- Email: [email protected]
The effects of teacher training on new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension
Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
The effects of teacher training on new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension Bernadet de Jager, Gerry J. Reezigt*, Bert P.M. Creemers GION, Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 1286, 9701 BG Groningen, Netherlands Received 27 December 2000; received in revised form 28 August 2001; accepted 31 October 2001
Abstract This study concerns the effects of teacher training in instructional behaviour based on new insights in the field of learning and instruction. In an experiment, eight teachers were trained to apply a cognitive apprenticeship model and five teachers were trained to apply a direct instruction model in reading comprehension lessons in primary schools. The teachers in both experimental conditions received teaching guides, which were an adaptation of the curriculum for reading comprehension that they already used. The control group of seven teachers used the same curriculum, but received neither teaching guides nor training. In both experimental conditions teachers successfully changed their behaviour, but they did not succeed in implementing all characteristics of the instructional model aimed at in their training. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher education; Constructivism; Cognitive apprenticeship; Direct instruction; Reading comprehension
1. Introduction and research problem Research on learning processes has changed the traditional view of learning as knowledge absorption into a view of learning as active knowledge construction. Students actively process information, using prior knowledge, skills, and strategies (Resnick, 1989). Learning is a constructive, cumulative, self-regulated, goal-oriented, situated, collaborative, and individually different process of knowledge building and meaning construction (De Corte, 2000). This new conception of learning results in new ideas about the content of educa*Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-50-363-66-60; fax: +3150-363-66-70. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.J. Reezigt).
tion. Education should not just focus on basic skills, but also on more complex outcomes such as metacognitive skills, i.e. the skills to monitor and regulate one’s own learning processes. This constructivist view of learning also influences the role of teachers. The main task that teachers are assumed to perform, according to constructivists, is no longer the transmission of knowledge, but the facilitation and coaching of learning (Korthagen, Klaassen, & Russell, 2000). Teachers should share explicit information with students about how experts handle tasks, as instruction proceeds to accommodate students’ emerging understanding and awareness. Ideally, they should act as mediators who stimulate the development of student understandings through recursive, reciprocal interactions in which both
0742-051X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 6 - X
832
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
teachers and students play active roles and in which curricular understandings are gradually developed over time (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992). In sum, as a consequence of constructivist theory teaching is becoming a different profession. However, there is still a substantial gap between theoretical insights in learning and instruction and the translation of these insights into school practices (De Corte, 2000). Most teachers now working in schools have not been prepared for their changing role and the new demands in their profession (Korthagen, et al., 2000). Therefore, teachers need suitable instructional models that provide them with guidelines for new types of instruction and they must have access to inservice training, which helps them to successfully implement these models in their regular lessons. There is an ongoing debate about the issue as to which instructional models might be most suitable for constructivist aims. Do teachers need totally new models or are expanded versions of wellknown and tested models enough or maybe even better? Scientists, who support the latter view, think that adaptations of instructional models will be sufficient to fit the changing role of teachers. Veenman (1992) for example suggests that the model of direct instruction, when it is extended to encompass the training of new outcomes, can be used for teaching basic skills as well as metacognitive skills. The finding has been widely demonstrated that direct instruction, developed on the basis of teacher effectiveness studies, has an impact on basic skills (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). Several experiments have shown convincingly that teachers can be trained successfully to implement this model in their lessons (Veenman, Leenders, Meyer, & Sanders, 1993a; Hoogendijk & Wolfgram, 1995; Sliepen & Reitsma, 1993). However, we still do not know whether teachers can implement extended versions of direct instruction which integrate the teaching of basic and metacognitive skills. In contrast, other scientists think teachers need new constructivist models such as cognitive apprenticeship (Resnick, 1989). These models were developed in the field of instructional psychology
and aim especially at the development of metacognitive skills but their appropriateness for the teaching of basic skills is not yet documented. Research on the effects of these models on metacognitive skills has showed some impact. However, studies often took place in laboratory settings, where small groups of children were trained outside their classrooms and instruction was generally provided not by teachers, but by researchers. As a consequence it is still unclear whether teachers can successfully be trained to implement models such as cognitive apprenticeship in regular classroom settings (Brand-Gruwel, 1995; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Nevertheless, information on the implementation topic is essential before more final conclusions can be drawn about the adequacy of direct instruction and cognitive apprenticeship for basic and metacognitive skills. This study concerns the question as to whether teachers in primary schools can be trained in using the models of either cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction. Both models in this study focus on teaching basic reading comprehension skills as well as metacognitive skills in reading. We will now first describe the models of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction. In addition we will discuss the criteria that teacher training has to live up to in order to be effective. After an outline of the methodology of our study, we will present our results and conclusions.
2. Theoretical background: instructional models 2.1. Cognitive apprenticeship The cognitive apprenticeship model (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) is based on the instructional principles of traditional apprenticeship, which embeds the learning of skills and knowledge in their social and functional context. Apprentices learn through a combination of observation of experts, coaching by experts, and practice. Collins et al. (1989) have adapted this traditional model for the teaching and learning of cognitive skills. Cognitive apprenticeship
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
integrates characteristics of several other instruction-psychological techniques, such as reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), procedural facilitation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989), and modelling (Schoenfeld, 1985). Essential characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship are: *
*
* *
*
*
preparing students for learning by activating prior knowledge, offering situated and authentic subject matter by highlighting the applicability of lesson goals, modelling of skills, offering opportunities for articulation and reflection by co-operative learning, offering opportunities to practise skills while teachers are coaching, evaluating and reflecting on the lesson.
To begin the lesson, teachers start a preparatory discussion with their students. They pose a problem, which is related to the goal of the lesson. This helps students to activate their prior knowledge and illustrates the applicability of the lesson goal. Teachers stimulate students to think up examples of the skills at stake and to activate their prior knowledge about the content of the subject matter. In the core part of the lesson, teachers model the use of the new skill. They then stimulate students to model the use of skills too. Then the students start working on assignments in pairs or in groups. This provides them with opportunities to articulate their learning processes and the use of skills within these processes. Furthermore, it provides them with opportunities to compare their learning processes with those of other students. Teachers coach students while they are working on assignments. The assignments become more open and complex during the school year. Teachers gradually withdraw their assistance and explanations when they experience that students can work more independently. In the final stage of the lesson, teachers and students discuss the content of the lesson as well as the way in which lesson activities were performed. They also jointly reflect on the use of skills and the applicability of skills (De Jager, 1999; Terwel & Antink, 1996; Brand-Gruwel, 1995; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
833
2.2. Direct instruction The process-product studies in the teacher effectiveness tradition provided ample insight in effective teacher behaviours, which were integrated in the model of direct instruction (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Veenman, Lem, Roelofs, & Nijssen, 1993b; Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). Essential characteristics of direct instruction are: * * * * *
daily review, presentation of new content, guided practice, individual practice, feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation.
A direct instruction lesson starts with a retrospect on the prior lesson. Teachers talk with students about the skills they learned in previous lessons and earlier lesson contents. The core of the lesson concerns the presentation of new skills and new content. This stage starts with a description of lesson objectives. Next, teachers present new skills in small steps, giving several examples and using clear language. During the presentation, teachers regularly check whether students understand the new skills, for example by stimulating them to give their own examples. At the end of the presentation, teachers summarise and stress the most important parts of the new skills. Then teachers practise new skills with their students. The goal of this guided practice is processing the new information through active practising under the guidance of teachers until the students are ready to work on assignments independently. Teachers make sure that they can start working immediately and work without interruptions. Although feedback takes place during the full lesson, it is especially important when the lesson ends. Teachers conclude every lesson with an evaluation of the assignments that students did. Briefly, they discuss the content of the lesson and they summarise what students have learned. This is a necessary activity because students tend to forget easily what they learned and why they learned it (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). Table 1 summarises the main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction and
834
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
Table 1 Main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction and empirical findings about the models Cognitive apprenticeship
Direct instruction
Main characteristics Activating prior knowledge Highlighting applicability Modelling of skills Co-operative learning Practising skills while teachers coach Evaluation and reflection
Daily review Presentation of new content Guided practice Individual practice Feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation
Role of the teacher Model and coach
Initiator and instructor
Empirical evidence of successful implementation in regular education after training Not available (only laboratory experiments) Available Empirical evidence of impact on student outcomes Metacognitive skills
the empirical findings about implementation of the models by teachers and their impact on students. We hypothesise that after an appropriate training in which they learn how to implement one of these instructional models, teachers will increasingly show the main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction. Additionally, we expect that the teachers in both experimental groups will improve the general quality of their instructional behaviour. Furthermore, we hypothesise that the teachers in both experimental groups will learn to focus more on comprehension skills and metacognitive skills. Thus, we expect that the teachers will spend more lesson time on these skills. On the basis of available research literature, we cannot conclude whether teachers will implement direct instruction more easily than cognitive apprenticeship or vice versa. We have not found comparative studies about these models. However, it may be that direct instruction is easier to implement than cognitive apprenticeship, because it is more similar to the routines teachers are used to.
Basic skills
comparison with common practices in education. Teachers usually do not apply instructional models systematically, even though they may show some elements of models in their lessons. Research on the implementation of innovations shows that it is not easy to change teacher behaviour (Fullan, 1991). Teachers cannot be expected to implement cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction without inservice training. Guidelines or even exemplary lessons are not enough to change teacher behaviour (Van Tulder & Veenman, 1991; Creemers, 1994). More experienced teachers may find it even more difficult to change than novice teachers (Galton & Moon, 1994). The literature on inservice training has made clear which elements are generally effective: *
3. Theoretical background: teacher training *
Both cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction require changes in teacher behaviour in
Each training session has to contain presentation and exploration of theory, demonstration and modelling of new teacher behaviour, opportunities for practice in simulated conditions, and feedback by the trainer and the other trainees (Joyce & Showers, 1988, 1995). Theory is important, even though teachers may think that they do not need background information (Roes, 1997). During training sessions, there must be opportunities for discussion and observation of experts or training participants while they
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
*
*
*
practice new behaviours. Videos are very suitable for this purpose. The video does not necessarily have to show ‘perfect’ lessons, because trainees identify more easily with teachers who are not so perfect (Roes, 1997). Training sessions preferably are not clustered together for example in a training week, but must be spread over time, so that teachers can implement new behaviours in between sessions (Van Tulder, 1992). Training sessions must be combined with coaching on the spot (Slavenburg, 1997). During coaching, teachers who were observed should give their comments on their lessons first before the coach provides feedback. Coach and teachers have to agree on the topics which will be discussed and the data which the coach will gather (Galton & Moon, 1994). The coach should only comment on teacher behaviour that is offered in the training (Burgess, Connor, Galloway, Morrison, & Newton, 1993). In general, teachers find it very hard to change their lessons merely on the basis of suggestions or lesson outlines which require a lot of additional work. The implementation of new teacher behaviour however is strongly promoted when the training is accompanied by the provision of concrete materials for teachers and students, in which the new behaviour is integrated. Ideally, the new materials completely replace the old materials that the teachers are used to (Van den Berg, 1996; Roes, 1997).
The literature on inservice training is remarkably uninformative on the question as to whether teachers should be trained exclusively according to the principles that underlie the new behaviours they are supposed to learn (Van den Berg, 1996). For example, when teachers are learning to teach according to the cognitive apprenticeship model, maybe their training should also follow the lines of cognitive apprenticeship. However, few scientists have discussed this topic (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). Therefore it seems safe to conclude that the structure of the training and its content should at least not oppose new behaviours that teachers are learning.
835
4. Methodology Our study is a quasi-experiment with a pre-test, post-test, control group design. Two groups of primary school teachers were trained separately to implement either cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction in reading comprehension lessons. The control group did not receive any training. Before the training sessions started in September 1998, one reading comprehension lesson was observed for each teacher in the study. In June 1999, all teachers were observed once more. 4.1. Research group All primary school teachers of grade 7 (age group 10–11) in the northern part of the Netherlands, who used a specific curriculum for reading comprehension (named ‘‘I know what I read’’, or in Dutch, ‘‘Ik weet wat ik lees’’), were invited to participate in our study (N ¼ 83). Although an experiment formally calls for random assignment to experimental and control groups, we decided for pragmatic reasons that teachers should be free to choose the cognitive apprenticeship or the direct instruction training. Besides, research shows that voluntary participation has a positive influence on the effectiveness of inservice teacher training (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000). Eight teachers opted for the cognitive apprenticeship training while five teachers subscribed for the training in direct instruction. Seven teachers were willing to participate in the control group. Most of the teachers that did not subscribe indicated that they were interested in training, but had no time to attend, or had already subscribed for other courses. In a few cases the reason for not participating was the distance between the school and the training location. Some teachers were not interested in training, because they were satisfied with the way they taught reading comprehension. The teachers in our study on average had 22.1 years of teaching experience (SD=6.0), and 2.8 years of experience with the specific reading curriculum (SD=1.9). The teachers in the two experimental groups and the control group did not differ significantly in either teaching experience or experience with the reading curriculum.
836
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
4.2. Revision of the reading curriculum and teacher training Before the training of teachers started, we revised the reading comprehension curriculum for grade 7. Although the ‘old’ curriculum was not explicitly based on an instructional model, it did show some elements of both cognitive apprenticeship (for example, activating prior knowledge about the content of texts) and direct instruction (for example, attention for guided practice). The old curriculum paid attention to basic reading comprehension skills (such as knowledge about the structure of a text) and to some metacognitive skills (such as orientation on the text before starting to read). In the revision, we divided the already suggested lesson activities in the curriculum over the new cognitive apprenticeship and the direct instruction versions and we added activities when the characteristics of the models required this. Also, we added activities which reflected a wider set of metacognitive skills (such as monitoring during reading and reflection after reading). The teachers in both experimental groups received our revised curricular materials for grade 7 (consisting of a teacher guide for 16 reading comprehension lessons during the whole school year and student materials for each lesson) in the first training session in the beginning of the school year. The materials replaced the old curriculum completely. The teachers in the control group kept on using the old curriculum that also provided for 16 lessons. The separate training for cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction lasted fifteen hours, divided equally over five training sessions. The first author trained both groups of teachers. Both training courses were designed on the basis of the requirements mentioned earlier. Each training session offered theory (videotaped), demonstration and modelling of new behaviour and opportunities for practice while feedback was given by the trainer and the other trainees. Also, each training session offered opportunities for discussion about the experiences of teachers in their lessons. The videotapes showed non-expert teachers implementing the models in a regular reading lesson, in order to make identification for trainees easy.
Four training sessions were given in October, November and December of 1998 with at least two weeks time in between. In the meantime, teachers practised the models in their lessons. The fifth training session took place in March 1999. The first session introduced the full instructional model, its background and its main characteristics. The following three sessions each focussed on specific parts of lessons: the introduction, the core of the lesson, and the reflection stage at the end. In the fifth session, experiences of teachers with the instructional model were extensively discussed. Both training courses integrated elements of direct instruction (such as presentation of information about the theories behind the models) and cognitive apprenticeship (such as modelling of new behaviour). The training sessions were combined with three individual coaching sessions for all teachers in their schools in November 1998, February 1999 and June 1999. A reading comprehension lesson was observed and systematically registered by the first author. After the observation, teachers were asked to give their impressions first. Then coaching took place on the basis of the systematic observations. The coaching comments and recommendations all dealt with the main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction, which were familiar to the teachers.
4.3. Observations of lessons Reading comprehension lessons of all teachers in the experimental groups were observed four times: once before the training at the beginning of the school year, twice during the training, and once after the training at the end of the school year. The control group teachers were observed twice, at the beginning and the end of the school year. In this text, we will only make use of the first and last observations for each teacher. To monitor changes in teacher behaviour, we developed an observational instrument (based on the main characteristics of both models) which combined low inference and high inference methods (Booij, Houtveen, & Overmars, 1995; Sliepen & Reitsma, 1993):
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842 *
*
Low inference observation: every two minutes, observers registered which activities were taking place in the lesson, which lesson content was discussed (basic skills, metacognitive skills), which setting was applied (whole class, cooperative group work, or individual work), which interactions were taking place and with whom the teacher was involved (whole group, small groups, or individuals). High inference: because the incidence of observed behaviour is in itself not informative about the quality of the observed behaviour (Burgess et al., 1993), a 5-point rating instrument was used additionally which observers filled in directly after the lesson observations. This instrument consists of six items about cognitive apprenticeship (such as ‘teacher models the use of skills’), six items about direct instruction (such as ‘teacher provides guided practice’) and 16 items about the general instructional quality (such as ‘teacher gives clear presentation of content’). The 16 general items form a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha. 85).
Five persons were trained in using the observational instruments. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (Gower’s congruence measure, 1971).
837
teachers for each separate category between each of the experimental groups and the control group. The Mann-Whitney U test was then used to test the significance of expected differences between each experimental group and the control group. The content of the lesson was difficult to register for some activities (such as co-operative learning or individual practice). Therefore, these results only concern the activities in the start phase (activating prior knowledge, daily review, etc.) and final phase (evaluation) of the lesson. The data of the high inference observation instrument were analysed in a similar way. With respect to the separate items, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the expected differences between each of the experimental groups and the control group during the second observation. The scores on the first and second observation on the scale general instructional quality were translated into gainscores. The differences between these gainscores were also tested with the MannWhitney U test. We test the hypothesis that both experimental groups will show the main characteristics of the instructional models in which teachers were trained more strongly than the control group. Therefore, all expected differences were tested onetailed on a significance level of 5%.
4.4. Data analysis
5. Results
Since the number of teachers in our study group is rather small, nonparametric tests were used to test the significance of the differences between groups. If sample sizes are as small as N ¼ 6; there is no alternative to using a nonparametric statistical test unless the nature of the population distribution is known exactly (Siegel, 1956). The equivalence of groups before the treatment was tested with the Kruskal-Wallis One-way analysis of variance for independent groups. This test decides whether differences among groups signify genuine differences or represent merely chance variations. We converted the scores of the low inference observation instrument into percentages of lesson time within each observed category. This procedure makes it possible to compare the scores of the
During the first observation at the beginning of the school year, the three research groups did not differ significantly on any of the categories of the observation instruments (Kruskal-Wallis test). This finding justifies the conclusion that all teachers originate from the same population. Differences in the observation at the end of the school year can be attributed to the experimental treatments. The same counts for the scores on the qualitative items and the scale general quality, except for one cognitive apprenticeship item. During the first observation, the three groups differed significantly on the item ‘The teacher stimulates one or more pupils to model the use of skills and provides explicit feedback’ (KruskalWallis test). The teachers in the control group scored the highest (3.7); the teachers in the
838
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
CA-group (1.5) and the DI-group (2.2) scored nearly the same. Thus, when the CA-group showed a significantly higher score than the control group at the end of the school year, this still can be attributed to the treatment. The lessons in reading comprehension on average lasted 56 min during the observation in the beginning of the school year, before the training, and 53 min during the observation at the end of the school year, after the training. The length of lessons did not differ significantly between the three research groups (Kruskal-Wallis One-way analysis of variance). We will now describe our results for cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction separately. 5.1. Cognitive apprenticeship We have discerned six characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship (CA) on which the training focused. In our findings, we will integrate the lowinference and high-inference findings based on the observations after the treatment (see Table 2). Per characteristic, we will first describe the lowinference findings that reflect percentages of lesson time spent on the characteristic. Together, these percentages do not sum up to hundred, because they reflect different categories which each in itself sums up to hundred. For example, the percentage of time which students spend in groups or pairs sums up to hundred with the percentages of time spent in whole-class situations or individual work. Then we will describe the high-inference findings, which range from 1 (low quality of observed behaviour) to 5 (high quality of observed behaviour). In addition, we will also check whether CA-teachers pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills in their lessons and show a higher general quality of teaching than control teachers do. An asterisk in Table 2 indicates significant differences between the CA-group and the control group. Although teachers in the CA-group show more favourable behaviours on all main characteristics of CA (with the exception of evaluation and reflection) than teachers in the control group, only four of our 13 indicators show significant differences. These refer to the characteristics of
activating prior knowledge, co-operative learning and practising skills while teachers coach. Highlighting applicability of skills, modelling and evaluation and reflection do not lead to significant differences. CA-teachers have improved their general instructional quality and they pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills than control teachers do. 5.2. Direct instruction We have discerned five characteristics of direct instruction (DI) on which the training focused. In our findings, we will again integrate the lowinference and high-inference findings based on the observations after the treatment (see Table 3). Per characteristic, we will first describe the lowinference findings that reflect percentages of lesson time spent on the characteristic. Then we will describe the high-inference findings, which range from 1 (low quality of observed behaviour) to 5 (high quality of observed behaviour). In addition, we will also check whether DI-teachers pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills in their lessons and show a higher general quality of teaching than control teachers do. An asterisk in Table 3 indicates significant differences between the DI-group and the control group. Table 3 shows that on most indicators of direct instruction behaviours, the teachers in the DI group show more favourable behaviours than control teachers (with the exception of two evaluation indicators). Still, only four differences on high-inference indicators are significant. They refer to daily review, presentation of new content and guided practice. For individual practice and feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation we found no significant differences. DIteachers have improved their general instructional quality and they pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills than control teachers do.
6. Conclusions Our study has shown that teachers, when they are appropriately trained and coached, can change their behaviour in accordance with relatively new
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
839
Table 2 Differences between teachers who use cognitive apprenticeship and control group teachers Characteristic of cognitive apprenticeship
l.i./h.i.
Cognitive apprenticeship teachers (n ¼ 8)
Control teachers (n ¼ 7)
l.i. h.i.
25% 3.1*
15% 1.0
h.i.
2.0
1.0
l.i. h.i.
6% 2.3
0% 1.0
l.i. h.i.
1% 1.3
0% 1.0
h.i.
1.3
1.0
l.i. l.i.
41%* 40%*
9% 10%
l.i. h.i.
20% 4.6*
9% 1.6
6. Evaluation and reflection % of lesson time spent on evaluation
l.i.
22%
33%
General instructional quality(range 16–80)
h.i.
62.6*
44.3
% of lesson time spend on metacognitive skills
l.i.
79%*
22%
1. Activating prior knowledge % of lesson time spent on preparatory discussion Teacher stimulates students to name skills, structures and kinds of texts and to formulate auxiliary questions Teacher helps students to discover skills, text structures and kinds of texts by posing problems and giving examples 2. Highlighting applicability of skills % of lesson time spent on the applicability of skills Teacher discusses with students the applicability of new skills by thinking up examples 3. Modelling of skills % of lesson time spent on modelling of skills Teacher models the how, where and when of the use of skills while reading aloud Teacher stimulates one or more students to model the use of skills and provides explicit feedback 4. Co-operative learning % of lesson time students spend in groups or pairs % of lesson time students interact with each other 5. Practising skills while teachers coach % of lesson time that teacher is involved with groups or pairs Teacher instructs students explicitly to discuss exercises with each other, while coaching in the background
l.i.—low inference/% of lesson time; h.i.—high inference/score between 1 and 5. ‘‘*’’ indicates significant difference between groups.
ideas about learning and teaching based on constructivist theories. Teachers who were trained to implement cognitive apprenticeship as well as teachers who were trained to implement direct instruction showed significantly more characteristics of these models than did the control teachers who were not trained. Also, the experimental teachers for both models significantly improved their general instructional quality and paid more attention to reading comprehension and metacog-
nitive skills than the control teachers. Although the experimental groups of teachers showed higher scores on almost all indicators of the models they were trained to implement, their scores did not always differ significantly from the control teachers. It seems that some characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction are harder to implement than others. For example, teachers in neither experimental group scored significantly higher on activities in the final stage
840
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
Table 3 Differences between teachers who use direct instruction and control group teachers Characteristic of direct instruction
l.i./h.i.
Direct instruction teachers (n ¼ 5)
Control teachers (n ¼ 7)
1. Daily review % of lesson time spent on the content of prior lessons % of lesson time spent on preparatory discussion % of lesson time teacher is involved with the whole class Teacher summarises the content of the prior lesson explicitly or asks pupils to do so
l.i. l.i. l.i. h.i.
6% 18% 73% 4.8*
1% 15% 77% 1.6
l.i. l.i. h.i.
18% 73% 3.4*
15% 77% 1.1
h.i.
3.0*
1.0
l.i. h.i.
73% 4.2*
77% 2.4
l.i. l.i.
32% 17%
24% 6%
l.i. h.i.
31% 1.4
33% 2.0
h.i.
2.8
1.3
General instructional quality(range 16-80)
h.i.
54.0*
44.3
% of lesson time spend on metacognitive skills
l.i.
80%*
22%
2. Presentation of new content % of lesson time spent on preparatory discussion % of lesson time teacher is involved with the whole class Teacher explains lesson goal and content accurately and refers to these in the course of the lesson Teacher summarises the new content at the end of the presentation and links the new content to exercises for students 3. Guided practice % of lesson time teacher is involved with the whole class Teacher provides guided practice and discusses exercises immediately 4. Individual practice % of lesson time students spend on individual work % of lesson time teacher is involved with individual students 5. Feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation % of lesson time spent on evaluation Teacher structures the evaluation of exercises by writing answers on the blackboard Teacher shortly summarises the most important content of the lesson
l.i.—low inference/% of lesson time, h.i.—high inference/score between 1 and 5. ‘‘*’’ indicates significant difference between groups.
of the lesson such as evaluation, reflection, and summarisation of what students had learned. In our study we have integrated constructivist ideas into two models of instruction, which differ in their main characteristics and especially the role for the teacher. In cognitive apprenticeship, the teacher is a model and a coach for the students. In direct instruction, the teacher clearly takes the lead in all activities. Although direct instruction may be more similar to existing educational routines of teachers, for the teachers in our study it was not easier to implement than cognitive apprenticeship.
In fact, the two models seemed equally easy (or difficult) to implement. Therefore, we conclude that when teachers want to change instruction to become more constructivist, they will always have to deal with implementation problems when they decide to use a new model of instruction. Cognitive apprenticeship is not easier to implement than direct instruction or vice versa. The teachers in our study did not succeed in implementing all characteristics of the model they were trained to teach. Maybe our results would have been more favourable if:
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842 * *
*
*
*
the training had lasted longer than 15 h, teachers had been coached more intensively than three times, the training had been more individual. In this study, for all teachers in a group (cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction) the format was identical. It may be that teachers learn more when they are provided with an individual format, which deals with each individual’s strengths and weaknesses, teachers had implemented the newly learned behaviours in more lessons. The reading comprehension curriculum offered 16 lessons, divided over the school year. Maybe implementation of new behaviour is easier when more lessons per school subject or more school subjects require the new instructional behaviour, our instruments had been more susceptible to register changes in teacher behaviour. We used a mixture of low inference and high inference methods, with an emphasis on low inference. However, the percentage of lesson time spend on some behaviours may not be informative enough as a measure for changes. For example, in the cognitive apprenticeship condition, teachers are supposed to model behaviour, and they are supposed to model more than teachers in the control group are. Still, they cannot be expected to model for a long time period in a lesson. As a consequence, we may not have detected small changes even when they did occur. If our high inference instrument had been more elaborated, we might have found more differences with the control group.
Moreover, our sample size was small and therefore we would obviously strongly advocate a replication of our study in a larger sample. However, our study has shown that it is possible to translate new theoretical insights in learning and instruction into regular school practices (De Corte, 2000) and to successfully reduce the gap between constructivist theory and educational practice. References Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent
841
problems and challenges. In M. L. Camilla, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research., Vol. 3 (pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teaching. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 361–393). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berg, E. van den (1996). Effects of inservice education on implementation of elementary science. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente. Booij, N., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Overmars, A. M. (1995). Instructie bij begrijpend lezen: contructie van twee observatieinstrumenten voor het meten van de kwaliteit en de kwantiteit van instructie bij begrijpend lezen [Instruction in reading comprehension: the development of two observational instrument for the measurement of the quality and the quantity of instruction in reading comprehension]. Utrecht: ISOR. Brand-Gruwel, S. (1995). Onderwijs in tekstbegrip: Een onderzoek naar het effect van strategisch lees- en luisteronderwijs bij zwakke lezers [Instruction in text comprehension: a study into the effects of strategic reading and listening instruction with poor readers]. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix. Burgess, R. G., Connor, J., Galloway, S., Morrison, M., & Newton, M. (1993). Implementing in-service education and training. London: Falmer Press. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 453–495). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 249–266. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell. Galton, M., & Moon, B. (1994). Handbook of teacher training in Europe: Issues and trends. London: Fulton. Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its proporties. Biometrics, 27, 857–871. Hoogendijk, W., & Wolfgram, P. (1995). KEA, halverwege: projectverslag schooljaar 1994–1995 [KEA, halfway: project report schoolyear 1994–1995]. Rotterdam: CED. De Jager, B. (1999). The implementation of cognitive apprenticeship in reading comprehension. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Gothenburg, Sweden. Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
842
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. White Plains: Longman. Korthagen, K., Klaassen, C., & Russell, T. (2000). New learning in teacher education. In R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 243–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd Ed.) (pp. 145–199). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roes, M. G. (1997). Nascholing op basis van lesvoorbeelden: in de context van onderwijsvernieuwing [Teacher training on the basis of exemplary lessons in the context of educational innovation]. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: Printpartners Ipskamp. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376–391). New York: MacMillan. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Slavenburg, J. H. (1997). Effecten van onderwijsbegeleidingswerkwijzen [Effects of methods of advisory services
provided to schools]. In: Slavenburg, J. H. (Ed.), Onderzoeksoverzichten voor onderwijsbegeleiders [Research survey for school advisors]. Rotterdam: Partners Training & Innovatie. Sliepen, S. E., & Reitsma, P. (1993). Training van lomleerkrachten in directe instructie van begrijpend leesstrategie.en [Training of teachers in special education in direct instruction of strategies for reading comprehension]. Pedagogische Studi.en, 70, 420–444. Terwel, J., & Hooch Antink, M. H. J. (1996). Ontwerpen van klassesituaties: een beschrijving en vergelijking van didaktische modellen in het perspectief van de sociale en cognitieve ontwikkeling van leerlingen [Design of classroom environments: a description and comparison of instructional models from the perspective of the social and cognitive development of pupils]. Amsterdam: SCO Kohnstamm Instituut/Faculteit POW. Tulder, M. A. T. van (1992). Nascholing en onderwijsvernieuwing. [Inservice training and educational innovation]. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: University Press. Tulder, M. van, & Veenman, S. (1991). Characteristics of effective inservice programmes and activities: results of a Dutch survey. Educational Studies, 17(1), 25–48. Veenman, S. A. M. (1992). Effectieve instructie volgens het directe instructiemodel [Effective instruction based on the direct instruction model]. Pedagogische Studi.en, 69, 242–269. Veenman, S., Leenders, Y., Meyer, P., & Sanders, M. (1993a). Leren lesgeven met het directe instructiemodel [Learning to teach with the direct instruction model]. Pedagogische Studi.en, 70, 2–16. Veenman, S., Lem, P., Roelofs, E., & Nijssen, F. (1993b). Effectieve instructie en doelmatig klassemanagement: een schoolverbeteringsprogramma voor enkelvoudige en combinatieklassen [Effective instruction and efficient classroom management: a school improvement project for single and combined classrooms]. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
The effects of teacher training on new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension Bernadet de Jager, Gerry J. Reezigt*, Bert P.M. Creemers GION, Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 1286, 9701 BG Groningen, Netherlands Received 27 December 2000; received in revised form 28 August 2001; accepted 31 October 2001
Abstract This study concerns the effects of teacher training in instructional behaviour based on new insights in the field of learning and instruction. In an experiment, eight teachers were trained to apply a cognitive apprenticeship model and five teachers were trained to apply a direct instruction model in reading comprehension lessons in primary schools. The teachers in both experimental conditions received teaching guides, which were an adaptation of the curriculum for reading comprehension that they already used. The control group of seven teachers used the same curriculum, but received neither teaching guides nor training. In both experimental conditions teachers successfully changed their behaviour, but they did not succeed in implementing all characteristics of the instructional model aimed at in their training. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher education; Constructivism; Cognitive apprenticeship; Direct instruction; Reading comprehension
1. Introduction and research problem Research on learning processes has changed the traditional view of learning as knowledge absorption into a view of learning as active knowledge construction. Students actively process information, using prior knowledge, skills, and strategies (Resnick, 1989). Learning is a constructive, cumulative, self-regulated, goal-oriented, situated, collaborative, and individually different process of knowledge building and meaning construction (De Corte, 2000). This new conception of learning results in new ideas about the content of educa*Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-50-363-66-60; fax: +3150-363-66-70. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.J. Reezigt).
tion. Education should not just focus on basic skills, but also on more complex outcomes such as metacognitive skills, i.e. the skills to monitor and regulate one’s own learning processes. This constructivist view of learning also influences the role of teachers. The main task that teachers are assumed to perform, according to constructivists, is no longer the transmission of knowledge, but the facilitation and coaching of learning (Korthagen, Klaassen, & Russell, 2000). Teachers should share explicit information with students about how experts handle tasks, as instruction proceeds to accommodate students’ emerging understanding and awareness. Ideally, they should act as mediators who stimulate the development of student understandings through recursive, reciprocal interactions in which both
0742-051X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 6 - X
832
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
teachers and students play active roles and in which curricular understandings are gradually developed over time (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992). In sum, as a consequence of constructivist theory teaching is becoming a different profession. However, there is still a substantial gap between theoretical insights in learning and instruction and the translation of these insights into school practices (De Corte, 2000). Most teachers now working in schools have not been prepared for their changing role and the new demands in their profession (Korthagen, et al., 2000). Therefore, teachers need suitable instructional models that provide them with guidelines for new types of instruction and they must have access to inservice training, which helps them to successfully implement these models in their regular lessons. There is an ongoing debate about the issue as to which instructional models might be most suitable for constructivist aims. Do teachers need totally new models or are expanded versions of wellknown and tested models enough or maybe even better? Scientists, who support the latter view, think that adaptations of instructional models will be sufficient to fit the changing role of teachers. Veenman (1992) for example suggests that the model of direct instruction, when it is extended to encompass the training of new outcomes, can be used for teaching basic skills as well as metacognitive skills. The finding has been widely demonstrated that direct instruction, developed on the basis of teacher effectiveness studies, has an impact on basic skills (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). Several experiments have shown convincingly that teachers can be trained successfully to implement this model in their lessons (Veenman, Leenders, Meyer, & Sanders, 1993a; Hoogendijk & Wolfgram, 1995; Sliepen & Reitsma, 1993). However, we still do not know whether teachers can implement extended versions of direct instruction which integrate the teaching of basic and metacognitive skills. In contrast, other scientists think teachers need new constructivist models such as cognitive apprenticeship (Resnick, 1989). These models were developed in the field of instructional psychology
and aim especially at the development of metacognitive skills but their appropriateness for the teaching of basic skills is not yet documented. Research on the effects of these models on metacognitive skills has showed some impact. However, studies often took place in laboratory settings, where small groups of children were trained outside their classrooms and instruction was generally provided not by teachers, but by researchers. As a consequence it is still unclear whether teachers can successfully be trained to implement models such as cognitive apprenticeship in regular classroom settings (Brand-Gruwel, 1995; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Nevertheless, information on the implementation topic is essential before more final conclusions can be drawn about the adequacy of direct instruction and cognitive apprenticeship for basic and metacognitive skills. This study concerns the question as to whether teachers in primary schools can be trained in using the models of either cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction. Both models in this study focus on teaching basic reading comprehension skills as well as metacognitive skills in reading. We will now first describe the models of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction. In addition we will discuss the criteria that teacher training has to live up to in order to be effective. After an outline of the methodology of our study, we will present our results and conclusions.
2. Theoretical background: instructional models 2.1. Cognitive apprenticeship The cognitive apprenticeship model (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) is based on the instructional principles of traditional apprenticeship, which embeds the learning of skills and knowledge in their social and functional context. Apprentices learn through a combination of observation of experts, coaching by experts, and practice. Collins et al. (1989) have adapted this traditional model for the teaching and learning of cognitive skills. Cognitive apprenticeship
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
integrates characteristics of several other instruction-psychological techniques, such as reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), procedural facilitation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989), and modelling (Schoenfeld, 1985). Essential characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship are: *
*
* *
*
*
preparing students for learning by activating prior knowledge, offering situated and authentic subject matter by highlighting the applicability of lesson goals, modelling of skills, offering opportunities for articulation and reflection by co-operative learning, offering opportunities to practise skills while teachers are coaching, evaluating and reflecting on the lesson.
To begin the lesson, teachers start a preparatory discussion with their students. They pose a problem, which is related to the goal of the lesson. This helps students to activate their prior knowledge and illustrates the applicability of the lesson goal. Teachers stimulate students to think up examples of the skills at stake and to activate their prior knowledge about the content of the subject matter. In the core part of the lesson, teachers model the use of the new skill. They then stimulate students to model the use of skills too. Then the students start working on assignments in pairs or in groups. This provides them with opportunities to articulate their learning processes and the use of skills within these processes. Furthermore, it provides them with opportunities to compare their learning processes with those of other students. Teachers coach students while they are working on assignments. The assignments become more open and complex during the school year. Teachers gradually withdraw their assistance and explanations when they experience that students can work more independently. In the final stage of the lesson, teachers and students discuss the content of the lesson as well as the way in which lesson activities were performed. They also jointly reflect on the use of skills and the applicability of skills (De Jager, 1999; Terwel & Antink, 1996; Brand-Gruwel, 1995; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
833
2.2. Direct instruction The process-product studies in the teacher effectiveness tradition provided ample insight in effective teacher behaviours, which were integrated in the model of direct instruction (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Veenman, Lem, Roelofs, & Nijssen, 1993b; Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). Essential characteristics of direct instruction are: * * * * *
daily review, presentation of new content, guided practice, individual practice, feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation.
A direct instruction lesson starts with a retrospect on the prior lesson. Teachers talk with students about the skills they learned in previous lessons and earlier lesson contents. The core of the lesson concerns the presentation of new skills and new content. This stage starts with a description of lesson objectives. Next, teachers present new skills in small steps, giving several examples and using clear language. During the presentation, teachers regularly check whether students understand the new skills, for example by stimulating them to give their own examples. At the end of the presentation, teachers summarise and stress the most important parts of the new skills. Then teachers practise new skills with their students. The goal of this guided practice is processing the new information through active practising under the guidance of teachers until the students are ready to work on assignments independently. Teachers make sure that they can start working immediately and work without interruptions. Although feedback takes place during the full lesson, it is especially important when the lesson ends. Teachers conclude every lesson with an evaluation of the assignments that students did. Briefly, they discuss the content of the lesson and they summarise what students have learned. This is a necessary activity because students tend to forget easily what they learned and why they learned it (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). Table 1 summarises the main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction and
834
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
Table 1 Main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction and empirical findings about the models Cognitive apprenticeship
Direct instruction
Main characteristics Activating prior knowledge Highlighting applicability Modelling of skills Co-operative learning Practising skills while teachers coach Evaluation and reflection
Daily review Presentation of new content Guided practice Individual practice Feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation
Role of the teacher Model and coach
Initiator and instructor
Empirical evidence of successful implementation in regular education after training Not available (only laboratory experiments) Available Empirical evidence of impact on student outcomes Metacognitive skills
the empirical findings about implementation of the models by teachers and their impact on students. We hypothesise that after an appropriate training in which they learn how to implement one of these instructional models, teachers will increasingly show the main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction. Additionally, we expect that the teachers in both experimental groups will improve the general quality of their instructional behaviour. Furthermore, we hypothesise that the teachers in both experimental groups will learn to focus more on comprehension skills and metacognitive skills. Thus, we expect that the teachers will spend more lesson time on these skills. On the basis of available research literature, we cannot conclude whether teachers will implement direct instruction more easily than cognitive apprenticeship or vice versa. We have not found comparative studies about these models. However, it may be that direct instruction is easier to implement than cognitive apprenticeship, because it is more similar to the routines teachers are used to.
Basic skills
comparison with common practices in education. Teachers usually do not apply instructional models systematically, even though they may show some elements of models in their lessons. Research on the implementation of innovations shows that it is not easy to change teacher behaviour (Fullan, 1991). Teachers cannot be expected to implement cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction without inservice training. Guidelines or even exemplary lessons are not enough to change teacher behaviour (Van Tulder & Veenman, 1991; Creemers, 1994). More experienced teachers may find it even more difficult to change than novice teachers (Galton & Moon, 1994). The literature on inservice training has made clear which elements are generally effective: *
3. Theoretical background: teacher training *
Both cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction require changes in teacher behaviour in
Each training session has to contain presentation and exploration of theory, demonstration and modelling of new teacher behaviour, opportunities for practice in simulated conditions, and feedback by the trainer and the other trainees (Joyce & Showers, 1988, 1995). Theory is important, even though teachers may think that they do not need background information (Roes, 1997). During training sessions, there must be opportunities for discussion and observation of experts or training participants while they
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
*
*
*
practice new behaviours. Videos are very suitable for this purpose. The video does not necessarily have to show ‘perfect’ lessons, because trainees identify more easily with teachers who are not so perfect (Roes, 1997). Training sessions preferably are not clustered together for example in a training week, but must be spread over time, so that teachers can implement new behaviours in between sessions (Van Tulder, 1992). Training sessions must be combined with coaching on the spot (Slavenburg, 1997). During coaching, teachers who were observed should give their comments on their lessons first before the coach provides feedback. Coach and teachers have to agree on the topics which will be discussed and the data which the coach will gather (Galton & Moon, 1994). The coach should only comment on teacher behaviour that is offered in the training (Burgess, Connor, Galloway, Morrison, & Newton, 1993). In general, teachers find it very hard to change their lessons merely on the basis of suggestions or lesson outlines which require a lot of additional work. The implementation of new teacher behaviour however is strongly promoted when the training is accompanied by the provision of concrete materials for teachers and students, in which the new behaviour is integrated. Ideally, the new materials completely replace the old materials that the teachers are used to (Van den Berg, 1996; Roes, 1997).
The literature on inservice training is remarkably uninformative on the question as to whether teachers should be trained exclusively according to the principles that underlie the new behaviours they are supposed to learn (Van den Berg, 1996). For example, when teachers are learning to teach according to the cognitive apprenticeship model, maybe their training should also follow the lines of cognitive apprenticeship. However, few scientists have discussed this topic (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). Therefore it seems safe to conclude that the structure of the training and its content should at least not oppose new behaviours that teachers are learning.
835
4. Methodology Our study is a quasi-experiment with a pre-test, post-test, control group design. Two groups of primary school teachers were trained separately to implement either cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction in reading comprehension lessons. The control group did not receive any training. Before the training sessions started in September 1998, one reading comprehension lesson was observed for each teacher in the study. In June 1999, all teachers were observed once more. 4.1. Research group All primary school teachers of grade 7 (age group 10–11) in the northern part of the Netherlands, who used a specific curriculum for reading comprehension (named ‘‘I know what I read’’, or in Dutch, ‘‘Ik weet wat ik lees’’), were invited to participate in our study (N ¼ 83). Although an experiment formally calls for random assignment to experimental and control groups, we decided for pragmatic reasons that teachers should be free to choose the cognitive apprenticeship or the direct instruction training. Besides, research shows that voluntary participation has a positive influence on the effectiveness of inservice teacher training (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000). Eight teachers opted for the cognitive apprenticeship training while five teachers subscribed for the training in direct instruction. Seven teachers were willing to participate in the control group. Most of the teachers that did not subscribe indicated that they were interested in training, but had no time to attend, or had already subscribed for other courses. In a few cases the reason for not participating was the distance between the school and the training location. Some teachers were not interested in training, because they were satisfied with the way they taught reading comprehension. The teachers in our study on average had 22.1 years of teaching experience (SD=6.0), and 2.8 years of experience with the specific reading curriculum (SD=1.9). The teachers in the two experimental groups and the control group did not differ significantly in either teaching experience or experience with the reading curriculum.
836
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
4.2. Revision of the reading curriculum and teacher training Before the training of teachers started, we revised the reading comprehension curriculum for grade 7. Although the ‘old’ curriculum was not explicitly based on an instructional model, it did show some elements of both cognitive apprenticeship (for example, activating prior knowledge about the content of texts) and direct instruction (for example, attention for guided practice). The old curriculum paid attention to basic reading comprehension skills (such as knowledge about the structure of a text) and to some metacognitive skills (such as orientation on the text before starting to read). In the revision, we divided the already suggested lesson activities in the curriculum over the new cognitive apprenticeship and the direct instruction versions and we added activities when the characteristics of the models required this. Also, we added activities which reflected a wider set of metacognitive skills (such as monitoring during reading and reflection after reading). The teachers in both experimental groups received our revised curricular materials for grade 7 (consisting of a teacher guide for 16 reading comprehension lessons during the whole school year and student materials for each lesson) in the first training session in the beginning of the school year. The materials replaced the old curriculum completely. The teachers in the control group kept on using the old curriculum that also provided for 16 lessons. The separate training for cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction lasted fifteen hours, divided equally over five training sessions. The first author trained both groups of teachers. Both training courses were designed on the basis of the requirements mentioned earlier. Each training session offered theory (videotaped), demonstration and modelling of new behaviour and opportunities for practice while feedback was given by the trainer and the other trainees. Also, each training session offered opportunities for discussion about the experiences of teachers in their lessons. The videotapes showed non-expert teachers implementing the models in a regular reading lesson, in order to make identification for trainees easy.
Four training sessions were given in October, November and December of 1998 with at least two weeks time in between. In the meantime, teachers practised the models in their lessons. The fifth training session took place in March 1999. The first session introduced the full instructional model, its background and its main characteristics. The following three sessions each focussed on specific parts of lessons: the introduction, the core of the lesson, and the reflection stage at the end. In the fifth session, experiences of teachers with the instructional model were extensively discussed. Both training courses integrated elements of direct instruction (such as presentation of information about the theories behind the models) and cognitive apprenticeship (such as modelling of new behaviour). The training sessions were combined with three individual coaching sessions for all teachers in their schools in November 1998, February 1999 and June 1999. A reading comprehension lesson was observed and systematically registered by the first author. After the observation, teachers were asked to give their impressions first. Then coaching took place on the basis of the systematic observations. The coaching comments and recommendations all dealt with the main characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction, which were familiar to the teachers.
4.3. Observations of lessons Reading comprehension lessons of all teachers in the experimental groups were observed four times: once before the training at the beginning of the school year, twice during the training, and once after the training at the end of the school year. The control group teachers were observed twice, at the beginning and the end of the school year. In this text, we will only make use of the first and last observations for each teacher. To monitor changes in teacher behaviour, we developed an observational instrument (based on the main characteristics of both models) which combined low inference and high inference methods (Booij, Houtveen, & Overmars, 1995; Sliepen & Reitsma, 1993):
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842 *
*
Low inference observation: every two minutes, observers registered which activities were taking place in the lesson, which lesson content was discussed (basic skills, metacognitive skills), which setting was applied (whole class, cooperative group work, or individual work), which interactions were taking place and with whom the teacher was involved (whole group, small groups, or individuals). High inference: because the incidence of observed behaviour is in itself not informative about the quality of the observed behaviour (Burgess et al., 1993), a 5-point rating instrument was used additionally which observers filled in directly after the lesson observations. This instrument consists of six items about cognitive apprenticeship (such as ‘teacher models the use of skills’), six items about direct instruction (such as ‘teacher provides guided practice’) and 16 items about the general instructional quality (such as ‘teacher gives clear presentation of content’). The 16 general items form a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha. 85).
Five persons were trained in using the observational instruments. The interrater reliability was 0.81 (Gower’s congruence measure, 1971).
837
teachers for each separate category between each of the experimental groups and the control group. The Mann-Whitney U test was then used to test the significance of expected differences between each experimental group and the control group. The content of the lesson was difficult to register for some activities (such as co-operative learning or individual practice). Therefore, these results only concern the activities in the start phase (activating prior knowledge, daily review, etc.) and final phase (evaluation) of the lesson. The data of the high inference observation instrument were analysed in a similar way. With respect to the separate items, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the expected differences between each of the experimental groups and the control group during the second observation. The scores on the first and second observation on the scale general instructional quality were translated into gainscores. The differences between these gainscores were also tested with the MannWhitney U test. We test the hypothesis that both experimental groups will show the main characteristics of the instructional models in which teachers were trained more strongly than the control group. Therefore, all expected differences were tested onetailed on a significance level of 5%.
4.4. Data analysis
5. Results
Since the number of teachers in our study group is rather small, nonparametric tests were used to test the significance of the differences between groups. If sample sizes are as small as N ¼ 6; there is no alternative to using a nonparametric statistical test unless the nature of the population distribution is known exactly (Siegel, 1956). The equivalence of groups before the treatment was tested with the Kruskal-Wallis One-way analysis of variance for independent groups. This test decides whether differences among groups signify genuine differences or represent merely chance variations. We converted the scores of the low inference observation instrument into percentages of lesson time within each observed category. This procedure makes it possible to compare the scores of the
During the first observation at the beginning of the school year, the three research groups did not differ significantly on any of the categories of the observation instruments (Kruskal-Wallis test). This finding justifies the conclusion that all teachers originate from the same population. Differences in the observation at the end of the school year can be attributed to the experimental treatments. The same counts for the scores on the qualitative items and the scale general quality, except for one cognitive apprenticeship item. During the first observation, the three groups differed significantly on the item ‘The teacher stimulates one or more pupils to model the use of skills and provides explicit feedback’ (KruskalWallis test). The teachers in the control group scored the highest (3.7); the teachers in the
838
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
CA-group (1.5) and the DI-group (2.2) scored nearly the same. Thus, when the CA-group showed a significantly higher score than the control group at the end of the school year, this still can be attributed to the treatment. The lessons in reading comprehension on average lasted 56 min during the observation in the beginning of the school year, before the training, and 53 min during the observation at the end of the school year, after the training. The length of lessons did not differ significantly between the three research groups (Kruskal-Wallis One-way analysis of variance). We will now describe our results for cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction separately. 5.1. Cognitive apprenticeship We have discerned six characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship (CA) on which the training focused. In our findings, we will integrate the lowinference and high-inference findings based on the observations after the treatment (see Table 2). Per characteristic, we will first describe the lowinference findings that reflect percentages of lesson time spent on the characteristic. Together, these percentages do not sum up to hundred, because they reflect different categories which each in itself sums up to hundred. For example, the percentage of time which students spend in groups or pairs sums up to hundred with the percentages of time spent in whole-class situations or individual work. Then we will describe the high-inference findings, which range from 1 (low quality of observed behaviour) to 5 (high quality of observed behaviour). In addition, we will also check whether CA-teachers pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills in their lessons and show a higher general quality of teaching than control teachers do. An asterisk in Table 2 indicates significant differences between the CA-group and the control group. Although teachers in the CA-group show more favourable behaviours on all main characteristics of CA (with the exception of evaluation and reflection) than teachers in the control group, only four of our 13 indicators show significant differences. These refer to the characteristics of
activating prior knowledge, co-operative learning and practising skills while teachers coach. Highlighting applicability of skills, modelling and evaluation and reflection do not lead to significant differences. CA-teachers have improved their general instructional quality and they pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills than control teachers do. 5.2. Direct instruction We have discerned five characteristics of direct instruction (DI) on which the training focused. In our findings, we will again integrate the lowinference and high-inference findings based on the observations after the treatment (see Table 3). Per characteristic, we will first describe the lowinference findings that reflect percentages of lesson time spent on the characteristic. Then we will describe the high-inference findings, which range from 1 (low quality of observed behaviour) to 5 (high quality of observed behaviour). In addition, we will also check whether DI-teachers pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills in their lessons and show a higher general quality of teaching than control teachers do. An asterisk in Table 3 indicates significant differences between the DI-group and the control group. Table 3 shows that on most indicators of direct instruction behaviours, the teachers in the DI group show more favourable behaviours than control teachers (with the exception of two evaluation indicators). Still, only four differences on high-inference indicators are significant. They refer to daily review, presentation of new content and guided practice. For individual practice and feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation we found no significant differences. DIteachers have improved their general instructional quality and they pay more attention to reading and metacognitive skills than control teachers do.
6. Conclusions Our study has shown that teachers, when they are appropriately trained and coached, can change their behaviour in accordance with relatively new
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
839
Table 2 Differences between teachers who use cognitive apprenticeship and control group teachers Characteristic of cognitive apprenticeship
l.i./h.i.
Cognitive apprenticeship teachers (n ¼ 8)
Control teachers (n ¼ 7)
l.i. h.i.
25% 3.1*
15% 1.0
h.i.
2.0
1.0
l.i. h.i.
6% 2.3
0% 1.0
l.i. h.i.
1% 1.3
0% 1.0
h.i.
1.3
1.0
l.i. l.i.
41%* 40%*
9% 10%
l.i. h.i.
20% 4.6*
9% 1.6
6. Evaluation and reflection % of lesson time spent on evaluation
l.i.
22%
33%
General instructional quality(range 16–80)
h.i.
62.6*
44.3
% of lesson time spend on metacognitive skills
l.i.
79%*
22%
1. Activating prior knowledge % of lesson time spent on preparatory discussion Teacher stimulates students to name skills, structures and kinds of texts and to formulate auxiliary questions Teacher helps students to discover skills, text structures and kinds of texts by posing problems and giving examples 2. Highlighting applicability of skills % of lesson time spent on the applicability of skills Teacher discusses with students the applicability of new skills by thinking up examples 3. Modelling of skills % of lesson time spent on modelling of skills Teacher models the how, where and when of the use of skills while reading aloud Teacher stimulates one or more students to model the use of skills and provides explicit feedback 4. Co-operative learning % of lesson time students spend in groups or pairs % of lesson time students interact with each other 5. Practising skills while teachers coach % of lesson time that teacher is involved with groups or pairs Teacher instructs students explicitly to discuss exercises with each other, while coaching in the background
l.i.—low inference/% of lesson time; h.i.—high inference/score between 1 and 5. ‘‘*’’ indicates significant difference between groups.
ideas about learning and teaching based on constructivist theories. Teachers who were trained to implement cognitive apprenticeship as well as teachers who were trained to implement direct instruction showed significantly more characteristics of these models than did the control teachers who were not trained. Also, the experimental teachers for both models significantly improved their general instructional quality and paid more attention to reading comprehension and metacog-
nitive skills than the control teachers. Although the experimental groups of teachers showed higher scores on almost all indicators of the models they were trained to implement, their scores did not always differ significantly from the control teachers. It seems that some characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and direct instruction are harder to implement than others. For example, teachers in neither experimental group scored significantly higher on activities in the final stage
840
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
Table 3 Differences between teachers who use direct instruction and control group teachers Characteristic of direct instruction
l.i./h.i.
Direct instruction teachers (n ¼ 5)
Control teachers (n ¼ 7)
1. Daily review % of lesson time spent on the content of prior lessons % of lesson time spent on preparatory discussion % of lesson time teacher is involved with the whole class Teacher summarises the content of the prior lesson explicitly or asks pupils to do so
l.i. l.i. l.i. h.i.
6% 18% 73% 4.8*
1% 15% 77% 1.6
l.i. l.i. h.i.
18% 73% 3.4*
15% 77% 1.1
h.i.
3.0*
1.0
l.i. h.i.
73% 4.2*
77% 2.4
l.i. l.i.
32% 17%
24% 6%
l.i. h.i.
31% 1.4
33% 2.0
h.i.
2.8
1.3
General instructional quality(range 16-80)
h.i.
54.0*
44.3
% of lesson time spend on metacognitive skills
l.i.
80%*
22%
2. Presentation of new content % of lesson time spent on preparatory discussion % of lesson time teacher is involved with the whole class Teacher explains lesson goal and content accurately and refers to these in the course of the lesson Teacher summarises the new content at the end of the presentation and links the new content to exercises for students 3. Guided practice % of lesson time teacher is involved with the whole class Teacher provides guided practice and discusses exercises immediately 4. Individual practice % of lesson time students spend on individual work % of lesson time teacher is involved with individual students 5. Feedback, summarisation of content and evaluation % of lesson time spent on evaluation Teacher structures the evaluation of exercises by writing answers on the blackboard Teacher shortly summarises the most important content of the lesson
l.i.—low inference/% of lesson time, h.i.—high inference/score between 1 and 5. ‘‘*’’ indicates significant difference between groups.
of the lesson such as evaluation, reflection, and summarisation of what students had learned. In our study we have integrated constructivist ideas into two models of instruction, which differ in their main characteristics and especially the role for the teacher. In cognitive apprenticeship, the teacher is a model and a coach for the students. In direct instruction, the teacher clearly takes the lead in all activities. Although direct instruction may be more similar to existing educational routines of teachers, for the teachers in our study it was not easier to implement than cognitive apprenticeship.
In fact, the two models seemed equally easy (or difficult) to implement. Therefore, we conclude that when teachers want to change instruction to become more constructivist, they will always have to deal with implementation problems when they decide to use a new model of instruction. Cognitive apprenticeship is not easier to implement than direct instruction or vice versa. The teachers in our study did not succeed in implementing all characteristics of the model they were trained to teach. Maybe our results would have been more favourable if:
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842 * *
*
*
*
the training had lasted longer than 15 h, teachers had been coached more intensively than three times, the training had been more individual. In this study, for all teachers in a group (cognitive apprenticeship or direct instruction) the format was identical. It may be that teachers learn more when they are provided with an individual format, which deals with each individual’s strengths and weaknesses, teachers had implemented the newly learned behaviours in more lessons. The reading comprehension curriculum offered 16 lessons, divided over the school year. Maybe implementation of new behaviour is easier when more lessons per school subject or more school subjects require the new instructional behaviour, our instruments had been more susceptible to register changes in teacher behaviour. We used a mixture of low inference and high inference methods, with an emphasis on low inference. However, the percentage of lesson time spend on some behaviours may not be informative enough as a measure for changes. For example, in the cognitive apprenticeship condition, teachers are supposed to model behaviour, and they are supposed to model more than teachers in the control group are. Still, they cannot be expected to model for a long time period in a lesson. As a consequence, we may not have detected small changes even when they did occur. If our high inference instrument had been more elaborated, we might have found more differences with the control group.
Moreover, our sample size was small and therefore we would obviously strongly advocate a replication of our study in a larger sample. However, our study has shown that it is possible to translate new theoretical insights in learning and instruction into regular school practices (De Corte, 2000) and to successfully reduce the gap between constructivist theory and educational practice. References Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent
841
problems and challenges. In M. L. Camilla, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research., Vol. 3 (pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teaching. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 361–393). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berg, E. van den (1996). Effects of inservice education on implementation of elementary science. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente. Booij, N., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Overmars, A. M. (1995). Instructie bij begrijpend lezen: contructie van twee observatieinstrumenten voor het meten van de kwaliteit en de kwantiteit van instructie bij begrijpend lezen [Instruction in reading comprehension: the development of two observational instrument for the measurement of the quality and the quantity of instruction in reading comprehension]. Utrecht: ISOR. Brand-Gruwel, S. (1995). Onderwijs in tekstbegrip: Een onderzoek naar het effect van strategisch lees- en luisteronderwijs bij zwakke lezers [Instruction in text comprehension: a study into the effects of strategic reading and listening instruction with poor readers]. Ubbergen: Tandem Felix. Burgess, R. G., Connor, J., Galloway, S., Morrison, M., & Newton, M. (1993). Implementing in-service education and training. London: Falmer Press. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 453–495). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 249–266. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell. Galton, M., & Moon, B. (1994). Handbook of teacher training in Europe: Issues and trends. London: Fulton. Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its proporties. Biometrics, 27, 857–871. Hoogendijk, W., & Wolfgram, P. (1995). KEA, halverwege: projectverslag schooljaar 1994–1995 [KEA, halfway: project report schoolyear 1994–1995]. Rotterdam: CED. De Jager, B. (1999). The implementation of cognitive apprenticeship in reading comprehension. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Gothenburg, Sweden. Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
842
B. de Jager et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 831–842
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. White Plains: Longman. Korthagen, K., Klaassen, C., & Russell, T. (2000). New learning in teacher education. In R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 243–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd Ed.) (pp. 145–199). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roes, M. G. (1997). Nascholing op basis van lesvoorbeelden: in de context van onderwijsvernieuwing [Teacher training on the basis of exemplary lessons in the context of educational innovation]. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: Printpartners Ipskamp. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376–391). New York: MacMillan. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Slavenburg, J. H. (1997). Effecten van onderwijsbegeleidingswerkwijzen [Effects of methods of advisory services
provided to schools]. In: Slavenburg, J. H. (Ed.), Onderzoeksoverzichten voor onderwijsbegeleiders [Research survey for school advisors]. Rotterdam: Partners Training & Innovatie. Sliepen, S. E., & Reitsma, P. (1993). Training van lomleerkrachten in directe instructie van begrijpend leesstrategie.en [Training of teachers in special education in direct instruction of strategies for reading comprehension]. Pedagogische Studi.en, 70, 420–444. Terwel, J., & Hooch Antink, M. H. J. (1996). Ontwerpen van klassesituaties: een beschrijving en vergelijking van didaktische modellen in het perspectief van de sociale en cognitieve ontwikkeling van leerlingen [Design of classroom environments: a description and comparison of instructional models from the perspective of the social and cognitive development of pupils]. Amsterdam: SCO Kohnstamm Instituut/Faculteit POW. Tulder, M. A. T. van (1992). Nascholing en onderwijsvernieuwing. [Inservice training and educational innovation]. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: University Press. Tulder, M. van, & Veenman, S. (1991). Characteristics of effective inservice programmes and activities: results of a Dutch survey. Educational Studies, 17(1), 25–48. Veenman, S. A. M. (1992). Effectieve instructie volgens het directe instructiemodel [Effective instruction based on the direct instruction model]. Pedagogische Studi.en, 69, 242–269. Veenman, S., Leenders, Y., Meyer, P., & Sanders, M. (1993a). Leren lesgeven met het directe instructiemodel [Learning to teach with the direct instruction model]. Pedagogische Studi.en, 70, 2–16. Veenman, S., Lem, P., Roelofs, E., & Nijssen, F. (1993b). Effectieve instructie en doelmatig klassemanagement: een schoolverbeteringsprogramma voor enkelvoudige en combinatieklassen [Effective instruction and efficient classroom management: a school improvement project for single and combined classrooms]. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.