Session Information
01 SES 13 B, Teacher networks and cooperation
Paper Session
Contribution
Adaptive Learning Technologies (ALTs) are put forward as a mean to support adaptive teaching in classrooms (Aleven, McLaughlin, Glenn, & Koedinger, 2016). Core features of ALTs are that they monitor students’ performance data and select learning content and problems adjusted to an individual student’s performance (Molenaar, Bakker, Knoop-van Campen, & Hasselman, 2017). The integration of these technologies in classrooms creates a novel instructional context in which teachers have to learn how to integrate the ALT into their adaptive teaching practices (Cijvat et al., submitted; Molenaar & Knoop-van Campen, 2017).
According to the professional development model of Desimone (2009) teachers develop new knowledge about the possibilities and constraints of the ALT and use these to change their teaching practices. To be able to change their teaching practices, teachers need to move beyond their routine teaching skills, and apply novel adaptive actions in which they try out novel skills and strategies (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, & Beckett, 2005; Molenaar & Knoop-van Campen, 2017). Coburn (2004) indicated that applying novel adaptive actions asks of teachers to regulate their own learning and teaching. We adapted Desimone’s model by adding ‘teacher’s self-regulated teaching’ between ‘increased teacher knowledge’ and ‘change in teaching practices’ (Desimone, 2009;). We define teacher’s SRT as ‘teacher’s translation of increased knowledge into novel teaching actions by using the cyclical phases of SRL: planning, monitoring, control and reflection’ (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021; Zimmerman, 2000). The teacher plans (sets goals and plans novel adaptive actions), monitors (whether processes and actions are working out as expected), controls (and adjusts actions and strategies when needed) and reflects (on the novel adaptive action). This reflection could be focused on improvement in student learning, but ideally also focuses on teacher self-improvement of adaptive teaching practices (Dunn & Shriner, 1999). When the teacher translates the reflection into a new goal and plans a novel adaptive action in the next lesson, the cycle of self-regulated teaching will start again (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021; Zimmerman, 2000).
All kinds of reflection enables teachers to act in a deliberate way, what Schön (1987) refers to as ‘reflection-on-action’. Reflection focused on improvement in student learning is what teachers often do and what is valuable for their daily teaching practices, but is it likely that after some time they will fall back on their repertoire of routine actions without substantially improving their adaptive teaching skills (Coburn, 2004). Reflection focused on teacher self-improvement could lead to substantially improvement of their adaptive teaching skills and maintain teaching expertise. This kind of reflection on novel actions would also make a major difference during the cycle of self-regulated teaching: in the goal that is set, and the information that is used during monitoring and control (Dunn & Shriner, 1999; Endedijk, Brekelmans, Sleegers, & Vermunt, 2016).
Several studies indicate that teachers face multiple challenges regulating their own professional learning at the workplace (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021). According to Randi (2004), teacher’s SRT processes are naturally implicit, becoming apparent only when teachers are explicitly challenged to deliberately use these self-regulated teaching actions. In an earlier study, we described that teachers differed in their reflections on adaptive actions. Some reflected quite specific on what they had done and why, while others reflected rather global or could not tell what they did or why. This provided first indications that teachers differ in how they selfregulate their teaching (Cijvat et al., submitted). To be able to answer the question whether teachers need support to selfregulate their adaptive teaching skills and what kind of support, we first need to have insight in how teachers regulate their teaching.
Method
We used mathematic lessons in class 4 to 8 (8 to 12-year-old students) of twelve teachers from three primary schools in the Netherlands. Schools were integrating the ALT Snappet into their adaptive teaching for the second year (www.snappet.org). This ALT is widely used across primary schools in the Netherlands. We used adaptive actions of teachers which we identified in an earlier study during lesson observations and applied an inductive coding technique using questionnaires, lesson observations and semi-structured stimulated-recall interviews (Cijvat et al., submitted; Miles & Huberman, 1994). During the interview we first selected all novel adaptive actions. Each novel adaptive action was taken as a unit of analysis. Based on the phases of SRL (Zimmerman, 2000) we explored from a retroperspective view whether the teacher had planned, monitored, or controlled the novel adaptive action and in what way they reflected on it (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Prior to the lesson the teacher was asked to fill in the questionnaire, which allowed us to check afterwards if a novel adaptive action was planned. The semi-structured stimulated-recall interview after the lesson was used to retrospectively investigate the teacher’s monitoring, control and reflection by asking open and structured questions. 42 novel adaptive actions in 12 lessons (one lesson per teacher) were analyzed. First we analyzed separately each aspect of the self-regulated learning process (planning, monitoring, control and reflection) in all novel actions and looked for differences between teachers. To answer the main research question (How does teacher’s self-regulated learning appear around new adaptive actions in adaptive teaching integrating ALTs?) we looked for patterns in the self-regulated learning process. The first and last author coded and analyzed together the data of one teacher. After that, both separately analyzed the data of two other teachers. 85% agreement was reached, the differences were discussed. After that, the first author analyzed the data of the other teachers in the same way.
Expected Outcomes
Our findings show that 30.9% of the novel adaptive actions were planned, 35.7% were monitored and 61.9% were controlled. In quotes we saw that a lot of novel adaptive actions were spontaneous actions when the lesson did not went as expected or planned. Teachers reflected on their own teaching practices in 7.1% of the novel adaptive actions. Teachers differ in how often they plan, monitor and control their novel adaptive actions, and also in their reflections on these actions. Four teachers (33.3%) planned (almost) all their novel adaptive actions, four teachers (33.3%) monitored (almost) all their actions, seven teachers (58.3%) controlled (almost) all their actions, also 7 teachers (58.3%) were focused on improvement in student-learning in all their reflections. When we look at patterns, one teacher stands out: she planned all her actions, needed external support to monitor and control them, and reflected on her own teaching practices after some specific questions. Also four actions stand out: quotes show that the teachers planned specific what students need and what the teacher intends to do, in monitoring and control teachers actively recalled the novel adaptive action specific themselves and told specific why they took the novel adaptive action and what they did, but reflected only on improvement in student-learning, also after some questions. Researchers agree on the complexity of implementing ALTs in classrooms, self-regulated teaching has the potential to enhance teacher’s continuous learning at the workplace (Dunn & Shriner, 1999; Hammerness et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2006). Patterns overall indicate that teachers in general not include all aspects of self-regulated teaching. On the other hand, we found large differences between individual teachers. We postulate that different patterns of self-regulated teaching might be indicative of differential development of teacher’s adaptive teaching integrating ALTs.
References
Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. Handbook of research on learning and instruction. Routledge. Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, 40-87. Cijvat, C. C., Denessen, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., van der Graaf, J., & Molenaar, I. (submitted). What teachers do: adaptive teaching using Adaptive Learning Technologies (ALTs) in primary education. Pedagogische Studiën Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of education, 77(3), 211-244. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181-199. Dunn, T. G., & Shriner, C. (1999). Deliberate practice in teaching: What teachers do for self-improvement. Teaching and teacher education, 15(6), 631-651. Endedijk, M. D., Brekelmans, M., Sleegers, P., & Vermunt, J. D. (2016). Measuring students’ self-regulated learning in professional education: bridging the gap between event and aptitude measurements. Quality & quantity, 50, 2141-2164. Hammerness, K. , Darling-Hammond, L. , & Bransford, J. ( 2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kramarski, B. & Heaysman, O. (2021) A conceptual framework and a professional development model for supporting teachers’ “triple SRL–SRT processes” and promoting students’ academic outcomes, Educational Psychologist, 56:4, 298-311, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1985502 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Molenaar, I., Bakker, M., Knoop-van Campen, C. A. N., & Hasselman, F. (2017). Onderwijsvernieuwing met een adaptief leermiddel. Nijmegen : Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 1825-1853. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation, pp. 13–39. Academic Press, San Diego Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 186, 705-722.
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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.