Vol 12 no 2 june 2015 by ijlter.org

IJLTER.ORG

p-ISSN: 1694-2493 e-ISSN: 1694-2116

International Journal of Learning, Teaching And Educational Research

Vol.12 No.2

PUBLISHER London Consulting Ltd District of Flacq Republic of Mauritius www.ijlter.org

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research is an open-access journal which has been established for the disChief Editor Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER welcomes research articles from academics, edEditorial Board ucators, teachers, trainers and other practitionProf. Cecilia Junio Sabio ers on all aspects of education to publish high Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publiProf. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola Dr Jonathan Glazzard cation in the International Journal of Learning, Dr Marius Costel Esi Teaching and Educational Research are selected Dr Katarzyna Peoples through precise peer-review to ensure quality, Dr Christopher David Thompson originality, appropriateness, significance and Dr Arif Sikander readability. Authors are solicited to contribute Dr Jelena Zascerinska to this journal by submitting articles that illusDr Gabor Kiss trate research results, projects, original surveys Dr Trish Julie Rooney Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano and case studies that describe significant adDr Barry Chametzky vances in the fields of education, training, eDr Giorgio Poletti learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit paDr Chi Man Tsui pers to this journal through the ONLINE submisDr Alexander Franco sion system. Submissions must be original and Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak should not have been published previously or Dr Afsaneh Sharif be under consideration for publication while Dr Ronel Callaghan Dr Haim Shaked being evaluated by IJLTER. Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry Dr Gail Dianna Caruth Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez Dr Özcan Özyurt Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya

VOLUME 12

NUMBER 2

June 2015

Table of Contents Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools .......... 1 B. Jean Mandernach, PhD The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies Problem Solving Strategies in your Math Lessons .............................. 15 Costică Lupu The Effects of Three Types of Instructor Posting on Critical Thinking and Social Presence: No Posting, Facilitating Discourse, and Direct Instruction ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Jamie Costley Change in the Era of Common Core Standards: A Mathematics Teacher‟s Journey .................................................. 48 Laura B. Kent Cooperative Learning Effectiveness in the Bureaucratic School: Views of Greek Secondary Education Teachers 64 Konstantina Koutrouba and Ioannis Christopoulos Peer Tutoring as an Approach in Analysing Case Studies in a Business English Course .......................................... 89 Siew Fong Lin A Case Study Exploring Junior High School Students’ Interaction Behavior in a Learning Community on Facebook: Day and Time...................................................................................................................................................... 99 Chun-Jung Chen and Sheng-Yi Wu Towards a Framework for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership ............................................................... 107 Brian Vassallo The Survey on Classroom Discussion of Middle School Students .............................................................................. 121 Hua Zhang, Jinhui Cheng, Xinyu Yuan and Ying Zhang

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-14, June 2015

Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools B. Jean Mandernach, PhD Grand Canyon University Phoenix, Arizona, United States Abstract. Educational research increasingly highlights the importance of student engagement and its impact on retention, learning and persistence. Despite widespread agreement on the value of student engagement, assessing engagement in higher education remains a challenge. To effectively measure student engagement (and understand its influence on the learning experience), it is essential that each institution defines the scope of engagement within their unique context and selects assessment metrics that align with the target definition. The dynamic nature of engagement mandates a multi-faceted approach to assessment that captures the interactive nature of the behavioral, affective and cognitive dimensions comprising student engagement. The value of various modes and tools for assessing student engagement in higher education are discussed. Keywords: student engagement; assessment engagement metrics; cognitive engagement

engagement;

Introduction With increased emphasis on promoting student engagement in postsecondary classrooms (Barkley, 2010; Bowen, 2005; GĂźnĂźĂ§ & Kuzu, 2014; Korobova & Starobin, 2015), it becomes imperative that educators are able to gauge, monitor and assess student engagement as a component of the overall learning experience (Butler, 2011; Chapman, 2003; Fredricks & McColskey, 2013; Garrett, 2011; Kuh, 2001; Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee, & Dailey-Hebert, 2011; Rust, 2002). While there is considerable evidence validating the importance of engagement for fostering student learning (Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006; Cross, 2005; Guthrie & Anderson, 1999; Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan & Towler, 2005; Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998; Skinner, Wellborn & Connell, 1990; Zhao & Kuh, 2004), promoting student retention (Braxton, 2008; Kushman, Sieber & HearioldKinney, 2000; Woods, 1995), enhancing quality assurance (Banta, Pike & Hansen, 2009; Coates, 2005), and impacting student persistence (Milem & Berger, 1997), faculty and administrators still struggle to effectively assess student engagement at both the institutional and course levels.

Much of the challenge in assessing student engagement comes from the lack of a unified definition to define the scope, intent and parameters of engagement. As highlighted by Bowen (2005, p. 4), “an explicit consensus about what we actually mean by engagement or why it is important is lacking.” Yet, despite the divergence of operational definitions, Shulman (2005) maintains that postsecondary institutions must be diligent in fostering and monitoring engagement as “learning begins with student engagement” (p. 38).

Defining Student Engagement In its infancy, student engagement was defined primarily by students’ time-ontask with educational activities (Brophy, 1983; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave, Cahen & Dishaw, 1980; McIntyre, Copenhaver, Byrd, & Norris, 1983). While most definitions of engagement still include students’ investment in learning activities as a key component of engagement, current definitions of student engagement have expanded to include interrelated cognitive and affective components. Emphasizing that cognitive engagement involves not only a behavioral investment of time, but also requires investment of attention and intellectual vigor, Astin (1984, p. 298) defines engagement as “the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience.” Integrating the affective components of the learning experience, Skinner and Belmont (1993, p. 572) define student engagement as “sustained behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by positive emotional tone.” Differentiating this type of engagement from satisfaction, Barkley (2010) highlights that “…engaging students doesn’t mean they’re being entertained. It means they are thinking.” (p. xii). Other definitions emphasize that engagement rests not only in the choices made by students, but in the opportunities available through the institution; as defined by Natriello (1984, p. 14) engagement involves “participating in the activities offered as part of the school program.” Kuh (2003) provides an integrated definition encompassing the cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects of engagement while highlighting the reciprocal responsibility of both the students and the institution to fostering engagement; as explained in this definition, student engagement is “the time and energy students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and practices that institutions use to induce students to take part in these activities” (Kuh, 2003, p. 25). The range of definitions for student engagement converges to emphasize three interrelated aspects of student engagement: cognitive, behavioral, and affective (Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005). As outlined by Chapman (2003, para. 6):  cognitive criteria, which index the extent to which students are attending to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered;  behavioural criteria, which index the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented; and  affective criteria, which index the level of students’ investment in, and their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks.

Examining these indicators as the impetus behind measures of student engagement, Butler (2011) differentiates typical assessment indicators along each dimension; see Table 1 for examples. Table 1: Examples of Assessment Items to Gauge Types of Engagement Behavioral Frequency of asking questions in class Frequency of group projects or collaborative work Frequency of tutoring others Frequency of attending events in the community related to course material

Cognitive Proportion of coursework emphasizing higher order thinking strategies Time spent on projects requiring integration and synthesis of ideas Amount of coursework requiring practical application of knowledge or skills

Affective Effort to work harder to meet instructor’s expectations Investment to better understand someone else’s perspective Time investment in studying Tendency to be prepared (or lack preparation) for class Frequency of discussing course material outside of classtime

Understanding assessment of student engagement rests in an awareness of the range and diversity of definitions for this concept. To effectively assess student engagement, one must know what aspect (or aspects) of engagement are being targeted. As outlined by Bowen (2005), student engagement can be defined in four interrelated ways: 1) engagement with the learning process (i.e., active learning); 2) engagement with the object of study (i.e., experiential learning); 3) engagement with the context of study (i.e., multidisciplinary learning); and 4) engagement with the human condition (i.e., service learning). Inherent in assessment debates concerning the definition and scope of student engagement is the subtle differentiation between engagement as a process versus a product. While Bowen (2005) contends that most assessments of student engagement emphasize the learning process, Barkley (2010) highlights that “student engagement is the product of motivation and active learning. It is a product rather than a sum because it will not occur if either element is missing” (p. 6). While subtle, this distinction has important implications for assessment as it defines the scope of the measurement; specifically, assessments of process emphasize behaviors, activities and attitudes that contribute to student learning while assessments of product emphasize engagement as a cognitive or affective state resulting from the learning process. Despite this subtle distinction, most measures of student engagement incorporate aspects of both the process and product of student engagement by examining students’ active role in the process of learning as well as their resultant cognitive and affective positions. As such, not only do measures of engagement examine students’ perceptions of the learning process, but include an examination of the “frequency with which students participate in activities that represent effective educational practices, and conceive of it as a pattern of @2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

involvement in a variety of activities and interactions both in and out of the classroom and throughout a student’s college career” (Barkley, 2010, p. 4). This theoretical position provides the foundational basis of many of the institutional assessments of student engagement that operationalize engagement as a product of student investment in scholarly activities and institutional allocation of resources to foster student engagement. Likewise, on a smaller scale, these same principles can be applied to course-level engagement measures examining engagement opportunities and students’ involvement in course-related activities.

Assessment Approaches The wide variability of engagement definitions and the complexity surrounding student engagement mandates necessary diversity in measurement approaches and techniques. Assessment of student engagement varies as a function of both the accepted definition of engagement and the data collection methods. As such, there are a number of avenues for collecting student engagement data (Chapman, 2003; Fredricks & McColskey, 2013; Jennings & Angelo, 2006): student self-report, experience sampling, teacher ratings of students, interviews, direct observation, checklists and rating scales, work sample analysis, and focused case studies. Table 2 provides an overview of each approach. Table 2: Data Collection Methods to Measure Student Engagement Data Collection Method student selfreport

experience sampling

teacher ratings of students

Description Students indicate their engagement (as a function of level, agreement or perception) in response to specific attitudes, behaviors or experiences.

Used as an indicator of engagement “flow,” selected students respond to selected dimensions of engagement (such as current activities, cognitive state and affect level) in response to an electronic “alarm” that signals at various times. Teachers provide ratings of their

Strengths Practical, cost-efficient approaches for group and/or large-scale administration; provide a means of measuring nonobservable, perceptual or subjective indicators of engagement. Provides a means of contextualizing engagement track engagement levels in the moment as well as across time and situation.

Challenges Concerns with honesty and/or accuracy of responses; generalized nature of items may limit the value of responses.

Valuable for examining the

Valid perceptions may be limited to the more

Requires considerable investment of time and resources from students in the sample; examines a limited aspect of engagement.

perceptions of behavioral and/or emotional aspects of student engagement. interviews

Students are asked to discuss their engagement in an open-ended manner

direct observations

Structured technique for monitoring and recording students behavior along predefined indicators of engagement.

checklists and rating scales

Provides the frequency and investment of specific target behaviors; may be a self-rating or observer-rating Utilizes samples of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work to assess for higherorder thinking

work sample analysis

focused case studies

Large amounts of detailed data are collected in relation to a small, select sample of students

alignment between student and teacher perceptions of engagement in the classroom. Elicits a more detailed, individualized, contextualized understanding of student engagement. Provides detailed, descriptive accounts of momentary time sampling of student engagement

Provides data on behavioral indicators of engagement

Provides indication of cognitive engagement as a summative indicator of the outcome of various behavioral factors Rich data highlighting behaviors, interactions and contextual factors

observable, behavioral indicators of student engagement.

Concerns with interviewer bias and social desirability factors may influence accuracy of findings. Reliability may be impacted by observer bias; techniques may be time consuming; measurements limted to observable behavior. Lacks information to explain the reasoning behind behavioral indicators

Concerns with the reliability of scoring; outcome may be impacted by factors other than student engagement May have limited generalizability to other student populations

Measures of Engagement As previously highlighted, student engagement is a complex phenomenon that encompasses a range of behavioral, cognitive and affective components of the learning experience; equally varied is the range of data collection approaches available to gauge student engagement. The result of this diversity is a plethora of assessment choices ranging from informal, course-based snapshots to highlystructured, standardized tests of engagement. Selection of a specific approach and measure of student engagement is driven by the parameters surrounding the use and intent of the data. Broadly speaking, assessment data can provide two types of information: 1) informal, formative feedback, or 2) formal, summative data. Informal measures of engagement provide formative data to guide instructional, course or program development; informal assessments of engagement provide feedback during the learning process in a manner that allows for adjustment in

instructional strategies or institutional initiatives to more effectively foster student engagement. Formative monitoring is typically conducted at the course level and relies on informal indicators of engagement (Jennings & Angelo, 2006) including: instructor observations of student behavior, students’ self-reports and administrative records.  Instructor Observations of Student Behavior – There are a number of behavioral indicators that provide a quick, visual assessment of students’ level of engagement in a given course. Kuh (2003) highlights four effective behavioral practices that promote engagement: 1) collaborating with peers, 2) interacting with faculty, 3) participating in learning communities, and 4) devoting significant time to academic tasks. As a function of these dimensions, Franklin (2005) emphasizes that engaged students are more likely to actively listen, respond to questions, collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class. Instructors may informally monitor students’ behavior on these dimensions to gauge engagement in response to various instructional strategies within a given class.  Students’ Self-Reports – To assess students’ engagement with course material or institutional initiatives, self-report data can be collected concerning course activity journals, focus groups or informal questionnaires. Through direct self-report measures, engagement can be analyzed via the affective (i.e., perceptions, attitudes), behavioral (i.e., activities), and cognitive (i.e., interest, active understanding) aspects of the students’ learning experience. Information self-report measures of engagement should be careful to differentiate between satisfaction and engagement (Jennings & Angelo, 2006) by emphasizing time-on-task, investment in course-related interactions and active involvement with learning resources (Nauffal, 2010).  Administrative Records – Administrative data (such as attendance, assignment submissions, adherence to assignment guidelines and participation in ancillary activities) can be examined as an indicator of student engagement (Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee & Dailey-Hebert, 2011). Using activity data as a proxy for motivation or interest, these indicators provide evidence of the degree to which students have invested in the process of learning. Complementing formative feedback, formal measures of engagement provide summative data to gauge effectiveness and institutional initiatives. While informal measures are often collected during the learning process to provide opportunities for reflection and revision, formal measures are typically conducted at the conclusion of a learning experience to provide a metric of program or course effectiveness. Formal measures of student engagement target two discrete levels: institutional and course. “Institutional data determines the extent of student engagement in the overall learning process, while course level data determines the effect of learner-centered pedagogical methods on student success” (Butler, 2011, p. 258). The value of student engagement as a pivotal aspect of an effective learning experience has led to the emergence of a number of standardized instruments to assess engagement at both the course and

institutional levels. The integration of any of these formalized measures must be based on alignment between target dimensions of each instrument and the needs (at the institutional or course level) driving the integration of the engagement metric (Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee & Dailey-Hebert, 2011). The following sections highlight key engagement metrics including an overview of the target dimensions, utility and relevance of each.

Institutional Assessment of Student Engagement Institutional measures of student engagement are designed to “evaluate students’ levels of engagement and the effectiveness of specific engagement activities at the institutional level” (Butler, 2011, p. 259). The broad focus of these measures makes them amenable for tracking institutional progress in fostering engagement and/or comparisons between institutions. A number of these measures are geared at an overall assessment of engagement encompassing cognitive, affective and behavioral domains (i.e., NSSE); other measures target specific institutional types (i.e., CCSSE) or student populations (i.e.,CSS). National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) measures institutional engagement over five dimensions of engagement: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences and supportive campus environment (NSSE, 2009). Used extensively in the United States to assess “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities… [and] how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning” (About NSSE, 2010, para. 1). The NSSE provides a global perspective of student engagement and is designed to measure student involvement in educationally purposeful activities that directly impact their learning and success in college (Kuh, 2001). Items on the NSSE require students to assess their own level of engagement via behavioral indicators (NSSE, 2005) including participation in class discussions, preparation of drafts prior to submitting assignments, interactions with classmates outside of class on courserelated items, and integration of resources for course assignments. College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ). The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) instrument is designed to measure the “quality of student experiences, perceptions of the campus environment, and progress toward important educational goals” (CSEQ, 2007, para. 1). The goal of the CSEQ is to assess students’ perceptions of the overall learning environment to provide instructors and administrators with diagnostic, formative feedback (Kember & Leung, 2009; Kuh, 2007). The CSEQ aligns general issues of engagement according to student-faculty contact, cooperation among students and active learning (Koljatic & Kuh, 2001). Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ). The Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ) is designed to collect data on students’ holistic reflections of their overall experiences rather than recent activities or a specific course (McNaught, Leung & Kember, 2006). As a measure of the progression of engagement, the SEQ is @2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

administered at key stages (end of first year and exit point from their undergraduate program) to examine both cognitive aspects of engagement as well as active involvement in the teaching and learning environment. Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). The Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) is an adaptation of the NSSE designed to assess faculty perceptions of student engagement in relation to their overall student perspective or focusing on a specific course (Ouimet & Smallwoord, 2005). Recognizing the role that faculty play in fostering student engagement (Kuh, Nelson, Laird & Umbach, 2004: Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2004), the FSSE assesses faculty views in relation to: 1) the frequency at which students actively participate and engage in the learning process; 2) perceptions about the value and relevance of various forms of engagement; and 3) the nature of facultystudent interactions. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) was adapted from the NSSE to specifically examine the unique missions, objectives and student populations of 2-year community colleges (Butler, 2011; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2006). As such, the CCSSE targets: 1) active and collaborative learning; 2) student effort; 3) academic challenge; 4) student-faculty interactions; and 5) support for learners. College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ). The College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) is adapted from the CSEQ to target the motivations and goals of new students in relation to college activities and campus environment (CSEQ, 2007). As a companion measure to the CSEQ, data can be longitudinally analyzed to examine the extent to which students’ preliminary expectations were met by the institution. Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE). Like the CSXQ, the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) assesses engagement dimensions of students entering college. The BCSSE examines the expectations of beginning college students for participating in academic initiatives and activities via six dimensions: 1) high school academic engagement; 2) expected academic engagement; 3) expected academic perseverance; 4) expected academic difficulty; 5) perceived academic preparation; and 6) importance of campus environment (BCSSE, 2010). Data from the BCSSE may be used by institutions to guide advising; used in conjunction with the NSSE, data can also provide indicators of the extent to which institutions have met students’ expectations regarding engagement in the academic community. College Senior Survey (CSS). The College Senior Survey (CSS) is designed as an exit survey for graduating seniors to assess a range of student perceptions relevant to academic engagement, student involvement and resource use. Specific to these objectives, CSS “connects academic, civic, and diversity outcomes with a comprehensive set of college experiences to measure the impact of college” (Higher Education Research Institute, 2013, para. 1). While the scope of the CSS goes beyond student engagement, engagement is a key component assessed within the measure. @2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Course Assessment of Student Engagement Course level measures of student engagement provide valuable feedback to gauge and enhance students’ investment in the learning process as a reflection of the unique structure, pedagogy and design of a given course. In reflection of the formative value of course level engagement metrics, Barkley (2010) explains that “whatever means teacher use to assessment engagement in their classes, gathering appropriate feedback can help close the gap between what teachers think is happening in their classes and what students are actually experiencing” (p. 44). In contrast to the broad focus of institutional indicators of engagement, course engagement measures target students’ behavioral, affective and cognitive reactions in response to a target course (Goldspink & Foster, 2013; Laird, Smallwood, Niskode-Dossett & Garver, 2009). Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE). Designed as a complementary measure to the FSSE, the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE) assesses student perceptions of engagement in a course (Ouimet & Smallwood, 2005). The student version of CLASSE metric measures the frequency by which students engage in various educational activities, while the faculty version of CLASSE gauges the importance of each of these indicators for facilitating student success within a specific course (Smallwood & Ouimet, 2009). The comparison of the two versions of CLASSE can be examined to identify discrepancies between student and faculty reports of engagement at the course level. Recognizing the formative focus of CLASSE, faculty using CLASSE indicate that it prompts more reflective teaching, enhances communication with students about learning opportunities, and fosters a more cooperative and interactive classroom environment (Ouimet & Smallwood, 2005). Student Engagement Index. Developed to identify specific measures of classroom engagement aligned with each of the NSSE’s benchmarks (Langley, 2006), the Student Engagement Index measure examines student engagement as a function of: 1) level of academic challenge; 2) quality of student interactions with faculty; 3) active and collaborative learning environments; and 4) enriching educational experiences and supportive campus environment (Langley, 2006). Within each benchmark, key indicators are assessed:  Level of academic challenge measures student effort, time investment and interaction expectations with course-related activities.  Quality of student interactions examines students’ access to contact with the instructor, quality of instructor feedback, student-instructor relationships, supportive classroom environment and instructor clarity and organization.  Active and collaborative learning focuses on student involvement in the learning process via active and collaborative learning.  Enriching educational experiences examines diversity issues, integration and synthesis of knowledge, professional experiences and general technology issues.

Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ). In contrast to the measures adapted from broader engagement surveys, Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan and Towler (2005) devised a measure of student course engagement (Student Course Engagement Questionnaire; SCEQ) that breaks course engagement into four distinct forms: 1) skills engagement; 2) emotional engagement; 3) participation/interaction engagement; and 4) performance engagement. Broadly encompassing behavioral, cognitive and affective aspects of engagement, the SCEQ assesses each dimension of engagement in relation to students’ course involvement:  Skill engagement examines academic learning strategies and study behaviors that promote academic success.  Emotional engagement assesses affective components in which students internalize learning through an emotional connection to course material.  Participation/interaction engagement measures students’ interaction with the instructor and classmates in relation to course material.  Performance engagement targets students’ perspectives and selfefficacy in relation to mastering course content. As highlighted by Handelsman et al. (2005) the SCEQ provides a more comprehensive understanding of student engagement and fosters insight beyond what is visible in behavioral observations of classroom engagement. Student Engagement Survey (SE). The Student Engagement Survey is a short, 14item assessment that adapts target items from the NSSE survey for use at the course level (Ahlfeldt, Mehta & Sellnow, 2005). The selected questions examine student engagement as a function of: 1) collaborative learning; 2) cognitive development; and 3) personal skills development. Respondents rate the frequency of active learning strategies, interactivity, required depth of learning, and skill development within the context of a target course. Behavioral Engagement Related to Instruction (BERI). Designed to quantitatively measure student engagement in large college classes, the BERI is a classroom observation protocol emphasizing teaching behaviors that impact student engagement (Lane & Harris, 2015). Conducted via an external observer, the BERI provides formative information to guide instructors on instructional techniques that foster increased student engagement.

Conclusion Complexity surrounding assessment of student engagement is a natural byproduct of the dynamic, interactive nature of this phenomenon. Marcum (2000) attempted to capture the intricacies of engagement via a conceptual formula in which: E = L(I+ Cp + Ch)x Inv (A + Co + Cm) => IK/Ef => E In explanation, “Engagement = Learning (Interest + Competence + Challenge) x Involvement (Activity + Communication + Commitment) producing Increased Knowledge and Effectiveness which results, typically, in increased Engagement. The process amounts to a dynamic evolving system” (Marcum, 2000, p. 59). Echoing the dynamic relationship between engagement variables, Barkley (2010)

explains that “motivation and active learning work together synergistically, and as they interact, they contribute incrementally to increase engagement… active learning and motivation are spirals working together synergistically, building in intensity, and creating a fluid and dynamic phenomenon that is greater than the sum of the individual effects” (p. 7). As highlighted by these conceptual defintions, student engagement cannot be effectively defined or measured by a singular assessment strategy. The dynamic nature of engagement mandates a multi-faceted approach to assessment that captures the interactive nature of the behavioral, affective and cognitive dimensions comprising student engagement. As student engagement is an integral component of a successful learning experience, it is essential to select assessment strategies that consider the range of interactive engagement components, variability in purposes of engagement data, and differences in the target level of analysis. Combining the information available through informal and formal indicators of engagement at both the course and institutional level, the assessment of student engagement provides vital data to inform pedagogy and programmatic initiatives to foster engagement in support of students’ psychosocial growth, cognitive understanding and professional development.

References Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5-20. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banta, T. W., Pike, G. R., & Hansen, M. J. (2009). The use of engagement data in accreditation, planning, and assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 21-34. Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://bcsse.iub.edu/ Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 4-7. Braxton, J. M. (2008).Toward a scholarship of practice centered on college student retention. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 101-112. DOI: 10.1002/tl.328 Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200215. Butler, J. M. (2011). Using standardized tests to assess institution-wide student engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B.Beins, K. Keith, & B. Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques and opportunities. Syracuse, NY: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Available from the STP web site: http://www.teachpsych.org/teachpsych/pnpp/. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). College Student Experiences Questionnaire. (2007). General information. Retrieved from http://cseq.iub.edu/

Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance.Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36. Cross, K. P. (2005). What do we know about students' learning and how do we know it? Center for the Study of Higher Education Research and Occasional Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.aahe.org/nche/cross_lecture.htm Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviours, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In D. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Franklin, E. E. (2005). Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching Artist Journal, 3, 148-157. Fredricks, J. A. (2013). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY: Springer. Garrett, C. (2011). Defining, detecting, and promoting student engagement in college learning environments. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 5(2), 1-12. Goldspink, C., & Foster, M. (2013). A conceptual model and set of instruments for measuring student engagement in learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 291-311. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.776513 Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: Campus-ClassTechnology Theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 86-113. Guthrie, J. T., & Anderson, E. (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated, strategic, knowledgeable, social readers. In J. T. Guthrie & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17-45). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-191. Higher Education Research Institute (2013). College Senior Survey. Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/abtHERI.php Jennings, J. M., & Angelo, T. (Eds.) (2006). Student engagement: Measuring and enhancing engagement with learning [Proceedings of a symposium]., New Zealand: Universities Academic Audit Unit. Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning, Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23. Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15-29., DOI: 10.1007/s10984008-9050-7 Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42, 351-371. Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72-85. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2). Kuh, G. D. (2007). CSEQ: College Students Experience Questionnaire Assessment Program. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/.

Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty and student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4), 24-31. Kushman, J. W., Sieber, C., & Heariold-Kinney, P. (2000). This isn't the place for me: School dropout. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (pp. 471-507). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Laird, T. F., Smallwood, R. A., Niskode-Dossett, A. S. & Garver, A. K. (2009). Effectively involving faculty in the assessment of student engagement. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 71-81. DOI: 10.1002/ir.287 Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83-91. Langley, D. (2006). The student engagement index: A proposed student rating system based on the national benchmarks of effective educational practice. University of Minnesota: Center for Teaching and Learning Services. Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E. & Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011). Assessing Course Student Engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B.Beins, K. Keith, & B. Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques and opportunities. Syracuse, NY: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Available from the STP web site: http://www.teachpsych.org/teachpsych/pnpp/. Marcum, J. W. (2000). Out with motivation, in with engagement. National Productivity Review, 18, 57-59. McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2006). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program. McIntyre, D. J., Copenhaver, R. W., Byrd, D. M., & Norris, W. R. (1983). A study of engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics class. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 55-59. McNaught, C., Leung, D., & Kember, D. (2006). Report on the Student Engagement Project. Centre for Learning Enhancement and Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Milem, J., & Berger, J. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387-400. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 Annual Report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2009). National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Annual Report, Assessment for Improvement: Tracking Student Engagement Over Time. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). National Survey of Student Engagement: About NSSE. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/. Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 24. Nauffal, D. (2010). Institutional effectiveness: Assessment of student engagement. Presentation at the Higher Education International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon. Ouimet, J. A., & Smallwood, R. A. (2005). CLASSE: The class-level survey of student engagement. Journal of Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 17(6), 13-15.

Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2): 145â&#x20AC;&#x201C;158. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36-44. Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581. Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I've got it: The role of perceived control in children's engagement and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32. Smallwood, R. A. & Ouimet, J. A. (2009). CLASSE: Measuring student engagement at the classroom level. In Banta, E., Jones. E. & Black, K. (eds). Designing effective assessment: Principles and profiles of good practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2004). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA. Woods, E. G. (1995). Reducing the dropout rate. In School Improvement Research Series (SIRS): Research you can use (Close-up No. 17). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Zhao, C. M. & Kuh, G. D (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement, Research in Higher Education, 45, 115-138.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 15-25, June 2015

The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies Problem Solving Strategies in your Math Lessons Costică Lupu “Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacău, Faculty of Science, Mathematics-Informatics and Science of Education Department, România

Abstract. This article demonstrates the relevance of using heuristic problem-solving strategies in lessons of Mathematics, as a fundamental requirement with multiple valences in building thought operations, which leads to enhancing school performance. Our study aims at elaborating a methodological model that may fully exploit heuristic didactic strategies in the heuristic solving of problems. The organization of the study will focus on improving the use and efficiency of heuristic mathematical techniques by relating to heuristic problem solving. The teaching strategy creates circumstances for building the students’ learning strategies and the learning methods determine the optimization of the teaching strategies. Schematically, our aim is to build a learning situation where the student learns (through guidance), builds (through semi-guidance) or elaborates (independently) strategies for learning the new content, solving strategies or even strategies for the self-guidance and control of one’s own way of thinking. An essential element in elaborating the teaching strategy is selecting heuristic methods and procedures. Various methods were applied during the research: conversation, experiment, analysis of activity products, the method of the tests, statistical processing of the data. The research was conducted during the 2014-2015 school year, involving two groups, each of them comprising 24 students: experimental group – the 8th grade from “Octavian Voicu” Middle School, Bacău, and a control group – the 8th grade from “Miron Costin” Middle School, Bacău. Keywords: ameliorative experiment; mathematical heuristic techniques; teaching-learning-evaluation.

Introduction The term heuristic comes from Greek: heuriskein – to find out, to discover. Heuristic teaching strategies represent mental exploitation strategies supporting the discovery of information, stimulate thought operations, the students’ judgement and reasoning, leading to active, conscious learning.

Traditional education, focused on the teacher and the learning content, has been replaced by modern, student-centred education. To achieve this desideratum, the teacher has to resort to heuristic teaching-learning strategies. The heuristic strategy implies a wide range of methods. The most frequently used heuristic methods include: the method of the analogy; generalization and particularization; analysis through synthesis; selecting, searching for a related problem; solving an auxiliary problem; rereading definitions; exploiting properties; reformulating the problem; demonstrative reasoning (deductive, inductive, analogical). This strategy represents the result of the interconditioning between the two components:  the teaching strategy (elaborated by the teacher): the teacher’s ability to select and combine, in a certain order, methods, procedures and training instruments, groupings of students, select and organize the scientific content according to the proposed objectives, opt for a certain learning situation that would be experienced by the students;  the learning strategy (elaborated by the student), that may be: - participation strategies; - encoding strategies; - acquisition and reconstruction strategies; strategies for elaborating hypotheses; - strategies connected to problem solving. By heuristic method we mean a specific way for solving a general problem. It may include several procedures, these constituting details of the method, with a more limited sphere of applicability. The heuristic procedures may be defined as thought mechanisms that suggest and stimulate the generation of efficient conjunctures while solving the problem, or enable the shortening of the problem solving path.

Research description Researcher objectives The researcher has proposed the following benchmarks: 1. Knowledge of the heuristic teaching methods in order to be able to heuristically solve problems by studying the reference bibliography and the experience achieved during lessons of Mathematics; 2. Elaborating (initiating) a personal methodological process to fully exploit heuristic teaching strategies; 3. Organizing and conducting the experiment (in order to achieve the proposed objectives); 4. Analysing, processing and presenting the obtained results (in order to demonstrate, in an efficient way, the heuristic methods used in problem solving); 5. Formulating conclusions (in order to understand the efficiency of the experiment). The research hypothesis The organization of our experiment relied on the following hypothesis: If during the act of teaching-learning there are efficiently used heuristic mathematical problem-solving strategies, with multiple formative valences in building thought operations, then these will generate an increase in school performance and the students’ results will be much improved. © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Sample of study The research was conducted during the 2014-2015 school year, involving two groups, each of them comprising 125 students: experimental group – the 8th A grade from “Octavian Voicu” Middle School, Bacău, and 125 students: control group – the 8th B grade from “Miron Costin” Middle School, Bacău. The stages of the experiment The stage of initial evaluation aimed at observing the students’ level of training by applying initial testing which consisted of observation protocols and a knowledge test (comprising different exercises and problems). The stage of formative-ameliorative evaluation, during which there was introduced the progress factor and there were varied the manifestation circumstances by using active heuristic teaching methods, besides those used in the heuristic problem solving process. The stage of final evaluation consisted in a comparison of the results obtained in the initial test, in order to highlight the students’ progress/ regress at lessons of Mathematics, especially in problem solving. The research variables are: - the independent (introduced) variable, namely the use of active teaching methods; - the dependent variable that leads to enhancing the efficiency of heuristic methods of solving problems and the students’ school progress. The research methodology The research is based on the following knowledge methods and techniques: 1. The method of observation; 2. The method of conversation; 3. The psychological analysis of the activity’s results/products; 4. The method of tests; 5. The statistical-mathematical methods.

Specialized literature Types of heuristic teaching strategies in problem solving The teaching strategies highlight the teacher’s ability to select and combine, in a certain order, training methods and procedures, groupings for students, select and organize the scientific content according to the proposed objectives, opt for a certain learning situation that will be experienced by the students. The teaching strategy implies a certain way of approaching learning and teaching that may be: analytical or synthetic, intuitive or deductive, creative or algorithmic, theoretical or practical-applicative, frontal or individual, classic or modern, interdisciplinary or monodisciplinary. According to the selected strategy, the teacher searches for and associates those operations (analysis, comparison, association, analogy, interpretation, generalization, abstraction etc.) in order to reach the desired acquisitions (knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviours, attitudes). In this respect, the students’

physical and mental activity is decomposed into a series of sequences, with a view to organizing each moment of the lesson. At the level of teaching, the strategy is part of the methodology, the teacher’s art of leading, solving training situations. The teacher uses the elements of the teaching-learning-evaluation process as a system, in order to achieve objectives in a certain manner, a procedural option, a combinatory style, a coordination style, a model for typical and optimal solving. Therefore, it is an act of institutional management. Characterized, essentially, as a way for combining and approaching teachinglearning-evaluation, of organizing the process in order to achieve objectives, the teaching strategy provides criteria for building training actions and situations by: - selecting the orientation towards a certain type, form, way of teaching and learning and of conducting them; - selecting the best set of methods, means, forms of organization that circulate the learning contents; - indicating the conditions, minimal resources needed to reach a certain objective or group; - conceiving, designing teaching-learning-evaluation sequentially or in compliance with a certain concatenation and order of these; finding the proper solution for defining, selecting, correlating the situations resulted from relating to previously established objectives; - achieving various combinations of these elements of the process of training, both at the global level (macro-design) and at the level of a concrete teaching, learning (micro-design) situation, in relation to a certain operational objective; - indicating a certain way for introducing the student into the created situation, guiding him in solving the task, until its completion and evaluation; - relating this combination to other determined conditions – the students’ initial level of training, allotted time, moment of beginning, place among the other situations, material circumstances; - formulating a version, a solution resembling a decision, after having processed the information accumulated in relation to the elements of the situation, such as type, organization and conducting it; - the possibility to particularize its elements into actions, delimited operations (procedures) that may enhance the degree of precision, control, prevention of deviations and streamlining; - the teacher’s possibility to guide the situation’s evolution, to seize disturbing factors and intervene, to find solutions for adopting or selecting another method ad-hoc; - to engage students according to their particularities, to assert creativity, teaching style and how the teacher leads the action;

- indicating the proper way for putting the student into contact with the objectives, contents, concrete tasks, achievement conditions, evaluation criteria, the type of learning and exploiting previous experience; - formulating even research hypotheses for optimizing training by introducing, experimenting new methodological, organizational combinations; - delimiting the degree and form for extending the guidance of students in training, solving, generalizing results, involving them in specific learning activities; - supporting the teacher in finding answers to the questions he himself raises while designing teaching, defining and combining the required trainingevaluation situations; - unifying criteria, adjusting them to the establishment of the strategy for solving the situation: the teacher’s design, objectives, informational content, the students’ type of experience, the rules that must be complied with, the teaching-material resources, the allotted time.

Types of heuristic strategies in solving problems a) according to the learning activity in the training process: - algorithmic: - through imitation of given models; - through repetition, practice, memorization; - through reception, reproduction; - through concrete-intuitive knowledge; - through algorithmization, step by step; - heuristic: - through unmediated observation; - by solving open problems ; through experimentation ; - through debates, heuristic dialogues; - through group research; - through simulation, modelling, applications; - through creativity techniques etc. - mixed: - by combining all the other types. b) according to the way of guiding learning: - step-by-step guidance; - semiguidance; - partial non-intervention. c) according to the type of reasoning applied: - inductive teaching-learning; deductive teaching-learning; - transductive teaching-learning; - learning by analogy; - combining reasonings. Any strategy is simultaneously a technique and educational art, the selection and use of any type of strategy decisively depends on the teacher’s training and personality, since during a teaching activity the teacher may use a combination of strategies, corresponding situations in order to enhance the efficiency of his actions and the quality of results.

Research results Initial evaluation During the observational stage, we applied an initial evaluation test. The test was elaborated by taking into account the objectives that had to be achieved by the end of the 8th grade, in order to establish the student’s level of training. Analysing the data from the tables, we may argue that: © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

- the results obtained by the students from the experimental class constitute information on the knowledge of the respective student, as well as the student’s knowledge gaps; - the total score at the level of the class represents the sum of the points obtained for each item plus one point from the office. Following the recording of these data, our conclusions regarding the students’ initial training level are the following: - the students had difficulties in solving problems; - the average of the experimental class is 7,3 , this representing the starting point in conducting our research. The initial test was meant to establish the students’ level of training. The test helped us notice the fact that the most difficult item was I 4 , whereas the best results were obtained at items I1 , I2 , I3 . The data per student demonstrated relevant differences between the students who had solved 2-3 tasks and those who had solved all the tasks. We found that the level of the class is lowerintermediate. Applying the initial test enabled us to identify the students’ learning difficulties in the initial phase and, in relation to their extent, a more prolonged focus on the respective content until all the students have achieved a corresponding training level. Analysing the graphs that represent the results obtained by the students from the experimental class, we found that from the 125 evaluated children, 54 obtained the mark VW (very well) representing 43%, 45 children obtained the mark W (well), representing 36%, and 26 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing 21% of the participants. Analysing the graphs that show the results obtained by the students of the class, we found that in the initial evaluation, the results of the control group were the following: from the 125 evaluated children, 54 obtained the mark VW (very well), representing 43% of them, 37 children obtained the mark of W (well), representing 30%, and 20 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing 16%, whereas 14 children obtained the mark I (insufficient), representing 11 % of the participants. Analysing the results obtained by the students with poorer results, we found that these are challenged by difficulties in solving the following tasks: - they do not perform calculi correctly; - they do not solve problems completely; - they do not compose problems following the given model; - they do not find the question that they need to raise in order to solve the problem. Following the results obtained by the experimental class, we have noticed the fact that most students come across difficulties when solving problems.

Formative evaluation The formative evaluation tests applied during lessons of Mathematics enabled the immediate knowledge of the students’ learning difficulties. In order to © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

eliminate the errors, we resorted to differentiating the activities. Following the analysis of the tests, there were presented the unachieved operational objectives, so that these may be aimed at during the proposed recovery activities. Analysing the data, we may argue that although the students from the experimental class did not record major leaps in terms of their marks, almost all of them achieved better scores compared to the previous tests, therefore the learning experience was a success. We have also noticed the fact that the most frequent errors were those related to calculus, which indicates that the methods used in the heuristic solving of problems are known and acquired by the students of the class. The formative evaluation tests applied during lessons of Mathematics enabled the immediate identification of errors and the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning difficulties. Looking at the tables with the data from the ameliorative formative tests and at the graphs with the scores and marks obtained in the initial tests, we may notice the fact that the school performance was improved as follows: - the average at the initial test for the experimental group was 7,3 and at formative test no. 1 the average was 8; - at formative test no. 2, there was a slight increase compared to the first test, the average being 8,2. This increase is due to surpassing the more serious difficulties related to the contents of learning. The scores obtained were significantly higher than for the previous test. The results obtained highlight the relevance of formative evaluation tests applied during the learning activities and confirm the usefulness of the heuristic methods used. The fact that the results of the students from the experimental class were improved, with even the less industrious students achieving a promotion level, determined us to interfere, when it was necessary, with worksheets for repeating certain tasks, in order to achieve a more thorough acquisition of knowledge. The progress obtained by the students compared to the initial test cannot be interpreted only as enhancement of percentages related to achieving objectives, but also in relation to the use of heuristic working methods, which led to activating the desire for performance or for increasing performance and, implicitly, a more active, conscious participation of students.

Summative (final) evaluation On June the 1st 2014, there was applied the final evaluation of students through an evaluation test. In order to centralize and interpret the data, we have resorted to analytical and synthetic tables, frequency polygons, histograms and diagrams. The final evaluation test was designed in a similar manner to the initial one, so that the results obtained may be compared, the knowledge included in the syllabus being defined as operational objectives encoded as items. The analysis of the analytical and synthetic tables of the histogram, the frequency polygon and the circular diagram revealed the fact that in the final evaluation, ÂŠ 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

for the experimental group, the results were the following: from the 125 evaluated children, 80 obtained the mark VW (very well), representing 64%, 36 children obtained the mark W (well), representing 29 %, and 9 child obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing 7 % of the participants. The analysis of the analytical and synthetic table, of the histogram, frequency polygon and circular diagram, revealed that in the final evaluation, the results for the control group were the following: from the 125 evaluated children, 55 obtained the mark VW (very well), representing 44%, 46 children obtained the mark W (well), representing 37%, whereas 14 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing 19% of the participants.

The comparative analysis of the data obtained in the initial and final evaluation form In order to highlight the progresses related to improving relations following the conducted experiment and the applied methodology, we have proceeded to performing a comparative analysis of the two series from the initial and final evaluation. MARKS Initial evaluation Final evaluation VERY WELL 54 80 WELL 45 36 SUFFICIENT 26 9 INSUFFICIENT 0 0 Table 1: Comparative analysis for the experimental group 90 80 70 60

Initial evaluation

Final evaluation

30 20 10 0 Very well

Well

Sufficient

Insufficient

Figure 1: Frequency polygon comparative analysis of the results from the initial and final evaluation for the experimental group

The comparison of the results obtained in the predictive and final test have revealed the fact that throughout the school year, as a result of the systematic application of active methods and differentiated learning during lessons, the progress of students was both qualitative and quantitative. This fact was easily ÂŠ 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

seen in the ease and pleasure with which the students acquired a great amount of knowledge, with which they operated in solving problems and problemsituations (knowledge acquired especially through their personal effort), in the pleasure with which they worked throughout the entire school year. The comparative analysis of the table and frequency polygon revealed the progress recorded at the end of the experiment by the experimental group. The results obtained in the final evaluation show an obvious difference from the scores obtained in the initial evaluation. This reveals the fact that the formative stage was efficient, the results obtained demonstrating the improvement of the results. MARKS Initial evaluation Final evaluation WERY WELL 54 55 WELL 37 46 SUFFICIENT 20 14 INSUFFICIENT 14 0 Table 2: Comparative analysis for the control group

The comparative analysis of the table and frequency polygon reveals, for the control group, the fact that the number of students who obtained the mark VW remained the same, the number of those who obtained the mark W increased, the number of those with mark S did not increase but there increased the percentage for mark I. The results obtained in the final evaluation test did not increase significantly compared to the points obtained at the stage of initial evaluation. MARKS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP VERY WELL 80 55 WELL 36 46 SUFFICIENT 9 14 INSUFFICIENT 0 0 Table 3: Comparative analysis between the two groups in the final evaluation 90 80 70 60 50

Experimental group

Control group

30 20 10 0 Very well

Well

Sufficient

Insufficient

The comparative analysis of the histogram and frequency polygon reveals the progress recorded at the end of the experiment by the experimental group. Calculating the average between the two tests (initial and final) and drawing a comparison between the two groups, there may be observed an increase in the school performance for the experimental group as compared to the control group.

Conclusions In general, it may be said that solving problems constitutes the most appropriate way for achieving the objectives of teaching-learning Mathematics. The activity of Mathematics requires effort, focus and activation of all the components of the human psychic, particularly thought and intelligence. The intellectual effort put into composing and solving problems is, essentially, a continuous exercise that results in building the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; imagination and creativity. From the instructive-educational perspective, solving problems constitutes the application of acquired knowledge in relation to mathematical operations and their properties, deepening and consolidating knowledge. In terms of practice, solving problems represents the seizing and understanding of the relations between sizes that we come across on a daily basis, for the solving of which it is not enough to know only the calculus technique. The main objective of each lesson should serve not just training, but also education, an action where the leading role belongs to the educator. This should avoid the formal nature of the lesson and ensure an atmosphere of constant communication, the students participating with their own ideas, questions that the educator should tactfully guide towards the proposed educational goal. At the same time, he should aim at the accessibility of learning by challenging the student, in a systematic, conscious, gradated way, with obstacles that the student may overcome under his guidance. Composing and solving problems will challenge students throughout the entire school period as well as their entire life, but by being discreetly led towards discovering the solution, they will be enthusiastic and encouraged to obtain more and more performances. The results obtained by applying the tests have generated the following findings: - the data obtained highlighted the higher results from the final test compared to the initial test, demonstrating the efficiency of the development thinking and finding several alternatives for solving a problem; - the continuous, sustained solving of problems also helped the students with poorer results, removing their fear of failure and shyness; - the systematic training of students in finding as many possible alternatives for solving a problem leads to building the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; creativity;

- involving the students in creative, active-participative activities gives the teacher the possibility to know individual particularities better, the style of each student, intelligence, will, temperament, behaviour, in a word, personality. I believe that the proposed objective and hypothesis have been confirmed, our work constituting a possible guide for teachers in their activity of solving simple, composed or typical problems.

References Aebli, H., (1998). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens. Eine allgemeine Didaktik auf Kognitions psychologischer Grundlage (Twelve basic forms of teaching. An approach to General Didactics founded on Cognitive Psychology; 1st.ed.:1983), 10th.ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Ausubel, D.P., & Robinson, F.G., (1981). Learning in the school. An introduction to the pedagogical psychology (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucharest. Cucoș, C., (1998). Psycho-pedagogy for teaching exams and grades completed, (in Romanian), Polirom Publishing House, Iaşi. Dumitriu, C., (2004). Introduction to pedagogical research, (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucharest. Gagne, R.M., (1975). Learning conditions, (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucharest. Gagne, R.M., & Briggs L.J., (1977). Principles of design training, Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucharest. Lupu, C. (2006), Teaching Mathematics, (in Romanian), Caba Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania. Lupu, C., & Săvulescu D., (2000). Teaching geometry, (in Romanian), Paralela 45 Publishing House, Pitesti. Lupu, C. (2013). Establishment of Cognitive Functions trough Mathematical Education, Quality and Efficiency in E-Learning, Vol. 1 Book Series: eLearning and Software for Education Pages: 178-183. Lupu, C. (2014). The Psiho-pedagogical Paradigm of Discipline Didactics, LAMBERT Academic Publishing, OmniScriptum GmbHet Co. KG, Saarbrucken, Deutschland/ Germany. Lupu, C. (2014). The model object-product-cognitive operation through mathematical education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 163, Pages 132 – 141. Nyberg E. M., & Olander M. H., (2015). A study of formative assessment strategies in teachers’ school-based in-service training, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational, Vol.11, Nr. 1. Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B., (2005).Training of self-regulatory and problemsolving competence, Learning and Instruction, Volume 15, Issue 2, 123–139. Postolică, V., & Lupu, C., (2015). Euclidean Geometry and Computers. Published online, as Original Research Article in the International Journal of Applied Science and Mathematics, Vol. 2, Issue 1, p. 1 – 6.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 26-47, June 2015

The Effects of Three Types of Instructor Posting on Critical Thinking and Social Presence: No Posting, Facilitating Discourse, and Direct Instruction Jamie Costley English Education Department, Kongju National University, Kongju, South Korea

Abstract. As more and more institutions are using asynchronous forums as the main or only means for students to interact online, the need to understand the effects of instructor intervention on learner discourse in those types of learning environments has become more important. This study will describe the effects of different types of instructor intervention on learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; levels of critical thinking and social presence. The research involved taking 900 learner posts from three differing experimental conditions and analyzing those posts for social presence and critical thinking. The three experimental conditions were no instructor posting, posts containing facilitating discourse, and posts containing direct instruction. The results showed instructor posts that facilitate discourse generate higher levels of social presence when compared to the other two conditions, and instructor posts that contain direct instruction increase critical thinking. These results are important in general, because instructors must be aware of how their behavior may affect how learners interact (and therefore learn) online. More specifically, the types of discourse their learners create are of interest to many instructors. Therefore, the ways instructors can manipulate learner discourse is of great importance.

Keywords: Teaching presence; critical thinking; social presence; direct instruction; facilitating discourse

1. Introduction Asynchronous online forums are the most commonly used medium of communication for learners in higher education settings (Johnson, 2007; Harman & Koohang, 2005). Asynchronous online forums are generally easy to use for general student-to-student communication and for more complex collaborative tasks (Reid, Katz and Jacobsen, 2006). Regardless of the fact that student-tostudent interaction may be the purpose of many forums, instructors still have responsibility to oversee and in some cases intervene in the learning environment (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer; 2001). Furthermore, studies have established the importance and effectiveness of instructor behavior when students interact online (Andresen, 2009; Shea, Chun, & Pickett, 2006) and

the effect of teaching presence on critical thinking and social presence in particular (Prasad, 2009;Swan & Shih, 2005). The way learners interact with each other is of core importance when assessing the quality of a learning environment (Martyn, 2005). To effectively allow learners to collaborate there needs to be some form of in depth interaction. This interaction is usually manifested in either some type of written or spoken dialogue or discourse. The underlying assumption that underpins this is that a community of learners is helpful for learning, and necessary for higher order learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Online asynchronous forums, correctly administered and controlled, have the ability to develop insightful socially connected learners (Harman & Koohang, 2005). When asked, learners respond that instructor involvement is crucial to academic success and engagement (Hughes & Daykin, 2002; Rourke & Anderson, 2002; Salmon 2002; Shea, 2003). This idea can be further developed as showing that some degree of scaffolding and teacher control can raise the level of discourse. This parallels research offline which shows that support develops learners’ motivation and ability to complete tasks to a high level (Baeten, Dochy, & Struyven, 2013). This study investigates the effects of instructor posting on student discussion in online threaded asynchronous forums. Direct analysis of student discussions were used to develop a rich understanding of how instructor posting can effect learner discussion. Measurements of social presence and critical thinking within the learner discourse were used to evaluate the quality of the posts that learners were producing. This paper will describe the effects that varying types of instructor behavior have on the levels of social presence and critical thinking within learner discussions.

2. Conceptual framework 2.1. Teaching presence, social presence and critical thinking In an online environment, the way that a teacher interacts (or doesn’t interact) is one of the key elements in manipulating the way that the learners within the online learning environment will behave. Teacher behavior has clear and direct relationships with satisfaction and learning (Shea, Fredrickson, Pickett & Pelz, 2003). Teaching behavior is best conceptualized by Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001) as “teaching presence”. Teaching presence is defined as, “…..the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social presences for realizing personally meaningful and emotionally worthwhile learning outcomes.” (Anderson et al., 2001, pg 5). They note that individual learning without the aid of formal instruction can be effective. However, when using any kind of online interactive medium or cooperative learning some kind of guidance (teaching presence) is required. Anderson et al. (2001) seek to identify the differing types of teaching presence so as to further our understanding of how to smoothly run CSCL environments and how those different parts of teaching presence can be measured.

Anderson et al. (2001) criticize a laissez faire or “guide on the side” approach to online learning as not taking full advantage of the potential contributions of instructors in guiding the discourse and giving instruction. They argue for some degree of direct instruction and facilitation of learners as they progress through learning tasks. Direct instruction is the process by which instructors control pedagogical aspects of the learning environment. That is, the instructors delivering information to the learners in terms of their experience and knowledge. The facilitation of discourse as a part of teaching presence can be easily overlooked in online environments but it is of vital importance for keeping the course flowing and keeping the students committed to, interested in and motivated towards the learning objectives of the course. If instructors fail to adequately manage the interactions between learners, then those interactions can break down (Shin, 2008). Facilitating discourse is very much intertwined with the ways that learners interact with each other within the learning community (Rourke et al. 2001). The conceptualization of social presence began with Mehrabian (1969) and his idea of immediacy. Immediacy refers to actions, which bring individuals together and increase the intensity and/or frequency of interactions between them. The concept of affinity is defined as an individual’s positive attitude towards another individual, and high levels of it would increase levels of meaningful communication between people interacting together (McCroskey & Wheeless 1976). The lack of physical closeness or nonverbal behaviors would be detrimental to individual-to-individual communication, which brings about a problem when trying to develop most kinds of asynchronous communication mediums online, as they lack any kind of nonverbal social cues. Regardless of this, while nonverbal cues are lacking in asynchronous learning environments, social dimensions of interaction can be met in other ways. Learners and instructors tend to use a great deal of text introducing themselves, making jokes and attempting to relate to others within the learning community (Rourke et al. 2001). These forms of interaction are required for the development of in depth collaboration. It has been shown that higher levels of interaction lead to greater knowledge development and stronger social ties online (Tan, Tripathi, Zuiker and Seah 2010). Critical thinking allows the learner to assess the quality of their current knowledge and incoming knowledge; it also allows the learner to develop knowledge of their own (Dewey, 1933). One of the main advantages of Dewey’s framework of reflective thinking is that most forms of conscious cognition (critical, abstract, inference for example) can be explained by the theory (Garrison and Archer, 2000). The learner’s experience in an online learning environment can also be modeled through the core of reflective thinking model. The learner moves through imagination, deliberation and action towards understanding of the material being covered (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). More specifically, asynchronous written discourse is more strongly weighted towards reflective thinking as opposed to most verbal discourse that is often spontaneous and lacking in reflection (Garrison et al. 2003). More directly and powerfully, a

discourse with high levels of critical thinking has a strong positive relationship with learning (Pilkington, 2001). 2.2 The effects of teaching presence on social presence and critical thinking Instructor presence is important in developing the levels of social presence students feel in online courses and an instructor’s style of intervention affects how learners feel and the degree that they participate online. This can be a positive experience, in that learners tend to judge instructors who intervene more often higher than those who don’t. However, instructor intervention can also lead to discussions being cut short (Swan and Shih, 2005; Mazzolini and Maddison, 2002). Certain dimensions of social presence (social context, online communication and interactivity) can be enhanced by instructor interventions online. If instructors engage learners in social tasks and take steps to remove layers of formality between themselves, then social presence can be improved (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). More specifically some interventions instructors can use to promote social presence are: contributing to discussion boards, promptly answering e-mail, providing frequent feedback, striking up conversations, sharing personal stories and experiences, using humor, using emoticons, addressing students by name, and allowing students options for addressing the instructor (Aragon, 2003). Topics which are more focused around personal issues, induce higher levels of social presence and students with higher levels of social presence report that their instructors had a more “personal tone” in their online interaction and that those instructors spent time developing a sense of community. This is in contrast to learners with lower levels of social presence who can often feel passive and bored when trying to relate with the class content (Swan and Shih, (2005). Further to this, student’s sense of community is also positively related to their levels of social presence. Learners with high levels of social presence report a stronger feeling of community toward the other learners they are interacting with (Shea, Li, Swan & Pickett, 2005). It has been shown that facilitating discourse increases a learner’s sense of connection with the course (Dringus, Snyder and Terral, 2010). In Dewey’s (1933) work, he discussed the idea that the development of higher order critical thinking skills, “ appeared in student discussions only when prompted by specific instructional techniques” Pg. 9. Specifically, he claimed that collaborative solutions tended to be introduced when the teacher or instructor of the online course prompted the learners to move towards those kinds of solutions. Teaching presence features, according to Dewey, contribute directly to students engaging in a positive and meaningful way. This ties in well with research that shows that teaching presence is positively correlated with critical thinking (Prasad, 2009). Learners clearly value responsiveness and clarity when trying to learn in an online environment (Sheridan & Kelly, 2010).This further shows the need for instructor intervention when developing learners’ engagement with content online and their construction of a meaningful critical learning experience.

3. Research Questions The goal of this study was to examine how different types of instructor posting affected the content of student posts within an asynchronous online discussion. More specifically, the goal of this study was to examine whether student posts that succeeded instructor posts of different types had higher or lower levels of critical thinking, or whether the levels remained the same. To gather information on this topic, posts were selected based on three different experimental conditions. No instructor posting: The posts from this condition were taken from threads in which there was no instructor posting of any type. Facilitating discourse: The posts from this condition were taken from threads containing instructor posts that were designed to facilitate discourse. Direct instruction: The posts from this condition were taken from threads containing instructor posts that were designed to give direct instruction. The following questions guided this study: Do the differing types of instructor postings have an effect on the levels of social presence in the learners’ discourse? If so, in what ways? Do the differing types of instructor postings have an effect on the levels of critical thinking in the learners’ discourse? If so, in what ways?

4. Methods 4.1. Subjects and Context The 219 participants for this experiment were taking English classes focused on preparing them for the Korean teachers entrance exam (im-yonggyo-shi) over three semesters in 2013 and 2014. This study takes the posts generated by the users of an online forum as part of a blended learning environment with the online posting meant to support and further develop the students’ offline discourse and writing skills in the hope that this will develop their ability to generate meaningful understanding of issues pertaining to class management and delivering instruction. Offline course activities included lectures, group work and presentations. The main online component of the course was the students’ use of an asynchronous message board where they could post their ideas and respond to others’ ideas related to the course materials. The gender and major breakdown for the classes can be seen in table 1.

Table 1. The Gender and majors of the subjects. Total Gender Male 77 Female 142 Major English 112 Special 14 Business 4 Pedagogy 6 Art 8 Life Skills 15 Ethics 6 Early Childhood 6 Literature* 5 Social Studies 9 Calligraphy 2 Korean 7 Music 2 Tourism* 1 Chemistry 9 History 4 Earth Science 5 Economics* 2 Geography 2 Total 219 All majors were part of the college of education except those marked with an * 4.2 Experimental Procedures This study was conducted over the course of a year and a half (3 semesters) and involves varying the types of instructor posts that learners encountered. Instructor posting is defined and operationalized in Anderson, et al. (2001) along two of their constructs, instructor posts containing direct instruction, and instructor posts containing facilitating discourse. Furthermore, a third condition of instructor posting was investigated, which included cases where there was no instructor posting. In terms of delivering the posts of teacher presence in this experiment, there was a degree of qualitative judgment in each case. Instructor postings were made each Friday once a week for the duration of the experiment. The posts were made over the course of the day as a great deal of consideration had to be given to where each type of teaching presence would be appropriate. There could be a concern that delivery would have to fall into two categories. Either A) instructor posting would be somewhat haphazard, in that postings could not be regular in timing and number, or B) postings would have to be forced somewhat arbitrarily into the learning environment. The reason for this is that a great many of the instructor posting types require a

reaction to something that the learners have written. The unpredictability of this caused some concern at the outset. However, over the course of the experiment there were no cases where it was a challenge to make instructor postings that were appropriate. To simplify my process in delivering the instructor postings, I simply opened up and read all threads for that particular group. Once that was done I made a judgment on which threads would most benefit from each particular type of posting, then made the post. Inter-rater reliability for the instructor posts were calculated using Cohenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kappa. Three instructors with experience in online learning were asked to match 50 cases of instructor posting with the indictors for direct instruction and facilitating discourse. The resulting Kappa of .86 was considered acceptable, and we can accept that these posts represent examples of those cases of instructor presence. 4.3 Facilitating Discourse There are six indicators based on Anderson et al. (2001) used in this experiment to base the researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facilitating posts around: identifying areas of agreement/disagreement; seeking to reach consensus/understanding; encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions; setting climate for learning; drawing in participants, prompting discussion; and assessing the efficacy of the process. Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement: In this case the instructor was looking for cases where the learners disagreed and that such disagreement may be unnoticed and/or require addressing by the learners. Furthermore, this type of facilitating discourse was used when it seemed that learners agreed but the tone of the post was that of disagreement. Finally this type of post was injected when learners agreed on an issue when it would be somewhat unusual for them to do so. Examples: A) It seems like there are several issues regarding grade variation and between country variation. B) I think you agree with Clovereat and your example really supports his/her idea. Also, I think you provided good advice for people looking to motivate students. Seeking to reach consensus/understanding: This type of post is similar to the above case, but it involves the instructor attempting to build the discourse and connect learners together. It was used in similar circumstances but as can be seen from the examples below, it seeks to develop the learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ideas further and move the discourse onwards. Examples: A) It is cool. Thighburger and Hyesoo are posting in the same threads together. It is good that you guys share similar ideas. Is there any ground where you disagree with one another? B) I think in this case you both agree that Hanguel is important but for slightly different reasons. Your main points are the same and that is what matters. In

that case, why don’t you see if there is a key area in which you both can agree on? Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions: These types of posts are pretty simple and were introduced in cases where learners were giving ideas that were different, posting for the first time, seemed to be unsure, and seemed to need some encouragement. Examples: A) Interesting perspective Cozy Sonya. I think you have good ideas on this topic. B) It is good that you guys were happy to try something different. Setting climate for learning: As with encouragement, this intervention type was introduced when learners required help or encouragement. It differs from the previous posting type in that its specific purpose is to demonstrate and show the type of learning environment the learners are participating in and what is and or isn’t appropriate. Examples: A) You have said something useful; don’t feel like you need to hold back. B) Don’t be embarrassed by your comment. I think it is a useful contribution to the discussion. Drawing in participants, prompting discussion: This type of instructor post is similar to a type of direct instruction (presenting content/questions) however it differs in that it does not seek to introduce new information or ideas into the thread. This type of posting is used when learners have expressed an idea that the instructor thinks will be of interest to other learners and/or learners have expressed an idea that has a clear follow-up line of discussion. When students beg the question, this type of posting is also used. Example: A) Good answer. It is interesting that you changed your mind over time. Just so I can clearly understand you: Which test do you think is the most useful to study for, TOIEC or TOEFL? B: Good way of thinking. Do you all think that is the most important factor though? Assess the efficacy of the process: This type of facilitating discourse is focused around judgment of the discourse and how the learners are interacting. This was used in two main cases, where learners had very clearly developed an idea to its conclusion, and where learners’ discourse had gone somewhat off track. Examples: A) It is OK to think outside the box, but remember, "facility" means something physical like a building or a room. It doesn't really include teachers or teaching methods. This is a case where we need to remember to keep our conversation focused on the issues. B) I agree with all of you. This discussion has really exposed our ideas and conceptions of how teachers should behave. 4.4 Direct Instruction

There are six indicators based on Anderson et al. (2001) used in this experiment to base the instructorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s direct instruction posts around: presenting content/questions, focusing the discussion on specific issues, summarizing the discussion, confirming understanding and giving feedback, diagnose misconceptions, and injecting knowledge. There is a seventh indicator for direct instruction that was not used in this experiment: responding to technical concerns. In this study, responses to technical concerns were handled offline. Present content/questions: This posting type was introduced in cases where the instructor had some insight or knowledge about the topic that could move the discussion forward. If the learners had reached an impasse or if there was some piece of information the instructor felt would further develop the ideas being expressed, then this type of post was delivered. Examples: A) Great responses everyone. I think it is clear that a useful distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation depends on the context you try to apply it, as opposed to a strict definition. Nearly all behaviors will have a mixture of the two. B) So oyster, teachers spend a lot of time standing up and presenting information to students. If that is the case, would you say a teacher should be extroverted? Focus the discussion on specific issues: Posting of this type was introduced to the learning environment when the discussion became too broad or when focusing the discussion on a specific issue would bring the learners more understanding of the topic. This was usually done by asking a question that directed learners onto a more focused or specific issue. Example: A) This is good discussion but I would like to focus. Can anyone give an example where a specific technique motivated you or another student? B) This is a good explanation. Can you think of how you would change your teaching style if you were in an ESL or EFL classroom? Summarize the discussion: After the learners had contributed some ideas to the topic being discussed (usually around 7 posts). The instructor summarized what learners had written. Examples: A) To summarize what has been written: Classroom management techniques were mentioned as a good area to focus on. Particularly having a range of differing techniques, because of the range of possible situations a teacher may find him/herself in. An example of this would be using multimedia to keep students interested in class. Furthermore, it was mentioned that studentteachers need to maintain their level of respect. This can be done by clearly stating the position the teacher has in relation to the students. An example of this was acting as if you were already a teacher even though you havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t graduated. Also it was suggested that student teachers need to believe in themselves and be confident to help overcome difficulties. The usefulness of confidence has been emphasized.

B) To summarize what has been written: you guys all think that students shouldn’t get A+s automatically. The main reason is that it would be unfair. If a student who works hard gets an A+ but a lazy student gets the same grade it would be unfair. High levels of attendance shouldn’t be the criteria for grading; effort and ability should be. The point was also made that grades in general wouldn’t be considered by employers if the grades aren’t awarded based on knowledge. Fairness seems to be the main issue you guys are focused on. Confirm understanding through assessment and explanatory feedback: Posting of this type was injected when learners had made posts that were unclear or requiring some kind of explanation. Furthermore, it was used when as issue was ambiguous and some unpacking by the instructor was required to ensure that learners were getting at the heart of the issue being discussed. Examples: A) So you are talking about soft skills right? For example, being able to make personal decisions and meta-cognitive skills? B) I think what oyster is trying to say is that the teacher's personality or mood will affect the students and the class. For example, if I come into the class grumpy then the students will feel grumpy or at least sad. Diagnose misconceptions: The instructor made interventions of this type when learners misunderstood the question or discussion topic or made erroneous posts. There were cases where the learners’ understanding of the content was clearly off, and instructor intervention was required to put the learners back on the right track. Examples: A) I think that rating is not so much based on how hard Korean is in general, but more how hard Korean is for English speakers. B) You are confusing EFL techniques with ESL techniques in this case. Inject Knowledge from diverse sources, e.g., textbook articles, internet, personal experiences: When it was appropriate, the instructor made posts that were related to the contents of the discussion but provided a different perspective or a diverse opinion that was different from the main course of the learners’ discussion. Examples: A) Donald Bligh wrote a great book What's the Use of Lectures? He notes that lectures are weaker than other methods if you want to develop students' understanding, thinking, attitudes and beliefs. Lectures also are less likely to inspire students than other methods of teaching. Even in terms of conveying information (the main benefit of lectures) lectures are not any stronger than independent study (reading a book for example). Bligh says the only area that lectures stand out in is cost, in that they are much cheaper than other instructional methods. B) Just so this question isn't all negative. This is an article about Obama praising the Korean education system. www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20110309000191He talks about how Korea's attitude towards teaching helps Korea's education system.

4.5 Coding Critical Thinking and Social Presence In the learning environments studied in this research, there were more than nine thousand posts and nearly two thousand threads. It was necessary to reduce the data set to be coded. For this reason, 900 posts were randomly selected to be analyzed for levels of critical thinking and social presence. The sample was generated randomly by randomly selecting a thread within the forum, then randomly selecting a post in that thread. The procedure for coding the posts follows a structure laid out more clearly in Costley and Han (2013) in which the data go through an 8 step process whereby the 1) sample is chosen, 2) the unit size decided, 3) coding scheme is implemented, 4) the method of implementing the coding scheme is chosen, 5) representing the data in a form it can be analyzed, 6) analyzing the data, 7) interpreting the analysis, 8) repeating the process for clarity. The method of measuring critical thinking is a coding scheme created by Newman, Webb, and Cochrane (1996). Newman et al. (1996) use 10 different categories of critical thinking: relevance, importance, novelty, outside knowledge, ambiguities, linking ideas, justification, critical assessment, practical utility, and width of understanding (see appendix 1). Each of the codes are designated with either a (+) or a (-) symbol. This represents whether or not the statement contributes to (+) or reduces (-) the creation of a discourse rich in critical thinking. However, this paper will use a modification of the Newman et al.’s critical thinking measuring tool. The ratio between 1 and -1 that is generated when implementing Newman, Webb, Cochrane’s (1996) coding system is not compatible with Rourke et al.’s (1999) social presence tool, which is a scale from 0 to 9. Therefore, this research differs from Newman, Webb and Cochrane’s coding scheme in that the ratio is converted into a scale between 0 and 10. Furthermore, the negative aspects of the coding scheme were not used in the analysis. Social presence was measured using the coding scheme from Rourke et al. (1999) Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing. Rourke et al. lay out three base categories, which form the core of social presence: affective, interactive, and cohesive behaviors. Within each category there are three indicators, meaning there are 9 indicators total that define and operationalize the levels of social presence within each post (see appendix 2 for the full coding scheme and examples). The posts were coded by 2 raters experience in blended learning to increase reliability. The first step was discussing the indicators for each tool, with ten posts coded together with discussion regarding the application of the codes to each post. After those first ten posts were completed and the codes discussed, 90 posts were given to both raters and coded. The Cohen’s kappas generated from this first set of posts was 0.91 for social presence and 0.86 for critical thinking. These values are an acceptable level, so the full set of 900 posts were divided into two groups of 450 posts and given to each coder. Once the initial coding was completed, the already coded posts were rechecked with the codes included. Therefore, each post was coded, and then subsequently reread, with the codes included, by two more separate coders. Rater agreement in

regards to the checked codes was high with a Cohenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s kappa of 0.96 for social presence and 0.92 for critical thinking. Internal reliability was also measured with the social presence construct having a Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s alpha of .78. The internal reliability of the critical thinking construct was slightly lower with a Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s alpha value of .75. Both of these values are considered acceptable in research of this kind (Streiner, 2003) and the constructs of critical thinking and social presence was considered reliable enough for analysis.

5. Results 5.1 What are the effects of instructor posting types on critical thinking? When examining the full 900 posts across the full 300 posts for each of the instructor posting types there were some clear differences among them when examining critical thinking. As can be seen in table 2, the no posting (2.01) and the facilitating discourse (1.95) have similar average levels of critical thinking, however direct instruction (3.17) has a much higher average level among the sampled posts. Table 2. Average levels of critical thinking by instructor posting type Critical thinking Posting type N Mean SD No posting 300 2.01 1.613 Facilitating 300 1.95 1.868 discourse Direct instruction 300 3.17 1.937 Total 900 2.37 1.894

After the average levels of critical thinking for each of the experimental conditions were computed, ANOVA was used to establish if the differences were statistically significant. As can be seen in table 3, there was not a statistically significant difference between the facilitating discourse condition and the no posting condition, however, there was a statistically significant difference between the direct instruction condition and both the facilitating discourse and no posting condition. Table 3. ANOVA for mean differences in critical thinking among the different posting conditions No Facilitating Direct posting discourse instruction No posting 0 0.06 -1.33* Facilitating -0.06 0 -1.39* discourse Direct instruction 1.33* 1.39* 0 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Furthermore, the Scheffe test was used to see if both facilitating discourse and no posting condition belonged in the same group (that there were no meaningful statistical differences). As shown in table 4, direct instruction belongs in a distinct group, while the facilitating discourse and direct instruction conditions are most appropriately grouped together. This shows that they are, at least in terms of average levels of critical thinking, the same. Table 4. Means for homogeneous subsets for critical thinking (Scheffe test) Posting condition Group 1 Group 2 Facilitating 3.17 discourse No posting 3.23 Direct instruction 4.56 Sig. .937 1.000 Subset for alpha = 0.05 5.2 What are the effects of instructor posting types on social presence? The differences between the no instructor posting, facilitating discourse and direct instruction conditions were then examined in regards to their differences in average level of social presence. As can be seen in table 5, the no posting condition had an average social presence level of 1.27, the direct instruction condition had an average social presence level of 1.46 and the facilitating discourse posting condition had an average social presence level of 1.99 per post. Table 5. Average levels of social presence by instructor posting type Social presence Posting type N Mean SD No posting 300 1.27 1.317 Facilitating 300 1.99 1.541 discourse Direct instruction 300 1.46 1.347 Total 900 1.57 1.437

After the average levels of social presence for each of the experimental conditions were computed, ANOVA was used to establish if the differences were statistically significant. As can be seen in table 6, there were statistically significant differences between the facilitating discourse condition, the no posting condition, and the direct instruction condition. The biggest mean difference between the three conditions was between facilitating discourse and the no posting condition (+/- 1.10), while direct instruction lay between them (+/- 0.48 no posting, +/- 0.63 facilitating discourse).

Table 6. ANOVA for mean differences in social presence among the different posting conditions No Facilitating Direct posting discourse instruction No posting 0 -1.10* -0.48* Facilitating 1.10* 0 0.63* discourse Direct instruction 0.48* -0.63* 0 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. The Scheffe test was also used to establish if some of the experimental conditions could be grouped together, as with the no posting and facilitating discourse conditions in the case of critical thinking. However, as can be seen in table 7, all the differing experimental conditions belonged to distinct groups and had statistically significant differences between them. Table 7. Means for homogeneous subsets for social presence (Scheffe test) Posting condition Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 No posting 1.47 Direct instruction 1.94 Facilitating 2.57 discourse Sig. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subset for alpha = 0.05

6. Discussion 6.1. The effect of instructor posting types on critical thinking The instructor posting effects on critical thinking were clear-cut. The two conditions containing no instructor postings and facilitating discourse were very similar while the condition containing direct instruction had significantly higher levels of critical thinking. This shows that a lack of instructor posting or instructor posting that is focused on facilitating discourse will not have a meaningful effect on learner discourse. This can be contrasted with instructor postings that contain direct instruction, which raises the level of critical discourse among the learners. The positive effect that direct instruction has on critical thinking meshes well with other research on this topic, which has shown that when students attempt to broaden their ideas and make judgments, direct instruction is more effective than indirect discovery learning (Klahr and Nigam, 2004). While Fisher (2001) has shown that some students develop some level of critical thinking through general educational processes, Stern (2001) has demonstrated that supplemental instruction in the form of examples of abstract reasoning skills from instructors, increases students ability to process information critically. Furthermore, direct instruction is an important feature when predicting studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; levels of knowledge construction (Ke, 2010).

More directly connected to learner discourse, Van Gelder (2005) has expressed the idea that learners do not express critical thoughts naturally and that they require some kind of guidance. His concept of “argument mapping”, is for the instructor to help the learners see the underlying principles at play when a discussion is ongoing. The instructor’s behavior can function as a discourse map to give students an exemplar for their own arguments. Paul and Elder (2000) have claimed that “Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical teaching” (p. 335). From this point of view, when an instructor engages with a learner online (as was done in this experiment), learners will respond in kind. That is, more directly, the learners will model the behavior of the instructor. 6.2. The effect of instructor posting types on social presence In regards to social presence, there was also a clear effect, though in this case facilitating discourse had the effect of raising the level of social presence more than the other two instructor posting conditions. The direct instruction was higher than the no posting condition, and there were statistically significant differences between all three groups. Social presence is a key part of the learning experience in online environments when students interact (Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden, 2009). The results here show that that instructor posting of both types (direct instruction and facilitating discourse) will have a positive effect on learners’ levels of social presence. This shows that if instructors wish to maximize the levels of social presence in their learners’ discourse they should choose to use posts containing facilitating discourse. The results from this research break with Aragon’s (2003) work describing the methods by which an instructor can develop and maintain social presence in an online environment. He claimed that a wide variety of instructor behaviors would induce higher levels of social presence. These would include both instructor posts that would fall into the categories of direct instruction and facilitating discourse used in this experiment. While this explains the benefits from facilitating discourse found in this experiment, it does not explain the lack of effect direct instruction has when compared to no instructor posting. Rovai (2007) points out that behavior that puts the instructor at the center of the discussion may have a negative effect on social presence. This emphasizes student to teacher interactions over student to student interactions will cause social presence to be limited. Facilitating discourse takes learners away from purely task focused or instructor centered activities. This may lead to the higher levels of social presence in the facilitating discourse condition found in this study. There are four stages that learners should pass through before they start to model a behavior: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation (Bandura, 1986). In this study, the posts instructors made were focused on a particular post by a particular learner. This process will have drawn the learner’s attention to the instructor’s posting style which may then be reflected in the learners’ content. Retention is harder to establish, but the iterative nature of online writing has been shown to increase the amount learners will retain when posting in online forums (Han & Hill 2007, Jeong 2003). Learners had multiple

opportunities to post replies to each other but also to instructor posts which allowed them to reproduce not only posts in the instructors’ style, but to also reinforce that style with more posts of that type. Every subject in this experiment posted multiple times on a variety of topics giving them ample opportunities to reproduce in the style of observed instructor postings. The use of the forum was a graded part of the class and learners were made aware that their post quality would be used as part of their final grades. For this reason, motivation could come from the learners’ desire to improve their grade from improved posts, which they may perceive as mimicking the instructor’s posts. 6.3 Conclusion and implications The variation in social presence and critical thinking caused by differing instructor posting types has some tantalizing implications. While facilitating discourse can increase levels of social presence, the fact that those threads containing facilitating discourse have lower levels of critical thinking compared to threads containing direct instruction could cause concern for instructors who intend to intervene in learner discourse. Therefore, the objectives of any course using asynchronous interaction must be considered before an instructor posts on an online forum. Differing posting types by instructors will lead to changes in learners’ posts; therefore instructors must produce posts of a type they wish learners to produce. These findings mimic the general findings in academia regarding the importance of instructor intervention in e-learning environments. To fully realize the potential of learner interaction, a clear plan must be created and followed when learners first start engaging online. This research supports this basic assertion and takes the idea one step further. As can be seen from the results regarding the injection of posts of direct instruction, they will have a positive effect on the levels of critical thinking with the learners’ discourse. This shows that instructors who wish to increase their learners’ critical thinking should deliver posts containing direct instruction. As an example, for the participants at the university that this experiment took place, the goal is to do well on a highly academic focused exam. In that case, the instructor should tighten up the instructional environment to create a discourse that more closely follows the style learners will be expected to write in future work that they may be required to do. Furthermore, a more critical discourse will lead to greater uptake of the contents of the course, which is more in line with outcomes that will be to the learners’ benefit. Instructors must look at ways they can give learners exemplars of the kind of writing they want, provide clear instructions, have linear content and give consistent feedback. Furthermore, when they intervene, they must read learners’ posts and look for cases where direct instruction will benefit the learner discourse. Careful consideration must be given to the instructor’s goals when intervening in an online forum. This research has shown that if an instructor delivers posts that are of a certain type, the learner discourse will trend towards that type of discourse. If the instructor makes posts that contain direct instruction, then the learners will respond with a discourse that is more critical

in nature. On the other hand, if instructors use facilitating discourse when intervening in an online forum, the learners will tend to create posts containing higher amounts of social presence. Unlike the issues with design, it seems that introduction of differing types of instructor posts do not have a negative impact on other types of discourse. It seems that as with design, instructors must be wary of how they approach and interact with learners in online environments. In cases where instructors and instructional designers wish to maximize the amount of social discourse, instructors should focus on making posts that facilitate discourse as opposed to posts that contain direct instruction. This research has given clear guidelines for instructors wishing to push their learners’ discourse towards critical thinking or social presence. This can be done by a variety of intervention strategies. An issue that emerges from this research is that it seems to be challenging to create a learner discourse that is balanced between social presence and critical thinking. The conclusion drawn from the results in regards to balancing learner discourse is that a variety of intervention strategies should be used. If the instructor mixes posts of facilitating discourse and direct instruction throughout the discourse, this may move learners towards a more balanced and sustainable academic discourse. Of great interest and in need of further study is the question whether there is a more intimate relationship between levels of critical thinking and interactions. It may be that critical thinking and interaction levels may be in direct tension with one another, which will cause a quandary when designing online learning tasks. This research and the tensions it describes must be considered when designing online learning environments. Each of the constituent parts of each thread can be broken apart and subjected to further more detailed analysis. It is the intention of this author to take results here and the data analyzed in this study to create further more focused experiments on the effects of instructor posting types. Furthermore, studies should be carried out where instructor posting types are combined and varied to see if a more balanced student discourse is possible.

References Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., &Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), 249–257. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, A., (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2). 1 – 17. Aragon, S. (2003). Creating Social Presence in Online Environments. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education.100, 57-68.

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struvyen, K., &Dochy, F. (2013). Student-centred teaching methods: Can they optimise students’ approaches to learning in professional higher education? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 14-22. Bandura, J. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Costley, J., & Han, S. (2013a) Applying Quantification of Qualitative Verbal Data to Asynchronous Written Discourse.Creative Education, 4, 1-8. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think (rev. ed.), Boston, Ma: D.C.Heath. Dringus, L., Synder, M., & Terrell, S. (2010). Facilitating discourse and enhancing teaching presence: Using mini audio presentations in online forums. Internet and Higher Education 13. 75-77. Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. University Press.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. London: Routledge/Falmer. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford: Pergamon. Han, S. & Hill, J. (2007). Collaborate to learn, learn to collaborate: Examining the roles of context, community, and cognition in asynchronous discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36 (1), 89–123. Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 22-31. Hughes, M. & Daykin, N. (2002). Towards Constructivism: Investigating Students' Perceptions and Learning as a Result of Using an Online Environment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 39(3). 217-224 Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17 (1), 25–43. Johnson, H. (2007). Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in E-learning: Exploring students’ perceptions of their learning while using Blackboard’s asynchronous discussion board. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 1 – 8. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students.Computers & Education, 55(2), 808–820. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004) The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 1, (1). 1-11. Martyn M.A. (2005). Using Interactions in Online discussion Forums. Educause Quarterly4, 61–62.

Mazzolini, M., &Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effort of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussions forums.Computers in Education, 40, 237-253. McCroskey, J. C. &Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Introduction to Human Communication. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon. Meharbian, A., (1969). Methods & designs: Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 203 – 207. Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1996). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face to face and online supported group work. Retrieved July 2nd 2013, from http//www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/papers/methods/contpap.html Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000).The role of questions in teaching, thinking and learning. Retrieved December 7th, 2013, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/thinking-some-purpose.cfm Pilkington, R. (2001). Analysing educational dialogue interaction: Towards models that support learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12, 1-7. Prasad, D. (2009). Empirical study of teaching presence and critical thinking in asynchronous discussion forums. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 6(11),1-10. Reid, Katz, & Jacobsen. (2005). An investigation of computer generated knowledge retention activities in computer-based training with adult learners. Journal of Learning Design, 1 (1), 76-85. Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. (2002a). Exploring social interaction in computer conferencing.Journal of Interactive Learning Research13(3), 257-273 Rourke, L., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (1999) Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing.International Journal of Elearning and Education 14(2), 50-71. Rovai, A. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education 10. 77–88 Salmon, G. (2002). Mirror, mirror, on my screen... .Exploring online reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology 33(4), 379-391. Shea, P. J. (2003). A Follow-up Investigation of "Teaching Presence" in the SUNY Learning Network.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks7(2), 61-80. Shea, P., Chun, S. L., & Pickett, A. (2006) A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9. 175 – 190.

Shea, P., Frederickson, E., Pickett, A., & Pelz, W. (2003). A preliminary investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY Learning Network. In J. Bourne and J.C. Moore (eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. 279 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 312. Shea, P., Li, K. S., & Pickett, A. (2005). Teaching presence and establishment of community in online environments: A preliminary study. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(4). 32-41. Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, (6)4 767 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 779. Shin, J. K. (2008). Building an effective international community of inquiry for EFL professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest. Stern, S. (2001). Learning assistance centers: Helping students through. Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, No. ED 455901) Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency, Journal of Personality Assessment 80, 99-103. Swan, K. & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 115 - 136. Tan, M., Tripathi, N., Zuiker, S. J. & Seah, H. S. (2010). Building an Online Collaborative Platform to Advance Creativity. Paper presented at the 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies. Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. Van Gelder, T. (2007). Making people smarter through argument mapping: Draft. Retrieved December, 2011, from http://tillers.net/timvangelderdraftpaper.pdf Appendix 1 Newman et al. (1996) critical thinking indicators Category Positive Indicator R+ Relevance R+ Relevant statements I+ Importance I+ Important points/issues N+- Novelty. New info, ideas, NP+ New problem-related information Solutions NI+ New ideas for discussion NS+ New solutions to problems NQ+ Welcoming new ideas NL+ learner (student) brings new things in O+ Bringing outside knowledge OE+ Drawing on personal experience or experience to bear on problem OC+ Refer to course material OM+ Use relevant outside material OK+ Evidence of using previous

Knowledge OP+ Course related problems brought in OQ+ Welcoming outside knowledge A+ Ambiguities: clarified or AC+ Clear, unambiguous statements confused A+ Discuss ambiguities to clear them up L+ Linking ideas, interpretation L+ Linking facts, ideas and notions L+ Generating new data from information collected

J+ Justification

JP+ Providing proof or examples JS+ Justifying solutions or judgments JS+ Setting out advantages and disadvantages of situation or solution

C+ Critical assessment

P+ Practical utility (grounding)

W+ Width of understanding (complete picture)

C+ Critical assessment/evaluation of own or others' contributions. CT+ Tutor prompts for critical evaluation P+ relate possible solutions to familiar situations P+ discuss practical utility of new ideas W+ Widen discussion (problem within a larger perspective. Intervention strategies within a wider framework.)

Appendix 2. Rourke et al. (1999) social presence indicators Category

Indicators

Affective

Expression of emotions

Use humor

Selfdisclosure

Definition Conventional expressions of emotion, or unconventional expressions of emotion, includes repetitious punctuation, conspicuous capitalization, emoticons.

Example I just can't stand it when ...!!!!" "ANYBODY OUT THERE!"

Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements, sarcasm.

The banana crop in Edmonton is looking good this year)

Presents details of life outside of class, or expresses vulnerability.

"Where I work, this is what we do ..." "I just don't understand this question"

Interactiv e

Cohesive

Continuing a thread

Using reply feature, rather than starting a new thread.

Software dependent, e.g., "Subject: Re" or "Branch from"

Quoting from others' messages

Using software features to quote others entire message or cutting and pasting selections of others' messages.

Software dependent, e.g., "Martha writes:" or text prefaced by less-than symbol <.

Referring explicitly to others' messages

Direct references to contents of others' posts.

"In your message, you talked about Moore's distinction between ..."

Asking questions

Students ask questions of other students or the moderator.

"Anyone else experience WEBCT?"

Complimen ting, expressing appreciatio n

Complimenting others or contents of others' messages.

"I really like your interpretation of the reading"

Expressing agreement

Expressing agreement with others or content of others' messages.

"I was thinking the same thing. You really hit the nail on the head."

Vocatives

Referring to members by name

"I think John made a good point."

Addresses or refers to the group using inclusive pronouns

Addresses the group as, "us, we, our".

"Our textbook refers to...""I think we veered off track ..."

Phatics, salutations

Communication that serves a purely social function; greetings, closures.

"Hi all" "Thaf s it for now" "We're having the most beautiful weather here"

group

had with

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 48-63, June 2015

Change in the Era of Common Core Standards: A Mathematics Teacher‟s Journey Laura B. Kent University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR Abstract. This article describes the changing practice of a seventh grade mathematics teacher as she participates in a professional development program that focused on how students think about and solve problems involving rational numbers. Data sources included pre and post test data on both teacher content measures and measures of knowledge of student thinking, observations during professional development workshops, classroom observations and interviews with the teacher. The data showed that the most significant aspects of the professional development workshop to impact the teacher‟s change process were the classroom embedded workshops and her expanding knowledge of how her own students solved problems. The results provide an encouraging opportunity to effect changes in classroom practice of secondary mathematics teachers. Keywords: Teacher Change, mathematics teaching, professional development

Introduction The interplay between teacher knowledge and teacher change in mathematics classrooms has captivated researchers for decades. Throughout various transformations in mathematics education such as, changes in standards and approaches to curricula development and implementation, studies of changes in teachers‟ knowledge and beliefs about effective mathematics instruction have highlighted the influence of a multitude of factors that either enhance or limit their ability to become more effective in their practice (e.g. Goldsmith, Doerr, & Lewis, 2014). The newly adapted Common Core Standards for Mathematics (National governors association center for best practices, council of chief state school officers, 2010) by a majority of the states provides yet another impetus for mathematics teachers to change their practice for improved student understanding and achievement in mathematics. This article describes the evolution of one middle school mathematics teacher‟s self -efficacy over a five year period that includes both her experiences as a preservice and inservice teacher. The purpose of documenting her change over time is to attempt to provide a framework for analysis of secondary mathematics © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

teacher reform in light of overall changes in expectations for mathematics instruction (CCSS-M, 2011). This framework could provide direction for secondary mathematics professional development. Three areas of study of mathematics teachers are integrated in this framework for analyzing teacher change: Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (Ball, et al., 2008), Teacher Knowledge of Student‟s Thinking (e.g. Carpenter, et al.,1989), and Teacher Efficacy (e.g. Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012). Ball (2008) described six sub-categories of mathematical knowledge for teaching. This article focuses on the pedagogical content knowledge sub-category, “knowledge of content and students” by describing a professional development (PD) program focused on students‟ mathematical thinking and learning trajectories that the classroom teacher, Mrs. C, participated in for three years. Her participation in this PD combined with her evolving self-efficacy throughout the three year program is described. In particular, two aspects of the PD placed Mrs. C in a state of disequilibrium that eventually led to her shift in beliefs that the students could be successful if she taught with an emphasis on problem posing and assessing student thinking. Knowledge of content and students could be characterized in a variety of ways. In this case study, it is used specifically to describe teachers‟ knowledge of students‟ mathematical thinking processes and trajectories within specific mathematics content areas. The professional development program provided teachers with research based information about how students‟ responses to particular types of word problems can be anticipated and used as part of the decision-making process.

Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching The distinction between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge provided a lens for researchers to more closely examine the specialized knowledge needed to be successful as a teacher. Ball (2010) characterized components of mathematics knowledge for teaching by further delineating aspects of both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Ideally, mathematics teachers would have strengths in all six of these aspects. Socio-cultural theories have also been used to characterize teacher learning (Goos, 2013). Socio-cultural theories provide a lens through which to explore the constraints faced by teachers as they attempt to change their practice and adapt reformed based instructional methods. It may appear self-evident that secondary certified mathematics would require less professional development for mathematics instruction because their subjectmatter knowledge would already be in place. The literature in fact is replete with studies of the impact of professional development programs on elementary teachers‟ content knowledge of mathematics (e. g. Ball & Bass, 2000, etc). The overarching assumption is that elementary teachers would not generally have a comparable knowledge base as secondary certified teachers who commonly have undergraduate degrees in mathematics. Therefore many professional © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

development programs for elementary certified teachers incorporate mathematics content components into the workshops/seminars. Secondary professional development programs for mathematics teachers tend to focus more on curricular and/or technological aspects of teaching middle or high school mathematics (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2013). One potential limitation of these apparent distinct goals of professional development for elementary versus secondary certified teachers is the lack of consideration for the interaction between understanding mathematics and understanding students‟ thinking about mathematics (Nathan & Petrosino, 2003). Studies of elementary teacher professional development programs and measures of teacher content knowledge have incorporated students‟ approaches to solving problems in attempting to improve teaching and learning mathematics (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Franke and Kazemi, 2001). Franke and Kazemi (2001) discussed the idea of “generative growth” with respect to teachers learning about their students‟ approaches and progressions in solving mathematics problems (p. 105). In other words, the dynamic nature of student thinking about mathematics provides a mechanism for teachers to learn more about mathematics by engaging in the process of analyzing their own students‟ approaches. Much less is known about risk-taking on the part of secondary teachers who are willing to base their instructional decision-making on their students‟ mathematical strategies. In particular, secondary mathematics teachers face a variety of hurdles in attempting to change their instructional practice (DaunBarnett & John, 2012). Their challenges are multi-faceted. Curricular constraints such as textbook materials, pacing guides and standardized assessments typically prohibit student thinking approaches to instruction. Institutional factors such as scheduling constraints, administrative and peer pressure to conform, gaps in students‟ knowledge are just some of the factors that inhibit opportunities for teachers use new information or knowledge to change their practice.

Student Thinking Approaches to Professional Development The knowledge base on children‟s problem solving approaches and levels of thinking in the area of whole number operations and algebraic reasoning is considered robust (Carpenter, et al., 1999; Fuson, 1992). The progression from representing all the quantities in the problem to more sophisticated strategies that utilize specific number relationships linked to number operations is well defined. This research base is considered robust in terms of the descriptive and comprehensive levels of student‟s thinking. This information became the basis of the well-known and studied professional development program entitled, “Cognitively Guided Instruction” or CGI. Several studies of the CGI professional development program documented the effects of teachers‟ increasingly detailed knowledge of students‟ understandings on their practice and “beliefs” about teaching mathematics (Fennema, et. al., 1993, 1996).

The longitudinal study of the effects of CGI professional development on teacher‟s knowledge and changing practice over a four year period showed that for most of the CGI teachers their practice continued to progress toward an emphasis on individual student‟s mathematical thinking and strategy progressions (Fennema, et al., 1996). The degree to which teachers utilized individual students‟ thinking as the basis for instructional decision-making was characterized by 5 levels of beliefs ranging from does not believe students can solve problems without instruction or that students are capable of using their own strategies (Level 1) to the belief that students are capable of solving problems on their own without pre-instruction on the topics and that knowledge about students‟ thinking should inform future instructional decision-making (Level 4a). The study showed that the majority of the teachers became more focused on student‟s thinking over the course of the four years of ongoing professional development.

Secondary Mathematics Professional Development Programs Designing effective professional development for secondary mathematics teachers has been an ongoing challenge for educators. Often times, generic programs fail to provide the specifics that teachers need to implement them with their own students. Content specific and research based programs, particularly programs that are sustainable over time, tend to have more impact on student learning (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Loucks-Horsley, 2003). Guskey & Yoon (2009), in their analysis state, “…the professional development program efforts that brought improvements in student learning focused principally on ideas gained through the involvement of outside experts “ (p. 496). They also advocate for sustained professional development rather than limited or one day only workshops. Effective professional development programs for middle school teachers can be particularly challenging from both the mathematics perspective and the pedagogical perspective. For middle school teachers who are elementary certified, the mathematics content is more challenging for them. For middle school teachers who are secondary certified, understanding how more complex topics like rational numbers and algebraic reasoning can be made accessible to middle school students is often times elusive. For the former category of teachers, students‟ thinking becomes a vehicle to learn content not otherwise understood. For the latter category of teachers, it is less clear how the impact of a student thinking professional development model would influence their instruction. The premise of this article is that for Mrs. C, who falls into the latter category, a secondary certified mathematics teacher, teaching seventh grade, related factors impacted changes in her self-efficacy toward teaching mathematics as a result of participating in workshops that focused on student‟s thinking. The combination of sustained professional development focused on students‟ thinking and approaches to solving middle grades mathematics problems, a classroom – embedded professional development component in which the frameworks of © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

students‟ thinking and problem solving methods were confirmed by students in “real time”, and her own state of disequilibrium in instances where she acknowledged that she was unsure of the mathematics embedded in the student‟s work, factored into Mrs. C‟s transformation from opponent to proponent of teaching mathematics using problem posing and student responses as the primary organizing mechanisms of her lessons. The workshops for which Mrs. C participated were extrapolated from basic principles of CGI workshops (Carpenter, et al, 1999). Like CGI, this professional development program focused almost exclusively on student thinking in the content areas of fractions, proportional reasoning, and algebra (Empson & Levi, 2011; Carpenter, Franke, & Levi, 2001). The underlying basis for CGI professional development was that providing teachers with detailed information about how students solve problems and think about concepts of whole numbers and operations would improve their ability to plan and implement instruction that productively built off their strategies (Carpenter, et al, 1989; Fennema, et al., 1993). The core of CGI professional development is the attention to frameworks of student thinking in relation to problem type structure involving whole number ideas such as place value and properties of operations. The combination of the growing knowledge base on students‟ thinking about fractions and proportions (e.g. Empson & Levi, 2011; Lamon, 2012) and the renewed calls for improved student performance in prerequisite algebra skills led to the creation of a professional development program that would later be referred to as Thinking Mathematically in the Middle Grades or TM. Primary elements of CGI professional development were extrapolated to TM workshops. For example, teachers were given the opportunity to explore problem type structure for fraction problems similar to analysis of whole number problem type structures in the CGI workshops. The initial frameworks for study in the TM professional development workshops focused on students‟ approaches to solving multiple groups problems. Multiple groups problems are characterized as multiplication or division problems in which the amount of groups is a whole number and the amount in each group has a fractional amount (Empson & Levi, 2011). From a research and developmental trajectory perspective, the first of the problem types explored by the participants are equal sharing problems for the purpose of generating fractional quantities. Equal sharing problems have been well-researched across multiple grade levels as being robust problems for generating concepts of fractions as quantities and fraction equivalence (Empson & Levi, 2011). The framework of strategies for equal sharing problems includes making the distinction between coordinating the number of objects with the number of sharers and more random partitions of the objects such as repeated halving. Other strategy distinctions include additive, ratio, and multiplicative (Empson & Levi, 2011). Similar to CGI workshops, TM workshops are designed to engage teachers in a deep exploration of these strategy levels and what the levels represent in terms of students‟ understanding of the content.

Multiple groups multiplication problems and division problems are then explored as a way to consolidate and further extend students‟ understanding of fractions as quantities. Five consecutive days of the workshop are devoted to helping teachers gain a thorough understanding of these three basic problem types. Teachers are positioned as their own students in the workshop and are encouraged to solve these problems in ways that they think their students would solve them without formal instruction. They sort strategies by level of sophistication and reconstruct the strategy frameworks for the problems types. Teachers interview students as well as watch videos of students solving these problems in order to reinforce features that characterize different strategy levels. Teachers are encouraged to pose these problem types to their students without providing formal methods to them first.

Knowledge of Students’ Thinking and Teacher Efficacy Efficacy in relation to teaching is generally described as “the teacher‟s belief or conviction that he or she can influence how well students learn, even those who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Guskey, p. 41, 1987). Teachers with high selfefficacy believe that they can positively influence student learning. In Guskey‟s (1987) study of context variables that influence measures of efficacy, teachers of all subject areas in the study were more likely to accept responsibility for poor performance by students if it was entire groups or classes of students than for individual students. Within traditional models of mathematics instruction in which teachers are focused on showing students procedures and problem solving methods, they would be much more reflective on their methods or procedures that they taught that were not shown to be effective with their students as a whole group rather than an indication that they had not attended to the learning of individual students. Both the CGI and TM professional development programs focus on strategies that individual students use to solve problems. The emphasis on individual students‟ thinking about different problem types without direct instruction positions teachers differently during instruction. For many teachers, it is counterintuitive to the view that students need procedural directions on how to solve problems prior to being given the opportunity to solve them on their own. Particularly in secondary settings in which instruction is more teacher centered, knowledge of content and teaching and knowledge of curriculum are more likely emphasized than knowledge of content and students (Ball, 2008). One aspect of the reform movement in mathematics in general is the shift from teacher centered to student centered lessons. Teacher efficacy is potentially influenced by this shift. For example, student centered lessons might involve some type of investigation in which students are working individually or in small groups. Teachers would potentially transition from their own explanations and strategies to the work of their students. In their study of teachers‟ beliefs about mathematics reform, Collins and Gerber (2001) found that teachers‟ personal self-efficacy and outcome expectancy were influenced by © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

student learning characteristics. “Consistently, teachers reported relatively low personal efficacy and outcome expectancy when confronted with scenarios in which students exhibited characteristics associated with LD such as poor strategy use and poor affect” (p. 67). This is also a typical finding with teachers early on in the TM professional development workshops. For example, many teachers are surprised to learn that most students initially solve a variety of fraction problems using a semantic drawing of the problem and representing all of the quantities in the problem. Comments such as, “I don‟t think my students would do the problem this way”, or “I never would have thought to solve this problem this way”, are typical from teachers early on in the PD.

Thinking Mathematically Professional Development Program This professional development program was designed to help teachers of upper elementary and middle school students understand how these students think about and solve a variety of fraction and proportion problems. The workshop was part of a three year grant developed to improve teachers‟ content knowledge in rational number concepts and algebraic reasoning. The PD consisted of eight days of summer workshops with three follow-up workshops during the school year, at least one of which was a classroom embedded workshop held in a participating teacher‟s classroom. The focus of the workshops was helping teachers understand how students respond to fraction problems without first giving instruction on formal fraction content. Teachers are asked to solve equal sharing problems as a student in the elementary or middle grades might solve the problem (Empson & Levi, 2011). For example, a problem like 2 cakes shared equally among 3 children might elicit the following response from teachers: “My students would say that each child gets a half of a cake and gives the leftover to the teacher”. Teachers learn that within the framework of students‟ strategies for equal sharing problems, that that response would be characterized as “non-anticipatory” because the child did not coordinate partitions of each cake with the number of sharers. The overall goal of the PD is to help teachers make sense of the research base on how students solve specific types of fraction problems and how initial contextdependent strategies link to more efficient and mathematically sophisticated methods. Part of studying how students solve fraction problems requires teachers to grapple with their own concepts and potential misconceptions related to fraction content. One of the classic examples of this is the “invert and multiply” algorithm for dividing by a fraction. Teachers and students alike struggle with why the algorithm works (e.g. Tchoshanov, 2011). By allowing students to solve multiple groups division problems in which the amount in each group is a fraction amount in ways that make sense to them, many students use strategies that intuitively apply properties of inverses to solve the problem.

Within Case Analysis Case study methodologies provide a lens to study the details of one particular situation and/or individual (Yin, 2013). The case of Mrs. C, while not entirely © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

unique from other participants in the program, is described in order to illustrate the influence of each phase of the workshop. This particular case study provided a structure for integrating the data sources linked to her changing efficacy and instructional practices over the five year period. Figure 1 summarizes factors that influenced Mrs. C‟s changing instructional practice. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching

Classroom Embedded PD

Risk

Taking/

Efficacy

Change Knowledge of Students’ Thinking Figure 1. Factors that influenced Mrs. C‟s changing instructional practice. Four data sources provided evidence of Mrs. C‟s changing practice over a five year period. Results of her performance on two teacher content measures, observations of her teaching, observations related to her participation in the TM workshops, and one-on- one interviews with her throughout the five year period were analyzed. Her case, while not entirely unique from other participants in the program, illustrates the influence of each phase of the workshop in Mrs. C‟s evolving personal efficacy over a four year period of time. Mrs. C was one of 38 participants in the project. The participants included teachers and coaches spanning grades 4 through 8. Of the 38 participants, 23 were either elementary certified teachers or coaches. Mrs. C was one of 14 participants who were middle school mathematics teachers and one was a middle level special education teacher. The participants were from six school districts from a southern state. The districts represented both rural and suburban populations. The population of students at Mrs. C‟s school were approximately 75% minority (Latino and Marshallese students) and 90% free or reduced lunch.

Mrs. C’s Background Experiences Mrs. C participated in a secondary mathematics Master of Arts in Teaching program which included a year-long internship in three secondary school settings. She had a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics with strong preparation in mathematics courses that included the Calculus sequence, Abstract Algebra and Geometry (look up her course work). Her work during her internship was considered impressive by her three different mentors and administrators. She was hired by the school in which she completed her middle school rotation prior to completing the MAT program. Observations of her teaching over the course of the year indicated that she had good communication skills related to mathematics content and good classroom management capabilities. In a traditional sense, she was considered a strong mathematics teacher. © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

As part of her mathematics methods experience in the MAT, Mrs. C was required to analyze the problem types and strategy levels for ratios and proportions (Lamon, 2012). She was then required to construct a set of problems and interview a student to assess her understanding of proportions based on the responses and strategies for solving the proportion problems. She was also asked to speculate on how the results of the interview might be useful in her instruction of ratio and proportion content. Like most of her peers, Mrs. C acknowledged that the information could potentially help her think various ways to introduce the content to students. In other words, she would have more methods that she could “show” students for solving proportion problems. She did not recognize that most of the problem types in the framework, with careful consideration to number combinations could be done by most students without teachers having to show them anything. Following her first year as a seventh grade teacher, Mrs. C was nominated from her school district to participate in the three year TM professional development program. Two measures were used to assess teacher content knowledge. The first was the number and computation test DTAMS from Louisville (Saderholm, et al., 2010). The format of this test is multiple choice and short response. This instrument primarily assessed teachers‟ content knowledge of rational number content and operations with some attention to pedagogical content knowledge. The following problem is an example of a question from one of the versions of the number and computation tests: Explain or demonstrate one way to help students understand why 3/4 ÷ 2/3 = 1 1/8 other than teaching a numerical procedure/process and observing that it results in this answer. (University of Louisville Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Teacher Development, Number-Computation, Version 6)

A variety of explanations could be used to explain or demonstrate this to students. However, the basis for the question is such that the teacher should respond on how he/she might explain the question to students as opposed to how students might determine the answer using their own methods. These tests were scored by the University of Louisville Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Teacher Development. Table 1 shows the comparison between the mean score of the grant participants on each of the tests and Mrs. C‟s scores. Table 1 Mean scores on DTAMS Number/Computation measures

(total pts Pre-test possible – 40)

First – post Second test test

Mean

26.0

25.8

26.6

post Final test

post-

Mrs. C 37 36 32 39 The second instrument was an assessment designed to specifically address teachers‟ knowledge of students‟ thinking about fraction and proportion content. © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

The Fraction and Proportion Thinking Inventory (FPTI) and rubric assessed teachers‟ knowledge of student approaches to solving various problems (Kent, 2009). The items were piloted with elementary and middle school teachers. The rubric was also revised based on the results of the field test. Additionally, the FPTI inventories were scored by members of the project until 90% inter-rater reliability was reached. The questions on the FPTI instrument asked participants to anticipate how students at their grade level or students with general understanding of the topic would solve the given problems. Since the focus of the professional development was on presenting research on how students solve fraction problems without first having been shown a method or standard algorithm, the FPTI instrument was used to determine if teachers recognized these alternative approaches as possible ways that their own students might solve the problems. For example, question 3 asked the participants to show some ways that upper elementary and middle level students might solve the following problem: A farmer has 15 ½ acres of land. If he divides the land in ¾ parcels, How many parcels of land does he have? As part of the TM professional development program, participants learn about students‟ strategies for solving measurement division problems involving fractional amounts. This problem is further defined as a partial groups problem because it involves a fractional group in the answer (Empson & Levi, 2011). They learn that students could solve the problem by representing all of the acres and all of the parcels to solve the problem or that they might use more multiplicative or relational strategies to solving the problem. A summary of possible strategies is given in Table 2. All participants completed the assessment four times throughout the three-year project: as a pre-test prior to the start of the professional development workshop, at the end of the first summer workshop and then at the end of the second year and third year respectively, of the workshop. Table 3 summarizes the mean scores of all participants over the three year project and shows the comparison between Mrs. C‟s scores and the mean scores for the participants as a whole. As evidenced by high scores on both instruments relative to the participant group‟s mean scores, Mrs. C demonstrated strong content, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of student‟s thinking about and approaches to solving problems related to fraction and proportion topics. Interestingly, her scores on both instruments dipped from year 1 to year 2 of the project but increased from year 2 to year 3 of the project which was also the same time that Mrs. C began to pose problems to her students on a more ongoing basis.

Changing Personal Efficacy Mrs. C was one of 15 participants who attended all workshops all three years of the project. She also was one of four secondary certified mathematics teachers who participated all three years of the project. Her case is not dissimilar to the other three secondary certified participants. All four changed their practice over © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

the three years to some degree to include more problem posing in their mathematics lessons. However, Mrs. C‟s particular case was instrumental in describing the phases that are potentially necessary for secondary certified teachers to transform their instructional practices from traditional, teachercentered to student-centered, inquiry-based lessons. Table 2 Possible strategies for the parcel problem.

Strategy Level

Example

Represents all/additive

4x¾=3 8x¾=6 Grouping/transitional 16 x ¾ = 12 20 x ¾ = 15 20 parcels with a ½ acre leftover Each acre contains 1 1/3 parcels, so 15 ½ acres x 1 1/3 parcels/acre = 20 2/3parcels Multiplicative

Table 3 Mean Scores of FPTI Assessment

(total pts Pre-test possible – 16) Mean Mrs. C

8.1 12

First – post Second test test 8.4 14

post Final test

11.3

12.8

post-

Results: Change Process Figure 2 shows the data sources used to analyze Mrs. C‟s change process over the five year period of her participation in the teacher certification program and for her first four years of teaching seventh grade mathematics.

Observations TM PD program

DTAMS and FPTI

Mrs. C – BA in Mathematics MAT in Secondary Mathematics Interviews with Mrs. C

Observations of Mrs. C Teaching

Figure 2. Data sources analyzed for the case study of Mrs. C

Interviews with Mrs. C throughout the course of the project also provide evidence of her changing personal efficacy. During her first year of teaching, prior to her participation on the project, Mrs. C acknowledged, “I basically told the students how to do the problems. I know the mathematics and it is my job to show them the correct methods”. During her first year of participation in the project, she stated that she only posed problems to students when assigned to bring samples of student work to the seminar workshops. She further stated that most of the time she would assign her substitute to pose the problems to students, evidence that she did not consider it to be an important aspect of her own role to observe students as they attempted to solve the problems posed. She also commented that she did not feel that videos that were shown in the seminar style workshops were representative of her own students who were mostly minority population. Following the second summer of seminar style workshops, the facilitators of the workshops, adapted a lesson study type of workshop protocol, entitled “Classroom Embedded” or CE workshop (Teachers Development Group, 2010) to use during follow-up workshops. Volunteers from the workshop were solicited to serve as host teachers for these workshops. The host teacher is responsible for teaching the lesson while the other participating teachers assist in the planning of the lesson and observe the implementation of the lesson. A sixth grade teacher from another school but within the same district as Mrs. C, volunteered to be the first host teacher for the CE workshop. Prior to the classroom embedded workshop, the host teacher poses a problem to her students and collects the student work. The participating teachers sort the student work and determine a learning goal for the students based on their strategies for the previous problem and write a new problem/activity that they then observe the host teacher implement. They may also participate in choosing students to share their strategies and types of questions the host teacher would ask to build connections among key mathematical ideas. Following this observation, Mrs. C began to pose problems to her lowest performing class of students, of which more than half were considered special © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

education students. She did not use methods from the workshop with her more advanced students. She acknowledged in later interviews that “she wanted to prove that the ideas did not work” and that was why she chose that particular type of class to try problem posing. However, contrary to her initial hesitations about the methods, she noticed that these students began to show signs of problem solving ability. She stated that they began to show more willingness to persevere in solving problems. Their achievement as measured by state standardized tests, showed improvement, both from her previous year‟s students and from their own scores on previous tests. The third summer of professional development included a component in which teachers had the opportunity to observe the facilitator of the workshop teach a fraction lesson to a small group of students. The goal was to provide an example of problem posing and eliciting student thinking. One of the key aspects of this lesson for Mrs. C was a reflection by the facilitator with respect to a student who had used a strategy that led to an incorrect answer. The facilitator stated, “I did not correct Isaiah because my goal was to understand his thinking”. At the end of this particular summer workshop, volunteers from the workshop were solicited to serve as host teachers for the CE workshops for the upcoming year. This time Mrs. C volunteered to serve as host teacher. She acknowledged that both the observation in the sixth grade teachers‟ classroom and the observation in the summer workshop validated her initial successes with the methods and gave her the confidence to implement on a more regular basis with her own students. Opportunities for Risk-taking The parallel between risk-taking that students engage in as they attempt to solve a novel problem for the first time is not unlike the risk-taking on the part of teachers as they attempt to change their teaching for the first time. The first standard, and potentially the most important standard for mathematical practice, “Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them” requires students to interpret mathematical situations and use their knowledge to determine strategies that will be productive towards a solution process (CCSSM, 2010). In a similar fashion, teachers using student thinking to drive instruction, must use their problem solving skills to make sense of their strategies in real time and decide on productive applications of their work to help students connect to big ideas of mathematics. The view of teaching as problem solving (Carpenter, 1989) encapsulates the complexities of teachers and classrooms and enhances teachers‟ sense of professionalism and autonomy with their own instruction. It empowers teachers as best positioned to make instructional decisions related to the mathematical learning needs of their students (Jacobs, et al., 2010). Mrs. C began to increase and utilize her professional noticing of her own students as her knowledge of students‟ thinking increased and as she participated in classroom embedded workshops. Neither of these experiences in © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

and of themselves would likely have changed her teaching practice. She acknowledged that she did not find the seminar workshops compelling in changing her thinking about instructional strategies. Observations of lessons without the structure of the classroom embedded protocol would not have given her the opportunities to make sense of the frameworks of student thinking applicable to her own students‟ strategies and therefore probably would not have prompted her to change. It was the intersection of these two experiences that provided the impetus for her to pose problems to her students and allow for their diverse methods. Conclusion This case study explores the changing practice of one middle school mathematics teacher as she engaged in professional development focused on students‟ mathematical thinking and learning trajectories. Even though students‟ thinking was a part of her graduate degree program, she did not adapt teaching strategies that allowed her to assess and build instruction on students‟ thinking until she observed the approach in another teacher‟s classroom with students she deemed similar to her own. The power of a lesson study style professional development experience was integral to her changing perception of her own students (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003). Mrs. C had a strong mathematics content preparation program, which is similar to most secondary mathematics majors. However, mathematics preparation is not the same as preparation in “Knowing the content and students” (Ball, et al., 2008). Measures such as the Fraction and Proportion Inventory (Kent, 2009) provide information about mathematics teachers‟ understandings of how students approach solving problems which are likely to include methods that are different from the teacher. The case study of Mrs. C, a secondary certified teacher, provides information on her changing self-efficacy toward her students and her teaching practice as a result of a professional development program focused on students‟ thinking in specific mathematics content domains. One limitation was that the descriptions of the other teachers in the PD program were not detailed because most of them did not volunteer to serve as host teachers for the CE workshops. Giving all teachers the opportunity to have their teaching practices observed by their peers would determine whether or not this opportunity would change their instructional practices in the ways that Mrs. C changed her approaches to teaching mathematics. Discussion Mrs. C is not unlike many secondary certified teachers. She entered the teaching profession with degrees in mathematics and in education. Her collegiate experience was primarily received in lecture based classes and some attention to the role of student thinking within instructional decision making. Her field experiences, by all accounts, were traditional with the exception of utilizing technology resources such as graphing calculators, smart boards, and clickers, to facilitate instruction. Her case study exemplifies the complexities in attempting to capture the factor or factors that transformed her instruction over time. Three factors proved necessary in her change process: ongoing professional © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

development focused on students „ thinking in specific domains, observations of the professional development model in “real time‟ with students deemed to be similar to her own students, and her changing self-efficacy concerning her impact on students. This case study illustrates the potential for considerable changes in secondary teachers‟ classroom practices. In the era of Common Core standards, it is imperative for teachers to consider the accessibility of content for all of their students. Professional development focused on student thinking shows promise because it helps teachers understand how diverse learners make sense of problems in a variety of domains and therefore can enhance their options for moving their students toward understandings of important mathematics content. However, much additional research both on students‟ thinking in various secondary mathematical content areas and the potential influences of targeted professional development programs is needed. Other teachers from this professional development program began to change in a manner consistent with Mrs. C but were not systematically studied. These teachers and others like them need to be studied in order to determine if additional factors influenced their changes. Particularly, institutional supports should be explored in order to describe ways in which sustained growth can be encouraged beyond the span of the structure of the professional development programs.

References Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents‟ cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of educational research, 105(5), 319-328. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching What Makes It Special? Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics, 83-104. Brophy, J. E. (2013). Motivating students to learn. Routledge. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children‟s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L, Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational research review, 9, 88-113. Collins, K. M., & Gerber, M. M. (2001). Teachers' Beliefs about Mathematics Reform: Instructional Implications for Students with Learning Disabilities. Research in the schools, 8(2), 59-70. Daun-Barnett, N., & John, E. P. S. (2012). Constrained curriculum in high schools: The changing math standards and student achievement, high school graduation and college continuation. Education policy analysis archives, 20(5), 1-25.

Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using children‟s mathematical knowledge in instruction. American educational research journal, 30(3), 555-583. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for research in mathematics education, 27(4), 403434. Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. (2011). Extending children’s mathematics: Fractions and decimals. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into practice, 40(2), 102-109. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In Grouws, D. A. (ed), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics, 243-275. New York, NY, England: Macmillan Publishing Co. Goldsmith, L. T., Doerr, H. M., & Lewis, C. C. (2014). Mathematics teachers‟ learning: A conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 17(1), 5-36. Goos, M. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives in research on and with mathematics teachers: a zone theory approach. ZDM, 45(4), 521-533. Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. The journal of educational research, 81(1), 41-47. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi delta kappan, 90(7), 495-500. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers‟ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American educational research journal, 42(2), 371-406. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for research in mathematics education, 41(2), 169-202. Kent, L. B. (2009). Fraction and proportion inventory. Northwest Arkansas Mathematics Science Partnership Project. Arkansas Department of Education. Lamon, S. J. (2012). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. New York, NY: Routledge. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American educational research journal, 40(4), 905-928. National governors association center for best practices, council of chief state school officers, (2010). Common core state standards. Washington D.C. Saderholm, J., Ronau, R., Brown, E. T., & Collins, G. (2010). Validation of the diagnostic teacher assessment of mathematics and science (DTAMS) instrument. School science and mathematics, 110(4), 180-192. Teachers development group (2010). Classroom embedded protocol. West Linn, OR. Tchoshanov, M. A. (2011). Relationship between teacher knowledge of concepts and connections, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics, 76(2), 141-164. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 64-88, June 2015

Cooperative Learning Effectiveness in the Bureaucratic School: Views of Greek Secondary Education Teachers Konstantina Koutrouba, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece Ioannis Christopoulos Arsakeia-Tositseia Upper High Schools, Athens, Greece

Abstract. The present questionnaire-based study examines 491 Greek secondary education teachers‟ perceptions about and attitudes towards cooperative learning (CL) four years after the official introduction of CL in almost all teaching/learning procedures, in order to find out whether minor changes in typical bureaucratic educational systems, may produce major beneficial results for students, teachers, and education per se. According to the results, significant educational outcomes are linked to CL in a highly bureaucratic educational system, such as students‟ self-understanding and empathy-developing, increasing selfesteem, the attainment of socio-emotional objectives, and providing teachers with incentives to experiment, diversify and individualize the teaching process within mainstream classes. Such positive outcomes, however, seem to be produced only in cases where teachers are provided firstly with clearly defined socio-affective Curricula objectives, teaching guidelines, and educational instructions, and secondly with official authority and entrustment to implement (almost obligatorily) CL in such a way that major academic objectives can be fulfilled and are not downgraded.

Keywords: Greece; cooperative learning; secondary education; teachers‟ views

Introduction In their widely known work on cooperative learning [CL] and the organization of secondary schools, Shachar and Sharan (1995) have provided a detailed description of the bureaucratic model of school organization; teachers, administrators, and students manifest low levels of active participation in any innovative educational procedures, their behaviour is strictly predetermined by official Curricula, experimentation is avoided, academic achievements are high but affective and social orientations of teaching are vague. In such settings, as

Galton, Gray, and Rudduck (2003), Gillies (2007), Johnson and Johnson (2013) and Kirschner, Paas, and Kirschner (2009) have shown, teachers seem to be more confident about their professional competences though they often report lack of training and confidence as regards differentiation or individualization in the teaching process, high-achieving students dominate in the frontal whole-class teaching/learning process while knowledge transmission-recitation constitutes the cornerstone of education. Shachar and Sharan (1995) have also described, in contrast to the bureaucratic model, the open-system model of school organization, where cooperation between students, collegiality between teachers, and collaboration between school and family/society are encouraged, free exchange of information on differentiated/alternative teaching practices is allowed and the initiation of creative experimentation within the classroom is enthusiastically welcomed. Moreover, in such schools, curricula objectives embed emotional and social orientations; knowledge, and cognition and regulation of knowledge are considered to be attainments of equal value, while low-achieving students often display a discernible improvement as regards participation, communication, and accountability–something also described by Jacobs, Power, and Lon (2002), Johnson and Johnson (2003), Sharan (2010) and Tan, Sharan, and Lee (2006). A huge amount of research findings (Freebody, 2003; Gillies, Ashman, & Terwel, 2008; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2013; Kagan & Kagan, 2009; Mayer, 2011; Sharan, 2015) have convincingly shown that if a substantial shift from traditional teaching in the bureaucratic school to the highly participative multi-layered learning in the open-system school occurs, cooperative learning should be considered a linchpin in the educational process. Brody and Davidson‟s (1998) widely-known definition of CL as a process where students “work in groups towards a common goal or outcome, or share a common problem or task in such a way that they can only succeed in completing the work through behaviour that demonstrates interdependence, while holding individual contributions and efforts accountable” (p. 9), incorporates, in fact, through its words and their connotations the main objectives, features and values of the open-system school that most researchers and education policy-makers envisage. In addition, and regardless of taxonomies suggested and cooperative work models preferred, researchers seem to agree that piecemeal implementations of group work learning should be avoided and overall changes in the education system per se should be attempted (through brave interventions in University education, in curricula, in the society itself), so that CL becomes the cornerstone of modern education (Gillies, 2007; Shachar & Sharan, 1995; Sharan, 2010; Slavin, 2014). Despite however the undisputed need for an overall change in education, significant positive outcomes have been reported by researchers worldwide for students after the implementation of CL strategies in ordinary classrooms, even in cases where teachers‟ relative competences, students‟ awareness, curricula flexibility, and infrastructure adequacy could not be described as ideal. Gillies and Boyle (2011), recording the views of teachers who, for two years, had been embedding in regular school curricula CL strategies in mixed-ability classes

(namely, classes where students with special educational needs, low-, medium-, and high-achievers are co-educated) with 27 to 33 students, reported that even the traditional „loafers‟ and the low-achievers manifested a noteworthy degree of accountability and willingness, and developed feelings of self-esteem, albeit only in cases where appointed tasks were clearly defined and evidently interdependent. The same research also confirmed former findings of Johnson and Johnson (2003), Howe and colleagues (2007) and Webb and colleagues (2009) who reported that where the communication and cooperation rules had been clearly taught and explained to students prior to their engagement in cooperative processes, stronger intellectual, meta-cognitive, affective, and social outcomes were obtained, even in schools where cooperative projects covered only a small part of the official curriculum‟s activities. It is also interesting that, as Davison, Galbraith, and McQueen (2008) have reported, even mainstream school students who presented behavioural or learning problems had been brought into line (as regards academic performance, understanding rules and cooperation protocol) due to the positive influence of their group, after a shortterm but substantial training of teachers on the implementation of CL in ordinary schools. As Greany and Rodd (2003), Slavin (2014) and Baudrit (2007) have shown, it is, in fact, the students‟ personal and collaborative effort to understand rules, expectations, and routines of actions which helps them better understand the others (developing, thus, empathy), describe seminal ideas more precisely (developing resourcefulness) and express personal needs (displaying meta-cognitive awareness), and more effectively avoid misperceptions and bad behaviour (triggering thus feelings of adequacy, usefulness, and acceptance). Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2003), Gillies (2008) and King (2002) have also shown that the abovementioned benefits are further consolidated when teachers play a major role in the structuring of the groups, since they can take into account students‟ individual skills, needs, and learning or social features. Teachers‟ discreet and well-planned supportive interventions in group work have also been considered to help make students feel more secure; teachers are supposed to estimate better the time needed for the completion of the task, the depth and breadth of the content, the expected achievements of each one of the students (Baudrit, 2007; Cohen, Brody, & Sapon-Shevin, 2004; Freebody, 2003; Kagan & Kagan, 2008). However, it should not be taken for granted that all teachers are able to take full advantage of the principles of pedagogy during student grouping, since group forming very often is negatively affected by a non-manageable number of students, by inflexible curricula constraints, by the students‟ varied ability and maturity, by teachers‟ lack of training and so forth, as Galton, Gray, and Rudduck (2003), Ireson and Hallam (2001) and Kutnick and colleagues (2005) have shown. Nor should it be taken for granted that highachievers are willing to work in groups, that parents support the inclusion of „diverse‟ students in mainstream classrooms, or that the school administration gives a free hand to enthusiastic teachers, as Cairns, Lawton, and Gardner (2001) and Johnson and Johnson (1999) have shown. Nevertheless, such restrictions do not eliminate positive outcomes and potentials of CL strategies, as reported by Cohen and colleagues (2002),

Eastman, Newstetter, and McCracken (2000) and Ginsburg-Block and colleagues (2006). Cantwell and Andrews (2002), on examining the attitudes of 290 secondary education students towards cooperative work have confirmed that when students were encouraged (with detailed information provision and positive training support) to develop more sophisticated ways of addressing the complexity of CL, basic cognitive, social, and psychological impediments to effective cooperation (such as feelings of anxiety, discomfort, inadequacy, tendency to alienation), were minimised while positive outcomes (such as higher academic achievement aspirations, knowledge and regulation of cognition, sociability) were further consolidated. Sharan (2010) has also shown that even in cases where difficulties arise from a severe cultural and linguistic gap which separates foreign from native students, obstacles can be surmounted when teachers engage students methodically in activities that promote cultural sensitization and respect of diversity (such as familiarization with the achievements of high-profile individuals from different ethnic groups in some areas, the presentation of historical or cultural achievements, language influence and so forth). Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2005) and Thanh and Gillies (2010) have shown that such a merging or understanding of different values and perspectives could have had a major positive impact on educational practice where social real-life objectives are considered to be equal to strict academic expectations. An apparent need for modernization, namely the need for adjustment to the requirements of the present and the foreseeable future has driven educational systems around the world to re-orientate educational policies, aims, and techniques (Beese & Liang, 2010; Corner, 2012; Crafton & Kaiser, 2013; Davis, 2013). In Greece, in particular, the educational system has been highly conservative and bureaucratic for decades; teaching has been based mainly on teacher-centred, frontal whole-class instruction restricted by limitations set by official curricula which have inflexibly defined content, pace and, even, methods for teacher and student task allocations and attainments (Kassotakis, 2000; Kazamias, 1990; Koulaidis et al. 2006) .Individualization and differentiation during teaching has been rather prohibitive due to the effort of teachers to meet a widely-accepted coercive requirement for students‟ high academic achievements at the expense of social or emotional objectives (Ifanti, 2007). Even teachers scientifically well-trained and willing to stray from the beaten track have had to personally shoulder the responsibility of a potential failure (in particular as regards the overly demanding upper secondary high school education provided to students aged 15-18 years)–an eventuality unacceptable to administration, students, parents, and colleagues alike (Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2011; Saiti, 2007; Saiti & Mitosili, 2005). Such discouraging aspects of the system seem to have been further exacerbated by the lack of decentralization of administrative power, the poor funding of pre-service training programmes, the ineffective establishment of learning communities among teachers, parents, and students, and, above all, due to the teachers‟ and students‟ impression that „education‟ is destabilized, disorientated, undermined and, finally, disintegrated when experimental alterations, modifications and adjustments threaten a

traditionally tested and accepted educational status quo (Anagnostopoulou, 2001; Kaldi, Philippatou, & Onoufriou, 2009; Koutselini, 2008). However, since 2011, following subsequent minor reforms (Georgiadis, 2007) and probably under long-existing pressure from various directions and demand for more extensive improvements that would follow international educational research findings, reforms, and developments (Koutsourakis, 2007; Traianou, 2009), a few dynamic and optimistic steps to change have been made; new curricula have embedded compulsory cooperative activities in almost all school subjects, while the assessment of teachers‟ professionalism have incorporated criteria such as instructional individualization and diversification, use of cooperative techniques, utilization of IT, the ability to connect knowledge with real-life experiences, the ability to communicate effectively with students and help students do the same with each other (Greek Government Gazette, 2013; OECD, 2011). At the same time, parallel reforms in administrative hierarchies have motivated younger but well-educated teachers to experiment in their classrooms and to disseminate or share with more hesitant colleagues scientific knowledge on cooperative teaching/learning procedures. It is rather obvious that CL has become the stepping stone of this reform, and, despite hesitations, doubts and even an understandable resistance to change, communication, cooperation, and collaborative association has penetrated (admittedly, somehow audaciously) the core of a highly bureaucratic educational system (Greek Government Gazette, 2013; OECD, 2015). Research on the educational positive or negative outcomes of this reform in Greece remains limited (Kaldi, Philippatou, & Anthopoulou, 2014). At the same time, the contribution of this „invasion‟ of cooperativeness in all learning processes remains unmeasured, despite recent research recording Greek students‟ views on and attitudes towards CL (Koutrouba, Kariotaki, & Christopoulos, 2012). The aim of this paper is to examine Greek secondary education teachers‟ perceptions about and attitudes towards CL four years after the abovementioned reform (which introduced CL in almost all teaching/learning procedures), in order discover positive outcomes, difficulties, and its potential. More specifically it examines whether minor changes (regarding the introduction of CL in learning process) in typical bureaucratic educational systems, may produce major beneficial results for students, teachers, and the educational system per se.

Methodology The present research was conducted during the academic year 2013-2014 and was based on a distribution of 550 questionnaires addressed to a corresponding number of high school teachers in Athens and its suburbs. A group of 25 University students were provided by the researchers with systematic information in order to personally prompt and help teachers complete a questionnaire comprising 68 close-ended questions. The University students and the researchers proceeded to visit 50 secondary education schools

(i.e., 27 Junior High Schools with students 13-15 years old and 23 Upper High Schools with students 16-18 years old) and distributed the questionnaires after making personal contact with school principals and teachers with the permission of the Greek Ministry of Education. These schools were selected on the basis of criteria regarding teacher and student population in order to ensure that as many teachers and students as possible had already been involved in CL procedures. More specifically, in all the selected schools the ratio of teachers to students and the ratio of teachers to schools exceeded the national ratios of 1:8.5 and 21.1:1 respectively (OECD, 2011; Eurydice, 2014). As a result, a large number of respondents were ascertained to have exercised, to a varied degree, CL in classrooms in order to sensitize students mainly on issues regarding society, environment and culture. Moreover, social and economic features of the school area were taken into account in order to ensure that relevant information would be provided by teachers working in different socio-financial settings, given the fact that, as Gillies (2007), Kagan and Kagan (2009) and Koulaidis and colleagues (2006) have observed, the cultural and social features of the learning environment seem to have a major impact, either positive or negative, on teacher initiative in implementing CL techniques and, in a broader sense, on the overall outcomes of every experiential learning procedure. More specifically, the catchment areas of the schools were divided into three categories (Low, Medium, High) on the basis of their socio-economic characteristics using a property value indicator provided by the Finance Ministry (OECD, 2011; European Commission, 2014). Schools were then allocated to one of three categories: ten schools were identified as serving areas of low socio-economic status, 20 as serving areas of medium socio-economic status, and 20 were considered to serve areas of high socio-economic status. The ratios of the selected students to schools and of schools to each area represented the corresponding national ratios, ensuring, as far as possible, that the sample was representative. It should, yet, be noted that although the researchers ascertained a strong correlation between the socio-financial features of the school and teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; willingness to use group work or other alternative teaching strategies in their classrooms, the examination of such a correlation belongs not to the aims of the present paper but to the aims of a forthcoming research. The questionnaire comprised 68 close-ended questions with pre-coded replies: 7 of which required teachers to provide information about personal profile and background (see table 1, variables 1-7), while 61 special questions and their pre-coded replies (which are presented as variables 8-68 in table 2) referred to teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; perceptions about and attitudes towards CL features and activities. To maximize respondent awareness and internal consistency in answers during questionnaire completion, specific questions were not arranged on the basis of their relation with the ones preceding or following them, though, in general, question relevance was a criterion for question grouping. The questionnaire, originally written in Greek and then translated into English for the purposes of this paper, was self-administered because it was not possible to identify an instrument from the literature that allowed researchers to capture all the variables involved in this study. For this reason, the synthesis of

the questionnaire was mainly based on the research findings of Cantwell and Andrews (2002), Cohen, Brody, and Sapon-Shevin (2004), Crafton and Kaiser (2011), Davis (2013), Davison, Galbraith, and McQueen (2008), Gillies(2008), Gillies, Ashman, and Terwel (2008), Hmelo-Silver, Chinn, Chan, and O‟Donnell (2013), Kagan and Kagan (2009), Kaldi, Philippatou, and Onoufriou (2009), Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2005) and Sharan (2010). The scoring of the special questions was based on nominal five-point Likerttype scales (1=not at all, 2= slightly, 3=moderately, 4=much, 5=very much), incorporating properties of labelling and classification. Four hundred and ninety one (491) questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 89.2 per cent. A statistical coding of questions and answers followed the collection of the questionnaires. Data elaboration and statistical analysis was performed using Predictive Analytics Software [PASW] Statistics 21 and factor analysis was employed, using Principal Component Analysis [PCA] with Varimax rotation extraction method, to pinpoint the main factors influencing secondary school teachers‟ views about and attitudes towards group work. All relevant statistical tests were performed at a significance level α = 0.01. A broad outline of the more significant results and conclusions of the present research is presented below.

Analysis of results Participants’ profile Of the 491 teachers who participated in the research, 62.7 percent were women, while 37.3 percent were men. The working experience of the majority of them (43.4%) ranged from 0 to 10 years, while 40.1 percent had over 16 years of service in school. Moreover, the overwhelming majority (88.4%) of the participants did not possess any postgraduate degree in Education and 64.4 percent had never taken any further training on the implementation of CL strategies, although the majority of them (68.4%) were aged from 36 to 55 years and the majority of the respondents (61.7%) considered further training on the use of CL strategies to be „very‟ to „extremely‟ important. Details on the participants‟ profiles can be seen in Table 1. Table 1: Participants’ profile (in percentages)

1 Gender (1=women, 2=men) 2 Age (1 = 22-25 years, 2 = 26-35 years, 3 = 36-45 years, 4 = 46-55 years, 5 = over 56 years) 3 Teaching experience Age (1 = 0-5 years, 2 = 6-10 years, 3 = 11-15 years, 4 = 16-20 years, 5 = over 20 years) 4 Specialty (1 = Humanities, i.e. History, Language, Aesthetic Studies, 2 = Social Studies, i.e. Religion, Sociology, Economics, 3 = Mathematics & Natural Sciences, i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, 4 = Information Technologies, 5 = other) 5 Post graduate qualifications on Science of Education (1 =

1 62.7 4.5

2 37.3 21.2

34.8

33.6

5.9

23.2

20.2

16.5

18.5

21.6

44.9

18.8

25.2

4.7

6.4

10.6

88.4

Master Degree, 2 = PhD, 3 = none) 6 Frequency of participation in seminars on the use of CL strategies (1 = 0 times, 2 = 1-2 times, 3 = 3-5 times, 4 = 610 times, 5 = over 10 times) 7 Views on importance of further training on the use of CLstrategies(1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, 5 = extremely important)

64.4

9.2

2.4

4.5

21.8

29.7

Special questions Variables 8-21, 46-49 and 51-52 of Table 2 present teachers‟ responses to questions regarding their views on positive outcomes for students who participate in CL procedures and group work activities. These responses portray a student who, through CL, develops the ability not only to understand and express his/her personal feelings(variable 8) which during puberty are not yet fully formed and perceived, but also to understand and share his/her schoolmates‟ experiences and emotions due to empathy developed through cooperative interaction (variable 14). Moreover, such a student is expected by the participants to increase meta-cognitive awareness (variable 10) expressing written and verbal ideas in a more lucid and comprehensible way(variables 18, 19), probably to avoid misunderstandings, and developing non-verbal interaction (variable 16) to facilitate and strengthen effective communication with the members of the group. Teachers also report that due to group work experience students learn how to cooperate harmoniously with the teacher as well (variable 11), while positive outcomes are strengthened when widely accepted rules are established (variable 17), when students take creative initiatives and responsibilities (variable 13) and when they behave in a mature way during all learning procedures (variable 12).Group work is also reported to facilitate the development of student self-esteem (variable 9), without however eliminating the dominance of high-achievers over low-achievers (variable 51), as well as weak students reliance on the high-achievers‟ performance within the group (variable 52) and despite the fact that reluctant (but not necessarily weak) students are considered to participate more actively in group work activities (variable 47). By jointly examining variables 46, 48 and 49, one could probably say that, irrespective of their cognitive performance, all students feel useful since they contribute, to a varied however extent, to the final outcome of the group through the establishment of interpersonal relationships which are described by the respondents as meaningful rather than superficial. One could also say that this contact between students of different performance, attitudes and learning expectations helps all students develop tolerance towards and cooperativeness with diverse personalities (variable 21), linking this way school experience to real life perceptions (variable 20). Variables 22-45 and 50 of the same table present teachers‟ responses to questions regarding their views on their personal role during all stages of the group work process. These responses provide the image of a teacher who, firstly, displays great interest in presenting by himself/herself the content of every new

unit which is afterwards taken into consideration by the students (variable 22), secondly, who presents in detail the method required for the objectives to be attained (variable 33), and, thirdly, who pays heed to students‟ profound understanding and the attainment of cognitive, affective and social objectives as well (variables 23, 24, 25), though the cognitive accomplishment of the task seems to notably prevail over the social aspect while social achievements seem to be slightly predominant over affective ones. The participants also reported that they have to help students fully realize not only the social skills needed for successful in-group cooperation (variable 29) but also the rules which have to be respected so that communication between members is free of misunderstandings and subsequent conflicts (variable 30). On the other hand, it is apparent that teachers do not feel secure in leaving students to define by themselves the rules of communication and cooperation (variables 31, 32), while the same wavering lack of trust appears as regards students‟ reliability to define on their own the precise time duration for the task and respect deadlines (variables 34, 35). A similar teachers‟ lack of trust in luck is also apparent in their responses regarding their attitude towards the way groups are formed; the majority of the respondents do not let students set up groups by themselves, probably because they believe that only teachers can take into account individualized features and traits of every member of a to-be-formed group (variables 26, 27, 28).In addition, teachers hold a major role in task assignment; they allocate duties either to the group as a whole (variable 37) or to each particular member of the group (variable 36), while often they only present anticipated objectives and outcomes, letting students apportion duties among the members of the group (variable 38).As regards assessment, this is closely linked to group work process monitoring; teachers observe carefully the work within the group(variable 39) and intervene either in case of group malfunction or when they want to ensure shared responsibility (variables 41, 42). It is, however, apparent that group outcomes tend to be considered to be more reliable indexes of performance than individual contributions; teachers provide members with individualized support (variable 40) but they prefer assessing the final overall outcome of the group (variable 43), which, in many cases, constitutes a compilation of separate contributions (variable 50), rather than the contribution of every member (variable 44). Nevertheless, many teachers tend to prompt students to evaluate by themselves their personal involvement and contribution in the group (variable 45). Variables 53-68 of the same table present teachers‟ responses to questions regarding their views on positive and negative features of CL as an instructional technique. For the majority CL as an instructional technique liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous in-class routines (variable 59), since it reduces conventionality (variable 62), boosts the teacher‟s feelings of freedom and innovativeness (variable 61) and brings, consequently, to the fore the quality of education instruction instead of its quantity (variable 63).On the other hand, this technique is considered to be time-consuming (variable 53) and tiring as well; the teacher not only has to be prepared for unexpected eventualities and diversified routes during a teaching process which is not controlled solely or primarily by him/her (variables 54, 57), but also to monitor, assist and assess

numerous individuals who work in many different ways (variable 55), even though many teachers feel able to define each student‟s personal traits and features (variable 65).In addition, the respondents reported that teachers who plan implementing group work in ordinary classrooms have to be qualified with specialized knowledge on the use of alternative teaching strategies (variable 56) and, furthermore, with further experiential training within real-class settings (58). Despite, however, efforts for professional effectiveness, teachers think that many parents would prefer the use of traditional teaching strategies for their children, to ensure maximization of educational outcomes (variable 60).Additionally, as teachers report, the official Curricula and school administration do not give a free hand to the teachers who want to use diversified leaning strategies in regular classrooms (variable 68). Finally, according to the participants, the large number of students in the classroom (variable 64), their immaturity (variable 66) and, to a smaller degree, the abortive inclusion of foreigners or students with special educational needs within mainstream classrooms (variable 67) seem to undermine the effectiveness of the teacher who attempts to implement group work.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Understand and express intimate feelings 1.4 Develop self-esteem 0.8 Develop meta-cognitive awareness, correct 2 misperceptions Cooperate effectively with the teacher 0.6 Engage actively and maturely in the learning 0.6 process Take initiatives and responsibilities 1 Develop empathy 1.6 Strengthen verbal interaction with schoolmates 1.4 Strengthen non-verbal interaction with 6.5 schoolmates Establish commonly accepted rules 0.6 Express ideas unambiguously and consistently 1 Improve writing skills 2 Link school experiences to real life perceptions 1.2 Display tolerance towards diversity 5.1 As a teacher, I: Present the contents of the units in question 3.5 Insist on students‟ understanding and attaining 2.4 cognitive objectives Insist on students‟ understanding and attaining 5.7 affective objectives © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

7.5 5.1

Very much

Much

Moderately

8. 9. 10.

Slightly

CL encourages students to :

Not at all

Table 2: Teachers’ responses (in percentages) to the questions looking at Greek teachers’ perceptions about and attitudes towards CL

28.4 30.1

45.1 44

17.6 20

8.8

32.6

12.6

3.9

23.4

51.1

5.1

22.4

28.9

9 13 9.6

27.3 33 25.9

45.8 42.6 45

16.9 9.8 18.1

19.6

40.9

28.7

4.3

5.1 9.8 10.2 10.8 13.8

22.4 38.2 40.3 25.1 31

43 42.2 38.3 40.9 35.6

28.9 8.8 9.2 22 14.5

10.6 14.9

28.5 33

40.7 40.5

16.7 9.2

18.7

43.4

27.5

4.7

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47.

Insist on students‟ understanding and attaining social objectives Form groups without plan/at random Form groups on the basis of individualized features of the members Let students form groups by themselves Insist on students‟ understanding the social skills required during group work (solidarity, mutual trust, tolerance etc.) Define rules of communication and cooperation to avoid conflicts/misunderstandings Prompt students to define by themselves the rules of communication according to the special features of their group Do not set rules of cooperation so that students find it necessary to do it by themselves Present in detail the method required for the objectives to be attained (research through internet, access to bibliographical resources etc.) Define precise time for each work phase completion Define only deadline for entire work completion Assign specific tasks to each member of every group in order to ensure control of every student‟s performance Assign general tasks to every group and the group allocates duties to each member Present objectives to all groups and every group chooses specifications and then allocates duties to its members Monitor working process of each group as a whole Monitor working process of each group member to provide individualized support Intervene in group work only upon request or in case of malfunction Monitor each member‟s contribution in group work to ensure shared responsibility Assess every group as a whole after group work completion Assess individually every group member on the basis of specific criteria Prompt students to assess by themselves personal contribution in group work During group work: Meaningful rather than superficial relationships are developed Reluctant students are encouraged to actively participate in the task

5.1

14.5

45.6

27.9

6.9

14.5 8.1

23.4 19.3

24.8 31.6

29.6 32.2

7.7 8.8

10.8 5.3

26.7 11

30.1 29.3

23 38.9

9.4 15.5

6.5

11.6

33.6

37.7

10.6

7.1

25.9

33.8

25.1

8.1

16.3

29.8

28.5

17.7

7.7

4.9

38.3

9.8

10.8

30.3

42.8

14.1

9.2 4.5

22.2 16.7

33.6 32.6

27.5 36.7

7.5 9.5

5.7

16.3

33.4

37.9

6.7

4.7

18.3

36.7

8.3

4.1 4.5

10.6 15.3

26.9 34.4

41.3 35

17.1 10.8

4.5

14.7

13.8

2.8

24.6

41.8

19.8

2.4

13.6

34.2

36.7

13.1

5.2

16.3

37.1

8.4

5.7

17.9

35.6

9.8

1.2

5.1

27.7

40.1

25.9

7.5

26.9

43.3

20.3

48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68.

All members contribute to the final outcome All members feel useful Each member works autonomously and, at the end, all members compile individual works The more competent members control the weaker ones The weaker students take advantage of the stronger ones As a teacher, I think that CL: Is time-consuming Fatigues teachers who cannot pre-plan diversifications, alterations and unexpected outcomes during learning process Is exhausting as regards teacher monitoring, assistance and assessment of members who work in many different ways Demands teacher‟s specialized knowledge in socioaffective objectives‟ attainment Enfeebles cognitive outcomes to the advantage of socio-affective objectives Demands further long experiential training of the teacher Liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous in-class routines Makes parents feel reserved as regards academic outcomes when compared to traditional instructional strategies Boosts teachers‟ feelings of freedom and innovativeness Reduces conventionality during learning procedures Makes quality dominate over quantity Is difficult to be implemented when the number of students is large Is highly dependent on teacher adequacy as regards familiarity with all the personal features of every student Is highly dependent on the maturity of every group member Is difficult to be implemented when foreign students are included in the classroom Is supported and facilitated by official Curricula, school administration and educational authorities

1.6 2.2 7.5

8.1 7.9 17.9

28.1 27.1 37.5

40.9 40.9 28.9

21.3 21.9 8.2

5.1

27.1

40.1

4.7

5.9

45.2

20.2

6.7

1.8 1.4

12.6 11.8

32 36

35 35.9

18.6 14.9

10.4

37.9

15.7

1.8

7.5

38.5

20.2

1.4

5.3

26.5

41.3

25.5

1.6

8.1

28.1

37.6

24.6

4.5

11.8

32.4

36.7

14.6

11.4

31.2

23.6

9.8

2.6

10.2

23.6

39.6

1.2

9.4

28.5

39.9

2.2 3.3

11.2 10.7

30.3 26.5

34.7 32.8

21.6 26.7

20.4

32.6

25.5

12.5

3.9

15.5

33.4

12.2

15.7

22.4

28.9

22.4

10.6

15.5

31.6

27.7

16.2

Factor Analysis Of the above-mentioned variables, thirty three were placed under consideration, related in level of significance α = 1% to the beliefs of the 491 secondary education teachers on CL (chi-square independence tests were

performed). All variables used in factor analysis were ordinal numeric ones which represented five distinct categories (e.g. 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = much, 5 = very much). These 33 variables were as follows: CL encourages students to: 1. Develop self-esteem 2. Develop meta-cognitive awareness, correct misperceptions 3. Take initiatives and responsibilities 4. Develop empathy As a teacher, I: 5. Form groups on the basis of individualized features of the members 6. Let students form groups by themselves 7. Insist on students understanding the social skills required during group work (solidarity, mutual trust, tolerance etc.) 8. Define rules of communication and cooperation to avoid conflicts/misunderstandings 9. Prompt students to define by themselves the rules of communication according to the special features of their group 10. Present in detail the method required for the objectives to be attained (research through internet, access to bibliographical resources etc.) 11. Define precise time for each work phase completion 12. Assign general tasks to every group and the group allocates duties to each member 13. Monitor working process of each group as a whole 14. Monitor working process of each group member to provide individualized support 15. Monitor each memberâ&#x20AC;&#x;s contribution in group work to ensure shared responsibility 16. Assess individually every group member on the basis of specific criteria 17. Meaningful rather than superficial relationships are developed 18. Reluctant students are encouraged to actively participate in the task 19. All members contribute to the final outcome 20. All members feel useful 21. The more competent members control the weaker ones 22. The weaker students take advantage of the stronger ones As a teacher, I think that CL: 23. Is time-consuming 24. Fatigues teachers who cannot pre-plan diversifications, alterations and unexpected outcomes during the learning process 25. Is exhausting as regards teacher monitoring, assistance and assessment of members who work in many different ways 26. Demands further long experiential training of the teacher 27. Liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous in-class routines 28. Boosts teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x; feelings of freedom and innovativeness 29. Reduces conventionality during learning procedures 30. Is difficult to be implemented when the number of students is large

31. Is highly dependent on teacher adequacy as regards familiarity with all the personal features of every student 32. Is highly dependent on the maturity of every group member 33. Is difficult to be implemented when foreign students are included in the classroom. When applying factor analysis, we attempted to ascertain the main factors that affect teachers‟ views on CL. The value 0.817 of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for sampling adequacy as an indicator of comparison in the observed values of correlation coefficients to the partial correlation coefficients implied factor analysis of variables was acceptable as a technique for analysing the data. In addition, Bartlett‟s test of sphericity showed high statistical significance of the statistic  2 (zero p-value), rejecting the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity one and, consequently, factor analysis was adequate (see table 3). Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

0.817 4427.235 528 0.000

Approx. Chi-Square d.f. Sig.

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

We applied factor analysis to the group of 33 previously mentioned variables (Cattell, 1978; Howitt & Cramer, 2014). Since performance of principal component analysis (PCA) from the first nine components explained 58.198% of the total variance and that only the first nine components had eigenvalues greater than 1, we proceeded by using PCA with Varimax rotation extraction method in nine components that are presented in table 4. Scree Plot (Figure 1) represents the percentage of the total variance explained by each factor. Table 4: Factor analysis results

Rotated Component Matrix Variables

Component

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

1 0.146 0.204 0.041 0.176 0.022 0.128 0.274 0.058 -0.060 0.039

2 0.771 0.734 0.687 0.651 0.144 0.020 0.091 0.039 0.053 0.210

Communalities 3 0.007 0.042 0.113 0.088 0.096 0.006 0.003 0.085 0.041 0.029

4 0.150 0.171 -0.007 0.182 0.677 0.270 0.634 0.563 -0.142 0.512

5 0.049 0.044 0.190 0.162 -0.100 -0.021 0.168 0.210 -0.067 0.051

6 0.057 0.024 0.211 -0.034 0.216 0.008 0.056 0.264 0.136 -0.007

7 -0.021 0.020 -0.093 0.024 0.054 0.059 0.147 -0.350 0.033 0.098

8 0.093 0.073 0.038 0.000 -0.056 0.770 0.147 0.102 0.763 0.061

9 -0.078 0.018 0.022 0.079 0.058 -0.033 -0.006 0.152 0.126 0.011

0.660 0.620 0.577 0.530 0.555 0.688 0.560 0.599 0.650 0.325

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Percentage of total variance explained

Rotation sums of squared loadings

0.169 0.156 0.122 0.158 0.254 -0.071 0.802 0.781 0.685 0.665 -0.064 0.001 0.043 0.066 -0.045 0.138 0.217 -0.024 0.128 0.069 -0.074 -0.044 -0.033 7.976

0.056 0.113 0.137 -0.102 -0.004 0.214 0.237 0.204 0.027 0.137 0.065 -0.038 0.012 0.166 0.015 0.055 0.208 0.100 0.243 -0.035 0.028 -0.020 -0.085 7.496

0.122 -0.019 0.047 0.071 0.040 0.061 0.025 0.046 0.011 0.152 0.067 0.058 0.780 0.745 0.743 0.681 0.034 0.090 0.123 0.190 0.265 0.083 0.100 7.360

0.463 0.032 -0.057 0.226 0.231 0.186 0.024 0.053 0.281 0.111 0.133 0.010 0.094 -0.023 0.033 0.140 0.099 0.245 -0.072 0.011 -0.022 0.020 0.236 6.814

0.235 0.197 0.029 0.258 0.138 -0.084 0.012 -0.057 0.300 0.211 -0.060 0.037 0.032 0.112 -0.018 0.213 0.673 0.606 0.557 0.487 -0.066 -0.189 0.427 6.471

0.301 0.036 0.745 0.646 0.625 0.591 0.084 0.152 0.061 0.105 -0.007 0.102 0.066 0.091 0.040 0.009 0.096 0.019 0.131 0.062 0.026 0.052 0.010 6.350

-0.126 0.038 0.179 -0.100 -0.108 0.109 0.007 -0.027 0.051 -0.205 0.079 0.222 0.220 0.011 0.261 -0.047 -0.142 0.031 -0.102 0.431 0.699 0.659 0.601 5.986

-0.096 0.557 0.089 -0.061 0.062 0.138 0.088 -0.005 0.047 0.129 0.155 0.061 -0.006 0.025 0.020 -0.002 0.026 0.188 -0.028 -0.149 0.037 0.136 0.022 5.207

0.078 0.139 0.074 -0.050 0.157 -0.053 -0.039 0.007 -0.018 -0.034 0.803 0.778 0.098 -0.129 0.087 0.098 -0.069 -0.083 0.059 0.123 0.203 0.100 0.031 4.537

Note: Communality or common factor variance: total variance of each variable explained by common factor.

0.437 0.409 0.640 0.591 0.569 0.480 0.717 0.684 0.647 0.612 0.709 0.675 0.682 0.625 0.633 0.562 0.589 0.489 0.437 0.507 0.613 0.511 0.620

Figure 1: Scree plot

Comments on the factor analysis results Based on the results of the factor analysis, the nine main factors were as follows: Factor 1: ‘Relationships, attitudes and contributions during CL’: Since the variables 17 [Meaningful rather than superficial relationships are developed], 18 [Reluctant students are encouraged to actively participate in the task], 19 [All members contribute to the final outcome] and 20 [All members feel useful]had the highest factor loadings they identify the first main factor. According to the results, teachers report that unenthusiastic students tend to participate more willingly in CL activities, feeling therefore as useful as the others since all students contribute to the final outcome. Such participatory interaction is, consequently, considered to lead to the development of meaningful rather than superficial relationships between students of different academic performance. Factor 2: ‘Students’ skill development during CL’: Since the variables 1 [Develop self-esteem], 2 [Develop meta-cognitive awareness, correct misperceptions], 3 [Take initiatives and responsibilities] and 4 [Develop empathy] had the highest factor loadings they identify the second main factor. According to the results, teachers report that students who participate in CL activities tend to develop a more profound understanding of themselves and of others and become more willing to assume responsibilities and display initiative.

Factor 3: ‘Counterincentives for teachers using CL’: Since the variables 23 [Is timeconsuming], 24 [Fatigues teachers who cannot pre-plan diversifications, alterations and unexpected outcomes during the learning process], 25 [Is exhausting as regards teacher monitoring, assistance and assessment of members who work in many different ways] and 26 [Demands further long experiential training of the teacher] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the third main factor. According to the results, many teachers feel unwilling to implement CL in their classrooms, since CL is considered to be highly demanding and strenuous, with unpredictable or confounding outcomes. Factor 4: ‘Teachers’ role in group forming and rule defining’: Since the variables 5 [Form groups on the basis of individualized features of the members], 7 [Insist on students‟ understanding the social skills required during group work (solidarity, mutual trust, tolerance etc.)] 8 [Define rules of communication and cooperation to avoid conflicts/misunderstandings], 10 [Present in detail the method required for the objectives to be attained (research through internet, access to bibliographical resources etc.)] and 11 [Define a precise time for each work phase completion] had the highest factor loadings they identify the fourth main factor. According to the results, teachers feel more secure, regarding the effectiveness of CL, when they precisely define the rules and the prerequisite cooperation skills, the method which has to be used and the time provided for the accomplishment of the task, as well as when they take into account the special traits of each student before they place him/her in a specific group. Factor 5: ‘Benefits from CL and the problem of the number of students’: Since the variables 27 [Liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous in-class routines], 28 [Boosts teachers‟ feelings of freedom and innovativeness], 29 [Reduces conventionality in learning procedures] and 30 [Is difficult to be implemented when the number of students is large] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the fifth main factor. According to the results, teachers believe that CL offers teachers the opportunity to work unconventionally, on condition that the number of students in the classroom and the number of members within the group are limited and, consequently, more manageable. Factor 6: ‘Monitoring and assessing CL’: Since the variables 13 [Monitor working process of each group as a whole], 14 [Monitor working process of each group member to provide individualized support], 15 [Monitor each member‟s contribution in group work to ensure shared responsibility] and 16[Assess individually every group member on the basis of specific criteria] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the sixth main factor. According to the results, teachers find it necessary to monitor equally the final learning product as an overall outcome and the individualized contribution of each member as well, though assessment should be focused more on each student‟s personalized and diversified contribution and less on the quality of the final outcome and the group‟s compliance to the teacher‟s requirements. Factor 7: ‘Factors that CL’s success depends on’: Since the variables 31 [Is highly dependent on teacher adequacy as regards familiarity with all the personal features of every student], 32 [Is highly dependent on the maturity of every group member] and 33 [Is difficult to be implemented when foreign students are included in the classroom] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the seventh main factor. According to the results, a teacher‟s understanding and

exploitation of each student‟s character, learning traits and maturity constitute a prerequisite if CL has to be implemented successfully, but such understanding should not be taken for granted, especially in cases when students of different nationality are included in mainstream classrooms. Factor 8: ‘Assigning responsibilities to the students’: Since the variables 6 [Let students form groups by themselves], 9 [Prompt students to define by themselves the rules of communication according to the special features of their group] and 12[Assign general tasks to every group and the group allocates duties to each member] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the eighth main factor. According to the results, teachers are willing to assign responsibilities to the students as regards group formation, communication rules and task apportionment. Factor 9: ‘Low and high achievers’ interaction during CL’: Since the variables 21 [The more competent members control the weaker ones] and 22 [The weaker students take advantage of the stronger ones] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the ninth main factor. According to the results, teachers believe that during CL an apparent interaction between academically strong and weak students is developed whereby high achievers tend to dominate while low achievers rely on competent students to guarantee a more successful group work outcome.

Conclusions and discussion The present study examined Greek teachers‟ perceptions about CL in a highly bureaucratic educational system, after reform in 2011 which (i) introduced and incorporated CL in all-subject syllabuses as an obligatory instructional technique, (ii) linked CL effective implementation to teachers‟ assessment and professional development, and (iii) motivated younger teachers to experiment with CL in their classrooms and disseminate relative knowledge to the school community (Greek Government Gazette, 2013; OECD, 2011). It should be noted, however, that, despite this reform, the core character of the Greek educational system remained conservative and bureaucratic (not only due to the traditional resistance of education to radical changes but, also, due to urgent financial restrictions); the content and the pace of knowledge acquisition remained unaltered (albeit slightly reduced), the books did not change, academic orientations remained dominant over socio-affective ones, social expectations from the teachers remained unchanged, classroom size remained unaltered (with up to 27 students per classroom), teacher training was based more on personal motivation than on organized, institutional provision of professional education (Eurydice, 2014; Koutrouba, Kariotaki, & Christopoulos, 2012; OECD, 2015). The researchers have, therefore, the opportunity to examine whether little but targeted shifts in the conservative educational status quo are able to produce major beneficial outcomes. According to the results of this study, the participants reported noteworthy benefits after the implementation of CL in their classrooms. Overall, according to their teachers, Greek students, similar to their international counterparts (Baudrit, 2007; Greany & Rodd, 2003; Slavin, 2014), seem to try

hard to understand each other; their efforts to express difficulties and define needs, to comprehend rules and routines of actions, to avoid misperceptions, to realize what the others expect from them, is considered by teachers to simultaneously improve the students‟ self-understanding and generates more reliable empathy-developing (factor 2: „Students‟ skill development during CL‟). Curricula planners should, therefore, provide students with more time for targeted discussions and communication, in order to enable them to develop and improve relevant cognitive, emotional, and social skills which, as Eastman, Newstetter, and McCracken (2000) and Cairns, Lawton, and Gardner (2001) have shown, substantially facilitate learning/knowledge in its wider sense as a major human value and virtue. However, the term „self-esteem‟, as presented in factor 2, should not be arbitrarily considered as conveying an always-positive meaning. When factor 2 is examined jointly with factor 9 („Low and high achievers‟ interaction during CL‟), one realizes that the developed „self-esteem‟ is not considered to dissuade students from differentiating their personal objectives and subsequent contribution and performance according to their traditional academic labelling as „low‟ or „high‟ achievers – a remark also reported by Shachar and Sharan (1995), Gillies (2007) and Koutselini (2008).To explain this, one should consider that due to the prevalence of attaining academic objectives in Greek Curricula, teachers and students seem willing to use CL, albeit only as a means for higher academic achievements (Koulaidis et al., 2006; Koutsourakis, 2007). Therefore, if education policy-planners look for a more beneficial impact of CL on education, they could probably embed communicative and collaboration attainments in the very cognitive-academic objectives of each Curriculum. In other words, if teachers are encouraged to consider that the skills described in factor 2 can be pursued, utilized, measured and assessed as clear cognitive achievements, they are likely to help students redefine terms such as „low-achievers‟ or „highachievers‟. In such a case, a traditional „low-achiever‟ could then be described as a prominent „high-achiever‟, as long as s/he, for example, counterbalances probable weaker content-knowledge with stronger meta-cognition, more effective empathy or more responsible cooperativeness, as Gillies and Boyle (2011) and Davison, Galbraith, and McQueen (2008) have also remarked. And vice versa, traditional „high-achievers‟ may be encouraged to stop remaining satisfied with their abilities (derived mainly from a high memorization/recitation ability, as Sharan, 2010, has shown) and to develop new social and communicative skills. One, however, could ask if it is scientifically accepted to include social and communicative skills‟ acquisition in, literally, academic (i.e. cognitive) attainments. Eastman, Newstetter, and McCracken (2000), Greany and Rodd (2003) and Gillies (2007) have already convincingly shown that, in fact, all skills that facilitate cognition and regulation of knowledge can be taught and developed through training and exercise, being thus, as such, pure knowledge per se. Given, moreover, the fact that Greek teachers, as Ifanti (2007) and Koulaidis and colleagues (2006) have shown, feel more secure in implementing innovative learning techniques when they are officially (and not amateurishly) urged and, almost, obliged to do so, education policy-planners should not have any hesitation in introducing social and

communicative skills‟ acquisition as a core academic objective of the Curriculum. Moreover, the official broadening of the meaning of „academic knowledge‟, as Kassotakis (2000), Kagan and Kagan (2009), Johnson and Johnson (2013) and Hmelo-Silver and colleagues (2013) have already recommended, will probably encourage teachers who consider CL as a highly demanding teaching process to address more effectively the discouraging difficulties reported in factor 3 („Counter incentives for teachers using CL‟) (lack of specialized training, lack of time, lack of standardized measurable objectives) which are also described by Galton, Gray, and Rudduck (2003), Ireson and Hallam (2001) and Kutnick and colleagues (2005). When one compares such faltering with the teachers‟ recorded aspirations for a fresh approach to education as pictured in factor 5 („Benefits from CL and the problem of the number of students‟), one may reasonably deduce, as international research has shown (Gillies, 2008; Gillies & Boyle, 2011; Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2011; Kaldi, Philippatou, & Onoufriou, 2009), that teachers are not really afraid of professional exhaustion but of professional inadequacy which is likely to emerge when the teaching process is not carefully controlled by they themselves. Teachers should be, therefore, officially assured that when they help their students firstly develop meaningful relationships, and secondly hold individual and shared accountability, as factor 1 („Relationships, attitudes and contributions during CL‟) implies, they do attain high educational objectives, as confirmed by Cohen and colleagues (2002), Eastman, Newstetter, and McCracken (2000) and Ginsburg-Block and colleagues (2006). Factor 1 together with factor 6 („Monitoring and assessing CL‟) imply that teachers are willing to support this orientation if the Curricula planners entrust them with the duty to assess equally individual and collaborative learning outcomes. For a bureaucratic educational system like the Greek one, the development of a scientifically defined set of criteria with which teachers would be able to assess both individual and group attainments and performances would not be very difficult, given the fact that the international research has already provided education policy-planners with such criteria (Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002; Mayer & Alexander, 2011; Slavin, 2014). Moreover, the present study shows that Greek teachers‟ hesitations are also linked to the large student population in the classrooms, which hinders their effort to understand all the varied traits of each student and successfully allocate, therefore, individually designed learning tasks to each one of them (factor 7: „Factors that CL‟s success depends on‟). This problem becomes more complicated due to the often unplanned inclusion of large numbers of foreign students within the mainstream classrooms. However, as factor 8 („Assigning responsibilities to the students‟) implies, teachers are more willing to allocate general tasks to every group and then to let students divide the general task in sub-tasks and assign every sub-task to each one of the group members, as long as the group has clearly defined, understandable and established rules of communication. It is rather apparent that by decentralizing the process of duty allocation, teachers tend to believe that every student who actively participates in the process of task apportionment will undertake that facet/aspect of duty

that better corresponds to his/her personal interests, abilities, and needs. In fact, factor 8 („Assigning responsibilities to the students‟) shows how Greek teachers encourage the classroom to „self-regulate‟ itself, in order to address two major problems of CL implementation, that are reported in factor 7; the large number of students in the classrooms and the diversity of the students‟ learning profiles. They are actually the same problems which, as shown in the introduction of the present study, have been reported (and, also, rather successfully addressed) by Gillies and Boyle (2011), Johnson and Johnson (2003), Howe and colleagues (2007) and Webb and colleagues (2009), who reported more successful outcomes in large-population mixed-ability classrooms in cases where teachers decentralized the task allocation (keeping however a watchful eye on every process that followed this allocation). In addition, as regards the diversity of student personalities which is linked to national, linguistic, religious, and cultural differences, Sharan‟s (2010) intervention (who proposed students‟ engagement in activities that promote cultural sensitization and respect of diversity, as they are described in the present Introduction), could be a solution for Greek teachers as well; the diversity could be turned into an advantage and help students become more familiarized with and tolerant of different aspects, views, attitudes to life, as Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2005) and Thanh and Gillies (2010) have also recommended. It, however, should be noted that, according to factor 4 („Teachers‟ role in group formation and rule defining‟), teachers insist on keeping under their personal control all processes regarding firstly the precise definition of content and objectives, rules of cooperation, prerequisite skills, and the time provided for the accomplishment of the task, and secondly the placement of each student in a specific group after taking into account the student‟s special traits and learning features. Such an attitude is also encouraged by students themselves, who feel more secure when their teachers have a discreet but also active intervening role in such relevant processes as Koutrouba, Kariotaki, and Christopoulos (2012), Cohen, Brody, and Sapon-Shevin (2004) and Freebody (2003) have confirmed. These feelings of security seem to further trigger students‟ resourcefulness, cognitive awareness, and feelings of adequacy, usefulness, and acceptance, as Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2003), Gillies (2008) and King (2002) have already shown. The present work also confirms Cantwell and Andrews‟s findings (2002) that when students were carefully trained, with the positive intervention of the teacher, to address difficulties arising during CL, various cognitive and socio-affective obstacles to effective cooperation (feelings of discomfort, insufficiency, and tendency to estrangement) were removed while positive outcomes (such as the development of higher rank cognitive skills, and sociability) were maximized. Continual interventions by teachers seem also to render all CL procedures more reliable and accepted by students, parents, and colleagues, who all cooperate in the framework of a bureaucratic educational system where the teacher remains the cornerstone of education and deputes, with moderation, a part of his/her „power‟ to the students, as described in the above introduction (Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2003; Gillies, 2008; King, 2002).It is rather interesting to note that Greek teachers and students were thoroughly informed about CL

(techniques and rules, stages of implementation, expected outcomes, process of assessment among others) during the summer of 2011 and the first two months (September-October) of the new school year 2011-2012, and that time was considered as sufficient for them to welcome this new approach to knowledge, to introduce it in the classroom, to experiment with it, to provide feedback and necessary modifications (Matsagouras, 2011). Moreover, the first year of CL implementation was officially characterised as a „year of experimental implementation of CL‟; students were literally taught everything about CL as a separate school subject in the official Syllabus, their relative knowledge was assessed at the end of the year but the marks they got were not included in the final overall grade which appears in the students‟ „Certificate of Overall Performance‟. In other words, a bureaucratic system introduced to teachers and students an innovative teaching method in a traditional way – a way, however, fully accepted by the Greek educational community. Education policy-planners should, therefore, not hesitate to use traditional ways to introduce modern teaching/learning strategies, as long as the objectives, the teachers‟ and the students‟ tasks, and the social expectations are clearly defined, explained and officially justified to all the members of the educational community (Baudrit, 2007; Cohen et al., 2002; Gillies & Ashman, 2003; Greany& Rodd, 2003; Kaldi, Philippatou, & Onoufriou, 2009). The present research shows that even piecemeal changes in bureaucratic educational systems can produce significant outcomes, when education policy planners officially guide teachers to implement innovative learning strategies with carefully designed, scheduled and clearly defined steps. Teachers working in bureaucratic educational systems want to feel secure and have officially assigned tasks that serve major academic objectives. One could probably say that it is, in fact, the teachers‟ acquaintance with rules and conventions that helps them adopt, support, and utilize innovation as long as these innovations are introduced in the form of officially imposed rules, guidelines and Curricula and as long as teachers are convinced that such a stance is really academically worthy, officially imposed and educationally justified.

References

Anagnostopoulou, S. M. (2001). Cooperative learning in teaching. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis (in Greek). Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1/2), 934. Baudrit, A. (2007). L’apprentissage collaboratif: Plus qu’une méthode collective? Paris: Edition de Boeck, Collection Pédagogies en Développement. Beese , J., & Liang, X. (2010). Do resources matter? PISA science achievement comparisons between students in the United States, Canada and Finland. Improving Schools, 13(3), 266-279. Brody, C., & Davidson, N. (1998). Introduction: Professional development and cooperative learning. In C. Brody and N. Davidson (Eds.), Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches, (pp. 3-24). Albany, NY: Suny Press. Cairns, J., Lawton, D., & Gardner, R. (Eds.) (2001). Values, culture and education. London: Kogan Page.

Cantwell, R., & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students‟ feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 75-91. Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press. Cohen, E.G., Lotan, R.A., Abram, P.L., Scarloss, B.A., & Schultz, S.E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045-1068. Cohen, E.G., Brody, C., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (Eds.) (2004). Teaching cooperative learning: The challenge for teacher education. Albany, NY: Suny Press. Corner, C. (2012). Into another world: From creativity to creative learning. Improving Schools, 15(2), 116-129. Crafton, L., & Kaiser, E. (2011). The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in teacher professional development. Improving Schools, 14(2), 104-116. Davis, J. M. (2013). Supporting creativity, inclusion and collaborative multi-professional learning. Improving Schools, 16(1), 5-20. Davison, L., Galbraith, I., & McQueen, M. (2008). Cooperative learning: A partnership between an EPS and a school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 307-317. Eastman, C., Newstetter, W., & McCracken, M. (Eds.) (2000). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York: Elsevier Science Press. European Commission (2014). European economy: The second economic adjustment programme for Greece, fourth review. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Occasional Papers 192, April 2014, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2014/p df/ocp192_en.pdf [Accessed: 1-5-2015] Eurydice (2014). The structure of the European education systems 2014/15: Schematic diagrams. Eurydice: European Commission, EACEA. Available online: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/facts_and_figures/ education_structures_EN.pdf [Accessed: 1-5-2015] Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage. Galton, M., Gray, J., & Rudduck, J. (2003). Transfer and transitions in the middle years of schooling (7-14): Continuities and discontinuities in learning. London: DfES. Georgiadis, M.N. (2007). Educational reforms in Greece (1959-1997) and human capital theory. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2), 342-368. Gillies, R. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gillies, R. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students‟ behaviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29(3), 328-347. Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (Eds.) (2003). Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Gillies, R., Ashman, A., & Terwel, J. (Eds.) (2008). The teachers’ role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. New York: Springer. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2011). Teachers‟ reflections of cooperative learning (CL): A twoyear follow-up. Teaching Education, 22(1), 63-78. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732-749. Greany, T., & Rodd, J. (2003). Creating a learning to learn school: Research and practice for raising standards, motivation and morale. London: Campaign for Learning. Greek Government Gazette (2013). I. Ministerial Decision 30972/Γ1/5-3-2013 (614/Β/153-2013): Evaluation of school units' educational work and self-evaluation process. II. Law 4142/2013 (83/A/9-4-2013): Authority for quality assurance in primary and

secondary education. III. Law 4186/2013 (193/A/17-9-2013): Restructuring of secondary education and other provisions. III. Presidential Decree 152/1-11-2013 (240/A/5-11-2013): Evaluation of teachers of primary and secondary education. Athens: National Printing House. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Greece:Legis lation#anchor6_4186 [Accessed: 1-5-2015] (in Greek). Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O‟Donnell, A. (Eds.) (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge. Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston , K., Jessiman, E., & Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 549-563. Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2014). Introduction to Statistic Psychology. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson. Ifanti, A. (2007). Policy and curriculum development in Greece. The case of secondary school curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15(1), 71-81. Ifanti, A., & Fotopoulou, V. (2011). Teachers‟ perceptions of professionalism and professional development: A case study in Greece. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 4051. Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. London: Paul Chapman. Jacobs, G.M., Power, M.A., & Loh, W.I. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Johnson, R. D., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social interdependence theory. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, (pp. 136-176). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. 11th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan. Kaldi, S., Philippatou, D., & Onoufriou, M. (2009). Co-operative group teaching and learning in the Greek and Cypriot primary education. The International Journal of Learning, 16(11), 407-422. Kaldi, S., Philippatou, D., & Anthopoulou, B. (2014). The effectiveness of structured cooperative teaching and learning in Greek primary school classrooms. Education 313: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 42(6), 621636. Kassotakis, M. (2000). Greece. In C. Brock and W. Tulasiewics (Eds.), Education in a single Europe, (pp. 184-205) (2nd ed.) London: Routledge. Kazamias A. (1990). The curse of Sisyphus in Greek educational reform: A sociopolitical and cultural interpretation. Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, 6, 33-53. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33-40. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31-42. Koulaidis, V., Dimopoulos, K., Tsatsaroni, A., & Katsis, A. (2006). Young people relationship to education: The case of Greek youth. Educational Studies, 32(4), 343-59. Koutrouba, K., Kariotaki, M., & Christopoulos, I. (2012). Secondary education students‟ preferences regarding their participation in group work: The case of Greece. Improving Schools, 15(3), 245-259.

Koutselini, M. (2008). Teacher misconceptions and understanding of cooperative learning: An intervention study. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(2), 34-44. Koutsourakis, G. (2007). The new educational policy for the reform of the curriculum and the change of school knowledge in the case of Greek compulsory education. International Studies of Sociology of Education, 17(1-2), 131-46. Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Grouping of pupils in secondary school classrooms: Possible links between pedagogy and learning. Social Psychology of Education, 8(4), 349-374. Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., Clark, H., MacIntyre, H., & Baines, E. (2005). Teachers‟ understandings of the relationship between within-class (pupil) grouping and learning in secondary schools. Educational Research, 47(1), 1-24. Matsagouras, E. (Ed.) (2011). The innovation of project in Upper High-school: A guide for teachers’ educators. Teachers’ book. Students’ book. Athens: Ministry of Education – Institute for Educational Policy (in Greek). Mayer, R., & Alexander, P. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of research on learning and instruction (Educational Psychology Handbook Series). New York: Routledge. OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2011). Education policy advice for Greece. Strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/greece/48407731.pdf [Accessed: 1-5-2015] OECD (2015). Education policy outlook: Making reforms happen. OECD Publishing. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/publications/education-policy-outlook-20159789264225442-en.htm [Accessed: 1-5-2015] Saiti, A. (2007). School leadership and educational equality: Analysis of Greek secondary school data. School Leadership and Management, 27(1), 65-78. Saiti, A., & Mitosili, E. (2005). Parental perception of the education of their adolescent children: Evidence from Greek secondary education. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 22(1), 9-30. Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1995). Cooperative learning and the organization of secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (1), 47-66. Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300-313. Sharan, Y. (2015). Meaningful learning in the cooperative classroom. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 83-94. Slavin, R. E. (2014). Educational Psychology. Theory and practice (11th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Tan, I., Sharan, S., & Lee, C. (2006). Group investigation and student learning. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Thanh, P. T. H., & Gillies, R. (2010). Group composition of cooperative learning: Does heterogeneous grouping work in Asian classrooms? International Education Studies, 30(3), 12-19. Traianou, A. (2009). The uncertain character of recent educational reform in Greece. Forum, 51(2), 131-142. Webb, N., Franke, M., De, T., Chan, A., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. (2009). „Explain to your partner‟: Teachers' instructional practices and students‟ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49-70.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 89-98, June 2015

Peer Tutoring as an Approach in Analysing Case Studies in a Business English Course Siew Fong Lin Tunku Abdul Rahman University College Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract. The main purpose of this study is to discover the impact of the use of peer tutoring in helping students to analyse business case studies in a Business English course. 10 Advanced Diploma in Financial Accounting students with mixed proficiency in English from an institution of higher learning formed 2 peer tutoring groups in this study. Data was collected using video recordings, interviews, diary entries and observations. The results of this study indicated that peer tutoring has positive results on both tutors and tutees. The characteristics of the tutors, the level of confidence of the tutors and the element of trust from the tutees were significant factors affecting peer tutoring. Due to the diverse perceptions and viewpoints created in the process of case study analysis, tutors need to be flexible in their level of acceptance towards the different interpretations of situations produced by the tutees. It is recommended that debriefing sessions between the tutors and researchers be conducted when the former lack confidence in decision making in the course of tutoring. Reciprocal Peer Tutoring is encouraged to be used as an approach in analysing case studies instead of having a tutor solely in charge of disseminating information to increase the effectiveness of tutoring. Keywords: peer tutoring; case studies; trust; characteristics of tutors; Reciprocal Peer Tutoring.

Introduction Malaysian graduates have faced a serious problem in these past few years. It is the problem of unemployment. The situation is a matter of concern to many parties including academicians, economists, business players, politicians and of course, the graduates themselves. According to a report released by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education on the statistics of unemployment among graduates in 2009, only 45% out of 155 278 graduates were employed. It was further supported by a report in the following year from Statistics of Labour Force Malaysia (2011) which showed that among the total labour force of 12 575 400, only 3.4% were unemployed. In addition, Statistics of Labour Force Malaysia (February 2012) showed an increase of the unemployed by 16 600 persons (4.3%) to 402 200 persons. ÂŠ 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

According to Yu (2013), there are up to 40% of public university Malaysian graduates who are either unemployed or facing job mismatch problem. Therefore, TalentCorp collaborated with World Bank in carrying out a survey to investigate graduate employability in the year 2014 (mystarjob, 2014). The study covered 200 companies and involved 245 000 employees from organisations representing National Key Economic Areas. It was discovered that skills mismatch was a main driver in graduate unemployment. There are other possible reasons for the high unemployment among graduates in Malaysia. They are a lack of proficiency in English, insufficient knowledge and competency in the occupations the graduates applied for in the course of job seeking (Yu, 2013). It is a situation best described by Paramaswari, Ambigapathy and Illangko (2014) as: ”However, the present challenge of graduate education system defects in producing multi-skilled and talented graduates who are capable to meet the changing complexities in a borderless world.” (p.2) Therefore, RM200 million was allocated in the Federal Budget 2012 for the setting up of Graduate Employability Taskforce. It was a strategy to increase the employability of graduates. Furthermore, an additional of RM400 million was provided for Skills Development Fund Corporation. The organisation functions to provide loans for applicants to undergo the process of re-training in order to increase employability. Furthermore, the unemployment state of graduates could be attributed to their poor communication ability and their lack of critical thinking skills (The Star Online, 5 March 2012). This concurs with the view of Ambigapathy and Aniswal (2005), Sangaran (2006) and Tarmizi, Md. Yunus, Hamzah, Abu, Md. Nor, Ismail, Wan Ali, & Abu Bakar (2008) that a main cause of the inability of Malaysian graduates to gain employment is due to their lack of critical thinking skills. Therefore, there is a need for the emphasis on the teaching of soft skills such as critical thinking in institutions of higher learning. Therefore, Malaysian Education Blueprint (2013-2025) stresses much on developing students’ thinking skills after recognising the loophole in the education system. It is one of the attributes that every student should have besides possessing knowledge, leadership skills, bilingual proficiency, ethics and spirituality and national identity. The goal is for every child to be able to acquire knowledge, connect knowledge and eventually, create knowledge on one’s own. This can be made possible by ensuring that a range of cognitive skills comprising problem solving , reasoning, conflict resolution, sound judgement and courage to do what is right are fostered. The blueprint aims to promote creativity and innovation among students. Therefore, Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) are incorporated in both teaching and learning. HOTS are defined in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 as: “… the ability to apply knowledge, skills and values while reasoning and reflecting to solve problems, make decisions, innovate and create.” (p. 50) One of the programmes planned under the Malaysia Education Blueprint (20132025), i-THINK, focusses on developing critical thinking and problem-solving © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

skills (Rozanna & Lim, 2014). It caters to equip the next generation in thinking critically and being adaptable in order to function well in the future. i-THINK supports higher order thinking skills approach through seven elements comprising curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, resources, community support, co-curricular activities and teacher-capability building. In the same vein, critical thinking is given much prominence when designing English courses taught at tertiary level. Consequently, case studies are introduced as one of the components in an English course (WXY 553) in a local institution of higher learning. The other components included in the syllabus are public speaking, business proposals, and meeting skills. However, in the course of teaching WXY 553, it was discovered that there was a challenge in teaching case studies using the lecture and tutorial modes. Students were found to be unable to analyse case studies successfully. Therefore, peer tutoring was used in this study to seek if it was viable in increasing studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability in handling case studies.

Theoretical Background Peer tutoring and cooperative learning are two of the most researched areas placed under peer learning (Topping, 2005). Many studies have been conducted to obtain information on the learning process occurring. Much research input has been gathered on the use of peer tutoring at different levels of education. A characteristic of peer tutoring is the clear and specific role set for tutor and tutee (Topping, 2005). In peer tutoring, a member of a group is regarded as more knowledgeable than others and knowledge is transmitted in unidirectional manner to novice (McCarthey & McMahon, 1992). In the early years, peer tutoring was regarded as children playing the role of surrogate teachers in assisting other students in learning. However, present day perception is slightly different. It is a situation when individuals who are nontrained teachers from the same social groupings teach in order to help others but including themselves in the learning process (Topping, 1996). Nowadays, the use of peer tutoring is extended to all age groups. Tutoring can be conducted in the formal classroom or in informal social settings. In addition, it can be carried out on a one-to-one basis or in small groups. Research has shown that tutors benefit more than tutees in the course of peer tutoring. This was due to a few tasks that tutors were involved in. They were meticulous preparations by the tutor before embarking on teaching (Allen & Feldman, 1973; Annis, 1983; Benware & Deci, 1984), cognitive restructuring or elaboration of knowledge which improved retention (Dansereau, 1985; Wittrock, 1978). General theoretical perspectives that support use of cooperative learning on performance are motivation, social cohesion, cognitive-developmental perspective and cognitive-elaboration perspective (Slavin, 1996). Motivation is created when reward structures result in goal achievement and when the whole group is successful while social cohesion emphasises on link between achievement with cohesiveness which regards success of individual group members as crucial. Cognitive-developmental perspective focuses on social interactions among students which produce effective learning through higher mental processes for a lot of knowledge cannot be attained alone and the zone of ÂŠ 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

proximal development is regarded as crucial in making progress in learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Development of high quality conceptualisations from cognitive conflict takes place when students discuss and have differing views. Diverse opinions and perspectives create disequilibrium resulting in learners accommodating new information and changing their thinking to achieve a state of equilibrium in order to produce new knowledge (Piaget, 1959). Tutors are selected based on their academic ability. They are usually students who have performed well in a course previously and are not deemed as experts but can foster learning in a non-threatening environment (Gosser, 2001). This is a means to promote spontaneous learning. In fact, Gartner and Riessman (1993) have distinguished two models of peer tutoring. The old model regards tutoring as more capable students helping less abled students in remedial work while the new model of tutoring is having all students being involved in the tutoring experience. Tutoring in United Kingdom is geared towards the new model. Peer tutoring results in many advantages to its users. Therefore, the use of peer tutoring has been extended to students at different levels of education. They range from kindergarten (Brady, 1997), elementary (Heward, Heron & Cooke, 1982), middle school (Nazzal, 2002), high school (Maheady, Sacca & Harper, 1987) to college level (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly & Dimeff, 1989). Research has shown that peer tutoring has many benefits on students. It increases student achievement (Bargh & Schul, 1980; Jenkins & Jenkins, 1985; Slavin, 1991, 1996), boosts student performance (Sharan, 1980), creates a learning community (Fougner, 2012), encourages critical thinking (Bell, 1991), and improves one’s learning (Oates, Paterson, Reilly & Statham, 2005). Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study were 10 Advanced Diploma in Financial Accounting students. They formed 2 peer tutoring groups, namely, Groups 1 and 2. Each group consisted of students with mixed proficiency in English. Each group was led by a tutor who had the best result in the English course they took in the previous semester. The tutor for Group 1, Chong, scored a B+. Ella, the tutor for Group 2 had an A for the course. The tutees in both groups had grades ranging from C+ to C- for the English course they took in the previous semester. There were 4 tutees in Group 1. They were Lam, Tee, Jim and Koh. Lam scored Cwhile Tee, Jim and Koh obtained C+ for their English results. In addition, there were 4 tutees in Group 2. They were Beh, Pang, Yeow and Gan. Beh and Pang scored C- while Yeow and Gan received C+ for their English results.

Analysis of Case Studies Both peer-tutoring groups had to analyse 2 case studies with individual length of 500 to 800 words. The first one was “Some Millionaires Will Not Retire” while the second one was “NIKE Controversies”. Eventually, the students had to answer 5 questions for each case study as well.

Both groups spent 3 hours analysing each case study. The students, with much guidance from their tutors, read the case studies aloud twice, discussed meanings of difficult words and important points in the text, summarised points from every paragraph and finally, answered the accompanying questions. The tutees were strongly encouraged to make preparations for the sessions. Most of them had read the case studies and attempted the questions before attending the sessions. The tutors had received training from the researcher prior to the peer-tutoring sessions. The training lasted for one and a half hours. They had to perform various sub-tasks involving reading the case studies together, discussing meanings of difficult words and important points in the text, summarising points from every paragraph and lastly, answering the questions. Furthermore, the researcher spent half an hour for a debriefing session with the tutors after every peer-tutoring session. It was a bid to increase their level of confidence in facilitating future sessions. During the debriefing session, there were further discussions on alternative answers provided by the tutees which the tutors were unsure if they were acceptable for the task. Furthermore, the tutors sought guidance on how to further improve their roles as tutors.

Data Collection All of the peer-tutoring sessions were video-taped. It was to facilitate observations to be carried out. Furthermore, both the tutors and tutees were interviewed and they were required to produce diary entries describing their experiences during the sessions. The different research methods provided the triangulation required in this study. A summary of the case study tasks and data collection is provided in Figure 1 Training of Tutors ↓ Peer-Tutoring Sessions (Analysis of 2 Case Studies, Observations carried out by researcher) ↓ Interview & Diary Entries (Tutors and Tutees) ↓ Debriefing Sessions (Tutors and Researcher) Figure 1: A Summary of Data Collection

FINDINGS Characteristics of Tutors Chong, the tutor for Group 1 was observed to be a shy, inhibited, easily confused but organised person. He initially had reservations about being a tutor. However, after consulting with the researcher and receiving training prior the peer-tutoring sessions, he gained some confidence in playing his role. In contrast, Ella, the tutor for Group 2 was articulate, knowledgeable but impatient person. She was very optimistic and excited about becoming a tutor. This was due to her personal belief that she would gain deep understanding of the case studies and she felt that she would enjoy interacting with her friends in the course of tutoring. © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

To sum up, Chong and Ella had opposite characteristics from each other. Interestingly, it was observed that the tutors’ characteristics had different impact on their tutees. Detailed explanations are provided in the following sub-sections. Chong in Group 1 It was also observed that Chong did not establish much eye contact with his tutees in the first session due to his shyness. The tutees were not paying much attention to him. They were talking among themselves causing Chong to lose confidence and focus. In addition, Chong did not know how to create rapport with his tutees. He was merely providing lectures to his tutees rather than using a personal and informal approach in communicating with them. Therefore, his tutees looked bored and seemed to lose interest in his sessions. Hence, during the debriefing session, the researcher advised Chong on how to improve his performance as a tutor. He was reminded to look at his tutees intently as he taught them and pay extra attention to those who looked confused. Furthermore, the researcher advised him to form friendships with his tutees and to teach them in an informal manner. Consequently, his tutees’ concentration level slightly improved during the next few peer-tutoring sessions. However, the tutees revealed through their interviews and diary entries that they found Chong’s peer-tutoring sessions boring. In addition, they felt that he could not answer their questions in a few encounters. This caused them to suspect that their tutor did not prepare well for the tutoring sessions. Nevertheless, the tutees were appreciative of their tutor’s efforts to facilitate their sessions. Ella in Group 2 It was evident that Ella was comfortable and enthusiastic in playing her role as a tutor throughout the sessions. Her tutees were very attentive and interested in her teaching. She seemed to increase her tutees’ interest in the case studies. There was a lot of brainstorming going on during the sessions. In addition, the tutees asked many questions during every session. However, Ella seemed flustered and unable to handle the questions successfully. Therefore, during the debriefing session, the researcher praised Ella on her positive role as a tutor. Furthermore, she guided Ella on how to answer questions posed by her tutees. Ella admitted that she was surprised with the large number of questions posed by her tutees. In addition, she confessed that she felt unhappy with the time spent in answering the questions because she was concerned that she would not have enough time to complete the sub-tasks she had planned for the session. The researcher reminded her to have patience in answering the enquiries and to regard questions as positive for they reflected the high level of interest the tutees had for her sessions. Generally, the tutees were satisfied with the peer-tutoring sessions. They described Ella as helpful and informative. They admitted that their interest level on the case studies was increased due to her influence. On the other hand, some of them felt that she should allocate more time in answering questions rather than rushing through in answering them. It had resulted in them feeling that the tutor was unhappy in entertaining their questions.

Level of Tutors’ Confidence The tutors’ level of confidence when playing their roles affected the outcomes of the peer-tutoring sessions. It was observed that Chong had less confidence than Ella. Ella could control her group better than Chong. As a result, the tutees in Group 1 claimed that they did not benefit much from their tutor’s facilitation in comparison to Group 2. From the tutees’ interviews and diary entries, it was discovered that they claimed that they were adversely affected by their tutors’ lack of confidence when handling them. They judged their confidence based on their knowledge level, verbal and non-verbal language. The majority of tutees in Group 1 did not find their tutor confident while the tutees in Group 2 were impressed with their tutor’s poise. The tutees in Group 1 realised that their tutor, Chong, was uneasy in playing his role. They described him as lacking in knowledge of the background of the companies discussed and unsure of the sequence of materials to be presented to them. Some of them commented that their tutor had the same level of knowledge as them. Consequently, they lacked interest in the sessions conducted. In contrast, the tutees in Group 2 were favourable of having Ella as their tutor. They found her possessing deep knowledge of her subject matter, taught effectively and very comfortable in playing her role as a tutor. Some of them were of the opinion that Ella had conducted extensive research in preparing for her tutoring sessions. Therefore, the tutees claimed that they enjoyed discussing with her their ideas and learning from her tremendously. However, according to Hammond, Bithell, Jones & Bidgood (2010), a tutor’s confidence can increase after being involved in peer tutoring. It is ideal for tutors to be confident at the start of the sessions. On the other hand, some tutors may have their confidence level improving in the course of playing their role as tutors. Consequently, they may become better tutors than before. Element of Trust from Tutees The element of tutees’ trust was found to be important. Tutees did not possess automatic trust of their tutors in the course of peer tutoring. The researcher observed that the tutees needed some time to decide whether they could be convinced that their tutors could teach as well as their researcher. The decision could only be made after a few rounds of tutoring. Tutors needed to earn their tutees’ belief in them before the latter regarded their sessions seriously. This concurs with the result findings of a study conducted by Colvin (2007) on peer tutoring which showed that tutors spent a considerable amount of time to engage in impression management before their tutees trusted them totally. It was explained as: “The peer tutors had to convince the other students in the classes that though they were students just like everyone else, they had additional insight and credibility that allowed them to function as a resource apart from the instructional staff.” (p. 174)

The tutors from Groups 1 and 2 had mixed results within their groups on their tutees’ trust in them. Only one tutee in Group 1 had trust in Chong as the tutor. In comparison, 2 tutees in Group 2 claimed that they had faith in Ella as their tutor. The findings from the interviews and diary entries revealed that the tutees gauged the trustworthiness of their tutors using a few methods. Firstly, they preferred that their questions be answered instantaneously by their tutors. Secondly, they wanted their tutors to have complete and detailed answers to their questions. Thirdly, they verified the answers given by researching on them on their own to make sure that they were correctly provided by their tutors.

CONCLUSION The findings from this study revealed 3 major factors which affected peertutoring sessions when analysing case studies. They consisted of the characteristics of the tutors, their level of confidence and the element of trust from the tutees. Eventually, they had mixed results on the outcomes of the peertutoring sessions. Ella was more enthusiastic than Chong when tutoring their friends. It could be attributed to Ella’s sociable nature for she enjoyed communicating with others. Consequently, Ella’s tutees were favourable of her as a tutor. Again, Ella had more confidence than Chong in the course of tutoring. Her tutees praised her abilities in providing extra knowledge in the subject matter, teaching effectively and being comfortable in playing her role as a tutor. Some of them were of the opinion that Ella had conducted extensive research in preparing for her tutoring sessions. However, there were mixed opinions on the level of trust the tutees had of their tutors. Only one tutee in Group 1 had trust in Chong as the tutor. In comparison, 2 tutees in Group 2 claimed that they had faith in Ella as their tutor. The tutees judged the trustworthiness of their tutors based on the time required to answer questions, the detailed level of the answers and the correctness of answers provided. Debriefing sessions between the tutors and researcher were discovered to be extremely useful. The tutors could discuss their difficulties with the researcher. In addition, the researcher could encourage the tutors and provide suggestions on how to improve their tutoring skills. Consequently, the tutors’ confidence would improve. It is suggested that Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT) be encouraged to be used as an approach in analysing case studies. This approach is better than having a tutor solely in charge of disseminating information to the tutees. Reciprocal Peer Tutoring would allow sharing of information from both tutors and tutees. It is crucial for tutors to be flexible in accepting different interpretations of situations and answers to questions when analysing case studies.

References Allen , V. L., & Feldman,R. S. (1973). Learning through tutoring: Low achieving children as tutors. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 1-5. Ambigapathy, P., & Aniswal, A. G. (2005). University curriculum: An evaluation on preparing graduates for employment. National Higher Education Research Institute, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Annis, L. F. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39-47. © 2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593-604. Bell, J. H. (1991). Using peer response groups in ESL writing classes. TESL Canada Journal/ Revue TESL du Canada, 8(2), 65-71. Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765. Brady, N. C. (1997). The teaching game: A reciprocal peer tutoring programme for preschool children. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 123-149. Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behaviour and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 733-750. Colvin, J. W. (2007). Peer tutoring and social dynamics in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 165-181. Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. Segal S. Chapman, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic research, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Egbochuku, E. O., & Obiunu, J. J. (2006). The effects of reciprocal peer counselling in the enhancement of self-concept among adolescents. Education 126 (3) Project Innovation Inc., Mobile, Alabama. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 173-177. Fougner, A. (2012). Exploring knowledge through peer tutoring in a transitional learning community: An alternative way of teaching counselling skills to students in social work education. British Journal of Social Work Education, 31(3), 287-301. Gartner, A., & Riessman, F. (1993). Peer tutoring: A new model. New York, NY: Peer Research Laboratory. Gosser, D. K. (2001). The peer-led team learning workshop model. In Gosser D. K., Cracolice M. S., Kampmeler J. A., Roth V., Strozak V. S., Varma-Nelson P. (Eds.), Peerled team learning: A Guidebook (pp. 1-12). Upper Saddle Riber, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hammond, J., Bithell, C., Jones, L. & Bidgood, P. (2010). A first year experience of studentdirected peer-assisted learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 201-212. Heward, W. L., Heron, T. E., & Cooke, N, L. (1982). Tutor huddle: Key element in a classwide peer tutoring system. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 114-123. Jenkins, J., & Jenkins, L. (1985). Peer tutoring in elementary and secondary programmes. Focus on Exceptional Children, 17, 3-12. Maheady, L., Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. F. (1987). Classwide student tutoring teams: The effects of peer-mediated instruction on the academic performance of secondary mainstreamed students. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 107-121. Malaysian Education Blueprint Annual Report 2013. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.padu.edu.my/files/AR/PADU_AR_2013_ENG.pdf McCarthey, S. J., & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interactions during writing. In Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Norman Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mystarjob. (2014, August 9). Matching talent to jobs: Trends in graduate employability. Retrieved from mystarjob.com Nazzal, A. (2002). Peer tutoring and at-risk students: An exploratory study. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 68-80. Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1992). Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s instrumental help-seeking: Its role in the social acquisition and construction of knowledge. In Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Norman Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oates, G., Paterson, J., Reilly, I., & Statham, M. (2005). Effective tutorial programmes in tertiary mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 36(7), 731-740. Paramaswari, J., Ambigapathy, P & and Ilangko, S. (2014). Language courses, transversal skills and transdisciplinary education: A case study in the Malaysian university. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(2), 1-10. Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge and Kagan Paul Ltd. Rozanna, Latiff & Lim, B. (2014). Promotion to higher grade for 5000 teachers. New Straits Times. 17 May 2014, pp. 1, 4. Sangaran, S. (2006). Addressing tech unemployment. New Straits Times. (retrieved October 2, 2006 from http://findarticles.com/p/newsarticles/newstraitstimes/mi_8061/is_20061002/add ressing-tech unemployment/ai_n44342964/) Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241271. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82. Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Norman Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69. Tarmizi, R. A., Md. Yunus, A.S., Hamzah, R., Abu, R., Md. Nor, S., Ismail, H., Wan Ali, W. Z., & Abu Bakar, K. (2008). Critical thinking: Are Malaysian students engaged? The International Journal of Humanities, 6(6), 149-158. The Star Online. (2012, March 5). Local grads not up to mark. Retrieved from www. thestar.com.my Topping, K. J. (1996). ‘Effective peer tutoring in further and higher education’, SEDA Paper 95, Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wittrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Psychologist, 13, 15-29. Yu Ji. (2013, July 27). Close to half of Malaysian graduates either jobless or employed in mismatched fields. The Star Online. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Community/2013/07/27/Close-to-half-ofMalaysian-graduateseither-jobless-or-employed-in-mismatched-fields.aspx/

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 99-106, June 2015

A Case Study Exploring Junior High School Students’ Interaction Behavior in a Learning Community on Facebook: Day and Time Chun-Jung Chen and Sheng-Yi Wu University of Kang Ning Tainan, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Abstract. Because Facebook has become another site where students spend much of their time, more and more teachers and researchers conduct teaching activities on Facebook. As a result, teachers must understand the students’ interaction behaviors in Facebook groups before creating a learning community on Facebook. This research aimed to explore teachers’ posts, students’ posts and student’s responses (read, like, and reply) to posts. The results showed that students preferred to reply to teachers’ posts instead of students’ posts. Students participated in online interactions mostly at night, before weekends and between 8:00 pm and midnight on school nights. Thus, it is recommended that teachers be aware of students’ online interaction behaviors so they can arrange appropriate schedules and actively post articles to allow student discussion. Keywords: Learning community; Facebook, Interaction behavior

1. Research Background, Motivation and Purpose With the onset of the digital era and the maturing of the Internet, the online social community has been increasing. The online social community is derived from the concept of clubs in real society. Netizens can establish various clubs through community websites to connect and communicate with each other (Zhong, Salehi, Shah, Cobzarenco, Sastry, & Cha, 2014: Tsovaltzi, Puhl, Judele, & Weinberger, 2014; Albayrak, & Yildirim, 2015). In such cyberspaces, people can interact to share information with each other. So far, Facebook has been one of the most popular Social Network Services in the world (Barbera, 2009; Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009). The trend of social communities has also changed the learning environment. For example, teaching innovations in recent years have flipped teaching, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been instituted, etc. The trend has created learning tools that are not restricted to books. Because the social community has become a new site of learning, many teachers have currently adopted Facebook as a learning community (Aydin, 2012). Teachers can use Facebook groups to © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

100

design teaching content, guide students through Questions and Answers (Q&As), or even complete learning tasks through cooperative learning. On such platforms, teachers and students may interact to discuss interesting questions with each other. Thus, students can explore knowledge in the learning environments that teachers have built, and teachers may reflect on their teaching based on students’ feedback (Wu, Hou, Hwang, & Liu, 2013; Wang & Hou, 2014; Hartnett, Rosielle, & Lindley, 2015). According to relevant studies, Facebook Groups have become a type of new learning site. Facebook Groups can be used as a tool for mutual exchanges, learning, and communication between teachers and students and among students (Aydin, 2012). In the findings of Mazman and Usluel (2010), because students usually use Facebook to interact with people, they will feel more comfortable participating in the informal and highly interactive learning environment on Facebook, where teaching and learning can be integrated. Hou, Wang, Lin, and Chang (2013) compared the online discussions set up on Facebook clubs and on regular learning platforms. The results showed that Facebook could enhance students’ social interactions and emotional exchanges. As a result, the discussion area on community websites (such as Facebook Groups) will increase their influence on learning outcomes. Since Facebook became a new site of learning communities, few studies have explored how to manage learning communities on Facebook. For example, McCarthy (2013) indicated that teachers should pay attention to privacy issues and clearly guide students to participate in learning activities on a Facebook Group. Moreover, teachers may try to combine many actual teaching activities with online activities as much as possible. According to the above-mentioned works, there was demand for applying learning communities on Facebook to classroom teaching, and this application has shown some effects. However, the learning communities are studentoriented and could not function if no members interacted. As a result, it is very important to know how teachers conduct the learning communities on Facebook and guide students to interact with each other (Whittaker, Howarth, & Lymn, 2014; Sharma, Goodwin, & Wilkinson, 2014; Chang 2014). To increase interactions in the community, teachers should thoroughly understand students’ interaction behaviors (such as posts, replies, liking, and reading). Therefore, it is worth exploring whether certain days of the week or certain periods in the day would influence students’ interactions because such knowledge would help teachers determine a proper timing for posting articles and terminating activities. In the past, it was the teachers who led the online learning communities; however, as the social-networking interaction increases, it is also worth exploring whether the interactions in learning communities would change, namely, whether students’ responses to teachers’ posts and those to students’ posts differ. In summary, through exploring the learning community on Facebook Groups, which was founded by teachers for students to participate in learning activities in their spare time, this research could investigate teachers’ posts, students’ posts, and students’ responses (reading, liking, and replying) to posts; we further analysed these data, conducted interviews based on the results, and

101

finally proposed relevant suggestions. The study questions were proposed as follows: 1. Are students’ responses (reading, liking, and replying) influenced by whether a post was written by a teacher or another student? 2. On which day would students participate in learning interactions more frequently? 3. At what time would students interact in the learning community most?

2. Research Design 2.1 Experimental Design and Procedures To address the research questions, the research included a 30-day teaching activity. Based on the research structure, teachers posted one article every day during these 30 days and encouraged the students to reply as well. After this teaching activity terminated, the statistics of the number of students’ posts and the responses to teachers’ and students’ posts (reads, likes, and replies) were gathered, in addition to information about which days and times the behaviors took place (see Figure 1).

Teacher’ posts

On which day

Interaction Behaviors on Facebook (reads, likes, and replies)

Student’ posts

At what time

Figure 1. Research Framework

According to the research framework, the detailed procedures were as follows: 1. Using a Facebook Group as a learning platform, teachers built a class club and invited all students to join the club. 2. In accordance with class schedules, teachers divided posts of a Natural Science unit on Light into 6 parts, including the curricular announcement, highlights, online practice, experimental videos, supplementary materials, and information sharing. Teachers posted an article at 17:00 every day and asked students to learn and discuss with each other in their spare time. 3. The club was not open to the public. The content was open to only members of the club. When teachers posted the curriculum to the club’s Wall, students could use like and reply functions provided by Facebook Groups to respond. Students could also post content, including text, videos, and pictures, to the Wall of the club and interact with their classmates.

102

During this experiment, the teachers were not involved in the students’ discussions or sharing. The students could discuss and share things with each other based on their actual situations in their spare time. After this experimental curriculum ended, the teachers gathered statistics about the students’ feedback, the number of likes and the number of replies. Last, we analysed the statistics gathered, conducted interviews, and finally drew conclusions and proposed suggestions.

2.2 Participants The participants of the research were junior high school students in Grade 9 in Taiwan. The class was comprised of 31 students. Because the experiment was an after-school teaching activity, the number of students actually participating in this activity was 28, with 12 males and 16 females, excluding the students without the approval of their parents and those without personal Facebook accounts.

2.3 Instruments and Data Analysis Because Facebook is currently the social networking site regularly used by students, the research adopted a Facebook Group as an online interactive platform. After the one-month case study, Nvivo and NCapture were used to download all of the data from the Facebook Group. After the data were downloaded, the descriptive statistics and analyses were conducted by calculating the sums, averages, and percentages.

3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Teachers’ Posts vs. Students’ Posts This section addresses Question 1. According to Table 1, the number of teachers’ posts was 30, and the number of students’ posts was 56. The number of students who liked the teachers’ posts was 10% greater than that of students who liked other students’ posts; the number of students who replied to teachers’ posts was also 32% greater than that of students replying to other students’ posts. In terms of posts, the number of students who read the teachers’ posts and that of students who read other students’ posts were almost the same; that is, each student read almost every article posted, whether by teachers or students. Table 1. Interactive frequency of teachers’ posts and students’ posts

Post (N)

Replay

Read

Total Average

% Total Average

Teacher

585

19.50

55.0 916

30.53 50.2 244

8.13

65.8

Student

893

15.95

45.0 1697

30.30 49.8 237

4.23

34.2

The results showed that students preferred to reply to the teachers’ posts and felt more interested in the teachers’ posts. Based on the interviews, students indicated that the teachers’ posts were more systematic; thus, they trusted them more, paid more attention to them, and further raised relevant questions to discuss and share with their classmates. Thus, the students held positive opinions about the application of Facebook as a learning community, and the © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

103

teachers’ posts had a greater influence on the students’ responses than the students’ posts.

3.2 On which day did students participate in interactions? As demonstrated in the previous section, the students held positive attitudes toward Facebook being adopted as a learning platform and interacted with each other well. Then, on which day should the teachers post their articles for the students to better participate in discussions and interactions? This section explores Question 2. In general, people may think that junior high school students have more time on the weekends to participate in online after-school discussions and interactions, which is mainly because the students may be able to spend more time surfing the internet on weekends. Table 2 shows the number of posts and responses each week in this class. According to Table 2, students posted most of the articles and replied to the most posts on Fridays, followed by Tuesdays. This result was inconsistent with the expectation. To understand this finding, one should further understand the students’ lifestyles and habits. According to the interviews, the reason that students participated in the online discussions and interactions on Fridays and Tuesdays was because they did not have to participate in after-class tutoring or go to cram schools (namely, additional learning activities after the regular curriculum) and thus had relatively more time. Moreover, because Friday was the last day for school for the week, the students did not have to go to school the day after and felt relaxed enough to surf the internet. Additionally, some parents restricted their children from surfing the internet, but they usually allowed them to go online near the weekends; hence, the chance of going online on Fridays increased significantly. Table 2. Number of posts and responses each week

Teacher’s posts

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

5 Replay

Post

Replay

Post

Replay

Post

Replay

Post

Replay

Post

Replay

Post

Replay

Post

Student’s action

Mon

Students’ 2 53 17 67 3 41 5 57 8 104 11 69 10 67 response/day Total 55 84 44 62 112 80 77

3.3 At what time do students participate in interactions? Last, this section explores the period in the day during which students participate in discussions and interactions and thus addresses Question 3. Figure 2 shows the statistics on the number of student interactions in the Facebook Group each hour of the day. According to Figure 2, most of the students interacted in the learning community after 5 pm and between 8 pm and 12 pm, © 2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

104

especially from 10 pm to 11 pm. Because the school day ended at 5 pm, some students could go online and interact in the learning community soon after school, whereas other students had to do housework, homework, and afterschool tutoring, etc., and participated in their interactions later, after 8 pm and especially after 10 pm. Thus, if teachers could consider such situations to determine the right time to post articles while using a learning community on Facebook to teach, they could encourage the best interactions between the students.

120

116

106

100 87

60 40

33 36

20 8

4 5 6 3 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

0:00~0:59 1:00~1:59 2:00~2:59 3:00~3:59 4:00~4:59 5:00~5:59 6:00~6:59 7:00~7:59 8:00~8:59 9:00~9:59 10:00~10:59 11:00~11:59 12:00~12:59 13:00~13:59 14:00~14:59 15:00~15:59 16:00~16:59 17:00~17:59 18:00~18:59 19:00~19:59 20:00~20:59 21:00~21:59 22:00~22:59 23:00~23:59

Figure 2. Total number of students’ responses each hour

Conclusions and Suggestions

This study focused on a learning community on Facebook, which was adopted by teachers as a learning platform for students to engage with the curriculum in their spare time to explore the students’ interaction behaviors on the social networking site. According to the analysis of three research questions and subsequent interviews, we found first that the teachers’ posts had a greater influence on the students’ responses (reading, liking, and replying) than the students’ posts. Second, the students participated in learning interactions on Fridays more frequently than on the other days. However, such a result may be subject to the family factors and lifestyles of the students, and the frequency of going online every day may differ as well. Last, most of the students started to interact in the learning community from 8 pm to midnight. Moreover, in the interviews conducted by the researcher, it was revealed that the students thought that it was quite feasible to apply a learning community on Facebook to after-school tutoring, which could help them extend their learning activities and further enhance their learning efficiency. As a result, teachers must change from their traditional teaching methods to a more student-based teaching. A learning community on Facebook has become a new classroom for teachers and students.

105

Teachers should have the courage to apply it to their teaching (Staines & Lauchs, 2013). To conclude, this study proposed relevant suggestions, which we hope are taken into account by teachers and students while using learning community websites. First, teachers should properly apply a learning community on Facebook and post most of the articles, which can be supported by the students’ posts. Moreover, teachers should post the materials at the most appropriate time for the students’ lifestyles. Second, because this was only one case study, the conclusions should be considered in the context of junior high school students in each county. Thus, it is recommended that teachers, while conducting such learning activities in the future, adjust their posts based on the students’ interaction behaviors and times and pay attention to whether the duration of the posts and expected time for termination are enough for students to participate in online discussions and interactions.

References Aydin, S. (2012). A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment. Educational technology research and development, 60(6), 1093-1106. Albayrak, D., & Yildirim, Z. (2015). Using Social Networking Sites for Teaching and Learning Students' Involvement in and Acceptance of Facebook® as a Course Management System. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 155179. Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e–portfolio assessment: An approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 342–357. Chang, W. J (2014). Group Communication and Interaction in Project-based Learning: The Use of Facebook in a Taiwanese EFL Context. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 1(1), 108-130. Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., Lin, P. C., & Chang, K. E. (2013). Exploring the learner’s knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, (ahead-of-print), 1-11. Hartnett, J. L., Rosielle, L. J., & Lindley, L. D. (2015). Crowdsourcing Your Major: Using Facebook to Encourage Faculty-Student Interaction and Student Engagement. Essays from E-xcellence in Teaching Volume XIV, 35. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: it is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453. McCarthy, J. (2013). Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from 2008 to 2011. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3). 337-356. Sharma, R., Goodwin, R., & Wilkinson, B. (2014, January). Can a Facebook Group Serve as an Additional Learning Resource for Introductory Programming Students?. In International Conference on Infocomm Technologies in Competitive Strategies (ICT). Proceedings (p. 114). Global Science and Technology Forum. Staines, Z., & Lauchs, M. (2013). Students' engagement with Facebook in a university undergraduate policing unit. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(6), 792-805.

106

Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Group awareness support and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook. Computers & Education, 76, 108-118. Wang, S. M., & Hou, H. T. (2014, July). Exploring Learners' Cognitive Processing Behavioral Patterns of a Collaborative Creativity Project Using Facebook to Support the Online Discussion. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on (pp. 505-507). IEEE. Whittaker, A. L., Howarth, G. S., & Lymn, K. A. (2014). Evaluation of Facebook© to create an online learning community in an undergraduate animal science class. Educational Media International, 51(2), 135-145. Wu, S. Y., Hou, H. T., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2013). Analysis of Learning Behavior in Problem Solving-based and Project-based Discussion Activities within the Seamless Online Learning Integrated Discussion (SOLID) System. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 61–82. Zhong, C., Salehi, M., Shah, S., Cobzarenco, M., Sastry, N., & Cha, M. (2014, April). Social bootstrapping: how pinterest and last. fm social communities benefit by borrowing links from facebook. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 305-314). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

107

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 107-120, June 2015

Towards a Framework for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership Brian Vassallo Malta Abstract. In this paper the author makes a case for an innovative and dynamic model for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership. The paper starts by giving a socio-pedagogical account of Culturally Responsive Educational literature and the effect it had on emerging pedagogical practices. Misconceptions surrounding culturally responsive philosophies and their effects on current educational leadership practices are discussed. The need for effective and transformational leadership is highlighted as an essential vehicle to promote transformational change in the reflexive processes needed to engage in new forms of teacher-student interaction with the participation of all stakeholders. The extensively researched theoretical underpinnings have prompted the author to suggest a model for Culturally Responsive Educational Practices. The model can be used as a guide to stimulate further thinking processes emanating from new and productive societal interactions. Such processes may then be used to inform newly constructed Culturally Responsive Leadership practices. Keywords: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy; Culturally Responsive Education; Culturally Relevant Leadership model.

Introduction Culturally responsive educational leadership is a construct which emanates from pedagogies which actively respond to the diversity in our school populations. Gay (2002) defines Culturally Responsive Education as ―using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant and effective for them‖. International literature has depicted schools as a two faced coin – either grounds for conflict or grounds for hope. On one side, school have been described as a fertile ground for harmony, coexistence and cultural cohesiveness while on the other side, they have been described as an arena for cultural conflict and destruction (eg: Ageng‘a & Simatwa, 2011; De Dreu, 1997; Di Paola & Hoy, 2001; Fillipo & De Waal, 2000). This two-pronged conception of the cultural impact on

108

educational processes has brought little meaningful scholarship towards the necessary change which we need to better our schools.

Misconceptions and effects on Educational Leadership A number of misconceptions still permeate our understanding of such processes. In particular: (i) Schools function as a separate entity from societies. There still exists literature which purports the perception that schools are not influenced or are not able to influence the outside world. (ii) The one size fits all philosophy should prevail and that the culture of students has little or no impact on learning. (iii) Cultural differences are a threat to school functioning and that teaching and learning should be placed in a monocultural context rather than pushing the notion that different cultures and subcultures may exist moving through different school systems and perceived differently by each and every individual (Bonner, Marbley & Agnello, 2004; Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000). The three general notions have their own ripple effect on Education Leadership and practice and give way to three general streams of thought. The first suggests that every school should develop its identity culture irrespective of the different cultures residing in it and that all individual entities existing within that culture must accommodate within the prevailing culture. The second is that culture can be thought of shared norms, traditions, beliefs, rituals and others and hence school leadership should concentrate its efforts at work towards the integration of such shared notions in a peaceful and resolute manner. The third is that educational leadership should focus on polices which mitigates against oppressed and margainalised groups.

Literature Review Cultures can be thought of as shared systems, beliefs, norms and traditions pertaining to a group of people where each group define the boundaries which dictate the extent to which these implicit ―rules‖ are shared. Of course, boundaries vary from culture to culture and from within the same culture – hence the existence of subcultures. It must be stated that these inherent rules are also passed on to other cultures and groups and consequently traditional boundaries become more permeateable. Consequently, not only are culturally induced boundaries permeatable but also are the values traditionally held within the home and community system of that culture. These, boundaries then evolve into ―new‖ cultural subsystems and are then passed on from one generation to the next developing into new insights, perceptions and experiences. It is an ardent task to try to understand the multitude of experiences which such processes contrive but we can appreciate the differences they create, honour them and share our own experiences and perceptions with

109

others, fully cognizant of the fact that there is no one real culture but an curious mix of cultures (Bourdieu, 1973, 1986, 1990). There seems to be a common understanding that cultures belong to either at school or at home rather than a curious mix of both complexities. There exist home cultures, school cultures, work-based cultures, community cultures, national cultures, disability cultures, global cultures and a multitude of others. We all belong to each of these cultures to some extent or another. It is not uncommon for educators to stress the dichotomies between school and home cultures, between national and international identities, between abilities and disabilities and fail to realize that school culture cannot be disconnected from community and global culture. But reinforcing an attitude of disconnectivity educators are reducing students into a single monolithic culture which is neither relevant nor realistic. Phillips (1993) defines school culture as the ―beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours that characterize a school in terms of: how people treat and feel about each other, the extent to which people feel included and appreciated, and rituals and traditions reflecting collaboration and collegiality.‖ Therefore school culture is composed of both formal and informal elements, written and latent curricula, suggested or explicit teaching policies, school development planning, communication patterns, language styles, building of inter-relationship, discipline, curriculum development, professional development sessions and other matters associated with schooling. Such actions and processes take place during school hours and also outside school hours. Both during and after school hours culture is mediated between students, staff, administration, parents and the whole outside community at large including students‘ and teachers‘ exchanges, international studies collaboration and policy making. Many schools fail to recognize culturally mediating factors as a major influence on students‘ performance (Heck & Marcoulides 1996; Fullan, 2001). Only in the past 15 years has the impact of culture been studied as an essential ingredient in the formulation of new school reforms (eg: Cullingford and Gunn, 2005; Dale, 2005; Daun, 2002, Eilor et. al. 2003). Researchers in school and classroom culture (eg: Vassallo, 2008) argue in favour of its importance and the necessity to study the impact it has on students‘ success. Heckman (1993) argues that school culture exists in the beliefs of teachers, students and school managers. Such beliefs are transformed into meanings which are the shaped and reshaped into behaviour and unconsciously dictate how people think, feel and act. For a school culture to be developed it must be fuelled by the joint vision of all stakeholders. Fullan (2001) claims that personal ―blindness‖ prevents school leaders from initiating exploratory processes. As Delpit(1995) puts it We do not really see through our eyes or hear through our ears, but through our beliefs. To put our beliefs on hold is to cease to exist as ourselves for a moment — and that is not easy. It is painful as well, because it means turning yourself inside out, giving up your own sense of who you are, and being willing to see yourself in the unflattering light of another's angry gaze. It is not easy, but it is the only way to learn what

110

it might feel like to be someone else and the only way to start the dialogue (1995, p.35). Such processes would be aimed at developing new transformational approaches and actively engaging all stakeholders into participating dialogues which will challenge long rooted assumptions.

Theoretical underpinnings A number of researchers has made it their personal mission to address social injustice and inequity in schools (eg: Barry, 2000; Carr, 2001; Chungmei, L. & Orfield, G., 2005, Haycock, K, 2001; Shrivastava & Shrivastava, 2014; Ferreira & Gignoux 2014; Greenstone, 2011; Shoho, Barnett, & Tooms, 2011). â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Oppression,â&#x20AC;&#x2013; is a term frequently used when describing situations suggesting inequity between those who have power and those who have not. There is therefore a connection between the oppressors and the oppressed (Marx & Engels, 1964) which also implies a imbalanced relationship favouring those who oppress. One way of mitigating against oppression is through the use of a transformative curriculum (e.g., Shea et al., 2006, Boske, 2014a, 2014b; Brown, 2004; Marshall & Oliva, 2010). A transformative curriculum therefore calls for a reform in the way school leadership is set to prepare teachers, parents and students to increase critical consciousness (e.g., Brown, 2004, 2006). It also calls for reflection and transformative actions on school leaders proposing such changes (Freire, 1970; Kaak, 2011). A transformative curriculum would therefore require deeper and more systematic analytical skills strategically targeted to work against domineering school practices (Bogotch & Shields, 2014; Marshall & Oliva, 2010). Hence, the preparation of school managers to embrace transformational curricular practices remains central. School leaders should be trained in building bridges across cultures using the primary senses as the vehicles to achieve the purpose. A sensory curriculum (e.g., Cahnmann-Taylor & Siegesmund, 2008; Ellsworth, 2005; Erlmann, 2010; Howes, 2005; Menon, 2010; Ranciere, 2010) gives priority to the bridging of curricular experiences through expression of photography, videography, poetry, artistic outputs, musical performances and dance. Sensory curricula express the need to understand who we are in relation to the world (Boske, 2014a; Greene, 2004; Pinar, 1988). Hence, learners need to be provided with opportunities which move beyond their very self, explore imaginative possibilities, construct creative alternatives, and utilize new evolving knowledge to empower themselves and reshape a new encompassing world (Boske, 2014a, 2014b; Greene, 1988; Pinar, 2011). There is a growing need to train school leaders to utilize the senses to become social actors to enact what they learnâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;negotiate meaning through changing educational contexts, interpersonal interactions with colleagues and students, and social exchange with the wider community. These

111

broader opportunities have a profound influence on school leaders‘ management styles, value-based judgements and decision making. Sensory curricula empower school leaders to move the office walls, urging teachers to follow suite and moving away from formal settings onto informal ones. Beachum and McCray (2011) are powerful in their assertion that ―communicating to students the school‘s attitudes toward a range of issues and problems, including how the school views them as human beings‖. This compels us to reflect upon the devastating consequences upon our students if we are not responsive to the issues and problems which are presented to us and which take the form of ―Cultural Racism‖. By exerting power into our systems of instruction and organisational culture we, as educational leaders are manipulating the cultural dynamics of the classroom. Such dynamics might not all be apt to the cultural composition of the classroom. It therefore transpires that the people exerting most influence on children do not share the same culture as the students they teach. Howard (2006, p.54) captures the essence of this in his book We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers – multicultural schools and states that ―In this way, the educational process has allowed those in power to selectively control the flow of knowledge and inculcate into young minds only those ―truths‖ that solidify and perpetuate their hegemony‖. White middle class cultures are overrepresented in schools as is the dominant culture represented in the social media. It must be stated that white teachers fail to perceive ―whiteness‖ as a race and are unaware of the implications that this may hold. As the dominant group, white teachers do not hold perspectives. Instead, they hold ―universal truths‖ and the message they deliver to students of other cultures is that of dominance and authoritativeness. If teachers in our schools are not cognizant of their own culture and the way this impacts on instructional processes, then they cannot be expected to effectively include the various cultures of the students residing in their classes and design and implement a culturally relevant pedagogy which is more apt to the educational needs of the individual students present in their classrooms. For teachers to be trained in a Culturally Relevant Pedagogy they must first be aware of their baseline assumptions that all students belong to the same culture, pertain to the same home environment, exposed to the same curriculum and thought by the same teacher, and therefore should learn what is prescribed by the ―authorities‖ on the subject matter. But, of course, such argument is mined by a number of potholes. Children do not come to school carrying the same luggage of experiences and cultural dispositions. Their viewpoints are coloured according to the cultural baggage they are carrying in the form of values, norms, behaviour, experiences which characterises their identity. They do not come to school from the same cultures, their experiences are unique as much as their values are. If a teacher is able to use the cultural capital present in his/ her classroom then s/he would be able to discover different ―truths‖ present in his/ her classroom and becomes cognizant of the notion that there is not only one ―truth‖ but a multitude of truths existing concurrently. The concept of the melting pot being frequently put forward as a metaphor for describing a ―heterogenous society becoming increasingly homogenous‖

112

(Wikipedia, 2015) is itself a celebration of the whole ―pot‖ rather than the ingredients composing that ―pot‖. Hence it is arguable whether the melting pot methaphor can be conveniently used to in the classroom situation. Deriving from our own experiences, what truly happens in our classrooms is that students engage in an inner struggle to concede fragments of their culture in an attempt to negotiate acceptance from their peers in return – a process which Herbst (1997) in his study on cultural discrimination in North America calls ―Deculturalisation‖. Banks (2012) states that deculturalisation is the destruction of the culture of a dominant group and its replacement by the dominant group. For school leaders and managers an understanding of deculturalisation assumes vital importance in school development planning. Primarily, curricula have been set in ways which promulgate sets of values and norms over others, transforming themselves into effective vehicles for deculturalisation processes and be able to devise effective strategies which prevents the dismantling of minority cultures at the expense of the dominant culture. Drawing from sociological theory (Eg: Bourdieu, 1984; Bernstein, 2002), Spring, 2009 is adamant on the process of deculturalization and insists that schools have to some extent or another committed cultural crimes in the interest of assimilation and integration. Spring (2009) distinguishes distinguishes between the terms cultural genocide and deculturalization. While cultural genocide is an attempt is an attempt to destroy culture, deculturalisation moves a step forward and attempts to replace minority culture with the dominant culture. For (Spring 2009, p.9) assimilation is merely an attempt to ―absorb and integrate cultures into the dominant culture‖, which actually means that the minority must succumb to the dominant culture. Schecter & Bayley, (2002) exemplify Spring‘s (2009) explanation of assimilation by citing the example of Spanish speaking students being urged to adapt to English Language, the final result being that students are in a continuous ―comparative exercise‖ of comparing their home cultures with the school or classroom cultures, with the classroom culture taking the lead in the whole process. Although school do foster a culture of pluralistic values, there seems to be little or no effective results in students maintaining their own language, traditions and cultural artifacts. This is further amplified and promulgated by catch words as For all children to succeed, No child left behind, Building the future together and Towards a curricular strategy for all,- notably implying that everybody can learn within the framework as ―experts‖ dictate. Schools have themselves a dichotomous paradigm of two cultures, the school culture and the home culture of which both are surreal in their existence. Through this process of dichotomising school-home culture, students feel compelled to surrender their own culture to the dominant school culture, eventually silencing themselves to hear the deafening voice of the loud culture. There are certainly more apt ways which school leaders can develop to celebrate the culture of students residing in their school. School should embrace policies which encompass all cultures in their schools, and build schooling around the complex and multifaceted nature of students and their culture taking into account all incoming cultures modifying formal and informal learning to suit the

113

cultural composition in their schools and classrooms. This would, in turn, transform itself in an environment which is truly accepting, safe conducive to emotional stability, reduces levels of stress and points to higher quality learning, in other words, a culturally responsive pedagogy. This would allow students the flexibility to learn in the way that suits them most, from their own vantage point thus influencing stakeholders to engage in critical reflexive processes aimed at reshaping policies and pedagogic repertoires.

Basic Tenants of a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) is not based on pure academics. Instead it relies on formal, informal and non-formal education. It celebrates all kinds of success. Banks and Banks (1995, p.160) explain that ―despite the current social inequalities and hostile classroom environments students must develop their academic skills. The way these skills are developed may vary but all students need literacy, numeracy, technological, social and political skills‘. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy advocated for the use of academic skills both outside and inside the classroom and extends success to include vaster conceptual understanding of what is termed to be ―successful‖ i.e. social, emotional, economic, political, humanitarian and others without disregarding the importance of reading, writing and arithmetic as essential prerequisites for academic and social functions. This is what Freire (1970, 1973) calls critical consciousness. A culturally relevant pedagogy advocates for acculturisation – a process by means the dominant and minority cultures construct a new vibrant reality (Nieto, 2000; Sleeter, 1992) rather than one culture being subservient to another or absorbed into a greater encompassing culture. By means of successive acculturization processes, culturally responsive educators and their students build positive, constructive, trustful, knowledge based interaction rather than imbalanced unhealthy relationships paving the way for tensions and radical practices. CRP pushes forward a critical reflective processes delving interchangeably between the self and the other within a context of a peaceful educational journey for both teachers and students. Culturally relevant pedagogy urges a line of thought where both teachers and students are active actors in an evolving drama, construct a pedagogy where they become masters of their own culture, and subservient only to the new scaffolded pedagogy as a result of their interaction. This interaction is transactional in nature since it leads to heightened awareness of each other‘s culture, maximising the learning opportunities of both teacher and students. Together the whole concept of education is reconstructed paving the way for multifaceted ways in which the actors involved can teach and learn. CRP then becomes a tool where barriers are dismantled and new cultural values are reconstructed based on what teachers and students learn and teach. CRP therefore works at deconstructing hidden curricula and rebuilding new concrete ones.

114

A Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership Model Teachers and students enter the classroom with a number of preconceptions, predispositions and biases into the teaching and learning processes so each and every member within the classroom must deliberately engage in an intrinsic effort to deconstruct his/ her prejudices and engage in a collective effort to construct new learning paradigms. To be able to do this, leaders must engage in a process of reflection whereby prejudices, biases, assumptions and preconceptions make space for newly constructed knowledge. Below is a model which attempts to captivate the essence of the underpinnings outlined above. Reflective Process

L e a d e r s h i p

Teacher -Student Interaction

Deconstructing

Reconstructing

New Knowledge

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Figure 1: A Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership model

L e a d e r s h i p

115

The cyclical process of the model calls for an active engagement from both teachers and students and such mobile engagement should not be limited to the teaching and learning process within the school but goes beyond, permeating school walls and effectively reaching society at large. Following the reflective stage the actors are now in a position to deconstruct knowledge. This process would involve a critical examination, the extent of which is measured in the light of the cultural relevance of the participants and the curriculum they are supposed to be following. Parts of the curriculum which contain culturally relevant pedagogy should be endorsed by all the stakeholders while elements involving culturally biased assumptions and prejudices are reconstructed in manners which ease transactional learning processes between teachers, students, school administrators, curricular designers and society at large. An effective deconstructive- constructive process will essentially prove its worth when all stakeholders shoulder collective responsibility for the new constructive knowledge driving emergent norms, values and pedagogical processes to unprecedented ethical heights. This would, in turn, culminate in more equitable student learning, greater teacher satisfaction, more involvement from stakeholders with rippled positive effects to the wider society. School leaders need to act as catalysts urging students and teachers to be participative, proactive and initiate parallel processes, thus stimulating culturally relevant pedagogical practices. These processes would then ―feedback‖ new reflective processes along new avenues facilitated by effective leadership. It is the School‘s Senior Management Team responsibility to motivate, energise and stimulate processes in the mutual interest of all stakeholders. Thus, a culturally responsive pedagogy would endure that a knowledge base is developed by both students and teachers within and beyond classroom setups and by curricular and pedagogical leaders within and beyond school setups. This would, in turn, inform and stimulate the wider society who will itself become an active proponent of culturally relevant practice in its multifaceted functions. Curricula would therefore do away with being immovable or serving the needs of those who constructed them rather than those who dwell in them. Curricula are therefore constantly challenged and deliberated distabilized to accommodate each and every participant. Thus there is no single research based practise but rather a plethora of practices, informing pedagogical responsibility of both teacher and student. The long practised didactic relationship (teacher teaching directly to the student) would become less relevant, making space for the continuous evolution of constructed knowledge and mutual exchange of experiences. Curricular leaders must therefore build leadership, curriculum and instruction on the ―cultural baggage‖ which themselves and the students build. A Culturally Responsive Pedagogy brings to the surface what is already present in a meaningful and progressive manner, dismantling traditional ―walls‖ between teachers and students – permitting the space for students to teach and teachers to learn.

116

Conclusion School leadership is in a constant change of flux. The more the presence of ―other‖ cultures in our schools prevail, the more urgent is the need for culturally responsive leadership. There is an unprecedented need to cultivate the fertile ground which will embrace all students and educators irrespective of their cultural or linguistic background. This presents a challenge for school leaders to immerse themselves into what actually constitutes an effective culturally responsive leadership. It is hoped that the model presented above (figure 1) would serve as a trigger to stimulate a public discussion on the necessity of raising awareness among educational stakeholders to engage themselves in deliberate thinking mechanisms aimed at facilitating culturally responsive leadership. It is a challenge for educational stakeholders to continue proposing different frameworks (or a refinement of this framework) aimed at increasing cultural responsiveness. School leaders are in an enviable position to lead critically responsive teams for such models to effectively come to life. Effective leaders can use the model to further involve parents into school activities urging them to contribute from their own cultural capital. This contribution will then form the basis for new knowledge to be negotiated among all stakeholders, further informing leadership processes. This would enable the wider community to be more equipped to embrace the contribution that each culture and each individual has towards a more just and peaceful society.

References: Ageng‘a, A. R. & Simatwa, E. M. W. (2011). Assessment of conflict management and resolution in public secondary schools in Kenya: a case study of Nyakach district. Educational research, 2 (4), 1074–1088. Banks, J (2012). Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education Banks, C. A. M. & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 152-158. Barry, B (2000). Culture and Equality. Cambride, UK: Polity Press. Beachum, F. D., & McCray, C. R. (2011). Cultural collision and collusion: Reflections on hiphop culture, values, and schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Bell, D (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The Permanence of Racism, New York, N.Y: Basic Books. Bernstein (2002). Educational codes and Social control, British Journal of sociology of Education (23), 4. Blankstein, A. M., & Houston, P. D. (2011). Leadership for social justice and democracy in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Bogotch, I., & Shields, C.M. (2014). Introduction: Do promises for social justice trump paradigms of educational leadership and social (in)justice. In Ira Bogotch & Carolyn M. Shields (Eds.)International handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice.(pp.1-12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

117

Bonner, F. A., II, Marbley, A. F., & Agnello, M. F. (2004). The diverse learner in the college classroom. E-Journal of Teaching and Learning in Diverse Settings, 1(2), 246-255. Boske, C., & Diem, S. (2012). Global leadership for social justice: Taking it from the field to practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Boske, C., & McEnery, L. (2012). Catalysts: Assistant principals who lead for social justice. In A. R. Shoho, B. G. Barnett, & A. K. Tooms (Eds.), Examining the assistant principalship: New puzzles and perennial challenges for the 21st (pp. 125-152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Boske, C. (2014a). Critical reflective practices: Connecting to social justice. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International Handbook of Social [In] Justice and Educational Leadership (pp. 289-308). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Boske, C. (2012). Educational leadership: Building bridges among ideas, schools and nations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Boske, C. (2014b). Using the senses in reflective practice to prepare women for transforming their learning spaces. In W. Sherman & K. Mansfield (Eds.), Women interrupting, disrupting, and revolutionizing educational policy and practice (pp. 225-253). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Boyle-Baise, L. & Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Community-based service learning for multicultural teacher education. Educational Foundations, 14(2), 33-50. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction, Routhledge pp. 5-41. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Brown Richard (Ed.), Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change, 71-112. London, UK: Tavistock. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brown, K. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 79-110. Brown, K. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,42 (5), 700–745. Brooks, J. S. (2012). Black school white school: Racism and educational (mis) leadership. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York. Harper & Row. Cahnmann-Taylor, M. (2008). Arts-based research: Histories and new directions. In M. Cahnmann-Taylor & R. Siegesmund (Eds.), Arts-based research in education: Foundations for practice (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Routledge. Cullingford, C. and Gunn, S. (2005). Globalization, Education and Culture Shock: Monitoring Change in Education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. ) Carr, K. (2001). ‗Missing out: The politics of exclusion and inequality‘. Paper presentation to Australian Fabians Society Conference – For the rest of their lives – Education and Inclusion, 30–31 March, Melbourne. Chungmei, L. & Orfield, G. (2005). "Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality". The Civil Rights Project. Harvard University: 1–47. Dale, R. (2005). Globalization, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education. Comparative Education 41(2): 32. Daun, H., Ed. (2002). Educational Restructuring in the Context of Globalization and National Policy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive Conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflict issues. In DeDreu and Van De Vliert (Eds.). Using conflicts in organisations, 9– 22. London: Sage.

118

Delpit, L. (1995). Other Peoples' Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New Press. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Toms River, NJ: Capricorn Books. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and education. Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan. Di Paola, M. F. & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Formalization, conflict and change: constructive and destructive consequences in schools. The International Journal of Educational Management, (15), 238-244. Eilor, J, et. al. (2003). Impact of Primary Education Reform Program (PERP) on the Quality of Basic Education in Uganda. Paris: Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York, NY: Macmillan. Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. New York: Routledge Falmer. Erlmann, V. (2010). Reason and resonance: A history of modern aurality. Cambridge, MA: Zone Books. Farkas, G. (2006). "How Educational Inequality Develops". National Poverty Center. Working Paper Series, 1–50. Ferreira, F. & Gignoux, J (2014). The Measurement of Educational Inequality: Achievement and Opportunity. World Bank Economic Review, 28, (2), 210 246.doi:10.1093/wber/lht004. Fillipo, A. & De Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Natural conflict resolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C. A. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York]: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. [1st American ] ed. A Continuum book. New York, : Seabury Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass). Gamoran, A. (2001). "American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the 21st Century". Sociology of Education (74), 135–153.doi:10.2307/2673258. Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Gershon, W. S. (2010). Entertaining ideas and embodied knowledge: Musicians as public intellectuals. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, Burdick, & J. Burdick (Eds.), The handbook of public pedagogy, 628–638. New York: Routledge. Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Greene, M. (2004). Curriculum and consciousness. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (2nd ed.), 135-147. New York, NY: Routledge. Greenstone, M. (2011). "Improving Student Outcomes: Restoring America's Education Potential". The Hamilton Project. Strategy Paper, 1–30. Heckman, P. E. "School Restructuring in Practice: Reckoning with the Culture of School." International Journal of Educational Reform (July 1993): pp.263-71. Haskins, R & Kemple, J (2009). A New Goal for America's High Schools: College Preparation for All. The Future of Children (19), 1–7. Haycock, K (2001). Closing the Achievement Gap. Helping All Students Achieve (58), 6–11. Heck, R. H. and Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). School culture and performance: testing the invariance of an organizational model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 76–96.

119

Herbst, P. (1997). The color of words: An encyclopedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Howard, G. R. (2006). We can't teach what we don't know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Howes, D. (Ed.) (2005). Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader (179–191). Oxford: Berg Press. Kaak, P. A. (2011). Power-filled lessons for leadership educators from Paulo Freire. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(1), 132-144. Kalyanpur, M. (2003). A challenge to professionals: Developing cultural reciprocity with culturally diverse families. Focal Point, 17(1), 1–6. Kincheloe, J., & Pinar, W. (2003).(Eds.). Curriculum as social psychoanalysis: The significance of place. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Kridel,C. (2010). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies.USA: SAGE publication, Inc. MMoE. (2015).Official Website for Malaysia's Smart School Project .Retrieved 17th June 2015, from http://www.ppk.kpm.my/smartschool/National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2004). Curriculum Assessment and ICT In the Irish Context: A discussion paper. Kumashiro, K. K. (2002). Theories and practices of antioppressive education. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive education, 376. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer Leavy, P. (2009). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York: Guilford Press. Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2010). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1964). The German ideology. Moscow: Progress. Menon, R. (2010). Seductive aesthetics of postcolonialism. New York, NY: Hampton Press. Mills, C. (2008). ‗Reproduction and transformation of inequalities in schooling: The transformative potential of the theoretical constructs of Bourdieu‘. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 (1), 79–89. Mills, C. (2005). ‗Reproduction and transformation in disadvantaged communities: A Bourdieuian perspective on improving the educational outcomes of students‘. Paper presented to the Australian Association of Research. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming Teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187. Noddings, N. (1984). The Challenge to Care in Schools, New York: Teachers College Press Phillips, G. (1993). What is school culture? http://www.schoolculture.net/whatisit.html/ Pinar, W. F. (1988). Autobiography and the architecture of self. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 8(1), 7-35. Pinar, W. F. (2011). What is curriculum theory? New York, NY: Routledge. Ranciere, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. New York, NY: Continuum. Schecter, S. R., Bayley, R. (2002). Language as cultural practice: Mexicanoes en el Norte. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shea, Kelly A., Balkun, Mary McAleer, Nolan, Susan A., Saccoman, John T., Wright, Joyce. (2006). One more time: Transforming the curriculum across the disciplines through technology-based faculty development and writing-intensive course redesign. Across the Disciplines,( 3) . Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/shea2006.cfm Shrivastava, M & Shrivastava, S (2014). Political economy of higher education: comparing South Africa to trends in the world. Higher Education, 64 (6): 809–822.

120

Shoho, A. R., Barnett, B. G., & Tooms, A. K. (2011). Examining the assistant principalship: New puzzles and perennial challenges for the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Keepers of the American dream: A study of staff development and multicultural education. London, UK: Falmer Spring, J. (2009). American Education (14th Ed). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Theoharis, G., & Brooks, J. S. (2012). What every principal needs to know to create equitable and excellent schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Tooms, A. K., & Boske, C. (Eds.) (2010). Building bridges: Connecting educational leadership and social justice to improve schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Vassallo B (2008). Classroom climate as perceived by Maltese and non-Maltese pupils in Malta, Malta Review for Educaional Research. Avaialble from http://www.mreronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MRERV6I1P61.pdf. [20 June 2015]. Wikipedia (2015). Melting Pot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot.

121

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 121-130, June 2015

The Survey on Classroom Discussion of Middle School Students Hua Zhang School of Psychology, Southwest University, Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of the Ministry of Education (Southwest University), Chongqing, 400715, China. Jinhui Cheng No 2 Middle School, Zunyi, Guizhou province, Zunyi, 563000, China. Xinyu Yuan No 1 Middle School, Longling, Baoshan, Yunnan province, Baoshan, 678300, China. Ying Zhang School of Computer and Information Science and Software, Southwest University, Chongqing, 400715, China.

The study has been supported by a grant from the Youth Fund Program of the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Ministry of Education in China (the number is 14YJC190024) and the Youth Fund Program of the Social Sciences in Chongqing of China (the number is 2014QNSH18).

Abstract: Classroom discussion was an effective method to cultivate studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thinking ability, expressing ability and creativity. This study investigated the status of classroom discussion of 1228 middle school students by a self-compiled scale. The results showed that the scale of classroom discussion had good reliability and validity. In the three dimensions of the classroom discussion, the teacher support gained the highest score; the discussion topic and form gained the lowest score and the student participation was in the middle level. However, these three dimensions had not reached the satisfactory level. There were significant

122

differences in the three dimensions of classroom discussion between students from only child and multiple children families. Also the junior school students and high school students were significantly different in the classroom discussion. Keywords: classroom discussion; creativity; middle school students

Introduction The report of “learning to survive” from International Education Development Commission of UNESCO pointed out that the education could not only develop creativity but also stifle creativity (Chun Lin, Jing Wang, 2000). Even though teaching or learning creativity may seem to be a very challenging task for educators In education, it is possible to discover the creativity of an student and to eventually develop this potential(Lee Kyunghwa,2015). To cultivate creative talents, the teacher should give students the opportunity training the ability of creative thinking in the class. Classroom discussion was a kind of free discussion on an important topic prepared by the students and guided by the teachers (Chun Lin, Jing Wang, 2000). It plays a vital role in developing students-centred learning, stimulating students’ speculative thinking and cultivating their cooperative spirit (Xingjiang Li, 2014). Classroom discussion provided a good chance for students to cultivate their ability of creative thinking. It was one of the teaching methods which can be easily realized in middle school classroom. This study attempted to investigate the status quo and characteristics of middle school students on classroom discussion by a self-compiled scale. It not only could provide a measurement tool for classroom discussion but also find out whether the current situation of middle school students in classroom discussion was satisfactory. Creativity was unique to human beings, and it was a psychological trait which one brought novel, unique, feasible and applicable products by certain conditions. (Qinglin Zhang, Sternberg, Jiwei Si, Zhan Xu, 2002). The creativity in the field of education was to cultivate the students' creativity, and it was the premise. Namely it was a thinking activity which on the basis of acquired knowledge one imagined, conceived and got creative ideas, or analyzed and solved all kinds of problems which there were on solution to the formers. Classroom discussion was one of the important ways to cultivate students' creativity because its major characteristic was cultivating students’ creative practice and its major form was constructing educative, creative and practical activities. Thus, classroom discussion was most suitable for cultivating the students’ creative thinking (Jian Niu, 2001). The research on classroom discussion paid more attention to the purpose, the function and the theme of the discussion. The purpose of classroom discussion

123

was to motivate the students' interest and curiosity in learning content, stimulate students to think, question, explain, reflect and recall (Chuanbao Jin, 2011). Discussion was an effective way to develop students' consciousness of participation. It was also beneficial to train students’ language skills, enhance the mutual understanding between teachers and students and between students, and cultivate students' confidence, cooperation spirit, thinking ability and innovative ability (Mancang Liang, 2009). Classroom discussion provided a stage for students to develop their own thinking ability and display their talent. It not only benefited to their cultivation of thinking ability, but also could foster their presentation skill, participating consciousness and innovative consciousness (Jiafang Wei, Zhuying Ling, 2003).Regarding to the subject of classroom discussion, how to choose it was not optional. The topic or subject of classroom discussion should be determined by the students' common problems in the study (Tizheng Wang, 1984). In addition, in the activities of the classroom discussion, the participation of students and teachers attracted many researchers to study. From the students’ side, there were some differences between the students of different gender. The boys tended to feel happy questioning about the reading material, while the girl would resist a discussion that seemed to be hostile to them. Most boys more easily accepted the classroom debate as a learning tool, and arguing in the classroom was more suitable for boys (Xiaozhen Shi, 1997). The teacher should keep the proper silence in classroom discussion and gave enough time to wait students explaining the answer. As a teacher, it was important to remain calm and patient. When the students were thinking, teachers just wait (Chuanbao Jin, 2011). On one hand, teachers should try to control their emotions, avoid randomly revealing the appreciation or opposing opinions to students, and trait them equally as much as possible. On the other hand, teachers should timely analyze, guide, and correct some contradictory conclusion, wrong inferences, superficial argument of the students, but they were sure to take the right way to avoid hurting the students' self-esteem and depressing students’ enthusiasm to discuss. Teachers should ensure that each student participate the discussion equally, pay more attention to the students who lack enthusiasm for participation. At the same time teachers should stimulate their performance desire, give their opportunity, not demand quality, and focus on emotional support and encouragement (Baoqun Ai, 2006). The teacher should pay attention to the answer of the students who were not consistent with his own views, and it was likely that the answer is a new understanding and explanation that the teacher had not expected (Jinkuan Cheng, 1996).

124

Research design On the basis of referencing the previous research literature, an open-ended questionnaire about class discussion was given out to 10 normal students and some items were collected. After classifying and consolidating these items, 3 experts discussed and modified them several times, and 25 items about classroom discussion were obtained. Using Likert five point rating table, subjects were required to judge the description of 25 items among “fully accord”, “mostly accord”, “generally accord”, “less accord”, and “do not accord”. These answers were scored by using 5 points for “fully agree” down to 1 point for “do not agree”. In order to test the criterion validity, the creativity of one part of subjects was also measured by Williams Creativity Assessment Packet(Williams, 1980).The scale had 50 items, the answer had three, and the subjects were asked to choose one from the three, that is “full accord”, “partial accord” and “do not accord” . The score was divided positive score and reverse score. The scale measured one’s creative tendency from four dimensions, which were adventure, curiosity, imagination and challenges. Questionnaires were distributed to 1400 middle school students in Chongqing and Tianjin of China. Permission was obtained from teachers in classes. After a brief explanation of the study, prospective participants were sought. They were given the questionnaire with the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality of responses. Participants were informed that they were not under any obligation to participate and they had the right to withdraw at any point if they felt inclined to discontinue with the investigation. Participants were also informed that there were no right or wrong answers and were encouraged to be honest in their responses (Hua Zhang, Xuechun Yang, Ying Zhang & Brian John Hennessy, 2014). 1228 valid questionnaires were returned, the effective recovery rate was 87.71%. The subjects were between 11 and 20 years old, and the average age was 14.95 years (the standard deviation is 1.651). Male students were 557(45.4%), female subjects were 659(53.7%), and the missing was 12(1%). Only children are 591(48.5%), non-only children are 624(50.8%), and the missing was 8(0.7%). The junior school students are 635(51.8%), high school students are 591(48.2%), and the missing is 2(1%). The subjects who filled out the scale of Williams Creativity Assessment Packet were 522. Data were processed by AMOS17.0 and SPSS16.0.

Results The reliability and validity of the scale of middle school students Combining the reliability of items and content analysis for one 614 samples, 6 items were deleted. The left 19 items were divided into three dimensions including the discussion topic and form (7 items), for example, “the topic of classroom discussion always interested me”; the student participation (7 items), for example: “team members often encouraged each other to speak as much as

125

possible”; and teacher support (5 items), for example: “in the discussion, the teachers encouraged us to thinking and questioning others’ opinions.” The Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of three dimensions were respectively 0.778, 0.795, and 0.660 and the total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the total questionnaire was 0.893. The reliability of another 614 samples had a good level. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of each dimension were also acceptable. The discussion topic and form was 0.766, the student participation was 0.788, and the teacher support was 0.798.The total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was 0.906. Further analysis found that the total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the 1228 was 0.902, and the Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of junior school students almost aged from 12 to 15 was 0.891, and the Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of high school students almost aged from 15 to 18 was 0.907. It showed that the scale had a good reliability and was suitable for different ages in middle school. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the main indicators of fitting the model were good. The fitting index of χ2/df was 4.594, RMR was 0.085, GFI was 0.900, TLI was 0.857, CFI was 0.876, and RMSEA was 0.077. The fitting index reached the recommended standard (Chongzeng BI, Xiting Huang, 2009), suggesting that classroom discussion scale had good construct validity. The creativity of students was measured. The total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of Williams Creativity Assessment Packet in this survey was 0.906. There was no significantly correlation between the topic and form, the student participation in classroom discussion and the imagination in creativity in Table 1. However, the other dimensions of classroom discussion and creativity were significantly correlated with different degrees. It showed that the scale of the classroom discussion had good criterion validity. Table 1. The correlation coefficient between classroom discussion and creativity. Adventure

Curiosity

Imagination

Challenges

The discussion topic and form

0.144**

0.124**

0.053

0.092*

The student participation

0.184**

0.145**

0.068

0.140**

The teacher support

0.194**

0.181**

0.102*

0.164**

* p＜0.05, ** p＜0.01.

The characteristics of middle school students’ classroom discussion The means of the three dimensions of the classroom discussion of middle school students (N=1228) were at the lower level, including the discussion topic and form (3.36±0.84), the students participate (3.67±0.82), and the teacher support (3.78±0.82). From the current situation of classroom discussion, the teacher support was the highest level, the student participation was in the second, and the topic and the form was the lowest. It was obvious that the middle school students evaluated the objective factors relatively lower, and evaluate the

126

subjective environments relatively higher. There was no significant difference in the three dimensions of classroom discussion in different gender students. Table 2. The t test of classroom discussion for the middle school students between students from only child family and multiple children families. Means and standard deviation Students from

Students from

only child

multiple children

families (n=596)

families (n=624)

3.39±0.84

3.33±0.83

t=1.224,p=0.221

The student participation

3.73±0.83

3.61±0.82

t=2.498,p=0.013

The teacher support

3.73±0.82

3.83±0.82

t=-2.268,p=0.024

Classroom discussion

The discussion topic and

t, p

form

* p＜0.05, ** p＜0.01.

The means of the discussion topic and form, and the student participation of students from only child families were higher than those from multiple children families in Table 2. It was found that there was significant difference in the student participation by independent samples t test (p＜0.05), and the student participation of students from only child families was significant higher than those from multiple children families. However, in the dimension of the teacher support, students from multiple children families were significant higher than those from only child families (p＜0.05). Table 3.The t test of classroom discussion between junior school students and high school students. Means and standard deviation Classroom discussion

Junior school

High school

students (n=635)

students (n=591)

3.54±0.78

3.17±0.85

t=7.793,p=0.000

The student participation

3.78±0.81

3.55±0.83

t=4.798,p=0.000

The teacher support

3.89±0.82

3.66±0.81

t=4.981,p=0.000

The discussion topic and

t, p

form

* p＜0.05, ** p＜0.01.

From Table 3, the means of all three dimensions of classroom discussion for junior school students were higher than high school students, and there were significant differences between them (p ＜ 0.05). The junior school students evaluated the discussion topic and form, the student participation and the teacher support higher than high school students.

127

Discussion General characteristic of classroom discussion The structure of classroom discussion included objective factor and subjective factor. Objective factor referred to the content and way of classroom discussion, was also named the discussion topic and form; subjective content was about the participant, namely the student participation and the teacher support. From the results of this survey, the middle school students evaluated the classroom discussion not so highly, which showed that there was still a lot of room for improvement in the classroom discussion. Regarding to the discussion topic and form, it should be targeted, typical, challenging and open, thus the purpose of learning and mastering knowledge could be achieved (Kunling Fu, 2013). And it was necessary to take more flexible and novel form in classroom discussion. In the classroom discussion taking the student as the center, the student participation should be very important, however the middle school students evaluated this lower than the teacher supports. The activity of classroom teaching was not only the bilateral activity between the teachers and students, but also the multilateral activity between students. The advantages of classroom teaching activity for students' individual development is that the interaction and mutual influence of the learning community. It should be said that in most occasions, good cooperation between students is better than personal efforts (Guoping Wu, 2000). In classroom discussion, the student was in the main position, the communication between students and the encouragement from each other would play the effect on the classroom discussion activities. Middle school students evaluated the teacher support the highest, which showed that the idea of cultivating students' comprehensive quality had been recognized by many teachers, and they put the idea into action and supported studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; exploratory behaviors. Students were the center of classroom discussion, teachers were a guide, partner, sharer, and teachers should teach them how to master the cooperative learning method and the necessary cooperative skills (Kunling Fu, 2013). The relationship between teachers and students in classroom discussion was equal, and teachers and students listened to each other, they were also questioners and responders. Only in this way, students could speak freely, said the doubt and got it on their thinking in a relaxed, equal, free atmosphere of dialogue teaching, (Cuirong Yang, ChengJun Zhou, HongTao Wei, 2013). In the course of the classroom discussion, the teacher could not easily interrupt and evaluate, but guided them timely according to the rhythm of discussion, maintained a warm and harmonious learning environment (Rui Li, 2012). Teachers also accepted students to question and supported students with different ideas, encouraged students to participate in classroom discussions, thus, students in the classroom would be more eager to speak, put forward different questions and viewpoints (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). Another finding about it was meaningful. Students were more prone to

128

elaborate their contributions, more easily engaged in discussion topics aligned with their interests, and resolved conflicts if they were in peer-led discussions than teacher-led discussions (Jeong-bin ea al., 2015). Group differences in classroom discussion The mean of the student participation for students from only child families in classroom discussion was significant higher than those from multiple children families. It may be related to the family environment of the only child. In the only child families, they had no brothers and sisters and lacked of peers and communication in peers in most time. When the class carried out such activities, the only child had the opportunity for discussing with peers, and perceived more student participation, peer encouragement and so on. In the dimension of teacher support, the students from multiple children families were significantly higher than students from multiple children families. Because of family environment, students from multiple children families might get less parents concern and opportunities for communication, compared with students from only child families, they lack the interaction with the elders. Thus in classroom discussion activities, various supports from teachers gained their much more recognition. The junior school students were significantly higher than the high school students in all three dimensions of classroom discussion. It demonstrated that the junior students recognize the classroom discussion higher than the high school students. In the high school classroom, the classroom discussion was conducted less and less, especially for the high grade students. Their pressure of college entrance examination not only made them difficult to carry out regular classroom discussion, but also have less time to participate the classroom discussion fully. The classroom discussion was helpful to the development of divergent thinking. Students in the multilateral communication dared to express their unique views, which were conducive to the cultivation of innovative consciousness (Guoping Wu, 2000). But at this time, the classroom discussion gave way to exam oriented education, and this problem should deserve concerns.

Conclusion This study had the following conclusions. Firstly, the classroom discussion scale had good reliability and validity, which could be used to measure students' classroom discussion. Secondly, the classroom discussion of middle school students did not reach the ideal level, the discussion topic and form was the lowest, followed by the student participation, and the teacher support was the highest. Thirdly, there were significant differences in the student participation and the teacher support between students from only child families and multiple children families. In all three dimension of classroom discussion, junior school

129

students and high school students were significantly different. There was no difference in the classroom discussion between different gender students.

References Baoqun Ai. (2006). The problems and countermeasures of the classroom discussion. Educational Practice and Research,(6), 4-5. Chongzeng Bi, Xiting Huang.(2009). Preparation of self-confidence questionnaire on young students. Acta Psychological Sinica, 41(5), 444-453. Chuanbao Jin. (2011). The study on effective technology for primary and middle school teachers to nourish the classroom. Basic Education, 8(3), 104-109. Chun Lin, Jing Wang. (2000). Cultivating students’ self-learning and innovation ability by the classroom discussion. Journal of Shanxi Medical University (Preclinical Medical Education Edition) ,(2), 199-200. Cuirong Yang, Chengjun Zhou, Hongtao Wei. (2013). Promote the teacher questioning in classroom discussion. Contemporary Education Science,(12), 20-22. Guoping

Wu.

(2000).

Conduct

discussion

timely

and

cultivate

creative

potential--training the innovative consciousness of students in mathematics class discussion, Study on Teaching Method,39(9), 41-42. Hua Zhang,Xuechun Yang,Ying Zhang, Brian John Hennessy.(2014). Dimensions of Perceived Support for Innovation Scale: A Comparison of Students from Only Child and Multiple Children Families in a Chinese University；British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science,(5), 633-646. Jiafang Wei, Zhuying Ling (2003). The role of classroom discussion playing in cultivating students' creative thinking ability. Journal of Baicheng teachers college, 17( 4), 108. Jian Niu (2001). The classroom discussion and creative thought cultivating. Journal of Gansu Education College (social sciences), (17), 2237-239. Jinkuan Cheng. (1996). The strategies of stimulating the classroom discussion activity. Elementary & Secondary Schooling Abroad,(10), 28-30. Jeong-bin Hannah Park, Diane L. Schallert, Anke J.Z. Sanders, Kyle M. Williams,Eunjin Seo , Li-Tang Yu , Jane S. Vogler, Kwangok Song , Zachary H. Williamson ,Marissa C. Knox.(2015). Does it matter if the teacher is there?: A teacher's contribution to emerging patterns of interactions in online classroom discussions.Computers & Education ,(82), 315-328. Kunling Fu. (2013). Organize the effective classroom discussion. Learning Weekly, 186(6), 90. Lee Kyunghwa.(2015). Development and Validation of K-ICT (Korea-Integrative Creativity Test) for Elementary and Secondary School Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,(186),305 – 314. Mancang Liang. (2009). Cultivating students’ consciousness of participation and the classroom discussion. Development(4), 88.

130

Qinglin Zhang, Sternberg, R. J., Jiwei Si, Zhan Xu.(2002).Creativity Research Handbook.Chengdu: Sichuan Education House,China,6-8. Rui Li.(2012). The composition and strategy of classroom discussion oriented by the students. Journal of Beijing Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Police College, (5), 84-86. Tizheng Wang. (1984). Class discussion. Journal of Higher Education,( 4), 59-61, 73. Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity assessment packet (CAP): Manual. Buffalo: D.O.K. Publishers, Inc. Xingjiang Li.(2014).Make mathematics classroom discussion real. Math Teaching In Middle School,(1).39-42. Xiaozhen Shi. (1997). The gender differences and equal opportunities in the classroom discussion. Elementary & Secondary Schooling Abroad,(6), 42-43. Yacke,E., & Cobb, P. (1996) .Socio -mathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, (2), 458-477.