Adaptive classroom interaction. Matching of teaching and learning competencies in individualized learning environments
Author(s):
Matthias Martens (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2015
Format:
Paper

Session Information

27 SES 12 A, Analysing Effects of Different Learning Environements

Paper/Poster Session

Time:
2015-09-11
09:00-10:30
Room:
201.Oktatóterem [C]
Chair:
Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

Adaptive education as a pedagogical concept describes a matching of educational contents and teaching/learning methods to the individual requirements of students by differentiation and individualization. This matching results of a continuously diagnose of the students’ competencies and needs during the whole learning process and it aims to improve the students’ performance (Wang 1992; Crono & Snow 1986). A number of studies pointed out that the implementation of adaptive teaching and learning increased the working attitudes, the motivation and the self-responsibility for the own learning processes, the social abilities and the academic performance of students (Wang 1992; Wang & Birch 1984; Wang & Zollers 1990; Waxman, Wang, Anderson & Walberg 1987; Hardy, Jonen, Möller & Stern 2006). Yet, the capability of adaptive education for teaching and learning in heterogeneous groups is primarily discussed on the basis of intervention studies. In these studies predominantly the improvement of particular attitudes and abilities resp. the students’ academic performance was in the focus while the classroom interaction was not taken into account.

Focusing the classroom interaction, I am interested in the relation of the teachers’ abilities to create adaptive learning offers within individualized environments and the students’ abilities to use these opportunities for their own learning processes. I assume that both, the teachers’ and students’ abilities or competencies (Weinert 2001) are to conceptualize as generic structures that consists partly of theoretical knowledge, e.g. pedagogical content knowledge, domain-specific knowledge, knowledge of teaching resp. learning methods and strategies etc., and implicit knowledge, e.g. teaching and learning routines (cf. Neuweg 2001; Martens & Asbrand 2009). In classroom-interaction teaching and learning competencies interact in a complex way so that matching of teaching and learning often emerges situational. Through interaction analyses I try to describe under which conditions these matching emerge and in how far they are a resource for learning processes.

Method

To work on these research interests I collected data from tree different perspectives: First, I videotaped the classroom interaction in three classes (grades 5, 8) of a comprehensive school (one week/30 hours video-/audiodata per class) to gather the daily practice and routines of teachers and students in individualized learning environments. Additionally, I conducted narrative Interviews with the teachers (two interviews per class) to access the professional knowledge and ideals as well as the teachers appraisal of the students’ abilities and the learning culture of the class. Furthermore, I conducted group discussions with the students (3-4 discussions per class) about the students’ learning experiences, their comprehension of learning culture and heterogeneity in their class. I analyze all data with the Documentary Method that was elaborated by Bohnsack (2010) as a tool of qualitative social research, originally for the analysis of group discussions but recently also for the analyses of videos (Martens, Asbrand & Petersen 2014). Methodologically, the method is based on Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge and aims to relate persons’ theoretical or explicit and a-theoretical or tacit knowledge in terms of orientation patterns that are habitualized in everyday practices. By multidimensional, comparative analyses of empirical cases it is possible to trace the emergence of these orientation patterns back to collective (socialization) experiences (cf. Bohnsack, Pfaff & Weller, 2010). Rather than describing each individual case, the Documentary Method generalizes types - in terms of generalized rules and orientation frameworks - from all cases. The video analyses with Documentary Method allows to analyze both, nonverbal interaction, gestures, movements, materiality of interaction and verbal communication in their inherent logic.

Expected Outcomes

Various analyses of the empirical data showed that in the same lesson, concerning the same topic, adaptive and non-adaptive interactions of teacher and students were observable. In individualized learning situations it was often observable that the teacher observed his students while they were working on their tasks. In consequence of the students’ questions or their report on their work, the teacher asked questions, or gave advices and guided them individually through the tasks. In only very few situations this often observable course of interaction was adaptive. On the one hand, teacher and student talked at crossed purposes: the students were not able to make themselves understood, the teacher was not able to diagnose the students difficulties by analyzing his present work. On the other hand teacher and student co-constructed an adaptive interaction wherein the students’ questions and the teachers adaptive learning offers recontualized, clarified, simplified or expanded the task. It seems that instruction or a particular teaching routine/style is not adaptive itself; adaptivity or the matching of teaching and learning competencies are outcomes of particular constellations of interaction. In the talk I will focus on these conditions and I will show in how far orientation patterns of teachers and students structure the mutual understanding on a deeper level of interaction.

References

Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary method and group discussions. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international education research (pp. 99-124). Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (2010). Reconstructive research and Documentary Method in Brazilian and German educational science: An introduction. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and Documentary Method in international education research (pp. 7-40). Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Corno, L. & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed.) (pp. 605-629). New York: McMillan. Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of „floating and sinking“. The Journal of Educational Psychology 98(2), 307-326. Martens, M. & Asbrand, B. (2009). Rekonstruktion von Handlungswissen und Handlungs¬kompetenz – auf dem Weg zu einer qualitativen Kompetenzforschung. Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung 10 (2), 201-222. Martens, M., Petersen, D., & Asbrand, B. (2014). Die Materialität von Lernkultur. Methodische Überlegungen zur dokumentarischen Analyse von Unterrichtsvideografien. In R. Bohnsack, A. Baltruschat, B. Fritzsche, & M. Wagner-Willi (Hrsg), Dokumentarische Film und Videointerpretation. Methodologie und Forschungspraxis (pp. 179-203). Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Neuweg, G.-H. (2002). Lehrerhandeln und Lehrerbildung im Lichte des Konzeptes des impliziten Wissens. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 48(1), 10-29. Wang, M. C. (1992). Adaptive education strategies: Building on diversity. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing. Wang, M. C. & Birch, J. W. (1984). Effective spezial education in regular class. Exeptional Children 50(5), 391-398. Wang, M. C. & Zollers, N. J. (1990). Adaptive instruction: An alternative service delivery approach. Remedial and Special Education 11(1), 7-21. Waxman, H. C., Wang, M. C., Anderson, K. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1985). Synthesis of research on the effects of adaptive education. Educational Leadership 43(1), 26-29. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concepts of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45-56), Seattle: Hogrefe.

Author Information

Matthias Martens (presenting / submitting)
Goethe-Univerität Frankfurt am Main
Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften/Department of Education
Frankfurt am Main

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.