ikuta- 1 -
A study on teacher cognition of the on going teaching process
Takashi Ikuta*, Tadashi Asada**
*Faculty of Education and Human Sciences, Niigata University
E-mail:
** Faculty of Human Development, Kobe University
E-mail:
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland 22-25 September 1999
1.Why on going?
@The teaching process is based on the teacher’s cognition towards teaching-learning events and the skill of the teacher to respond in accordance to the students’ response. Teacher’s cognition is a basic factor in this process (Shulman and Elstrin 1975, Shavelson 1983). Until now, this research has been many focused on these points:
1) The teacher or researcher will discuss the teaching-learning process based on the events they remember well after the class.
2) Discussing the teaching-learning process using a protocol from the class.
3) Discussing the teaching-learning process using visual media from the class.
4) Replaying a visual or audio recording of class, stopping it to discuss problems with the teaching-learning process.
5)Record the teacher’s inner speech while replaying a video and analyze it.
All of these methods have problems with the way they collect data. When relying on remembered information after class, well-remembered information becomes the main focus. The protocol method relies on written information, so when it is read, it can cause a change in the reader’s memory when re-reading it. When replaying a video, the teacher and researchers may have time to think, therefore their interpretation of the teaching-learning process will not be the same as it was in class. The point of view is also limited to the camera’s field of view, which in turn affects how the date is seen.
In class, teachers must spontaneously recognize and decide how to teach. In order to study the teachers’ cognition and skills, we must gather data in an on going class. In this research I have focused on methods to gather data on the cognition processes in an on going class.
2. The purpose of this study
To have university and classroom teachers observed student teachers and then analyze distinguishing characteristics of their own cognition.
3.Methods of Research
1)The subjects are a junior high school teacher (JHS teacher) of Japanese and a university professor of education.
2)Time: June, 1998
3)Method of Data Collection: The JHS teacher and professor observe one Japanese language class and record their inner speech on a tape.
4)Using the recorded inner speech, they transcribe their inner speech on to paper, following the flow of class. This data is then analyzed for similarities and differences in cognition between the JHS teacher and the professor. Those distinguishing characteristics are then further analyzed.
Cognition
Recognized by both / Recognized by oneClassroom
/ Recognized by both / A / BEvents / Recognized by one / X / C
A = same characteristic of the same event is recognized by both subjects.
B= both subjects recognize the same event, but different characteristics
C= One event’s characteristics is only recognized by one subject.
X= Impossible Relationship
4Results
1) The comparison between the same classroom event
The comparison between the same classroom eventcognition recognized by both subjects is more frequent than that of only one subject’s cognition of a classroom event. For example, the JHS teacher instructs the student teacher to not just answer student questions, but to have a dialog; encourage the students to participate in class; ask the students questions based on their questions and impressions; and to be careful to respect the students own beliefs and ideas. In contrast, the professor advised the student teacher to observe his students carefully.
Fig 1 same events and different event
@ @ @ @ @
2) Same Recognized Event Characteristics and Different Recognized Event Characteristics
The same characteristics recognized by both subjects include writing on the blackboard, group activities, simple questions, checking word definitions, etc. These are fundamental elements in the development of class.
The different characteristics recognized by the subjects include image-producing questions, importance of words, the teacher’s method of encouraging students to express emotion through the use of words, etc. The JHS teacher focused on word usage and the importance of words. The professor only pointed out teaching skills. For example the importance of individual help and recognition of each student, reiteration of the student’s question, etc.
From the results of these two graphs, the JHS teacher recognized the class based on tacit knowledge. The professor recognized the class based on teaching skills.
Fig 2 cognition of same/different characteristics
３)Relationship between recognized objects, evaluation, techniques
Figure 3 shows the professor felt were problems in the class, his evaluation of those problems and his advice to solve them. These problems (objects) are categorized in these categories: “Teacher’s question”, “Writing on the blackboard”, “Teacher’s response to students”, “Class development”,“Teacher’s behavior”, “Student behavior”, “Student comprehension of class material” and “Verbal student participation”.
The evaluation was broken down into these categories: “Is the teacher’s question necessary or not?”“Is the teachers individual help and behavior towards the students appropriate?”, “Is the teacher’s response to the students sufficient and appropriate?”, “What is the quality of the teachers written information on the blackboard?”, “Evaluation of the students attitudes and behavior” and “Did students sufficiently comprehend the class material”. “No evaluation” includes all points that the professor did not evaluate.
Techniques include: “Teacher’s reiteration and redirection of student questions.”“The skill to evaluate the students learning and make adjustments.”, “Teacher’s answers to student questions.”, “Teacher’s skill to change the lesson to fit the class.”, “Teacher’s questioning techniques and calling on suitable students” and “No technique suggested.”
The lines connecting the objects, evaluations and techniques represent their relationship. The thin lines represent one reference between the connected boxes. The thicker lines show areas that the professor referred to between two to five times. The thickest line represents areas that he referred to more than six times.
From figure 3, you can see the professor referred to “Teacher’s response to students” the most. He evaluated this subject most frequently with these categories: “Is the teacher’s response to the students sufficient and appropriate?” and “Did students sufficiently comprehend the class material?”
Next is the relation ship between evaluation and techniques. In the evaluation section, “Is the teacher’s response to the students sufficient and appropriate?”“What is the quality of the teachers written information on the blackboard?” and “No evaluation” sections were referred to the most. In response to “Is the teacher’s response to the students sufficient and appropriate?” and “What is the quality of the teachers written information on the blackboard? There is no technique suggested. In response to the “No evaluation” section, the professor suggests, as a useful technique, “The skill to evaluate the students learning and make adjustments.”
The junior highs schoolteacher observations were put into these categories (see fig4): “Teacher’s question”, “Writing on the blackboard”, “Teacher’s response to student”, “Class development”, “Walking between desks, offering help”,“Where the teacher stands in the classroom.”,“Student behavior” and “Verbal student participation”. The evaluation section includes these categories: “Is the teacher’s question necessary or not?”“What is the quality of the teacher’s question?”, “Evaluation of physical behavior.”, “The teacher’s knowledge of tanka (Japanese poetry).”, “The teacher’s method of using the blackboard.”, “How was class development?”, “The importance of student opinions and questions.”, “The lack of student comprehension., “Evaluation of the students attitudes and behavior.” and “No evaluation”
The JHS teacher referred to the objects section “Teacher’s question” the most and evaluated it by the section “Is the teacher’s question necessary or not?” most frequently. In regards to this, no technique is strongly recommended. There is only one reference to the technique “Teacher’s reiteration and redirection of student questions.” Also in relation to the “Teacher’s question”, there are a few references to “What is the quality of the teacher’s question?” but no suggested technique.
Looking at the professor’s and JHS teacher’s evaluations, we can see distinct differences. The professor points out “Is the teacher’s response to the students sufficient and appropriate?” and “Did students sufficiently comprehend the class material” when focusing on the problem (subject). However, the JHS teacher instead focuses on” The teacher’s knowledge of tanka (Japanese poetry)”, the importance of student opinions and questions.” etc. For the JHS teacher, the contents of the teaching material are the focus of his observations.
Using the on-going class method, they both frequently did not suggest teaching techniques. This is because evaluation (good or bad) only takes a few moments, but it takes time to think of a solution (technique).
REFERENCES
Scavelson, R.J. (1983) Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, plans and decisions. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392-413.
Shulman,L.S. & Elstein,A.S.(1975) Studies of problem solving, judgment, and decision making: Implications for educational research. Review of research in education vol.3
ikuta- 1 -
Fig:3 professor
Fig4: JHS teacher