Quality of Promoting of New Generation Learning at School: Challenge for Teacher Education?
Author(s):
Irina Maslo Andra Fernate Daiga Kalnina
Conference:
ECER 2008
Network:
11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Format:
Paper

Session Information

11 SES 08, Higher Education to Improve Teaching Quality

Paper Session

Time:
2008-09-12
08:30-10:00
Room:
B1 133
Chair:
Guenter L. Huber

Contribution

Several comprehensive comparative education studies (OECD, CivEd and CivEd Old, PIRLS, etc) have been conducted in Latvia in the field of teenagers’ learning success (Geske, 2000; Kangro&Geske, 2001; Johansone, 2003) that are oriented towards assessment of teenagers’ learning success. There has been obtained significant information about the results of the quality of education but at present there are no studies in Latvia if this is exactly teacher’s pedagogical activity at school that promotes students’ learning success. The quality of pedagogical process at classroom and at school has not been studied. Thus there is a topical need to conduct in-depth study of the quality of pedagogical process. The authors of the paper offer for scientific discussion the results of the study conducted in 2007. The aim of the study was to determine correlations between the new generation teenagers’ learning and the quality of pedagogical process. The research question is as follows: which pedagogical activities carried out by the school, teachers and students themselves promote the success of students’ learning at elementary school and which ones prevent it. Theoretical basis of the study is formed by the conception of constructive learning, which stresses an individual’s active role in information processing and knowledge development (Sālbergs, 2003a). Constructive learning always is situated learning (Lamberigts, Dīpenbroks, 2004). Students learn taking into account their own interests broadening their possibilities for activity and thus improving their life quality (Helds, 2004; Tiļļa, 2005). The dimensions of the study are justified by the argument that pedagogical process is a permanent multi dimensional process, which is the process of promoting learning from the perspective of mutual interaction (student –study content - teacher), but from the perspective of collaboration it is a social cultural process. The individual dimension of the study: expressed the view-point of students, parents, teachers, and administrative staff about the activities that promote or prevent students’ learning in the 9th form; micro-system-dimension – individuals’ interaction in the context of classroom learning activities; mezo-system-dimension – the activities of the school and macro-system-dimension - a social and cultural context (Bronfenbrenners 1998), which has a direct or indirect impact on the micro-system in which an individual is involved. The dimensions of the study are united by the research question – which activities promote and which ones prevent the learning of the students of the 9th form.

Method

In order to solve the research question consecutive explorative research has been conducted in minority schools and schools, in which the language of instruction is the official language, in Latvian regions. The mixed methods of the research (Tashakkori, Teddlie, 2003) were used for the following stages of the research: 1) a structured interview for qualitative data collection (statements); 2) primary and secondary qualitative and quantitative data processing; 3) data analysis and interpretation. Applying the structured interview instrument, there were obtained statements of 6181 students, their parents, teachers and administrative staff about the activities carried out by the school, teachers, and students, which favored the students’ success at elementary school and which ones prevented it. The statements were coded according to the structural components of pedagogical process (Maslo, 1995), broadening them taking into account tendencies of the new generation learning. Quantitative data processing was done implementing SPSS 15.0 data processing software. Qualitative data processing – coding of notes, metacoding, and interpretation was done implementing AQUAD 6 software. Primary data analysis was done implementing descriptive statistics (analysis of frequencies, central tendency, variability, crosstabs, skewness and kurtosis indicators). Secondary data processing was done implementing the methods used for test reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha test). Taking into account the exact sample, non-parametric statistical methods were used (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, X² Test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test), etc.

Expected Outcomes

The results of the study reveal correlations between new generation teenagers’ learning and the quality of pedagogical process; describe the school, teachers, and students’ activities that promote and prevent students’ learning; as well as set forward the following necessary changes in teacher education for scientific discussion: • The administrative staff of the school and the students are aware of the necessity to pass from teaching to learning: the data shows that there is a correlation between the students’ learning motivation, organization of the learning processes and students’ participation in them; as well as between the promotion of the knowledge construction, the use of different teaching-learning methods and the intercultural learning of the students and the teacher. • However teachers are not aware of this necessity: there is a correlation between the fact that the teachers’ are unprepared for proficient professional activity in ever changing situations and the fact that the teachers are not ready to promote students’ learning. Conclusions: • The school oriented to success leads to the teacher that gains success, which in its turn, consequently leads to students that gain success. • The school oriented to problems leads to the teacher that does not gain success, which results in students that do not gain success. In order to improve the situation it is necessary to pay attention in teacher education to: • the possibility to enlarge students’ motion in classroom-activities; • the introduction of the methods that active learning (projects, training forms, etc, alongside with traditional lessons, which do not have to prevail); • the possibility for students to use ICT in the classroom and outside it; • wider students’ participation in subject competitions and exchange programmes in order to promote students’ active participation and co-responsibility; • promotion of experience exchange by welcoming guest-lecturers, popular persons whom the students find interesting, trussing to an open school.

References

Arnold, R. (1995) Theorie und Praxis des systemischen Lernens. Organizationslernen und Weiterbildung. Die strategische Antwort auf die Herausforderung der Zukunft. Berlin : Geissler (Hersg.), 352 – 361. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., Morris, P.A. (1998). The Ecology of Developmental Process. In Damon W. (ed). Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th ed. New York: John Willy & Sons. Brown, S., G. (1969) : Laws of Form, (Allen & Unwin, London). Burdjē P. (2004), Praktiskā jēga. OMNIA MEA, 397 lpp. De Corte, E. 1993 Psychological Aspects of Changes In Learning Supported by Informatics. 37-47 David C. Johnson, Brian Samways (Eds.): Informatics and Changes in Learning, Proceedings of the IFIP TC3/WG3.1/WG3.5 Open Conference on Informatics and Changes in Learning, Gmunden, Austria, 7-11 June, 1993. IFIP Transactions A-34 North-Holland Bruner, J., S. (1990): Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Čehlova, Z. (2002). Izziņas aktivitāte mācībās. Rīga: RaKa, 136. Drivdāle-Karuškina, S., Geske, A., Grīnfelds, A., Kangro, A., Sarma, V., Tipāns, O. 2003, Starptautiskais pilsoniskās izglītības pētījums Latvijā. Rīga: Izdevniecība „Mācību grāmata”, 236. Джерджен, К.Дж. (2003). Социальный конструкционизм: знание и практика: сборник статей. Минск: БГУ, 228. ES 6. Ietvara programma zinātnes un tehnoloģiju attīstībai http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/ Fenimore, B.S. (2000). Talk Matters. Refocusing the Language of Public Schooling. New York: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York : Basic Books. Geske A., 2000. Trešais starptautiskais matemātikas un dabaszinātņu pētījums Latvijā. Monogrāfiju sērija: Izglītības pētniecība Latvijā, monogrāfija Nr. 3. Rīga, apgāds “Mācību grāmata”, 199. Geske, A., Grīnfelds, A., Kangro 2001, Izglītības kvalitāte Latvijā starptautiskā un nacionālā kontekstā. Ceļā uz sociālo saliedētību un labklājību. Pārskats par izglītību Latvijā 2000. gadā. Rīga: AGB, 44-51.lpp. Geske, A., Grīnfelds, A., Kangro, A., Kiseļova, R., Tipāns, O. 2004, Latvijas skolēnu pilsoniskā izglītība sabiedrības integrācijas kontekstā 1999.-2004. gadā Rīga, LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 118. Geske, A., Ozola,A. 2007, Skolēnu sasniegumi lasītprasmē Latvijā un pasaulē Rīga: LU akadēmiskais apgāds, 192. Johansone, I., 2003. Starptautiskais Lasītprasmes novērtēšanas pētījums 2000.-2003. Rīga: Izdevniecība „Mācību grāmata”, 144. Gento Palacios, S., 2002 La evaluación de la satisfacción educativa en un enfoque de calidad institucional : [estimación en diversos países y en México] Compromisos de la evaluación educativa. Madrid: Pearson-Prentice Hall, p. 353-391 Helds, J. (2004). Kooperatīvā mācīšanās un skolēns kā subjekts. Kooperatīvā mācīšanās. Rīga: RaKa, 46.-52. Hubers, G.L. (2004). Kooperatīvā mācīšanās mācību formu kontekstā. Kooperatīvā mācīšanās. Rīga: RaKa, 22.-45. . Holzkamp, K. (1995) Lernen. Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung. Frankfurt : Studienausgabe 1993. Holzkampf, K. (1983) Der Mensch als Subjekt wissenschaftlicher Methodik. Hrg. Braun, K-H. Hollitscher. Hofmeister, A. (1998) Zur Kritik des Bildungsbefriffs aus subjektwissenschflicher Perspektive. Diskursanalytische Untersuchungen. Hamburg : Argument, 96. Kallenbach, C. (1997) Subjektive Theorien. Was Schüler und Schülerinnen über Fremdsprachenunterricht denken. Tübingen. Kangro, A., Geske, A. 2001. Zināšanas un prasmes dzīvei. Latvija OECD valstu Starptautiskajā skolēnu novērtēšanas programmā 1998-2001. Rīga: Izdevniecība „Mācību grāmata”, 99. Kiralijs, D. (2004). Par kvalitatīvu kooperatīvās mācīšanās novērtējumu tulkotāju izglītībā - konstruktīvā pieeja. Kooperatīvā mācīšanās. Rīga: RaKa, 217.-233. Koch, C. 1998. Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single Neurons.New York: Oxford Univ. Press Lamberigts, R., Dīpenbroks, J.-V. (2004). Aktīvās mācības kooperatīvā mācību vidē: eksperimenta īstenošana un rezultāti. Kooperatīvā mācīšanās. Rīga: RaKa, 106.-116. Luhmann, N. (1990): Essays on Self-Reference. New York Maslo, I. (1995). Skolas pedagoģiskā procesa diferenciācija un individualizācija. Rīga: RaKa, - 145. Maslo, E. (2003). Mācīšanās spēju pilnveide. Monogrāfija. Rīga: RaKa, – 193. Maslo, I. u.c. (2006). No zināšanām uz kompetentu darbību. Mācīšanās antropoloģiskie, ētiskie un sociālkritiskie aspekti. I. Maslo red., autoru kolektīvs: Ž. Akopova, I. Brante, I. Briška, R. Hahele, J. Helds, I. Helmane, J. Klišāne, E. Maslo, I. Maslo, L. Ose, Z. Rubene, I. Tiļļa, L. Turuševa. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 186. Mayring, P. (Editor), Huber, G., L. (Editor), Gurtler, L. (Editor), 2007. Mixed Methodology in Psychological Research - Sense Publishers Medina Rivilla, A., 2006. Interculturalidad, formación del profesorado y educación -Pearson-Prentice Hall, 109 . Medina Rivilla, A., 2006. La formación prįctica del educador social, del pedagogo y del psicopedagogo - Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, 279. Roth, G. (1997) Das Gehirn und seine Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt a. M. Sālbergs, P. (2003a). Kā skolēni mācās? Skolotāja rokasgrāmata: aktīvās mācību metodes un demokrātiskas skolas vides veidošana. Rīga: Rīgas Skolotāju izglītības centrs, 14.-21. Sālbergs, P. (2003b). Kā veicināt efektīvu mācīšanos skolā? Skolotāja rokasgrāmata: aktīvās mācību metodes un demokrātiskas skolas vides veidošana. Rīga: Rīgas Skolotāju izglītības centrs, 22.-27. Špona, A. (2001). Audzināšanas teorija un prakse. Rīga: RaKa, 162. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Tiļļa, I. (2003). Pusaudžu sociālkultūras kompetences pilnveide otrās svešvalodas mācību procesā: sociālā pedagoģija: promocijas darbs. – Rīga: LU, 250 lpp. Tiļļa, I. (2005). Sociālkultūras mācīšanās organizācijas sistēma. Monogrāfija. Rīga: RaKa, 295. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harward University Press. Žogla, I. (2001). Didaktikas teorētiskie pamati. Rīga: RaKa, 275. Wells, G. (1993): Working with a teacher in the zone of proximal development: Action research on the learning and teaching of science. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 18, 127 - 222. Wells, G. et al. (1994): Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto: OISE Press; Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wells, G. (1999): Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wygotski, L. S. (1978): Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Author Information

Irina Maslo
University of Latvia
Institute of pedagogical&educational Research of Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology
Riga
128
Andra Fernate
University of Latvia
Institute of Pedagogical Science
Riga
128
Daiga Kalnina
University of Latvia, Latvia

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.