slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on

Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning. A Study of Text-Based Writing Tasks i n Reading Instruction. Elaine Wang University of Pittsburgh Learning Sciences & Policy Ph.D. Program Milestone Two Presentation

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning A Study of Text-Based Writing Tasks in Reading Instruction Elaine Wang University of Pittsburgh Learning Sciences & Policy Ph.D. Program Milestone Two Presentation August 23, 2012

    2. Defining the Issue curricula Schemas for teaching & learning = motives or goals Perceived Constraints policy Enacted Practice Student Learning Image from http://reversethinking.typepad.com/weblog/brain/

    3. Purpose of Study • This study aimed to investigate and generate hypotheses about the relationships among teachers’ schema of effective practice, their enacted practice, and student learning, specifically around text-based writing tasks in reading instruction at the fourth grade. • Some questions the resulting hypotheses might address: • Do particular teacher schemas seem associated with particular student learning? • Which factors might moderate the relationship between teachers’ schema of effective practice and enacted practice? • Which elements of schema of effective practice might be more susceptible to constraints in enacted practice? • What might (mis)alignment between teacher’s schema and enacted practice mean for student learning?

    4. Significance of Study • Better understanding of the relationship between teachers’ schema of effective practice and enacted practice could improve student learning • Identification of constraints that hinder teachers from enacting ideal instruction could lead to interventions or PD that explicitly address these concerns and perceptions • Recognizing role of teachers’ schema has implications for supporting instruction aligned with approach advocated by standards and frameworks

    5. Theoretical Frameworks

    6. Schema Theory • Schemas help individuals understand the world by organizing one’s assumptions or accumulated knowledge into distinct and strongly interconnected patterns that are later accessed (Anderson, 1977; Bartlett, 1932; Piaget, 1926). • Schemas have the potential to instigate action; they can function as motives or goals (d’Andrade, 1992). • Areas of theoretical work on teaching reflecting this function of schemas: • Mathematics teaching and learning (Ernest, 1988) • Teacher decision-making framework (Bishop & Whitfield 1972) • Policy implementation research (Coburn, 2004; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002)

    7. Research on & Frameworks for Examining Writing Tasks • Examination of writing task includes characterizing cognitive demand of prompt, rigor of evaluation criteria, accepted student responses (Doyle, 1983; Matsumura, 2003), and teacher feedback (Hattie & Gan, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007) Prompt Feedback Instruction Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Student Responses

    8. Characterizing Cognitive Demand of Tasks • Ambiguity and risk (Doyle, 1983;Doyle & Carter, 1984) • Cognitive rigor (Matsumura et al.,2003) • Taxonomy of Skills for Reading and Interpreting Fiction (Hillocks& Ludlow, 1984) • Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2011) • Depth of Knowledge (Webb, 2002)

    9. Methods

    10. Research Design,Context & Participants • Qualitative exploratory comparative case study (Yin, 1994); theory-building case study (Einsenhardt, 1989) • Three 4th grade language arts teachers from three schools in a public district in mid-Atlantic state • Second-year participants in larger project • Sample representative of larger group of 59 teachers

    11. Data Collection - RTA (class set & focal responses) • What ought to be the role or purpose of text-based writing tasks? • What should an effective text-based writing task look like? • Plus artifact-based q’s • Cover sheet • Task • Assessment scheme • 4 pieces of graded student work (2 med., 2 high) • “Overall, how do you think Otis feels about his decision to hire the Tomcat? Explain…using 3-4 examples” (Correnti et al., 2012)

    12. Focal Students

    13. Qualitative Data Analysis Transcription  Multiple re-readings, analytic memos, iterative inductive coding, constant comparative method  Descriptive case study write-ups  Cross-case comparisons with matrix displays (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994)

    14. Schema of Effective Practice: Sample Categories & Codes

    15. Enacted Practice:Sample Category Codes - cognitive demand - skill - form of task - focal literary element - type of writing - required use of text - amount- nature- level - pre-writinginstructional activities Prompt Feedback Instruction Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Student Responses - quality of high vs. medium - variation - form of scheme- criteria- levels

    16. Perceived Constraints: Sample Categories & Codes (Buechler, 1991; Duffy & Roebler, 1986)

    17. Student Learning OutcomeSample Categories • Understanding of nuance of text • Cognitive level at which students approach task • Extent to which prompt is addressed • Claims made • Reasons given in support of claims • Relevance and nature of textual evidence • Explanation of inferences

    18. Findings & Discussion

    19. Schema of Effective Practice & Enacted Practice

    20. Representative Enacted Writing Task

    21. Schema of Effective Practice & Enacted Practice

    22. Coherence Between Schema & Enacted Practice

    23. Perceived Constraints ARLENE CHRIS. CHRIS. ARLENE Arlene Julie JULIE Julie Arlene CHRIS. Julie Julie

    24. Student Learning

    25. Emergent Hypotheses of Relationships Among Constructs • Enacted practice at least partially aligns with or follows from schema of effective practice. • Enacted practice significantly influences student learning. • Perception of high-level policy-oriented constraints is associated with greater inconsistencies between schema of effective instruction and enacted instruction. • The content and form of the prompt (along with the feedback process) are most susceptible to perceived constraints.

    26. …Emergent Hypotheses of Relationships Among Constructs • Coherence among elements of the schema is associated with stronger practice and student outcome. • Prioritizing tasks requiring analysis or interpretation of text is associated with better student outcome. • A schema of effective instruction (and enacted practice) that focuses on providing extensive, explicit guidance on the given prompt hinders students’ development of higher-level thinking skills.

    27. Limitations

    28. Methodological Limitations • Small sample size • Inter-rater agreement pending • Focus on text-based writing tasks

    29. Questions & Comments

    30. References

    31. References Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (1984). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press. Bishop, A. J. & Whitfield, R. (1972). Situations in teaching. London: McGraw Hill. [out of print] Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification for educational goals. New York: David McKay Company. Buechler, M. (1991). Constraints on teachers’classroom effectiveness: The teacher’s perspective. Policy Bulletin. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Education Policy Center. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244. Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., Hamilton, L., & Wang, E. (2012). Combining multiple measures of students’ opportunities to develop analytic text-based writing. Educational Assessment. (in press). D’Andrade, R. G. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In R. G. D’Andrade, & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models, pp. 23-44. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of educational research, 53, 159-199. Doyle, W, & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129- 149. Duffy, G. & Roebler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education. 37(1), 55-58. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.) Mathematics Teaching: The State of the Art, pp. 249-254. London: Falmer Press.

    32. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 249-27). New York: Routledge. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Hess, K. K. (2009). Cognitive rigor matrix. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/CRM_ELA_KH11.pdf Hillocks, G. Jr., & Ludlow, L. H. (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 7-24. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313. Matsumura, L. C. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 207–229. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. B. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions ‘at-scale’. Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267-300. Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A., Levison, A., Peterson, M., Resnick, L, & Junker, B. (2006). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment Toolkit to investigate the quality of reading comprehension assignments and student work. (CSE Technical Report #669). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schutzwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1182-11. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387-431. Webb, N. L. (2002). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

    33. Student Responses Prompt Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Instruction

    34. - cognitive demand- skill - form of task - focal literary element - type of writing - required use of text - quality of high vs. medium - variation Student Responses Prompt Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Instruction - pre-writinginstructional activities - criteria- levels