Enhancing classrooms interactions to improve learning: examples ...

Enhancing classrooms interactions to improve learning: examples from New Zealand research Bronwen Cowie, Judy Moreland, Beverley Cooper and Alister Jones Centre for Science and Technology Education Research University of Waikato Hamilton, New Zealand In recent times, two influences have converged to highlight the crucial role of the teacher in educational reform. These two influences are firstly changes in how learning and learners are viewed; and secondly an appreciation of the relationships between teaching, learning, assessment and curriculum. This paper draws on two reviews of the international research literature (Carr et. al., 2000 and Hipkins et. al., 2002) and two classroom based research projects (Cowie, 2000 and Jones and Moreland, 2003) all undertaken by staff of the Centre of Science and Technology Education Research [CSTER] from 1995 – 2003. It is argued for the central role of the teacher and of assessment for learning as vehicles for enhancing student achievement in technology and science. The paper makes a case for the role of teacher pedagogical content knowledge and the importance of teacher-student interactions in assessment for learning. Factors that contribute to enhancing assessment for learning and some strategies to help teachers with this challenging task are discussed. Introduction In recent times, two influences have converged to highlight the crucial role of the teacher in educational reform. These two influences are firstly changes in how learning and learners are viewed; and secondly an appreciation of the relationships between teaching, learning, assessment and curriculum. This paper draws on two reviews of the international research literature (Carr et. al., 2000; Hipkins et. al., 2002) and two classroom based research projects (Bell and Cowie, 2001; Cowie, 2000; Jones and Moreland, 2003; Moreland, 2003) all undertaken by staff of the Centre of Science and Technology Education Research [CSTER] from 1995 – 2003. The paper makes a case for the role of teacher pedagogical content knowledge and the importance of teacher-student interactions in assessment for learning. Factors that contribute to enhancing assessment for learning and some strategies to help teachers with this challenging activity are discussed. Background Science education research at Waikato, and internationally, has contributed to the recognition that students construct their own explanations to make sense of the world and that these explanations often contrast with those of scientists. Conceptual change research in science education has consistently found that student ideas are resistant to change. Students are active rather than passive in the learning process. More recently it has been recognised that “conceptual change” approaches tend to emphasise individual learning to the neglect of some of the wider social aspects involved in doing and learning science (Driver et al,. 1994; Duit and Treagust, 1998; Lemke, 2001). Social constructivist and socio-cultural views of learning are becoming increasingly important in science and technology education research internationally. Social views of learning endorse the view that knowledge is socially constructed and context dependent, and that human mental processes are situated within their historical, cultural and institutional setting (Wertsch, 1991). From this perspective learning cannot be separated from students’ interactional engagement in the classroom (Wenger, 1998). Students in technology and science lessons do not simply learn facts, methods and processes. The everyday classroom practices to which they become attuned contribute to how they perceive technology and science, and to how they see themselves as learners and knowers of technology and science in the short and long term. Concomitant with these changes there has been recognition of the dynamic interaction between curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and learning leading to an appreciation of the central and crucial role of the teacher (Carr et. al., 2000). As Atkin and Black (2003) note: What really counts in education is what happens when teachers and students meet. The wisdom of any decision about education is best judged on the basis of whether or not it raises the quality of these interactions. (Page xi) Beginning with Shulman’s (1987) articulation of teachers’ professional knowledge, the education community has moved to pay more attention to teachers’ knowledge, values and beliefs and to value professional practice. Investigations into the knowledge needed for teaching, particularly those conducted through classroom-based research have illuminated the complexity of the knowledges teachers bring into play at the moment of teaching (Hierbert, Gallimore and Stigler, 2002; Shulman, 1992). With this research has come the realisation that teaching is a complex practice that cannot be dichotomised into knowledge and action (Boaler, 2003). Rather, as Shulman

proposed recently, teacher knowledge is ‘part of a complex set of interactions, involving action, and analysis and affect’ (Shulman, 2003, cited in Boaler, 2003, p. 1-2). The consensus now is that the teacher is crucially at the centre of education reform because it is the teacher who mediates any change. The teacher provides the links between curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and outcomes for students by interpreting the curriculum, fashioning pedagogy and devising assessment activities (Carr et al., 2000). The central role of assessment in shaping teacher and student classroom experiences has come in for special attention because assessment lies at the intersection of teaching and learning. Assessment influences education in numerous ways. While the influence of summative assessment is well documented, the potential for ongoing informal classroom assessment to enhance learning during the process of that learning has only recently been confirmed (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Within assessment for learning practices feedback is ‘the process that provides the conceptual link between what students believe to be true and the collective wisdom of the culture as it is captured in the knowledge carried by teachers and the texts, resources and so on that are available to them as reference points’ (Earl, 2003, p. 89). Assessment for learning relies on teachers having a deep understanding of the subject matter to be taught; a clear idea of the progression of ideas and skills that are the goals of student learning and of the pathways students are likely to take in this development. Assessment for learning also depends on teachers being able to recognize the point of development reached by their students; and to be knowledgeable and able to use various strategies to find out about and to develop student ideas. Students have been shown to benefit from descriptive feedback that identifies both the strengths and weaknesses of their work and the ways it might be improved thereby enabling them to take control of their own learning (Tunstall and Gipps, 1995). Praise and teacher comments that focus on the social and managerial aspects do not count as feedback in this sense. The remainder of this paper outlines the research on assessment for learning undertaken by CSTER staff and sets out some approaches that have been found to be useful for enhancing teacher-student interactions and subsequently student learning. Research from Centre for Science and Technology Education Research In the New Zealand context, interest in assessment for learning can be traced assessment and curriculum reform in the 1980’s and 90’s. The Centre for Science and Technology Education Research was at the forefront of the development of and research into these initiatives. The Learning in Science Project (Assessment) and the Learning in Technology Education (Assessment), two classroom-based research projects provide the data for the following sections of this paper. Both used an interpretivist research methodology and included case studies, teacher workshops, student interviews, teacher interviews, classroom observations and the analysis of samples of teacher and student work. The projects involved working with 24 primary and middle schools (years 1-10) teachers (6 male, 18 female). Combined, they represent work arising from over 950 hours of classroom observations, 800 student interviews and 200 teacher interviews. The projects indicated that assessment for learning involves teachers planning for explicit learning intentions and sharing these learning intentions with the students as well as generating and making sense of information on student’s emerging learning and acting on it. There must be a focus on improvement and ‘where to next’ for the students, informed by rich teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Assessment for learning is accomplished through teacher-student interaction Teachers in the two research projects used a range of planned assessment tasks to generate information on student learning during the units that were observed (Bell and Cowie, 2001; Jones and Moreland, 2001). Planned tasks included brainstorms, pre-tests, concept maps, practical activities such as asking students to wire-up a bulb to determine whether students considered more than one wire was required and asking them to ‘predict-observeexplain’ the outcome of a task. These tasks aimed to probe students existing understanding of the underlying concepts the teacher intended to focus on. The findings from these assessment tasks enabled teachers to be more aware of students’ existing ideas and to initiate learning experiences with the class that would help to challenge student ideas. However, if the intention was to develop the ideas that an individual student held, both teachers and students considered that teacher assessment for learning had to involve student-teacher interaction. For example as one students said: She [the teacher] came round and she talked to us about what we were doing and then she, I don't know about the others, but she read my aim and hypothesis and my conclusion. And just asked me if I understood what I was doing and watched us doing it. The teachers and the students considered that the most effective assessment for learning took place through teacher-student interactions while students were working on set tasks. The students in the projects reported the times when teachers moved around the class and interacted with them as individuals or a group as the most productive. As one student stated:

I think it is really important that you can talk to the teacher. You get time to put up your hand and ask questions. That is what they are there for. Teacher planning is an essential tool to prepare for assessment for learning interactions Teachers in the two projects stated the purposes they had for student learning were pivotal to their planned assessment and their assessment for learning interactions. As has been pointed out, planned activities enabled teachers to generate information on the general progress of the class but interaction with students was needed to support a more detailed assessment of and response to student learning. When teachers interact with students they draw on their knowledge of a subject, of typical student learning pathways and of effective ways of eliciting, challenging and extending individual and collective learning. The work of Jones and Moreland (2003) provides compelling evidence that it is important for teachers to identify and plan for specific and overall learning outcomes rather than just activities. Initially, teachers in their planning, and interactions, overemphasised social and managerial aspects in that they placed emphasis on the need to take turns, work in groups, work independently, and finish on time at the expense of subject conceptual and procedural goals. When they reflected on case studies of their practices, the teachers realised that because of their emphasis their students also prioritised these aspects. Planning for technology learning goals was essential for helping the teachers bring to mind and extend the pedagogical content knowledge they needed to interact with students on the fly with ways that extended their learning. The following planning framework (see Figure 1) was developed to assist the teachers with planning for technology learning. Modified, it was useful in other subject areas including science and social studies. Task definition:

Technology area(s):

Overall features of intended student technological practice: Conceptual Learning Outcomes:

Procedural Learning Outcomes:

Societal Learning Outcomes:

Technical Learning Outcomes:

Figure 1: Planning for learning and assessment in technology The planning framework included an area for the definition of the main task and associated areas of technology. Completing the planning format required teachers to specify learning outcomes in each of four categories: conceptual (knowledge and understanding of relevant technological concepts and procedures); procedural (knowing how to do something, what to do and when to do it); societal (aspects related to the interrelationship between technology and groups of people); and technical (skills related to manual/practical techniques). As well, the teachers needed to consider how the learning outcomes in the four categories might coalesce and be operationalised, so the task would be accomplished in a technological way. Planning using the framework was an iterative process whereby teachers moved between defining the main task, articulating concise intended learning outcomes within the four categories and conceptualising the technological practices embedded in the main task so that the aspects were consistent. Figure 2 is an example of a completed framework developed by a year 5 and 6 teacher for a technology unit where the main task was to design a handheld tool for someone with arthritis. Task definition: To design hand-held home tools for someone with arthritis Technological area(s): Structures & Mechanisms and Materials Overall features of intended student technological practice: In undertaking the design of handheld tools for someone with arthritis students will: • Investigate and describe the use and operation of home technologies by sufferers of arthritis focussing on ergonomics; • Explore and modify existing technical aids for arthritis sufferers through drawing; and • Identify the positive and negative effects of existing, modified and adapted technologies for arthritic sufferers Procedural learning outcomes: Societal learning outcomes: Conceptual learning Technical learning outcomes: outcomes: • Conduct an interview to • Cost, the user and • Explore and understand find out about problems materials will affect • Orthographic drawing what is technology people face with arthritis technical developments • 3D drawings • Understand that interview • Complete a needs analysis • The traits of a group • Interviews - develop schedules, surveys and will affect ergonomics • Define the target group open-ended questions of a product open questioning are needs methods of collecting • Negotiate the criteria for information designs • Understand ergonomics• Explore existing the need for the product modifications to

Deleted:

• •

to fit the user Understand the use of and drawing of exploded diagrams Understand that modified, adapted and fail-safe are technical terms

• •

technologies employed Complete a materials analysis Draw 2D, 3D and exploded drawings of existing and modified technologies for sufferers

Figure 2: Planning framework for designing hand-held tools for someone with arthritis Working with the framework ensured teachers identified what they needed to know to teach. In the planning process it was important that the teachers thought how the activities they proposed would contribute to student accomplishment of the main task and to the learning they intended for the students. Through attention to planning they were more able to identify and respond to the learning that tasks and activities afforded in both the short and long-term. Thinking about the learning I wanted to take place enabled very focused activities to meet the learning outcomes. Consideration of the demands and affordances of tasks would seem to be an essential component for planning the incorporation of assessment for learning in every subject, including the provision of feedback. The whole process has become more refined. I knew that when I was planning, I knew exactly what I was going to assess and how I was going to assess it, so I was very specific. The planning framework helped me to have a better look at exactly what is being taught. The activities that I am giving my students are more clearly targeted and identified. The teachers asserted that detailed planning impacted on their subsequent interactions with student and the nature of the feedback they were able to provide. They considered how they might talk with their students about ideas. The identification of possible and planned learning outcomes made me more aware of the questioning that would be required. The teachers anticipated student possible actions and ideas and rehearsed how they might respond. Teacher pedagogical content knowledge linked to classroom interactions Teacher confidence that they had the requisite pedagogical content knowledge proved crucial to teachers being willing to engage in assessment for learning interactions with students. They had experienced that students developed a range of understandings as a result of working on a task but now they were confident they would be able to respond constructively to these. I’m far more confident with formative assessment as I catered for learning ‘on the hoof’. I was more confident this time. I know there are lots of really good examples and I felt sure we could bring those examples to light and the kids would be convinced. It is an everyday thing, expansion. Teachers were more willing to intervene in student activities to move student learning forward. They were more certain they could tease out the concepts and principles through negotiation with students. I changed about not being afraid to intervene. I knew what I was aiming for and had more understanding of what I wanted students to achieve in technological learning. As I had visualised where I wanted students to go and how to get there, I was more comfortable in predicting where to go and was more technologically focussed and specific in my interventions. Teachers deliberately planned to interact with students to question them about what they were learning with the intention of enhancing this. Some comments were: In my lesson planning I was careful to plan the sessions so I could be free to question students effectively to enhance their learning. In the previous units I had been caught up being the technician and was unable to be effective as a questioner. My questions got them to think about things, their ideas, so they could change them on the way. They could improve while they were going. Teacher-student interactions were more focused, purposeful and productive when the teacher was confident and familiar with the ideas involved in the learning activities. Thorough preparation meant the teachers were able to

emphasise the provision of feedback and assistance to students rather than simply focusing on the social and managerial aspects of tasks. As commented by one teacher: I've become a lot more focused and specific, moving on to actually telling kids why we are doing things. The idea that you do share where you're doing and why you're doing this and feeding them information, instead of actually waiting for them to discover. It's impacted on my other teaching in that I am a lot more up-front with what I want the kids to do…and a lot more specific about what they should be looking for, instead of making them discover on their own. As a result of their pedagogical content knowledge teachers were better able to appreciate and build on divergent student ideas in productive ways. The activities that I am giving my students are more clearly targeted and identified. My students had a fair idea of where they were going to go but they have still gone in a thousand different directions and they’ve really enjoyed it. You can start to see the divergence coming out in students and that’s neat too. They were better able to negotiate the ideas with students when faced with idiosyncratic outcomes. Helping students to define the technology in their tasks gave them a framework to be creative. They developed greater technological knowledge and so seemed to be more creative. Teachers believed that because their planning and interactions were more focussed and purposeful their students were more aware of what was to be learned. My formative interactions with students were more purposeful and productive which resulted in children being more focussed and tuned into the technology involved in the learning activities Teachers were able to describe changes in their students’ understandings. The children were engaged all of the time, they had the vocabulary and could use it appropriately and they had the concepts, which were evidenced in mock-ups and drawings. They were superb and I could see the progression. Their annotated comments on their drawings were more relevant and more focussed. I could see them using 2D, 3D and annotated drawings appropriately. Even my younger ones like Janet and Jean and Annie could say ‘no my product can’t do that, yes it can do this’ and so on. Discussion Improving teacher understanding of formative interactions is not a simple matter. There is no ‘quick fix’ that can be added to existing practice with promise of quick reward. Change can only happen relatively slowly, and through sustained programmes of professional development supported by research that is seen to be useful by teachers. Both projects highlighted the importance of working with teachers to describe and build on their existing practices. Case studies of teacher classroom practice were particularly useful in helping teachers to reflect on the nature and focus of their existing assessment approaches. The teachers also benefited from the series of workshops held by the research team over the period of the studies and the opportunity to talk with a researcher during lessons. Together the teachers and researchers came to the conclusion that effective assessment for learning is shaped and underpinned by teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers needed an understanding of the nature of the subject and its characteristics, a knowledge of the curriculum including goals and objectives and specific programmes; a knowledge a range of teaching and assessment practices that were appropriate to the particular subject and strategies for establishing an appropriate classroom environment and managing student engagement with activities. More importantly, assessment-for-learning interactions were enhanced with associated gains in students’ performance, when teacher pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical approaches were enhanced. The planning framework described here served as an effective tool for assisting teachers to clarify and gain confidence in identifying what they intended students to learn and also what they needed to learn to support these outcomes. The planning framework supported professional dialogue to help teachers identify task demands and affordances and to develop a language to discuss the complexity of student learning and assessment. Teachers were able to and plan to generate information about student learning through interaction and to provide feedback. References Atkin. M. and Black, P. (2003) Inside Science Education Reform: a history of curricular change. New York: Teachers College Press. Bell, B. and Cowie, B. (2001) Formative Assessment and Science Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Formatted

Boaler, J. (2003) Studying and capturing the complexity of practice – the case of the ‘dance of agency’. Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA. 13-18 July, Honolulu, Hawaii. Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., Mckinley, Bell, B., Barr, H. and Simpson, T. (2000) The effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on educational outcomes. Confidential report prepared for the Ministry of Education. University of Waikato. Cowie, B (2000) Formative assessment in science classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hamilton: University of Waikato. Cowie, B (2000) Formative assessment in science classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hamilton: University of Waikato. Duit, R. and Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in Science- From Behaviourism towards social Constructivism and Beyond. p 3-25. In B. Fraser and K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Earl, L. (2003) Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximise student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. and Stigler, J. (2002) A knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-20. Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Baker, R., Jones, A., Barker, Bell, B., M., Coll, R., Cooper, B., Forret, M., Harlow, A., Taylor, I., France, B. and Haigh, M. (2002) Curriculum, learning and effective pedagogy: a literature review in science education. Report prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Education. University of Waikato. Jones and Moreland (2001) Frameworks and cognitive tools for enhancing practicing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. SAMEpapers 2001, 238-262. Jones, A. and Moreland, J. (2003) From classroom-based research to school wide reform in science and technology teaching practice: the case of Mountview school. Paper presented at ASERA, Sydney, July Lemke, J. (2001) Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. Moreland, J. (2003) Becoming effective technology teachers: enhancing assessment practices in primary classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hamilton: University of Waikato Shulman, L. (1992) Toward a pedagogy of cases. (pp.1-29). In J. Shulman (Ed), Case Methods in Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Tunstall, P. and Gipps, C. (1995) "How does your teacher help you to make your work better?" Children's understanding of formative assessment. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, September, Bath, England. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. (1991) Voices of the Mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.