg et al., 2011). Table 2: Classifications of physics or science instruction according to different studies. Classification

Types

Types of sequencing (Gerber, 2007)

CB

Patterns of SI (Kobarg et al., 2011)

Limited pattern of SI

Focused pattern of SI

Blended pattern of SI

Mainly CB

CB as introducing CB as continuing part part

Rarely CB

Learning process orientations (present study)

First CB, than LE

First LE, than CB

Note. CB = concept building, LE = Learning through experience, SI = scientific inquiry. Types supposed as of similar characteristics in vertical alignment .

Considering not a perfect fit to the ideal sequences (Table 1), we used the term learning process orientation in the four types of teachers’ intentions for learning processes (see Table 2). These four derived types are describing the kind of learning processes teachers probably intend to encourage in their instructional activities, whereupon the decision for a specific learning process and its manifestation is expected to be country specific. For students’ learning, the kind of learning process should be relevant for a specific type of knowledge as learning outcome (see Table 1, last row). In particular, for gaining conceptual knowledge, the four learning process orientations can be expected to differ in their effectiveness.

Neumann.indb 76

18.02.14 10:49

Teaching Scripts

2

| 77

Research Questions

With regard to teaching scripts in science instruction, there is evidence for different frequencies of specific teaching approaches in different countries (Roth et al., 2006; Kobarg et al., 2011). Thus, in this study a comprehensive framework for regarding types of learning processes (Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001) was used to analyse deep structure aspects of teaching scripts in terms of the following two research questions: Research question 1 (RQ1): To what extent do the countries differ in terms of learning process orientations? Based on the results of Kobarg et al. (2011), it is expected that the orientation rarely concept building is less frequently offered in Finland than in Germany and Switzerland. As stated before (see Section 1), the effectiveness of the four types of learning process orientations is of peculiar interest for this study. In accordance with the whole QuIP project (see Neumann et al., this volume), this effectiveness is exclusively determined by students’ learning gains regarding conceptual content knowledge. Research question 2 (RQ2): To what extent do learning process orientations affect classes’ learning gains? Research has already provided evidence for different scores of effectiveness of teaching approaches as direct instruction and inquiry-based learning (see section 1), in particular a blended pattern of scientific inquiry (see Table 2) could be related to lower students’ outcomes. Therefore, it is expected that the learning process orientation rarely concept building is less effective for increasing conceptual content knowledge than the three other orientations (mainly concept building, concept building as introducing part, concept building as continuing part).

3

Research Design and Methods

The research design of the study was based on that of the whole project (see Neumann et al., this volume). With respect to Givvin et al. (2005), the duration and sequence of instructional elements were considered for the analysis of learning process orientation. First, the duration of functional elements was determined by video analysis of the double lessons. This video analysis was based on an adapted coding scheme of Gerber (2007), but the assessed time was based on a unit of 30 sec with disjunctive coding. This coding scheme allows categorising the teacher’s offers to the students as intended functional elements of the basis models CB, LE and PS (for categories, see Table 1; for an example of operationalisation, see Table 3). However, because of the lack of identification, some categories were combined. The results in a category “CB 3+” consist of “CB 3”, “LE 5” and “CB 5” which all indicate functions of generalisation or systematisation.

Neumann.indb 77

18.02.14 10:49

78 |


Table 3: Exemplary summary of one category of the coding manual Category

Aspect of the deep structure

Example on the surface structure

Active dealing with the new concept (CB 4)

Applying the new concept

Students have to use a new formula to solve tasks

Analysis of the new concept

Students have to explain a new term with own words

Synthesis of the new concept

Students have to construct a concept map based on a school book text about the new concept

Second, the data from the video coding in the course of the double lesson were analysed. The order of the third functional element of concept building (“CB 3”, see Table 1) as its central step was determined in relation to intended functional elements of other learning processes as learning through experience or problem solving. In this way, two criteria are established for the categorisation of lessons according to different learning process orientations, reflecting the role of concept building (see Table 4). The duration of concept building is considered by the first criterion, which is the proportion of instructional time spent on concept building. Its sequence is considered by the second criterion, the position of its central step – the concept introduction. The limiting values of the criteria for the four categories are derived from referring types of previous studies (Reyer, 2004; Gerber, 2007). The high-inference video analysis was done by three coders (including a Finnish–German bilingual). For examining the interrater reliability, the coders A and C analysed physics instruction of 14 double lessons, whereas coder B did only 11 of the lessons, according to the intended functional elements (see second row in Table 1). Based on these codings, the lessons were assigned to one of the four types of learning process orientation (see criteria in Table 4). By using Cohen’s Kappa (κ) as a measure, the agreement concerning the coding of the learning process orientation types can be quantified with the following values: for coders A and B, κ = .66 (n = 11); for coders A and C, κ = .64 (n = 14) and for coders B and C, κ = .54 (n = 11). These values indicated a low but sufficient agreement for this high-inference variable (cf. Fischer & Neumann, 2012).

Neumann.indb 78

18.02.14 10:49

Teaching Scripts

| 79

Table 4: Operationalisation of learning process orientations based on the coding of functional elements for concept building (CB), learning through experience (LE) and problem solving (PS) Learning process orientation

1st criterion: Proportion of CB elements

2nd criterion: First offer of any element of PL or LE

Mainly concept building

Part CB > 65%

Without restriction

Concept building as introducing part

30% < Part CB < 65%

PL or LE after element CB 3+

Concept building as continuing part

30% < Part CB < 65%

PL or LE before element CB 3+

Rarely concept building

Part CB < 30%

Without restriction

In order to relate the learning process orientations to classes’ learning gains, residual learning gains were calculated as outcome measures regarding content knowledge. The residuals were estimated in a regression model by predicting students’ scores in the posttest with their scores in the pretest and the test of cognitive abilities (for these instruments, see Spoden & Geller, this volume). These individual residual learning gains were then aggregated at class level. It should be noted that the sample size for this analysis was 102 instead of 103 as one class missed the test for cognitive abilities and therefore no residual learning gains were calculated.

4

Results

The aim of the study was to analyse the learning process orientation of physics instruction with regard to country differences and students outcomes. The descriptive results are shown in Table 5. Mainly concept building was the most frequent learning process orientation in the whole sample of the three countries. In the lessons of this orientation, more instructional time was spent on the elaboration of a prototype and the active dealing with the new concept (CB 2 and CB 4) than on the activation of pre-knowledge and the analysis (CB 1 and CB 3+). Similar results can be found for the other orientations provided that sequences of learning through experience are substitutions for CB 2 or CB 4 (see Section 1 about combinations of basis models referring to scientific inquiry). As expected from previous research (Reyer, 2004; Gerber, 2007; Wackermann et al., 2010), problem solving was only offered to a minimal amount and mostly at the beginning of the lesson. Therefore, the learning process orientation rarely concept building practically implies an offer of mainly learning through experience.

Neumann.indb 79

18.02.14 10:49

80 |


Table 5: Frequencies and time arrangements of the four learning process orientations Learning process orientation

n


40


14

Concept building as continuing part

23


26

Description: Mean of minutes for functional elements

CB 1 lined - LE

CB 2 dotted - PS

CB 3+ AIM

CB 4 ORG

Note. The functional elements of concept building are presented as CB 1, CB 2, CB 3+ and CB 4. For the sake of clarity, the elements of learning through experience and problem solving are summarized as LE and PL respectively. AIM = aim unclear or other aims. ORG = organisational issues. Functional elements are ordered in a typical sequence. Individual double lessons can follow more complex patterns.

The first goal of the study was to identify country differences (RQ 1). Consequently, the sample was restricted to one double lesson per teacher—and therefore to 99 double lessons —in order not to overemphasize the contribution of four teachers with two classes. The frequencies of double lessons by country and by learning process orientation are depicted in Figure 1.

Neumann.indb 80

18.02.14 10:49

Teaching Scripts

| 81

Figure 1: Frequency of double lessons according to the four types of learning process orientations.

A Chi-square test revealed a significant mean relation between the country and the type of learning process orientation, χ2 (6, N = 99) = 21.07, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .33. The standardized residuals (SR) indicated that the frequency of rarely concept building is significantly lower in Finland, n = 1, SR = -2.1, p < .05; and significantly higher in Germany, n = 20, SR = 2.6, p < .05. The second goal of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of different learning process orientations (RQ 2). Table 6 summarises the residual learning gains of the classes for the four types of orientation. A one-way ANOVA showed a main effect of the learning process orientation on the classes’ residual learning gains, F (3, 98) = 3.00, p < .05, partial η2 = .08. Planned comparisons between the last level and the mean of previous levels revealed that classes with scripts focused on rarely concept building had significantly lower learning gains compared to classes with instruction of the three more concept-oriented learning process orientations, p < .01; d = .23. However, the groups of classes with different learning process orientations were unbalanced with regard to the countries (see Figure 1). Therefore, it has to be clearly stated that the results cannot provide evidence for an effect of learning process orientation on residual learning gains independent from a country effect. This is of particular relevance as the country effect on residual learning gains on the class level was of remarkable size, F (2, 99) = 14.28; p < .001; η2 = .22. But the low and strongly different group sizes of the countries within the four types of learning process orientations restrict the possibilities for further analyses with reasonable output.

Neumann.indb 81

18.02.14 10:49

82 |


Table 6: Residual learning gains for the four types of learning process orientation Learning process orientation

n

M

SD


40

.10

.38


14

.08

.32

Concept building continuing part

23

.03

.29


25

-.16

.38

total

102

.02

.36

5

Conclusion

Learning process orientation of double lessons was analysed with regard to country differences and the effectiveness of students’ learning. The results revealed differences with respect to learning process orientation rarely concept building across the three countries. This type of learning process was mainly applied in German classes, whereas it was only seldom used in Finnish classes. At the same time, the rarely concept building orientation can be related to lower students’ gains in content knowledge, but not by controlling country effects. Thus, the country differences make it difficult to interpret the results with regard to effectiveness. As nearly all classes of the rarely concept building orientation were German and Swiss classes, the lower learning gains in these classes cannot definitely be related to this orientation as there could be other variables differing between the countries with higher impacts on the learning gains (e.g., the content of the whole instructional unit). Therefore, further research is needed about the impact of learning process orientations so that new findings of particular interest could point to different foci within a type of learning process orientation. Because detailed analyses of the time arrangement within a learning process orientation (not shown) revealed also country differences, namely that in German double lessons less time was spent on the highorder functional elements of concept building (CB 3+ and CB 4) than in Finnish lessons. These time differences may lead to further categories for learning process orientations. For instance, mainly concept building lessons with more time for exercises on the introduced concept could point to a teaching script of direct instruction, whereas lessons with more time for the elaboration of the concept could represent a more constructivist-oriented script (for detailed analyses of constructivist orientation, see von Arx, this volume). However, the methodological approach of a time-based analysis is also a limitation of the study, as it allows no further structural analyses about substitutions of sequences. Further research may also put emphasis on other aspects of structuring, namely the quality of guidance in classes with different learning process orientations. In particular, for student-centred teaching approaches (e.g., discovery learning), research has already shown that guidance by the teacher is more relevant for the effective-

Neumann.indb 82

18.02.14 10:49

Teaching Scripts

| 83

ness of instruction than the teaching approach itself (e.g., Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011). Therefore, it can be expected that additional analyses of the guidance in the different learning process orientations could further clarify the revealed country differences. From the practitioner’s perspective, the German orientation on learning through experience shows the impact of experiential knowledge as a goal of science instruction. It refers to robust cultures of teaching theories (see Section 1) that German instruction rather seems to strive for this kind of knowledge, although the topic of the lesson (see Neumann et al., this volume) better fits concept building than learning through experience. The appreciation of specific learning processes and their facilitation by appropriate lesson structures may also be a question of teachers’ professional knowledge which has to be clarified in further studies. Nevertheless, the valuation and the implementation of different teaching scripts could be more emphasised in teacher education of all the three countries. Country differences, as found in this study, can be used to encourage a more detailed reflection of teachers on why and how to apply different kinds of learning process orientations for different learning goals.

References Abrahams, I. & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1945–1969. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discoverybased instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (1), 1–18. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., VanScotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. www.bscs.org. Fischer, H. E. & Neumann, K. (2012). Video analysis as a tool for understanding science instruction. In J. Dillon & D. Jorde (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe.) (pp. 115–140). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Gerber, B. (2007). Strukturierung von Lehr-Lern-Sequenzen im Physikunterricht [Structuring of teaching-learning sequences in physics instruction]. Bern: Dissertation at the university of Bern. Givvin, K., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Comparative Education Review, 49 (3), 311–342. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. London: Routledge. Herweg, C. (2008). Zielorientierung im deutschen und schweizerischen Unterricht – Eine Videostudie. [Goal orientation in German and Swiss instruction – A video study]. Kiel, Universitätsbibliothek. Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19, 66–78.

Neumann.indb 83

18.02.14 10:49

84 |


Kobarg, M., Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., Walker, M., McCrae, B., Cresswell, J., & Wittwer, J. (2011). An international comparison of science teaching and learning: Further results from PISA 2006. Münster: Waxmann. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction — what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 474–496. Oser, F. K. & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), AERA’s handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 1031–1065). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. (2003). Unterrichtsskripts im schweizerischen und im deutschen Mathematikunterricht [Teaching scripts in Swiss and German mathematics teaching]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31 (3), 238–272. Reyer, T. (2004). Oberflächenmerkmale und Tiefenstrukturen im Unterricht. Exemplarische Analysen im Physikunterricht der gymnasialen Sekundarstufe.[Surface and deep structure characteristics of instruction: Exemplary analyses of physics instruction at secondary school level] Berlin: Logos. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., … Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study, Statistical Analysis Report (NCES 2006-011). Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Education/U.S. Government Printing Office. Seidel, T. & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16 (3), 228–240. Stigler, J. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. Free press. Wackermann, R., Trendel, G., & Fischer, H. (2010). Evaluation of a Theory of Instructional Sequences for Physics Instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (7), 963–98.

Neumann.indb 84

18.02.14 10:49