Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OLSON
ABSTRACT. Learning and effective teaching are both complicated acts. However,
many administrators, teachers, parents, and policymakers appear not to recognize those
complexities and their significance for practice. Fueling this perception, recommendations from isolated research findings often neglect the complexities in learning and
teaching, and when implemented in classrooms often fall well short of the advertised
effect. Consequently, education research is generally ignored, and the resulting
research-practice gap raises concerns regarding the utility of university-based teacher
education, and education research more generally. However, the strength of education
research resides in the synergy resulting from its integration into a unifying system that
guides, but does not determine, decision-making. Dewey (1929) argued for teacher
decision-making guided by education research, but recently several writers have justly
criticized education researchers for not providing comprehensible assistance to
educators and policymakers (Good, 2007; Shymansky, 2006; Windschitl, 2005). This
paper proposes a decision-making framework for teaching to help beginning and
experienced teachers make sense of education research, come to understand crucial
teacher decisions, and how those decisions interact to affect student learning. The
proposed decision-making framework for teaching has significant utility in the design of
science methods courses, science teacher education programs, effective student teacher
supervision experiences, and professional development workshops.
KEY WORDS: decision-making framework, research synthesis, teacher decision-making,
teacher development, teacher education
INTRODUCTION
Learning and effective teaching are both highly complex acts. Leinhardt &
Greeno (1986, p. 75) write that, the task of teaching occurs in a relatively
ill-structured, dynamic environment. Classroom conditions change in
unpredictable ways, and information arises during the act of teaching that
by necessity must inform performance as it occurs. Reflecting these
complexities, classroom teachers make hundreds of non-trivial decisions
each day working with children (Good & Brophy, 1994; Jackson, 1990;
MacKay & Marland, 1978). However, the general public, policymakers,
and even many teachers appear not to recognize these complexities. This is
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2008)
# National Science Council, Taiwan 2008
CLOUGH ET AL
evident in widely held beliefs such as: (1) command of subject matter is
sufficient for effective teaching; (2) effective pedagogical practices develop
naturally through teaching experience; (3) teaching is simply a matter of
personal style; and (4) teaching is essentially the passing of information
from teacher to students. These beliefs manifest themselves in shallow
traditional and alternative teacher licensure programs, back-to-basics fads,
high-stakes testing that reflects trivial knowledge, and simplistic businessmodel approaches to education.
Apparently teacher educators and teachers have poorly communicated
the intricacies of effective teaching to key stakeholders. Fullan (1996)
argued that one of the main reasons that teachers seem to be constantly
defending themselves from external critics is that they cannot explain
themselves adequately. He writes that:
Critics are increasingly using clear language and specific examples in their charges, while
educators are responding with philosophical rationales (e.g., we are engaged in active
learning). Abstract responses to specific complaints are not credible. What does it mean
to say that educators cannot explain themselves adequately? Perhaps teachers do not fully
understand what they are doing, or perhaps they are simply unable to articulate it. (p. 423)
The concerns raised by Clough (2003a) echo those of Dewey (1929) who
cautioned educators to resist the urge to apply solitary strategies derived
from scientific research (For Dewey, reference to science meant
systematic study) to solve education issues:
The human desire to prove that the scientific mode of attack is really of value brings
pressure to convert scientific conclusions into rules and standards of schoolroom practice
(p. 18). However, No conclusion of scientific research can be converted into an
immediate rule of educational art. For there is no educational practice whatever which is
not highly complex; that is to say, which does not contain many other conditions and
factors than are included in the scientific finding (p. 19). The significance of one factor
for educational practice can be determined only as it is balanced with many other factors
(p. 19, italics added).
CLOUGH ET AL
Each investigation and conclusion is special, but the tendency of an increasing number
and variety of specialized results is to create new points of view and a wider field of
observation. Various special findings have a cumulative effect; they reinforce and extend
one another, and in time lead to the detection of principles that bind together a number of
facts that are diverse and even isolated in their prima facie occurrence. Facts which are
so interrelated form a system, a science. The practitioner who knows the system and its
laws is evidently in possession of a powerful instrument for observing and interpreting
what goes on before him. This intellectual tool affects his attitudes and modes of response
in what he does. Because the range of understanding is deepened and widened, he can
take into account remote consequences which were originally hidden from view and hence
were ignored in his actions. Greater continuity is introduced; he does not isolate situations
and deal with them in separation as he was compelled to do when ignorant of connecting
principles. At the same time, his practical dealings become more flexible. Seeing more
relations, he sees more possibilities, more opportunities. He is emancipated from the need
of following precedents. His ability to judge being enriched, he has a wider range of
alternatives to select from in dealing with individual situations. (pp. 2021)
CLOUGH ET AL
CLOUGH ET AL
(1997, p. 65) noted that teachers are not used to using student
information to guide and revise instructional decision-making.
DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK AND ITS UTILITY
Figure 1 provides an overarching visual representation to help preservice
and inservice science teachers conceptualize these many teacher decisions, and understand their importance and interactions. First generated
by Clough & Berg in 1988, the Decision-Making Framework has since
undergone several iterations (Berg & Clough, 1991b; Clough, 1992;
Student Goals
consistent with
Student Actions
selected to promote
Selection of teaching
strategies & teaching
models
selected to understand
Selection of content,
tasks, activities &
materials
The Learner
Students Thinking
Students Self-efficacy
Students Prior Knowledge
Students Developmental Differences
Students Zone of Proximal Development
Clough & Berg, 1995; Clough & Kauffman, 1999; Clough, 2003a;
Clough & Berg, 2006) leading to what is presented here. The DecisionMaking Framework makes explicit the crucial and incessant role of
assessment in teacher decision-making. While the Decision-Making
Framework certainly does not capture all that goes into learning and
teaching, it must be seen in its purpose of assisting novice and
experienced teachers to make sense of the complex decisions they often
unknowingly make moment to moment in the classroom.
Understandably, attention immediately is drawn to the broad categories. However, of greater importance are the arrows conveying the
importance of teacher decisions and their interactions. The overarching
intent of the Decision-Making Framework is to illustrate that all teacher
decisions regarding science content, tasks, activities, materials, models,
strategies, and teacher behaviors should be made in light of desired goals
for students and how students learn. In making explicit key teacher
decisions and their interactions, the framework has many uses.
Illustrating How Pedagogical Research Best Informs Practice When
it Comes as a Coherent Package
All beginning teachers and many experienced teachers struggle to
understand how all the decisions displayed in the Framework coalesce
to define the educational process. Attention is easily drawn to the more
discernible polar extremes of more obvious decisions, rather than to
subtlety, interaction, and complexity. The problem is magnified with
novices who, lacking automated routines for many teaching tasks, quickly
find their working memory overwhelmed. In wrestling with the
complexities of learning and teaching and the cognitive overload that
often results, teachers thinking becomes piecemeal and black-or-white in
nature. Teachers tend to view suggested ideas as either working or not
working, and often fail to see how the success of a changed practice
depends upon the simultaneous effective use of myriad other practices.
Many experienced teachers face the same problem but for different
reasons.
The following example illustrates the complex and subtle interplay of
decisions and teaching practices. Beginning and experienced teachers
often complain that students rarely become engaged in discussions.
Several research-based teacher behaviors implemented in concert are
needed to establish meaningful interactive environments. Teachers who
improve their questioning are often frustrated when student interaction
does not immediately increase. While questions set an academic mood,
CLOUGH ET AL
This is indeed a puzzling situation, but one that illustrates well the
complexities in teaching, the inadequacies of education research when
considered separately, and the power of it when brought together into a
coherent whole. A solution to this apparent contradiction is reflected in
Sanfords (1987) noting that exemplary teachers employ elaborate
instructional devices, something she refers to as safety nets to
CLOUGH ET AL
Teachers exert the greatest influence in the classroom through the way
they cognitively and emotionally engage students in a lesson.
However, the overwhelming layered complexities of learning and
teaching often cloud the value of important findings regarding the
teachers role in creating powerful learning experiences for children.
CLOUGH ET AL
CLOUGH ET AL
TABLE 1
Common science education goals for students
Students will:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
CLOUGH ET AL
What
What
What
What
What
content to teach
tasks and activities to implement
materials to use
teaching models and strategies to consider
teacher behaviors and interaction pattern to exhibit
See Clough & Berg, (1995), Clough (2002, 2003b), Clough, Madsen,
Williams, Bruxvoort & Vanderlinden (2003) and Olson & Appleton
(2006) for more detailed examples of how we use the Decision-Making
Framework in our work with teachers at all levels.
Supervision
Cooperating teachers sometimes struggle to clearly identify and communicate a student teachers shortcomings and how improvement is to be
accomplished. Too often student teaching and accompanying supervision
experiences are poorly linked to what students learned in their preservice
program. The Decision-Making Framework can be useful in guiding
cooperating teachers and university supervisors coaching of student
teachers to address these and other issues that occur during student
teaching. For example, when student teachers face inevitable classroom
management issues and other instructional struggles, they often rush to
blame the learner (and inappropriately implement punishment/reward
strategies) or seek quick fixes such as entertaining activities. Cooperating
teachers and university supervisors can use the Decision-Making
Framework to pose questions that remind a student teacher to consider
CLOUGH ET AL
decisions made in the lesson that may account for undesirable student
behaviors and lesson outcomes.
For instance, students lack of engagement and resulting management
issues may partly result from cognitive challenges in a lesson being too
far above or below students developmental level, or too far removed
from students prior knowledge. Or perhaps the cognitive challenges do
not permit entry points for the variety of abilities and backgrounds
existing among the many students in the class. What strategies (e.g.,
predict-observe-explain or think-pair-share) did the student teacher utilize
to encourage all students to be mentally engaged? During periods of waittime I and II, what non-verbal behaviors did the student teacher exhibit to
maintain student engagement? When students are well behaved, what
goals were promoted and what did the student teacher consciously do to
promote those goals? How well did the student teacher probe students
thinking and use that knowledge to promote desired understandings? All
teachers, but particularly novices, must always be on guard not to equate
quiet and compliant students with good teaching (Slater, 2003; Stofflett &
Stefanon, 1996). Directing student teachers attention to the DecisionMaking Framework is an extension of efforts in the teacher education
program to develop habits of thought, observation, and reflection on key
synergetic decisions necessary for effective teaching.
Avoiding Fads in Education
Disconnected research, as well as perceived and real conflicting
implications for practice from isolated research findings, sends practitioners the message that anything goes when teaching, and thus teaching
is simply a matter of personal style. Effective use of the Decision-Making
Framework helps elicit conflicting beliefs, address contradictory recommendations from research, and reconsider research-based recommendations that dont work in isolation. In making sense of learning and
teaching, the Decision-Making Framework helps classroom teachers and
teacher educators identify early, and thus be less susceptible to, education
fads (Slavin, 1989) and reforms that Cuban (1990) writes return again,
again and again (p. 11). Keeping in mind enduring science education
goals, how students learn, and the coherence of effective pedagogy
provides a means to assess the latest innovation for its merits, and stay
the proper course during recurring waves of ill-conceived school reform.
Professional developers will find the Decision-Making Framework useful
for assisting science teachers in becoming critical consumers of
CONCLUSIONS
CLOUGH ET AL
CLOUGH ET AL
Berg, C.A. & Clough, M.P. (1991a). Hunter lesson design: The wrong one for science
teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(4), 7378.
Berg, C.A. & Clough, M.P. (1991b). Generic lesson design: The case against. The Science
Teacher, 58(7), 2631.
Berliner, D.C. (1985) Reform in education: The case for pedagogy. Presentation Before
the Deans of Land Grant Colleges Meeting, February.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth,
NH: Heineman.
Clough, M.P. (1992). Research is required reading: Keeping up with your profession. The
Science Teacher, 59(7), 3639.
Clough, M.P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In Bybee, R.W.
(Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning, 2002 NSTA Yearbook.
Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
Clough, M.P. (2003a). Understanding the complexities in learning and teaching science:
The value of a research-based framework. Association for Science Teacher Education
(ASTE) International Conference, St. Louis, MO, January 29 - February 2.
Clough, M.P. (2003b). Structure of a Secondary Science Methods Course Promoting and
Reflecting a Decision-Making Framework for Teaching Science. Association for
Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference, St. Louis, MO, January
29 - February 2.
Clough, M.P. & Berg, C.A. (1995). Preparing and hiring exemplary science teachers.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 31(2), 8089.
Clough, M.P. & Berg, C.A. (2006). Promoting effective science teacher education and
science teaching: A visual framework for teacher decision-making. Proceedings of the
2006 Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference.
Portland, OR. http://www.theaste.org
Clough, M.P. & Kauffman, K.J. (1999). Improving engineering education: A researchbased framework for teaching. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(4), 527534.
Clough, M.P. & Olson, J.K. (2003). Unpublished work. Center for Excellence in Science
and Mathematics Education. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Clough, M. P., Madsen, A. J., Williams, M., Bruxvoort, C. N & Vanderlinden, D. W.
(2003). Student teacher supervision practices consistent with a decision-making
framework for teaching science. Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE)
International Conference, St. Louis, MO, January 29 - February 2.
Cohen, D.K. (1988). Educational technology and school organization. In R.S. Nickerson &
P.P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231264.)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 313.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching:
Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25,
517.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.
Duschl, R.A. & Gitomer, D.H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of
assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4, 3773.
Fenstermacher, G. (1983). How should implications of research on teaching be used.
Elementary School Journal, 83, 496499.
CLOUGH ET AL
Stofflett, R.T. & Stefanon, L. (1996). Elementary teacher candidates conceptions of successful
conceptual change teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(2), 120.
Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York: Harper & Row.
Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science classrooms. Science
Education, 72, 197208.
Uhlenbeck, A.M., Verloop, N. & Beijaard, D. (2002). Requirements for an assessment
procedure for beginning teachers: Implications from recent theories on teaching and
assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 242272.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological
processes. (M. Cole, V John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, eds.), Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American
Psychologist, 39(1), 4049.
Weiss, I.R. (1993). Science teachers rely on the textbook. In R.E.Yager (Ed.), What
research says to the science teacher, volume seven: The science, technology, society
movement. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
Weiss, I.R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R. & Heck, D.J. (2003). Looking
inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United
States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas:
An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing
teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131175.
Windschitl, M. (2005). Guest Editorial: The future of science teacher preparation in
America: Where is the evidence to inform program design and guide responsible policy
decisions. Science Education, 89, 525534.