Vol 12 No 2 - June 2015

IJLTER.
ORG
International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN: 1694-2493
e-ISSN: 1694-2116
Vol.12 No.2
PUBLISHER International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
London Consulting Ltd Educational Research
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
Chief Editor journal which has been established for the dis-
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka ers on all aspects of education to publish high
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
Dr Jonathan Glazzard cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Dr Marius Costel Esi Teaching and Educational Research are selected
Dr Katarzyna Peoples through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
Dr Christopher David Thompson
originality, appropriateness, significance and
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
Dr Gabor Kiss to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
Dr Trish Julie Rooney trate research results, projects, original surveys
Dr Esteban Vzquez-Cano and case studies that describe significant ad-
Dr Barry Chametzky vances in the fields of education, training, e-
Dr Giorgio Poletti learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak sion system. Submissions must be original and
Dr Afsaneh Sharif should not have been published previously or
Dr Ronel Callaghan be under consideration for publication while
Dr Haim Shaked being evaluated by IJLTER.
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr zcan zyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
VOLUME 12 NUMBER 2 June 2015
Table of Contents
Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools .......... 1
B. Jean Mandernach, PhD
The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies Problem Solving Strategies in your Math Lessons .............................. 15
Costic Lupu
The Effects of Three Types of Instructor Posting on Critical Thinking and Social Presence: No Posting, Facilitating
Discourse, and Direct Instruction ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Jamie Costley
Change in the Era of Common Core Standards: A Mathematics Teachers Journey .................................................. 48
Laura B. Kent
Cooperative Learning Effectiveness in the Bureaucratic School: Views of Greek Secondary Education Teachers 64
Konstantina Koutrouba and Ioannis Christopoulos
Peer Tutoring as an Approach in Analysing Case Studies in a Business English Course .......................................... 89
Siew Fong Lin
A Case Study Exploring Junior High School Students Interaction Behavior in a Learning Community on
Facebook: Day and Time...................................................................................................................................................... 99
Chun-Jung Chen and Sheng-Yi Wu
Towards a Framework for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership ............................................................... 107

Brian Vassallo
The Survey on Classroom Discussion of Middle School Students .............................................................................. 121

Hua Zhang, Jinhui Cheng, Xinyu Yuan and Ying Zhang
1
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-14, June 2015
Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher

Education: A Synthesis of Literature and
Assessment Tools
B. Jean Mandernach, PhD

Grand Canyon University
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Abstract. Educational research increasingly highlights the importance of

student engagement and its impact on retention, learning and
persistence. Despite widespread agreement on the value of student
engagement, assessing engagement in higher education remains a
challenge. To effectively measure student engagement (and understand
its influence on the learning experience), it is essential that each
institution defines the scope of engagement within their unique context
and selects assessment metrics that align with the target definition. The
dynamic nature of engagement mandates a multi-faceted approach to
assessment that captures the interactive nature of the behavioral,
affective and cognitive dimensions comprising student engagement. The
value of various modes and tools for assessing student engagement in
higher education are discussed.
Keywords: student engagement; assessment of engagement;

engagement metrics; cognitive engagement
Introduction
With increased emphasis on promoting student engagement in postsecondary
classrooms (Barkley, 2010; Bowen, 2005; Gn & Kuzu, 2014; Korobova &
Starobin, 2015), it becomes imperative that educators are able to gauge, monitor
and assess student engagement as a component of the overall learning
experience (Butler, 2011; Chapman, 2003; Fredricks & McColskey, 2013; Garrett,
2011; Kuh, 2001; Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee, & Dailey-Hebert, 2011; Rust,
2002). While there is considerable evidence validating the importance of
engagement for fostering student learning (Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006; Cross,
2005; Guthrie & Anderson, 1999; Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan & Towler, 2005;
Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998; Skinner, Wellborn & Connell, 1990; Zhao & Kuh,
2004), promoting student retention (Braxton, 2008; Kushman, Sieber & Heariold-
Kinney, 2000; Woods, 1995), enhancing quality assurance (Banta, Pike &
Hansen, 2009; Coates, 2005), and impacting student persistence (Milem &
Berger, 1997), faculty and administrators still struggle to effectively assess
student engagement at both the institutional and course levels.
@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

2
Much of the challenge in assessing student engagement comes from the lack of a
unified definition to define the scope, intent and parameters of engagement. As
highlighted by Bowen (2005, p. 4), an explicit consensus about what we actually
mean by engagement or why it is important is lacking. Yet, despite the
divergence of operational definitions, Shulman (2005) maintains that
postsecondary institutions must be diligent in fostering and monitoring
engagement as learning begins with student engagement (p. 38).
Defining Student Engagement

In its infancy, student engagement was defined primarily by students time-on-
task with educational activities (Brophy, 1983; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave,
Cahen & Dishaw, 1980; McIntyre, Copenhaver, Byrd, & Norris, 1983). While
most definitions of engagement still include students investment in learning
activities as a key component of engagement, current definitions of student
engagement have expanded to include interrelated cognitive and affective
components. Emphasizing that cognitive engagement involves not only a
behavioral investment of time, but also requires investment of attention and
intellectual vigor, Astin (1984, p. 298) defines engagement as the amount of
physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic
experience. Integrating the affective components of the learning experience,
Skinner and Belmont (1993, p. 572) define student engagement as sustained
behavioral involvement in learning activities accompanied by positive emotional
tone. Differentiating this type of engagement from satisfaction, Barkley (2010)
highlights that engaging students doesnt mean theyre being entertained. It
means they are thinking. (p. xii).
Other definitions emphasize that engagement rests not only in the choices made
by students, but in the opportunities available through the institution; as defined
by Natriello (1984, p. 14) engagement involves participating in the activities
offered as part of the school program. Kuh (2003) provides an integrated
definition encompassing the cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects of
engagement while highlighting the reciprocal responsibility of both the students
and the institution to fostering engagement; as explained in this definition,
student engagement is the time and energy students devote to educationally
sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and
practices that institutions use to induce students to take part in these activities
(Kuh, 2003, p. 25).
The range of definitions for student engagement converges to emphasize three

interrelated aspects of student engagement: cognitive, behavioral, and affective
(Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005). As outlined by Chapman (2003,
para. 6):
cognitive criteria, which index the extent to which students are attending
to and expending mental effort in the learning tasks encountered;
behavioural criteria, which index the extent to which students are
making active responses to the learning tasks presented; and
affective criteria, which index the level of students investment in, and
their emotional reactions to, the learning tasks.

3
Examining these indicators as the impetus behind measures of student

engagement, Butler (2011) differentiates typical assessment indicators along each
dimension; see Table 1 for examples.
Table 1: Examples of Assessment Items to Gauge Types of Engagement
Behavioral Cognitive Affective

Frequency of asking Proportion of coursework Effort to work harder to
questions in class emphasizing higher order meet instructors
thinking strategies expectations
Frequency of group Time spent on projects Investment to better
projects or collaborative requiring integration and understand someone elses
work synthesis of ideas perspective
Frequency of tutoring Amount of coursework Time investment in
others requiring practical studying
Frequency of attending application of knowledge Tendency to be prepared
events in the community or skills (or lack preparation) for
related to course material class
Frequency of discussing
course material outside of
classtime
Understanding assessment of student engagement rests in an awareness of the

range and diversity of definitions for this concept. To effectively assess student
engagement, one must know what aspect (or aspects) of engagement are being
targeted. As outlined by Bowen (2005), student engagement can be defined in
four interrelated ways: 1) engagement with the learning process (i.e., active
learning); 2) engagement with the object of study (i.e., experiential learning); 3)
engagement with the context of study (i.e., multidisciplinary learning); and 4)
engagement with the human condition (i.e., service learning).
Inherent in assessment debates concerning the definition and scope of student

engagement is the subtle differentiation between engagement as a process versus
a product. While Bowen (2005) contends that most assessments of student
engagement emphasize the learning process, Barkley (2010) highlights that
student engagement is the product of motivation and active learning. It is a
product rather than a sum because it will not occur if either element is missing
(p. 6). While subtle, this distinction has important implications for assessment as
it defines the scope of the measurement; specifically, assessments of process
emphasize behaviors, activities and attitudes that contribute to student learning
while assessments of product emphasize engagement as a cognitive or affective
state resulting from the learning process.
Despite this subtle distinction, most measures of student engagement

incorporate aspects of both the process and product of student engagement by
examining students active role in the process of learning as well as their
resultant cognitive and affective positions. As such, not only do measures of
engagement examine students perceptions of the learning process, but include
an examination of the frequency with which students participate in activities
that represent effective educational practices, and conceive of it as a pattern of

4
involvement in a variety of activities and interactions both in and out of the

classroom and throughout a students college career (Barkley, 2010, p. 4). This
theoretical position provides the foundational basis of many of the institutional
assessments of student engagement that operationalize engagement as a product
of student investment in scholarly activities and institutional allocation of
resources to foster student engagement. Likewise, on a smaller scale, these same
principles can be applied to course-level engagement measures examining
engagement opportunities and students involvement in course-related
activities.
Assessment Approaches
The wide variability of engagement definitions and the complexity surrounding
student engagement mandates necessary diversity in measurement approaches
and techniques. Assessment of student engagement varies as a function of both
the accepted definition of engagement and the data collection methods. As such,
there are a number of avenues for collecting student engagement data
(Chapman, 2003; Fredricks & McColskey, 2013; Jennings & Angelo, 2006):
student self-report, experience sampling, teacher ratings of students, interviews,
direct observation, checklists and rating scales, work sample analysis, and
focused case studies. Table 2 provides an overview of each approach.
Table 2: Data Collection Methods to Measure Student Engagement
Data
Collection
Method Description Strengths Challenges
student self- Students indicate Practical, cost-efficient Concerns with
report their engagement (as approaches for group honesty and/or
a function of level, and/or large-scale accuracy of responses;
agreement or administration; generalized nature of
perception) in provide a means of items may limit the
response to specific measuring non- value of responses.
attitudes, behaviors observable, perceptual
or experiences. or subjective
indicators of
engagement.
experience Used as an indicator Provides a means of Requires considerable
sampling of engagement contextualizing investment of time
flow, selected engagement track and resources from
students respond to engagement levels in students in the
selected dimensions the moment as well as sample; examines a
of engagement (such across time and limited aspect of
as current activities, situation. engagement.
cognitive state and
affect level) in
response to an
electronic alarm
that signals at
various times.
teacher ratings Teachers provide Valuable for Valid perceptions may
of students ratings of their examining the be limited to the more

5
perceptions of alignment between observable, behavioral

behavioral and/or student and teacher indicators of student
emotional aspects of perceptions of engagement.
student engagement. engagement in the
classroom.
interviews Students are asked to Elicits a more Concerns with
discuss their detailed, interviewer bias and
engagement in an individualized, social desirability
open-ended manner contextualized factors may influence
understanding of accuracy of findings.
student engagement.
direct Structured technique Provides detailed, Reliability may be
observations for monitoring and descriptive accounts impacted by observer
recording students of momentary time bias; techniques may
behavior along pre- sampling of student be time consuming;
defined indicators of engagement measurements limted
engagement. to observable
behavior.
checklists and Provides the Provides data on Lacks information to
rating scales frequency and behavioral indicators explain the reasoning
investment of specific of engagement behind behavioral
target behaviors; may indicators
be a self-rating or
observer-rating
work sample Utilizes samples of Provides indication of Concerns with the
analysis students work to cognitive engagement reliability of scoring;
assess for higher- as a summative outcome may be
order thinking indicator of the impacted by factors
outcome of various other than student
behavioral factors engagement
focused case Large amounts of Rich data highlighting May have limited
studies detailed data are behaviors, interactions generalizability to
collected in relation and contextual factors other student
to a small, select populations
sample of students
Measures of Engagement
As previously highlighted, student engagement is a complex phenomenon that
encompasses a range of behavioral, cognitive and affective components of the
learning experience; equally varied is the range of data collection approaches
available to gauge student engagement. The result of this diversity is a plethora
of assessment choices ranging from informal, course-based snapshots to highly-
structured, standardized tests of engagement. Selection of a specific approach
and measure of student engagement is driven by the parameters surrounding
the use and intent of the data. Broadly speaking, assessment data can provide
two types of information: 1) informal, formative feedback, or 2) formal,
summative data.
Informal measures of engagement provide formative data to guide instructional,

course or program development; informal assessments of engagement provide
feedback during the learning process in a manner that allows for adjustment in

6
instructional strategies or institutional initiatives to more effectively foster

student engagement. Formative monitoring is typically conducted at the course
level and relies on informal indicators of engagement (Jennings & Angelo, 2006)
including: instructor observations of student behavior, students self-reports and
administrative records.
Instructor Observations of Student Behavior There are a number of
behavioral indicators that provide a quick, visual assessment of students
level of engagement in a given course. Kuh (2003) highlights four
effective behavioral practices that promote engagement: 1) collaborating
with peers, 2) interacting with faculty, 3) participating in learning
communities, and 4) devoting significant time to academic tasks. As a
function of these dimensions, Franklin (2005) emphasizes that engaged
students are more likely to actively listen, respond to questions,
collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class. Instructors may
informally monitor students behavior on these dimensions to gauge
engagement in response to various instructional strategies within a given
class.
Students Self-Reports To assess students engagement with course
material or institutional initiatives, self-report data can be collected
concerning course activity journals, focus groups or informal
questionnaires. Through direct self-report measures, engagement can be
analyzed via the affective (i.e., perceptions, attitudes), behavioral (i.e.,
activities), and cognitive (i.e., interest, active understanding) aspects of
the students learning experience. Information self-report measures of
engagement should be careful to differentiate between satisfaction and
engagement (Jennings & Angelo, 2006) by emphasizing time-on-task,
investment in course-related interactions and active involvement with
learning resources (Nauffal, 2010).
Administrative Records Administrative data (such as attendance,
assignment submissions, adherence to assignment guidelines and
participation in ancillary activities) can be examined as an indicator of
student engagement (Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee & Dailey-Hebert,
2011). Using activity data as a proxy for motivation or interest, these
indicators provide evidence of the degree to which students have
invested in the process of learning.
Complementing formative feedback, formal measures of engagement provide

summative data to gauge effectiveness and institutional initiatives. While
informal measures are often collected during the learning process to provide
opportunities for reflection and revision, formal measures are typically
conducted at the conclusion of a learning experience to provide a metric of
program or course effectiveness. Formal measures of student engagement target
two discrete levels: institutional and course. Institutional data determines the
extent of student engagement in the overall learning process, while course level
data determines the effect of learner-centered pedagogical methods on student
success (Butler, 2011, p. 258). The value of student engagement as a pivotal
aspect of an effective learning experience has led to the emergence of a number
of standardized instruments to assess engagement at both the course and

7
institutional levels. The integration of any of these formalized measures must be

based on alignment between target dimensions of each instrument and the needs
(at the institutional or course level) driving the integration of the engagement
metric (Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee & Dailey-Hebert, 2011). The following
sections highlight key engagement metrics including an overview of the target
dimensions, utility and relevance of each.
Institutional Assessment of Student Engagement

Institutional measures of student engagement are designed to evaluate
students levels of engagement and the effectiveness of specific engagement
activities at the institutional level (Butler, 2011, p. 259). The broad focus of these
measures makes them amenable for tracking institutional progress in fostering
engagement and/or comparisons between institutions. A number of these
measures are geared at an overall assessment of engagement encompassing
cognitive, affective and behavioral domains (i.e., NSSE); other measures target
specific institutional types (i.e., CCSSE) or student populations (i.e.,CSS).
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE) measures institutional engagement over five dimensions of
engagement: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning,
student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences and supportive
campus environment (NSSE, 2009). Used extensively in the United States to
assess the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other
educationally purposeful activities [and] how the institution deploys its
resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get
students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are
linked to student learning (About NSSE, 2010, para. 1). The NSSE provides a
global perspective of student engagement and is designed to measure student
involvement in educationally purposeful activities that directly impact their
learning and success in college (Kuh, 2001). Items on the NSSE require students
to assess their own level of engagement via behavioral indicators (NSSE, 2005)
including participation in class discussions, preparation of drafts prior to
submitting assignments, interactions with classmates outside of class on course-
related items, and integration of resources for course assignments.
College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ). The College Student Experiences

Questionnaire (CSEQ) instrument is designed to measure the quality of student
experiences, perceptions of the campus environment, and progress toward
important educational goals (CSEQ, 2007, para. 1). The goal of the CSEQ is to
assess students perceptions of the overall learning environment to provide
instructors and administrators with diagnostic, formative feedback (Kember &
Leung, 2009; Kuh, 2007). The CSEQ aligns general issues of engagement
according to student-faculty contact, cooperation among students and active
learning (Koljatic & Kuh, 2001).
Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ). The Student Engagement Questionnaire

(SEQ) is designed to collect data on students holistic reflections of their overall
experiences rather than recent activities or a specific course (McNaught, Leung
& Kember, 2006). As a measure of the progression of engagement, the SEQ is

8
administered at key stages (end of first year and exit point from their
undergraduate program) to examine both cognitive aspects of engagement as
well as active involvement in the teaching and learning environment.
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). The Faculty Survey of Student

Engagement (FSSE) is an adaptation of the NSSE designed to assess faculty
perceptions of student engagement in relation to their overall student
perspective or focusing on a specific course (Ouimet & Smallwoord, 2005).
Recognizing the role that faculty play in fostering student engagement (Kuh,
Nelson, Laird & Umbach, 2004: Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2004), the FSSE assesses
faculty views in relation to: 1) the frequency at which students actively
participate and engage in the learning process; 2) perceptions about the value
and relevance of various forms of engagement; and 3) the nature of faculty-
student interactions.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). The Community

College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) was adapted from the NSSE to
specifically examine the unique missions, objectives and student populations of
2-year community colleges (Butler, 2011; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2006). As
such, the CCSSE targets: 1) active and collaborative learning; 2) student effort; 3)
academic challenge; 4) student-faculty interactions; and 5) support for learners.
College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ). The College Student

Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ) is adapted from the CSEQ to target the
motivations and goals of new students in relation to college activities and
campus environment (CSEQ, 2007). As a companion measure to the CSEQ,
data can be longitudinally analyzed to examine the extent to which students
preliminary expectations were met by the institution.
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE). Like the CSXQ, the
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) assesses engagement
dimensions of students entering college. The BCSSE examines the expectations
of beginning college students for participating in academic initiatives and
activities via six dimensions: 1) high school academic engagement; 2) expected
academic engagement; 3) expected academic perseverance; 4) expected academic
difficulty; 5) perceived academic preparation; and 6) importance of campus
environment (BCSSE, 2010). Data from the BCSSE may be used by institutions to
guide advising; used in conjunction with the NSSE, data can also provide
indicators of the extent to which institutions have met students expectations
regarding engagement in the academic community.
College Senior Survey (CSS). The College Senior Survey (CSS) is designed as an
exit survey for graduating seniors to assess a range of student perceptions
relevant to academic engagement, student involvement and resource use.
Specific to these objectives, CSS connects academic, civic, and diversity
outcomes with a comprehensive set of college experiences to measure the impact
of college (Higher Education Research Institute, 2013, para. 1). While the scope
of the CSS goes beyond student engagement, engagement is a key component
assessed within the measure.

9
Course Assessment of Student Engagement

Course level measures of student engagement provide valuable feedback to
gauge and enhance students investment in the learning process as a reflection of
the unique structure, pedagogy and design of a given course. In reflection of the
formative value of course level engagement metrics, Barkley (2010) explains that
whatever means teacher use to assessment engagement in their classes,
gathering appropriate feedback can help close the gap between what teachers
think is happening in their classes and what students are actually experiencing
(p. 44). In contrast to the broad focus of institutional indicators of engagement,
course engagement measures target students behavioral, affective and cognitive
reactions in response to a target course (Goldspink & Foster, 2013; Laird,
Smallwood, Niskode-Dossett & Garver, 2009).
Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE). Designed as a complementary

measure to the FSSE, the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE)
assesses student perceptions of engagement in a course (Ouimet & Smallwood,
2005). The student version of CLASSE metric measures the frequency by which
students engage in various educational activities, while the faculty version of
CLASSE gauges the importance of each of these indicators for facilitating
student success within a specific course (Smallwood & Ouimet, 2009). The
comparison of the two versions of CLASSE can be examined to identify
discrepancies between student and faculty reports of engagement at the course
level. Recognizing the formative focus of CLASSE, faculty using CLASSE
indicate that it prompts more reflective teaching, enhances communication with
students about learning opportunities, and fosters a more cooperative and
interactive classroom environment (Ouimet & Smallwood, 2005).
Student Engagement Index. Developed to identify specific measures of classroom

engagement aligned with each of the NSSEs benchmarks (Langley, 2006), the
Student Engagement Index measure examines student engagement as a function
of: 1) level of academic challenge; 2) quality of student interactions with faculty;
3) active and collaborative learning environments; and 4) enriching educational
experiences and supportive campus environment (Langley, 2006). Within each
benchmark, key indicators are assessed:
Level of academic challenge measures student effort, time investment
and interaction expectations with course-related activities.
Quality of student interactions examines students access to contact with
the instructor, quality of instructor feedback, student-instructor
relationships, supportive classroom environment and instructor clarity
and organization.
Active and collaborative learning focuses on student involvement in the
learning process via active and collaborative learning.
Enriching educational experiences examines diversity issues, integration
and synthesis of knowledge, professional experiences and general
technology issues.

10
Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ). In contrast to the measures

adapted from broader engagement surveys, Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan and
Towler (2005) devised a measure of student course engagement (Student Course
Engagement Questionnaire; SCEQ) that breaks course engagement into four
distinct forms: 1) skills engagement; 2) emotional engagement; 3)
participation/interaction engagement; and 4) performance engagement. Broadly
encompassing behavioral, cognitive and affective aspects of engagement, the
SCEQ assesses each dimension of engagement in relation to students course
involvement:
Skill engagement examines academic learning strategies and study
behaviors that promote academic success.
Emotional engagement assesses affective components in which
students internalize learning through an emotional connection to
course material.
Participation/interaction engagement measures students interaction
with the instructor and classmates in relation to course material.
Performance engagement targets students perspectives and self-
efficacy in relation to mastering course content.
As highlighted by Handelsman et al. (2005) the SCEQ provides a more
comprehensive understanding of student engagement and fosters insight
beyond what is visible in behavioral observations of classroom engagement.
Student Engagement Survey (SE). The Student Engagement Survey is a short, 14-
item assessment that adapts target items from the NSSE survey for use at the
course level (Ahlfeldt, Mehta & Sellnow, 2005). The selected questions examine
student engagement as a function of: 1) collaborative learning; 2) cognitive
development; and 3) personal skills development. Respondents rate the
frequency of active learning strategies, interactivity, required depth of learning,
and skill development within the context of a target course.
Behavioral Engagement Related to Instruction (BERI). Designed to quantitatively

measure student engagement in large college classes, the BERI is a classroom
observation protocol emphasizing teaching behaviors that impact student
engagement (Lane & Harris, 2015). Conducted via an external observer, the
BERI provides formative information to guide instructors on instructional
techniques that foster increased student engagement.
Conclusion
Complexity surrounding assessment of student engagement is a natural by-
product of the dynamic, interactive nature of this phenomenon. Marcum (2000)
attempted to capture the intricacies of engagement via a conceptual formula in
which:
E = L(I+ Cp + Ch)x Inv (A + Co + Cm) => IK/Ef => E
In explanation, Engagement = Learning (Interest + Competence + Challenge) x
Involvement (Activity + Communication + Commitment) producing Increased
Knowledge and Effectiveness which results, typically, in increased Engagement.
The process amounts to a dynamic evolving system (Marcum, 2000, p. 59).
Echoing the dynamic relationship between engagement variables, Barkley (2010)

11
explains that motivation and active learning work together synergistically, and
as they interact, they contribute incrementally to increase engagement active
learning and motivation are spirals working together synergistically, building in
intensity, and creating a fluid and dynamic phenomenon that is greater than the
sum of the individual effects (p. 7).
As highlighted by these conceptual defintions, student engagement cannot be

effectively defined or measured by a singular assessment strategy. The dynamic
nature of engagement mandates a multi-faceted approach to assessment that
captures the interactive nature of the behavioral, affective and cognitive
dimensions comprising student engagement. As student engagement is an
integral component of a successful learning experience, it is essential to select
assessment strategies that consider the range of interactive engagement
components, variability in purposes of engagement data, and differences in the
target level of analysis. Combining the information available through informal
and formal indicators of engagement at both the course and institutional level,
the assessment of student engagement provides vital data to inform pedagogy
and programmatic initiatives to foster engagement in support of students
psychosocial growth, cognitive understanding and professional development.
References
Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student
engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of
instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5-20.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., Pike, G. R., & Hansen, M. J. (2009). The use of engagement data in
accreditation, planning, and assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research,
141, 21-34.
Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). Beginning College Survey of
Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://bcsse.iub.edu/
Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 4-7.
Braxton, J. M. (2008).Toward a scholarship of practice centered on college student
retention. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 101-112. DOI:
10.1002/tl.328
Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-
215.
Butler, J. M. (2011). Using standardized tests to assess institution-wide student
engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B.Beins, K. Keith, & B.
Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques and
opportunities. Syracuse, NY: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Available
from the STP web site: http://www.teachpsych.org/teachpsych/pnpp/.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13).
College Student Experiences Questionnaire. (2007). General information. Retrieved from
http://cseq.iub.edu/

12
Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality
assurance.Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36.
Cross, K. P. (2005). What do we know about students' learning and how do we know it? Center
for the Study of Higher Education Research and Occasional Paper Series.
Retrieved from http://www.aahe.org/nche/cross_lecture.htm
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching
behaviours, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In
D. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.
Franklin, E. E. (2005). Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching
Artist Journal, 3, 148-157.
Fredricks, J. A. (2013). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis
of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson,
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY:
Springer.
Garrett, C. (2011). Defining, detecting, and promoting student engagement in college
learning environments. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal,
5(2), 1-12.
Goldspink, C., & Foster, M. (2013). A conceptual model and set of instruments for
measuring student engagement in learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3),
291-311. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.776513
Gn, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of
technology in student engagement in higher education: Campus-Class-
Technology Theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 86-113.
Guthrie, J. T., & Anderson, E. (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated,
strategic, knowledgeable, social readers. In J. T. Guthrie & D. E. Alvermann
(Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17-45). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of
college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-191.
Higher Education Research Institute (2013). College Senior Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/abtHERI.php
Jennings, J. M., & Angelo, T. (Eds.) (2006). Student engagement: Measuring and enhancing
engagement with learning [Proceedings of a symposium]., New Zealand:
Universities Academic Audit Unit.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for
technology-based teaching and learning, Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students
perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality
assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15-29., DOI: 10.1007/s10984-
008-9050-7
Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student
engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42,
351-371.
Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement,
satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students.
Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72-85.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National
Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE:
Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2).
Kuh, G. D. (2007). CSEQ: College Students Experience Questionnaire Assessment
Program. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/.

13
Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty and student
behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4),
24-31.
Kushman, J. W., Sieber, C., & Heariold-Kinney, P. (2000). This isn't the place for me:
School dropout. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention
resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (pp. 471-507). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.
Laird, T. F., Smallwood, R. A., Niskode-Dossett, A. S. & Garver, A. K. (2009). Effectively
involving faculty in the assessment of student engagement. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 141, 71-81. DOI: 10.1002/ir.287
Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral
engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6),
83-91.
Langley, D. (2006). The student engagement index: A proposed student rating system
based on the national benchmarks of effective educational practice. University of
Minnesota: Center for Teaching and Learning Services.
Mandernach, B. J., Donnelli-Sallee, E. & Dailey-Hebert, A. (2011). Assessing Course
Student Engagement. In R. L. Miller, E. Amsel, B. Kowalewski, B.Beins, K. Keith,
& B. Peden, (Eds.). Promoting student engagement, volume 1: Programs, techniques
and opportunities. Syracuse, NY: Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
Available from the STP web site:
http://www.teachpsych.org/teachpsych/pnpp/.
Marcum, J. W. (2000). Out with motivation, in with engagement. National Productivity
Review, 18, 57-59.
McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2006). Student engagement and student
outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research. Austin, TX: University of
Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
McIntyre, D. J., Copenhaver, R. W., Byrd, D. M., & Norris, W. R. (1983). A study of
engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics
class. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 55-59.
McNaught, C., Leung, D., & Kember, D. (2006). Report on the Student Engagement
Project. Centre for Learning Enhancement and Research, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong.
Milem, J., & Berger, J. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring
the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of
student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387-400.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). National Survey of Student Engagement
2005 Annual Report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research and Planning.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2009). National Survey of Student Engagement
2009 Annual Report, Assessment for Improvement: Tracking Student Engagement Over
Time. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
and Planning.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). National Survey of Student
Engagement: About NSSE. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/.
Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement
from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14
24.
Nauffal, D. (2010). Institutional effectiveness: Assessment of student engagement. Presentation
at the Higher Education International Conference, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ouimet, J. A., & Smallwood, R. A. (2005). CLASSE: The class-level survey of student
engagement. Journal of Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher
Education, 17(6), 13-15.

14
Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 3(2): 145158.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36-44.
Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school
and whether I've got it: The role of perceived control in children's engagement
and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32.
Smallwood, R. A. & Ouimet, J. A. (2009). CLASSE: Measuring student engagement at the
classroom level. In Banta, E., Jones. E. & Black, K. (eds). Designing effective
assessment: Principles and profiles of good practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2004). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Paper presented at the annual forum of the
Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.
Woods, E. G. (1995). Reducing the dropout rate. In School Improvement Research Series
(SIRS): Research you can use (Close-up No. 17). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Zhao, C. M. & Kuh, G. D (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement, Research in Higher Education, 45, 115-138.

15

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 15-25, June 2015
The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies

Problem Solving Strategies in your Math Lessons
Costic Lupu
Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacu, Faculty of Science,
Mathematics-Informatics and Science of Education Department, Romnia
Abstract. This article demonstrates the relevance of using heuristic

problem-solving strategies in lessons of Mathematics, as a fundamental
requirement with multiple valences in building thought operations,
which leads to enhancing school performance. Our study aims at
elaborating a methodological model that may fully exploit heuristic
didactic strategies in the heuristic solving of problems. The organization
of the study will focus on improving the use and efficiency of heuristic
mathematical techniques by relating to heuristic problem solving. The
teaching strategy creates circumstances for building the students
learning strategies and the learning methods determine the optimization
of the teaching strategies. Schematically, our aim is to build a learning
situation where the student learns (through guidance), builds (through
semi-guidance) or elaborates (independently) strategies for learning the
new content, solving strategies or even strategies for the self-guidance
and control of ones own way of thinking. An essential element in
elaborating the teaching strategy is selecting heuristic methods and
procedures. Various methods were applied during the research:
conversation, experiment, analysis of activity products, the method of the
tests, statistical processing of the data. The research was conducted
during the 2014-2015 school year, involving two groups, each of them
comprising 24 students: experimental group the 8th grade from
Octavian Voicu Middle School, Bacu, and a control group the 8th
grade from Miron Costin Middle School, Bacu.
Keywords: ameliorative experiment; mathematical heuristic techniques;

teaching-learning-evaluation.
Introduction
The term heuristic comes from Greek: heuriskein to find out, to discover.
Heuristic teaching strategies represent mental exploitation strategies supporting
the discovery of information, stimulate thought operations, the students
judgement and reasoning, leading to active, conscious learning.
2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

16
Traditional education, focused on the teacher and the learning content, has been
replaced by modern, student-centred education. To achieve this desideratum, the
teacher has to resort to heuristic teaching-learning strategies.
The heuristic strategy implies a wide range of methods. The most frequently
used heuristic methods include: the method of the analogy; generalization and
particularization; analysis through synthesis; selecting, searching for a related
problem; solving an auxiliary problem; rereading definitions; exploiting
properties; reformulating the problem; demonstrative reasoning (deductive,
inductive, analogical).
This strategy represents the result of the interconditioning between the two
components:
the teaching strategy (elaborated by the teacher): the teachers ability to select
and combine, in a certain order, methods, procedures and training instruments,
groupings of students, select and organize the scientific content according to the
proposed objectives, opt for a certain learning situation that would be
experienced by the students;
the learning strategy (elaborated by the student), that may be: - participation
strategies; - encoding strategies; - acquisition and reconstruction strategies; -
strategies for elaborating hypotheses; - strategies connected to problem solving.
By heuristic method we mean a specific way for solving a general problem. It
may include several procedures, these constituting details of the method, with a
more limited sphere of applicability. The heuristic procedures may be defined as
thought mechanisms that suggest and stimulate the generation of efficient
conjunctures while solving the problem, or enable the shortening of the problem
solving path.
Research description
Researcher objectives
The researcher has proposed the following benchmarks:
1. Knowledge of the heuristic teaching methods in order to be able to
heuristically solve problems by studying the reference bibliography and the
experience achieved during lessons of Mathematics;
2. Elaborating (initiating) a personal methodological process to fully exploit
heuristic teaching strategies;
3. Organizing and conducting the experiment (in order to achieve the proposed
objectives);
4. Analysing, processing and presenting the obtained results (in order to
demonstrate, in an efficient way, the heuristic methods used in problem solving);
5. Formulating conclusions (in order to understand the efficiency of the
experiment).
The research hypothesis

The organization of our experiment relied on the following hypothesis: If during
the act of teaching-learning there are efficiently used heuristic mathematical
problem-solving strategies, with multiple formative valences in building thought
operations, then these will generate an increase in school performance and the
students results will be much improved.

17
Sample of study
The research was conducted during the 2014-2015 school year, involving two
groups, each of them comprising 125 students: experimental group the 8th A
grade from Octavian Voicu Middle School, Bacu, and 125 students: control
group the 8th B grade from Miron Costin Middle School, Bacu.
The stages of the experiment

The stage of initial evaluation aimed at observing the students level of training
by applying initial testing which consisted of observation protocols and a
knowledge test (comprising different exercises and problems).
The stage of formative-ameliorative evaluation, during which there was
introduced the progress factor and there were varied the manifestation
circumstances by using active heuristic teaching methods, besides those used in
the heuristic problem solving process.
The stage of final evaluation consisted in a comparison of the results obtained in
the initial test, in order to highlight the students progress/ regress at lessons of
Mathematics, especially in problem solving.
The research variables are:
- the independent (introduced) variable, namely the use of active teaching
methods;
- the dependent variable that leads to enhancing the efficiency of heuristic
methods of solving problems and the students school progress.
The research methodology

The research is based on the following knowledge methods and techniques: 1.
The method of observation; 2. The method of conversation; 3. The psychological
analysis of the activitys results/products; 4. The method of tests; 5. The
statistical-mathematical methods.
Specialized literature
Types of heuristic teaching strategies in problem solving

The teaching strategies highlight the teachers ability to select and combine, in a
certain order, training methods and procedures, groupings for students, select
and organize the scientific content according to the proposed objectives, opt for a
certain learning situation that will be experienced by the students.
The teaching strategy implies a certain way of approaching learning and teaching
that may be: analytical or synthetic, intuitive or deductive, creative or
algorithmic, theoretical or practical-applicative, frontal or individual, classic or
modern, interdisciplinary or monodisciplinary.
According to the selected strategy, the teacher searches for and associates those
operations (analysis, comparison, association, analogy, interpretation,
generalization, abstraction etc.) in order to reach the desired acquisitions
(knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviours, attitudes). In this respect, the students

18
physical and mental activity is decomposed into a series of sequences, with a

view to organizing each moment of the lesson.
At the level of teaching, the strategy is part of the methodology, the teachers art
of leading, solving training situations. The teacher uses the elements of the
teaching-learning-evaluation process as a system, in order to achieve objectives
in a certain manner, a procedural option, a combinatory style, a coordination
style, a model for typical and optimal solving. Therefore, it is an act of
institutional management.
Characterized, essentially, as a way for combining and approaching teaching-
learning-evaluation, of organizing the process in order to achieve objectives, the
teaching strategy provides criteria for building training actions and situations by:
- selecting the orientation towards a certain type, form, way of teaching and
learning and of conducting them;
- selecting the best set of methods, means, forms of organization that circulate the
learning contents;
- indicating the conditions, minimal resources needed to reach a certain objective
or group;
- conceiving, designing teaching-learning-evaluation sequentially or in
compliance with a certain concatenation and order of these; finding the proper
solution for defining, selecting, correlating the situations resulted from relating to
previously established objectives;
- achieving various combinations of these elements of the process of training,
both at the global level (macro-design) and at the level of a concrete teaching,
learning (micro-design) situation, in relation to a certain operational objective;
- indicating a certain way for introducing the student into the created situation,
guiding him in solving the task, until its completion and evaluation;
- relating this combination to other determined conditions the students initial
level of training, allotted time, moment of beginning, place among the other
situations, material circumstances;
- formulating a version, a solution resembling a decision, after having processed
the information accumulated in relation to the elements of the situation, such as
type, organization and conducting it;
- the possibility to particularize its elements into actions, delimited operations
(procedures) that may enhance the degree of precision, control, prevention of
deviations and streamlining;
- the teachers possibility to guide the situations evolution, to seize disturbing
factors and intervene, to find solutions for adopting or selecting another method
ad-hoc;
- to engage students according to their particularities, to assert creativity,
teaching style and how the teacher leads the action;

19
- indicating the proper way for putting the student into contact with the
objectives, contents, concrete tasks, achievement conditions, evaluation criteria,
the type of learning and exploiting previous experience;
- formulating even research hypotheses for optimizing training by introducing,
experimenting new methodological, organizational combinations;
- delimiting the degree and form for extending the guidance of students in
training, solving, generalizing results, involving them in specific learning
activities;
- supporting the teacher in finding answers to the questions he himself raises
while designing teaching, defining and combining the required training-
evaluation situations;
- unifying criteria, adjusting them to the establishment of the strategy for solving
the situation: the teachers design, objectives, informational content, the students
type of experience, the rules that must be complied with, the teaching-material
resources, the allotted time.
Types of heuristic strategies in solving problems
a) according to the learning activity in the training process:
- algorithmic: - through imitation of given models; - through repetition, practice,
memorization; - through reception, reproduction; - through concrete-intuitive
knowledge; - through algorithmization, step by step;
- heuristic: - through unmediated observation; - by solving open problems ; -
through experimentation ; - through debates, heuristic dialogues; - through
group research; - through simulation, modelling, applications; - through
creativity techniques etc.
- mixed: - by combining all the other types.
b) according to the way of guiding learning: - step-by-step guidance; - semi-
guidance; - partial non-intervention.
c) according to the type of reasoning applied: - inductive teaching-learning; -
deductive teaching-learning; - transductive teaching-learning; - learning by
analogy; - combining reasonings.
Any strategy is simultaneously a technique and educational art, the selection and
use of any type of strategy decisively depends on the teachers training and
personality, since during a teaching activity the teacher may use a combination of
strategies, corresponding situations in order to enhance the efficiency of his
actions and the quality of results.
Research results
Initial evaluation
During the observational stage, we applied an initial evaluation test. The test was
elaborated by taking into account the objectives that had to be achieved by the
end of the 8th grade, in order to establish the students level of training.
Analysing the data from the tables, we may argue that:

20
- the results obtained by the students from the experimental class constitute
information on the knowledge of the respective student, as well as the students
knowledge gaps;
- the total score at the level of the class represents the sum of the points obtained
for each item plus one point from the office.
Following the recording of these data, our conclusions regarding the students
initial training level are the following: - the students had difficulties in solving
problems; - the average of the experimental class is 7,3 , this representing the
starting point in conducting our research.
The initial test was meant to establish the students level of training. The test
helped us notice the fact that the most difficult item was I 4 , whereas the best
results were obtained at items I1 , I2 , I3 . The data per student demonstrated
relevant differences between the students who had solved 2-3 tasks and those
who had solved all the tasks. We found that the level of the class is lower-
intermediate.
Applying the initial test enabled us to identify the students learning difficulties
in the initial phase and, in relation to their extent, a more prolonged focus on the
respective content until all the students have achieved a corresponding training
level.
Analysing the graphs that represent the results obtained by the students from the
experimental class, we found that from the 125 evaluated children, 54 obtained the
mark VW (very well) representing 43%, 45 children obtained the mark W (well),
representing 36%, and 26 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing
21% of the participants.
Analysing the graphs that show the results obtained by the students of the class,
we found that in the initial evaluation, the results of the control group were the
following: from the 125 evaluated children, 54 obtained the mark VW (very
well), representing 43% of them, 37 children obtained the mark of W (well),
representing 30%, and 20 children obtained the mark S (sufficient), representing
16%, whereas 14 children obtained the mark I (insufficient), representing 11 %
of the participants.
Analysing the results obtained by the students with poorer results, we found that
these are challenged by difficulties in solving the following tasks: - they do not
perform calculi correctly; - they do not solve problems completely; - they do not
compose problems following the given model; - they do not find the question
that they need to raise in order to solve the problem.
Following the results obtained by the experimental class, we have noticed the fact
that most students come across difficulties when solving problems.
Formative evaluation
The formative evaluation tests applied during lessons of Mathematics enabled
the immediate knowledge of the students learning difficulties. In order to

21
eliminate the errors, we resorted to differentiating the activities. Following the

analysis of the tests, there were presented the unachieved operational objectives,
so that these may be aimed at during the proposed recovery activities.
Analysing the data, we may argue that although the students from the
experimental class did not record major leaps in terms of their marks, almost all
of them achieved better scores compared to the previous tests, therefore the
learning experience was a success. We have also noticed the fact that the most
frequent errors were those related to calculus, which indicates that the methods
used in the heuristic solving of problems are known and acquired by the
students of the class.
The formative evaluation tests applied during lessons of Mathematics enabled
the immediate identification of errors and the students learning difficulties.
Looking at the tables with the data from the ameliorative formative tests and at
the graphs with the scores and marks obtained in the initial tests, we may notice
the fact that the school performance was improved as follows: - the average at the
initial test for the experimental group was 7,3 and at formative test no. 1 the
average was 8; - at formative test no. 2, there was a slight increase compared to
the first test, the average being 8,2.
This increase is due to surpassing the more serious difficulties related to the
contents of learning. The scores obtained were significantly higher than for the
previous test. The results obtained highlight the relevance of formative
evaluation tests applied during the learning activities and confirm the usefulness
of the heuristic methods used. The fact that the results of the students from the
experimental class were improved, with even the less industrious students
achieving a promotion level, determined us to interfere, when it was necessary,
with worksheets for repeating certain tasks, in order to achieve a more thorough
acquisition of knowledge.
The progress obtained by the students compared to the initial test cannot be
interpreted only as enhancement of percentages related to achieving objectives,
but also in relation to the use of heuristic working methods, which led to
activating the desire for performance or for increasing performance and,
implicitly, a more active, conscious participation of students.
Summative (final) evaluation

On June the 1st 2014, there was applied the final evaluation of students through
an evaluation test. In order to centralize and interpret the data, we have resorted
to analytical and synthetic tables, frequency polygons, histograms and diagrams.
The final evaluation test was designed in a similar manner to the initial one, so
that the results obtained may be compared, the knowledge included in the
syllabus being defined as operational objectives encoded as items.
The analysis of the analytical and synthetic tables of the histogram, the frequency
polygon and the circular diagram revealed the fact that in the final evaluation,

22
for the experimental group, the results were the following: from the 125 evaluated
children, 80 obtained the mark VW (very well), representing 64%, 36 children
obtained the mark W (well), representing 29 %, and 9 child obtained the mark S
(sufficient), representing 7 % of the participants.
The analysis of the analytical and synthetic table, of the histogram, frequency
polygon and circular diagram, revealed that in the final evaluation, the results for
the control group were the following: from the 125 evaluated children, 55 obtained
the mark VW (very well), representing 44%, 46 children obtained the mark W
(well), representing 37%, whereas 14 children obtained the mark S (sufficient),
representing 19% of the participants.
The comparative analysis of the data obtained in the initial and final
evaluation form
In order to highlight the progresses related to improving relations following the
conducted experiment and the applied methodology, we have proceeded to
performing a comparative analysis of the two series from the initial and final
evaluation.
MARKS Initial evaluation Final evaluation
VERY WELL 54 80
WELL 45 36
SUFFICIENT 26 9
INSUFFICIENT 0 0
Table 1: Comparative analysis for the experimental group
90
80
70
60
50
Initial evaluation
40
30 Final evaluation
20
10
0
Very well Well Sufficient Insufficient
Figure 1: Frequency polygon comparative analysis of the results from the initial and final
evaluation for the experimental group
The comparison of the results obtained in the predictive and final test have
revealed the fact that throughout the school year, as a result of the systematic
application of active methods and differentiated learning during lessons, the
progress of students was both qualitative and quantitative. This fact was easily

23
seen in the ease and pleasure with which the students acquired a great amount of
knowledge, with which they operated in solving problems and problem-
situations (knowledge acquired especially through their personal effort), in the
pleasure with which they worked throughout the entire school year.
The comparative analysis of the table and frequency polygon revealed the
progress recorded at the end of the experiment by the experimental group. The
results obtained in the final evaluation show an obvious difference from the
scores obtained in the initial evaluation. This reveals the fact that the formative
stage was efficient, the results obtained demonstrating the improvement of the
results.
MARKS Initial evaluation Final evaluation
WERY WELL 54 55
WELL 37 46
SUFFICIENT 20 14
INSUFFICIENT 14 0
Table 2: Comparative analysis for the control group
The comparative analysis of the table and frequency polygon reveals, for the
control group, the fact that the number of students who obtained the mark VW
remained the same, the number of those who obtained the mark W increased, the
number of those with mark S did not increase but there increased the percentage
for mark I. The results obtained in the final evaluation test did not increase
significantly compared to the points obtained at the stage of initial evaluation.
MARKS EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
VERY WELL 80 55
WELL 36 46
SUFFICIENT 9 14
INSUFFICIENT 0 0
Table 3: Comparative analysis between the two groups in the final evaluation
90
80
70
60
50
Experimental group
40
30 Control group
20
10
0
Very well Well Sufficient Insufficient
Figure 2: Frequency polygon comparative analysis for final evaluation

24
The comparative analysis of the histogram and frequency polygon reveals the
progress recorded at the end of the experiment by the experimental group.
Calculating the average between the two tests (initial and final) and drawing a
comparison between the two groups, there may be observed an increase in the
school performance for the experimental group as compared to the control
group.
Conclusions
In general, it may be said that solving problems constitutes the most appropriate
way for achieving the objectives of teaching-learning Mathematics. The activity
of Mathematics requires effort, focus and activation of all the components of the
human psychic, particularly thought and intelligence. The intellectual effort put
into composing and solving problems is, essentially, a continuous exercise that
results in building the students imagination and creativity.
From the instructive-educational perspective, solving problems constitutes the
application of acquired knowledge in relation to mathematical operations and
their properties, deepening and consolidating knowledge. In terms of practice,
solving problems represents the seizing and understanding of the relations
between sizes that we come across on a daily basis, for the solving of which it is
not enough to know only the calculus technique.
The main objective of each lesson should serve not just training, but also
education, an action where the leading role belongs to the educator. This should
avoid the formal nature of the lesson and ensure an atmosphere of constant
communication, the students participating with their own ideas, questions that
the educator should tactfully guide towards the proposed educational goal. At
the same time, he should aim at the accessibility of learning by challenging the
student, in a systematic, conscious, gradated way, with obstacles that the student
may overcome under his guidance.
Composing and solving problems will challenge students throughout the entire
school period as well as their entire life, but by being discreetly led towards
discovering the solution, they will be enthusiastic and encouraged to obtain more
and more performances.
The results obtained by applying the tests have generated the following findings:
- the data obtained highlighted the higher results from the final test compared to
the initial test, demonstrating the efficiency of the development thinking and
finding several alternatives for solving a problem;
- the continuous, sustained solving of problems also helped the students with
poorer results, removing their fear of failure and shyness;
- the systematic training of students in finding as many possible alternatives for
solving a problem leads to building the students creativity;

25
- involving the students in creative, active-participative activities gives the

teacher the possibility to know individual particularities better, the style of each
student, intelligence, will, temperament, behaviour, in a word, personality.
I believe that the proposed objective and hypothesis have been confirmed, our
work constituting a possible guide for teachers in their activity of solving simple,
composed or typical problems.
References
Aebli, H., (1998). Zwlf Grundformen des Lehrens. Eine allgemeine Didaktik auf
Kognitions psychologischer Grundlage (Twelve basic forms of teaching. An
approach to General Didactics founded on Cognitive Psychology; 1st.ed.:1983),
10th.ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Ausubel, D.P., & Robinson, F.G., (1981). Learning in the school. An introduction to the
pedagogical psychology (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing
House, Bucharest.
Cuco, C., (1998). Psycho-pedagogy for teaching exams and grades completed, (in
Romanian), Polirom Publishing House, Iai.
Dumitriu, C., (2004). Introduction to pedagogical research, (in Romanian), Didactic and
Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucharest.
Gagne, R.M., (1975). Learning conditions, (in Romanian), Didactic and Pedagogical
Publishing House, Bucharest.
Gagne, R.M., & Briggs L.J., (1977). Principles of design training, Didactic and Pedagogical
Publishing House, Bucharest.
Lupu, C. (2006), Teaching Mathematics, (in Romanian), Caba Publishing House,
Bucharest, Romania.
Lupu, C., & Svulescu D., (2000). Teaching geometry, (in Romanian), Paralela 45
Publishing House, Pitesti.
Lupu, C. (2013). Establishment of Cognitive Functions trough Mathematical Education,
Quality and Efficiency in E-Learning, Vol. 1 Book Series: eLearning and Software
for Education Pages: 178-183.
Lupu, C. (2014). The Psiho-pedagogical Paradigm of Discipline Didactics, LAMBERT
Academic Publishing, OmniScriptum GmbHet Co. KG, Saarbrucken,
Deutschland/ Germany.
Lupu, C. (2014). The model object-product-cognitive operation through mathematical
education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 163, Pages 132 141.
Nyberg E. M., & Olander M. H., (2015). A study of formative assessment strategies in
teachers school-based in-service training, International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational, Vol.11, Nr. 1.
Perels, F., Grtler, T., & Schmitz, B., (2005).Training of self-regulatory and problem-
solving competence, Learning and Instruction, Volume 15, Issue 2, 123139.
Postolic, V., & Lupu, C., (2015). Euclidean Geometry and Computers. Published online,
as Original Research Article in the International Journal of Applied Science and
Mathematics, Vol. 2, Issue 1, p. 1 6.

26

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 26-47, June 2015
The Effects of Three Types of Instructor Posting on

Critical Thinking and Social Presence: No Posting,
Facilitating Discourse, and Direct Instruction
Jamie Costley
English Education Department, Kongju National University,
Kongju, South Korea
Abstract. As more and more institutions are using asynchronous forums

as the main or only means for students to interact online, the need to
understand the effects of instructor intervention on learner discourse in
those types of learning environments has become more important. This
study will describe the effects of different types of instructor
intervention on learners levels of critical thinking and social presence.
The research involved taking 900 learner posts from three differing
experimental conditions and analyzing those posts for social presence
and critical thinking. The three experimental conditions were no
instructor posting, posts containing facilitating discourse, and posts
containing direct instruction. The results showed instructor posts that
facilitate discourse generate higher levels of social presence when
compared to the other two conditions, and instructor posts that contain
direct instruction increase critical thinking. These results are important
in general, because instructors must be aware of how their behavior may
affect how learners interact (and therefore learn) online. More
specifically, the types of discourse their learners create are of interest to
many instructors. Therefore, the ways instructors can manipulate
learner discourse is of great importance.
Keywords: Teaching presence; critical thinking; social presence;

direct instruction; facilitating discourse
1. Introduction
Asynchronous online forums are the most commonly used medium of

communication for learners in higher education settings (Johnson, 2007; Harman
& Koohang, 2005). Asynchronous online forums are generally easy to use for
general student-to-student communication and for more complex collaborative
tasks (Reid, Katz and Jacobsen, 2006). Regardless of the fact that student-to-
student interaction may be the purpose of many forums, instructors still have
responsibility to oversee and in some cases intervene in the learning
environment (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer; 2001). Furthermore,
studies have established the importance and effectiveness of instructor behavior
when students interact online (Andresen, 2009; Shea, Chun, & Pickett, 2006) and
27
the effect of teaching presence on critical thinking and social presence in

particular (Prasad, 2009;Swan & Shih, 2005). The way learners interact with each
other is of core importance when assessing the quality of a learning environment
(Martyn, 2005). To effectively allow learners to collaborate there needs to be
some form of in depth interaction. This interaction is usually manifested in
either some type of written or spoken dialogue or discourse. The underlying
assumption that underpins this is that a community of learners is helpful for
learning, and necessary for higher order learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).
Online asynchronous forums, correctly administered and controlled, have the
ability to develop insightful socially connected learners (Harman & Koohang,
2005). When asked, learners respond that instructor involvement is crucial to
academic success and engagement (Hughes & Daykin, 2002; Rourke &
Anderson, 2002; Salmon 2002; Shea, 2003). This idea can be further developed as
showing that some degree of scaffolding and teacher control can raise the level
of discourse. This parallels research offline which shows that support develops
learners motivation and ability to complete tasks to a high level (Baeten, Dochy,
& Struyven, 2013).
This study investigates the effects of instructor posting on student

discussion in online threaded asynchronous forums. Direct analysis of student
discussions were used to develop a rich understanding of how instructor
posting can effect learner discussion. Measurements of social presence and
critical thinking within the learner discourse were used to evaluate the quality of
the posts that learners were producing. This paper will describe the effects that
varying types of instructor behavior have on the levels of social presence and
critical thinking within learner discussions.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Teaching presence, social presence and critical thinking
In an online environment, the way that a teacher interacts (or doesnt

interact) is one of the key elements in manipulating the way that the learners
within the online learning environment will behave. Teacher behavior has clear
and direct relationships with satisfaction and learning (Shea, Fredrickson,
Pickett & Pelz, 2003). Teaching behavior is best conceptualized by Anderson,
Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001) as teaching presence. Teaching presence is
defined as, ..the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social
presences for realizing personally meaningful and emotionally worthwhile
learning outcomes. (Anderson et al., 2001, pg 5). They note that individual
learning without the aid of formal instruction can be effective. However, when
using any kind of online interactive medium or cooperative learning some kind
of guidance (teaching presence) is required. Anderson et al. (2001) seek to
identify the differing types of teaching presence so as to further our
understanding of how to smoothly run CSCL environments and how those
different parts of teaching presence can be measured.
28
Anderson et al. (2001) criticize a laissez faire or guide on the side

approach to online learning as not taking full advantage of the potential
contributions of instructors in guiding the discourse and giving instruction.
They argue for some degree of direct instruction and facilitation of learners as
they progress through learning tasks. Direct instruction is the process by which
instructors control pedagogical aspects of the learning environment. That is, the
instructors delivering information to the learners in terms of their experience
and knowledge. The facilitation of discourse as a part of teaching presence can
be easily overlooked in online environments but it is of vital importance for
keeping the course flowing and keeping the students committed to, interested in
and motivated towards the learning objectives of the course. If instructors fail to
adequately manage the interactions between learners, then those interactions can
break down (Shin, 2008). Facilitating discourse is very much intertwined with
the ways that learners interact with each other within the learning community
(Rourke et al. 2001).
The conceptualization of social presence began with Mehrabian (1969)

and his idea of immediacy. Immediacy refers to actions, which bring individuals
together and increase the intensity and/or frequency of interactions between
them. The concept of affinity is defined as an individuals positive attitude
towards another individual, and high levels of it would increase levels of
meaningful communication between people interacting together (McCroskey &
Wheeless 1976). The lack of physical closeness or nonverbal behaviors would be
detrimental to individual-to-individual communication, which brings about a
problem when trying to develop most kinds of asynchronous communication
mediums online, as they lack any kind of nonverbal social cues. Regardless of
this, while nonverbal cues are lacking in asynchronous learning environments,
social dimensions of interaction can be met in other ways. Learners and
instructors tend to use a great deal of text introducing themselves, making jokes
and attempting to relate to others within the learning community (Rourke et al.
2001). These forms of interaction are required for the development of in depth
collaboration. It has been shown that higher levels of interaction lead to greater
knowledge development and stronger social ties online (Tan, Tripathi, Zuiker
and Seah 2010).
Critical thinking allows the learner to assess the quality of their current
knowledge and incoming knowledge; it also allows the learner to develop
knowledge of their own (Dewey, 1933). One of the main advantages of Deweys
framework of reflective thinking is that most forms of conscious cognition
(critical, abstract, inference for example) can be explained by the theory
(Garrison and Archer, 2000). The learners experience in an online learning
environment can also be modeled through the core of reflective thinking model.
The learner moves through imagination, deliberation and action towards
understanding of the material being covered (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). More
specifically, asynchronous written discourse is more strongly weighted towards
reflective thinking as opposed to most verbal discourse that is often spontaneous
and lacking in reflection (Garrison et al. 2003). More directly and powerfully, a
29
discourse with high levels of critical thinking has a strong positive relationship
with learning (Pilkington, 2001).
2.2 The effects of teaching presence on social presence and critical thinking
Instructor presence is important in developing the levels of social

presence students feel in online courses and an instructors style of intervention
affects how learners feel and the degree that they participate online. This can be
a positive experience, in that learners tend to judge instructors who intervene
more often higher than those who dont. However, instructor intervention can
also lead to discussions being cut short (Swan and Shih, 2005; Mazzolini and
Maddison, 2002). Certain dimensions of social presence (social context, online
communication and interactivity) can be enhanced by instructor interventions
online. If instructors engage learners in social tasks and take steps to remove
layers of formality between themselves, then social presence can be improved
(Tu & McIsaac, 2002). More specifically some interventions instructors can use to
promote social presence are: contributing to discussion boards, promptly answering
e-mail, providing frequent feedback, striking up conversations, sharing personal stories
and experiences, using humor, using emoticons, addressing students by name, and
allowing students options for addressing the instructor (Aragon, 2003). Topics which
are more focused around personal issues, induce higher levels of social presence
and students with higher levels of social presence report that their instructors
had a more personal tone in their online interaction and that those instructors
spent time developing a sense of community. This is in contrast to learners with
lower levels of social presence who can often feel passive and bored when trying
to relate with the class content (Swan and Shih, (2005). Further to this, students
sense of community is also positively related to their levels of social presence.
Learners with high levels of social presence report a stronger feeling of
community toward the other learners they are interacting with (Shea, Li, Swan &
Pickett, 2005). It has been shown that facilitating discourse increases a learners
sense of connection with the course (Dringus, Snyder and Terral, 2010).
In Deweys (1933) work, he discussed the idea that the development of

higher order critical thinking skills, appeared in student discussions only when
prompted by specific instructional techniques Pg. 9. Specifically, he claimed
that collaborative solutions tended to be introduced when the teacher or
instructor of the online course prompted the learners to move towards those
kinds of solutions. Teaching presence features, according to Dewey, contribute
directly to students engaging in a positive and meaningful way. This ties in well
with research that shows that teaching presence is positively correlated with
critical thinking (Prasad, 2009). Learners clearly value responsiveness and clarity
when trying to learn in an online environment (Sheridan & Kelly, 2010).This
further shows the need for instructor intervention when developing learners
engagement with content online and their construction of a meaningful critical
learning experience.
30
3. Research Questions
The goal of this study was to examine how different types of instructor posting
affected the content of student posts within an asynchronous online discussion.
More specifically, the goal of this study was to examine whether student posts
that succeeded instructor posts of different types had higher or lower levels of
critical thinking, or whether the levels remained the same. To gather
information on this topic, posts were selected based on three different
experimental conditions.
No instructor posting: The posts from this condition were taken from threads in
which there was no instructor posting of any type.
Facilitating discourse: The posts from this condition were taken from threads
containing instructor posts that were designed to facilitate discourse.
Direct instruction: The posts from this condition were taken from threads
containing instructor posts that were designed to give direct instruction.
The following questions guided this study:
Do the differing types of instructor postings have an effect on the levels of social
presence in the learners discourse? If so, in what ways?
Do the differing types of instructor postings have an effect on the levels of

critical thinking in the learners discourse? If so, in what ways?
4. Methods
4.1. Subjects and Context

The 219 participants for this experiment were taking English classes
focused on preparing them for the Korean teachers entrance exam (im-yong-
gyo-shi) over three semesters in 2013 and 2014. This study takes the posts
generated by the users of an online forum as part of a blended learning
environment with the online posting meant to support and further develop the
students offline discourse and writing skills in the hope that this will develop
their ability to generate meaningful understanding of issues pertaining to class
management and delivering instruction. Offline course activities included
lectures, group work and presentations. The main online component of the
course was the students use of an asynchronous message board where they
could post their ideas and respond to others ideas related to the course
materials. The gender and major breakdown for the classes can be seen in table
1.
31
Table 1. The Gender and majors of the subjects.

Total
Gender
Male 77
Female 142
Major
English 112
Special 14
Business 4
Pedagogy 6
Art 8
Life Skills 15
Ethics 6
Early Childhood 6
Literature* 5
Social Studies 9
Calligraphy 2
Korean 7
Music 2
Tourism* 1
Chemistry 9
History 4
Earth Science 5
Economics* 2
Geography 2
Total 219
All majors were part of the college of education except those marked with an *
4.2 Experimental Procedures

This study was conducted over the course of a year and a half (3
semesters) and involves varying the types of instructor posts that learners
encountered. Instructor posting is defined and operationalized in Anderson, et
al. (2001) along two of their constructs, instructor posts containing direct
instruction, and instructor posts containing facilitating discourse. Furthermore, a
third condition of instructor posting was investigated, which included cases
where there was no instructor posting. In terms of delivering the posts of teacher
presence in this experiment, there was a degree of qualitative judgment in each
case. Instructor postings were made each Friday once a week for the duration of
the experiment. The posts were made over the course of the day as a great deal
of consideration had to be given to where each type of teaching presence would
be appropriate. There could be a concern that delivery would have to fall into
two categories. Either A) instructor posting would be somewhat haphazard, in
that postings could not be regular in timing and number, or B) postings would
have to be forced somewhat arbitrarily into the learning environment. The
reason for this is that a great many of the instructor posting types require a
32
reaction to something that the learners have written. The unpredictability of this
caused some concern at the outset. However, over the course of the experiment
there were no cases where it was a challenge to make instructor postings that
were appropriate.
To simplify my process in delivering the instructor postings, I simply

opened up and read all threads for that particular group. Once that was done I
made a judgment on which threads would most benefit from each particular
type of posting, then made the post. Inter-rater reliability for the instructor posts
were calculated using Cohens Kappa. Three instructors with experience in
online learning were asked to match 50 cases of instructor posting with the
indictors for direct instruction and facilitating discourse. The resulting Kappa of
.86 was considered acceptable, and we can accept that these posts represent
examples of those cases of instructor presence.
4.3 Facilitating Discourse

There are six indicators based on Anderson et al. (2001) used in this
experiment to base the researchers facilitating posts around: identifying areas of
agreement/disagreement; seeking to reach consensus/understanding;
encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions; setting
climate for learning; drawing in participants, prompting discussion; and
assessing the efficacy of the process.
Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement: In this case the instructor was looking

for cases where the learners disagreed and that such disagreement may be
unnoticed and/or require addressing by the learners. Furthermore, this type of
facilitating discourse was used when it seemed that learners agreed but the tone
of the post was that of disagreement. Finally this type of post was injected when
learners agreed on an issue when it would be somewhat unusual for them to do
so.
Examples:
A) It seems like there are several issues regarding grade variation and between
country variation.
B) I think you agree with Clovereat and your example really supports his/her
idea. Also, I think you provided good advice for people looking to motivate
students.
Seeking to reach consensus/understanding: This type of post is similar to the above

case, but it involves the instructor attempting to build the discourse and connect
learners together. It was used in similar circumstances but as can be seen from
the examples below, it seeks to develop the learners ideas further and move the
discourse onwards.
Examples:
A) It is cool. Thighburger and Hyesoo are posting in the same threads together.
It is good that you guys share similar ideas. Is there any ground where you
disagree with one another?
B) I think in this case you both agree that Hanguel is important but for slightly
different reasons. Your main points are the same and that is what matters. In
33
that case, why dont you see if there is a key area in which you both can agree
on?
Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions: These types of

posts are pretty simple and were introduced in cases where learners were
giving ideas that were different, posting for the first time, seemed to be unsure,
and seemed to need some encouragement.
Examples:
A) Interesting perspective Cozy Sonya. I think you have good ideas on this topic.
B) It is good that you guys were happy to try something different.
Setting climate for learning: As with encouragement, this intervention type was
introduced when learners required help or encouragement. It differs from the
previous posting type in that its specific purpose is to demonstrate and show the
type of learning environment the learners are participating in and what is and or
isnt appropriate.
Examples:
A) You have said something useful; dont feel like you need to hold back.
B) Dont be embarrassed by your comment. I think it is a useful contribution to
the discussion.
Drawing in participants, prompting discussion: This type of instructor post is

similar to a type of direct instruction (presenting content/questions) however it
differs in that it does not seek to introduce new information or ideas into the
thread. This type of posting is used when learners have expressed an idea that
the instructor thinks will be of interest to other learners and/or learners have
expressed an idea that has a clear follow-up line of discussion. When students
beg the question, this type of posting is also used.
Example:
A) Good answer. It is interesting that you changed your mind over time. Just so I
can clearly understand you: Which test do you think is the most useful to study
for, TOIEC or TOEFL?
B: Good way of thinking. Do you all think that is the most important factor
though?
Assess the efficacy of the process: This type of facilitating discourse is focused
around judgment of the discourse and how the learners are interacting. This was
used in two main cases, where learners had very clearly developed an idea to its
conclusion, and where learners discourse had gone somewhat off track.
Examples:
A) It is OK to think outside the box, but remember, "facility" means something
physical like a building or a room. It doesn't really include teachers or teaching
methods. This is a case where we need to remember to keep our conversation
focused on the issues.
B) I agree with all of you. This discussion has really exposed our ideas and
conceptions of how teachers should behave.
4.4 Direct Instruction

34
There are six indicators based on Anderson et al. (2001) used in this
experiment to base the instructors direct instruction posts around: presenting
content/questions, focusing the discussion on specific issues, summarizing the
discussion, confirming understanding and giving feedback, diagnose
misconceptions, and injecting knowledge. There is a seventh indicator for direct
instruction that was not used in this experiment: responding to technical
concerns. In this study, responses to technical concerns were handled offline.
Present content/questions: This posting type was introduced in cases where the
instructor had some insight or knowledge about the topic that could move the
discussion forward. If the learners had reached an impasse or if there was some
piece of information the instructor felt would further develop the ideas being
expressed, then this type of post was delivered.
Examples:
A) Great responses everyone. I think it is clear that a useful distinction between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation depends on the context you try to apply it, as
opposed to a strict definition. Nearly all behaviors will have a mixture of the
two.
B) So oyster, teachers spend a lot of time standing up and presenting
information to students. If that is the case, would you say a teacher should be
extroverted?
Focus the discussion on specific issues: Posting of this type was introduced to the
learning environment when the discussion became too broad or when focusing
the discussion on a specific issue would bring the learners more understanding
of the topic. This was usually done by asking a question that directed learners
onto a more focused or specific issue.
Example:
A) This is good discussion but I would like to focus. Can anyone give an
example where a specific technique motivated you or another student?
B) This is a good explanation. Can you think of how you would change your
teaching style if you were in an ESL or EFL classroom?
Summarize the discussion: After the learners had contributed some ideas to the
topic being discussed (usually around 7 posts). The instructor summarized what
learners had written.
Examples:
A) To summarize what has been written: Classroom management
techniques were mentioned as a good area to focus on. Particularly having a
range of differing techniques, because of the range of possible situations a
teacher may find him/herself in. An example of this would be using multimedia
to keep students interested in class. Furthermore, it was mentioned that student-
teachers need to maintain their level of respect. This can be done by clearly
stating the position the teacher has in relation to the students. An example of this
was acting as if you were already a teacher even though you havent graduated.
Also it was suggested that student teachers need to believe in themselves and be
confident to help overcome difficulties. The usefulness of confidence has been
emphasized.
35
B) To summarize what has been written: you guys all think that students
shouldnt get A+s automatically. The main reason is that it would be unfair. If a
student who works hard gets an A+ but a lazy student gets the same grade it
would be unfair. High levels of attendance shouldnt be the criteria for grading;
effort and ability should be. The point was also made that grades in general
wouldnt be considered by employers if the grades arent awarded based on
knowledge. Fairness seems to be the main issue you guys are focused on.
Confirm understanding through assessment and explanatory feedback: Posting of this

type was injected when learners had made posts that were unclear or requiring
some kind of explanation. Furthermore, it was used when as issue was
ambiguous and some unpacking by the instructor was required to ensure that
learners were getting at the heart of the issue being discussed.
Examples:
A) So you are talking about soft skills right? For example, being able to make
personal decisions and meta-cognitive skills?
B) I think what oyster is trying to say is that the teacher's personality or mood
will affect the students and the class. For example, if I come into the class
grumpy then the students will feel grumpy or at least sad.
Diagnose misconceptions: The instructor made interventions of this type when

learners misunderstood the question or discussion topic or made erroneous
posts. There were cases where the learners understanding of the content was
clearly off, and instructor intervention was required to put the learners back on
the right track.
Examples:
A) I think that rating is not so much based on how hard Korean is in general, but
more how hard Korean is for English speakers.
B) You are confusing EFL techniques with ESL techniques in this case.
Inject Knowledge from diverse sources, e.g., textbook articles, internet, personal
experiences: When it was appropriate, the instructor made posts that were related
to the contents of the discussion but provided a different perspective or a
diverse opinion that was different from the main course of the learners
discussion.
Examples:
A) Donald Bligh wrote a great book What's the Use of Lectures? He notes that
lectures are weaker than other methods if you want to develop students'
understanding, thinking, attitudes and beliefs. Lectures also are less likely to
inspire students than other methods of teaching. Even in terms of conveying
information (the main benefit of lectures) lectures are not any stronger than
independent study (reading a book for example). Bligh says the only area that
lectures stand out in is cost, in that they are much cheaper than other
instructional methods.
B) Just so this question isn't all negative. This is an article about Obama praising
the Korean education system.
www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20110309000191He talks about how
Korea's attitude towards teaching helps Korea's education system.
36
4.5 Coding Critical Thinking and Social Presence

In the learning environments studied in this research, there were more
than nine thousand posts and nearly two thousand threads. It was necessary to
reduce the data set to be coded. For this reason, 900 posts were randomly
selected to be analyzed for levels of critical thinking and social presence. The
sample was generated randomly by randomly selecting a thread within the
forum, then randomly selecting a post in that thread. The procedure for coding
the posts follows a structure laid out more clearly in Costley and Han (2013) in
which the data go through an 8 step process whereby the 1) sample is chosen, 2)
the unit size decided, 3) coding scheme is implemented, 4) the method of
implementing the coding scheme is chosen, 5) representing the data in a form it
can be analyzed, 6) analyzing the data, 7) interpreting the analysis, 8) repeating
the process for clarity.
The method of measuring critical thinking is a coding scheme created by

Newman, Webb, and Cochrane (1996). Newman et al. (1996) use 10 different
categories of critical thinking: relevance, importance, novelty, outside
knowledge, ambiguities, linking ideas, justification, critical assessment, practical
utility, and width of understanding (see appendix 1). Each of the codes are
designated with either a (+) or a (-) symbol. This represents whether or not the
statement contributes to (+) or reduces (-) the creation of a discourse rich in
critical thinking. However, this paper will use a modification of the Newman et
al.s critical thinking measuring tool. The ratio between 1 and -1 that is
generated when implementing Newman, Webb, Cochranes (1996) coding
system is not compatible with Rourke et al.s (1999) social presence tool, which is
a scale from 0 to 9. Therefore, this research differs from Newman, Webb and
Cochranes coding scheme in that the ratio is converted into a scale between 0
and 10. Furthermore, the negative aspects of the coding scheme were not used in
the analysis.
Social presence was measured using the coding scheme from Rourke et
al. (1999) Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-Based Computer
Conferencing. Rourke et al. lay out three base categories, which form the core of
social presence: affective, interactive, and cohesive behaviors. Within each
category there are three indicators, meaning there are 9 indicators total that
define and operationalize the levels of social presence within each post (see
appendix 2 for the full coding scheme and examples).
The posts were coded by 2 raters experience in blended learning to

increase reliability. The first step was discussing the indicators for each tool,
with ten posts coded together with discussion regarding the application of the
codes to each post. After those first ten posts were completed and the codes
discussed, 90 posts were given to both raters and coded. The Cohens kappas
generated from this first set of posts was 0.91 for social presence and 0.86 for
critical thinking. These values are an acceptable level, so the full set of 900 posts
were divided into two groups of 450 posts and given to each coder. Once the
initial coding was completed, the already coded posts were rechecked with the
codes included. Therefore, each post was coded, and then subsequently reread,
with the codes included, by two more separate coders. Rater agreement in
37
regards to the checked codes was high with a Cohens kappa of 0.96 for social
presence and 0.92 for critical thinking. Internal reliability was also measured
with the social presence construct having a Cronbachs alpha of .78. The internal
reliability of the critical thinking construct was slightly lower with a Cronbachs
alpha value of .75. Both of these values are considered acceptable in research of
this kind (Streiner, 2003) and the constructs of critical thinking and social
presence was considered reliable enough for analysis.
5. Results
5.1 What are the effects of instructor posting types on critical thinking?
When examining the full 900 posts across the full 300 posts for each of the
instructor posting types there were some clear differences among them when
examining critical thinking. As can be seen in table 2, the no posting (2.01) and
the facilitating discourse (1.95) have similar average levels of critical thinking,
however direct instruction (3.17) has a much higher average level among the
sampled posts.
Table 2. Average levels of critical thinking by instructor posting type

Critical thinking
Posting type N Mean SD
No posting 300 2.01 1.613
Facilitating 300 1.95 1.868
discourse
Direct instruction 300 3.17 1.937
Total 900 2.37 1.894
After the average levels of critical thinking for each of the experimental
conditions were computed, ANOVA was used to establish if the differences
were statistically significant. As can be seen in table 3, there was not a
statistically significant difference between the facilitating discourse condition
and the no posting condition, however, there was a statistically significant
difference between the direct instruction condition and both the facilitating
discourse and no posting condition.
Table 3. ANOVA for mean differences in critical thinking among the different
posting conditions
No Facilitating Direct
posting discourse instruction
No posting 0 0.06 -1.33*
Facilitating -0.06 0 -1.39*
discourse
Direct instruction 1.33* 1.39* 0
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
38
Furthermore, the Scheffe test was used to see if both facilitating discourse and no
posting condition belonged in the same group (that there were no meaningful
statistical differences). As shown in table 4, direct instruction belongs in a
distinct group, while the facilitating discourse and direct instruction conditions
are most appropriately grouped together. This shows that they are, at least in
terms of average levels of critical thinking, the same.
Table 4. Means for homogeneous subsets for critical thinking (Scheffe test)
Posting condition Group 1 Group 2
Facilitating 3.17
discourse
No posting 3.23
Direct instruction 4.56
Sig. .937 1.000
Subset for alpha = 0.05
5.2 What are the effects of instructor posting types on social presence?
The differences between the no instructor posting, facilitating discourse and

direct instruction conditions were then examined in regards to their differences
in average level of social presence. As can be seen in table 5, the no posting
condition had an average social presence level of 1.27, the direct instruction
condition had an average social presence level of 1.46 and the facilitating
discourse posting condition had an average social presence level of 1.99 per post.
Table 5. Average levels of social presence by instructor posting type

Social presence
Posting type N Mean SD
No posting 300 1.27 1.317
Facilitating 300 1.99 1.541
discourse
Direct instruction 300 1.46 1.347
Total 900 1.57 1.437
After the average levels of social presence for each of the experimental
conditions were computed, ANOVA was used to establish if the differences
were statistically significant. As can be seen in table 6, there were statistically
significant differences between the facilitating discourse condition, the no
posting condition, and the direct instruction condition. The biggest mean
difference between the three conditions was between facilitating discourse and
the no posting condition (+/- 1.10), while direct instruction lay between them
(+/- 0.48 no posting, +/- 0.63 facilitating discourse).
39
Table 6. ANOVA for mean differences in social presence among the different
posting conditions
No Facilitating Direct
posting discourse instruction
No posting 0 -1.10* -0.48*
Facilitating 1.10* 0 0.63*
discourse
Direct instruction 0.48* -0.63* 0
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
The Scheffe test was also used to establish if some of the experimental conditions
could be grouped together, as with the no posting and facilitating discourse
conditions in the case of critical thinking. However, as can be seen in table 7, all
the differing experimental conditions belonged to distinct groups and had
statistically significant differences between them.
Table 7. Means for homogeneous subsets for social presence (Scheffe test)
Posting condition Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
No posting 1.47
Direct instruction 1.94
Facilitating 2.57
discourse
Sig. 1.00 1.00 1.00
Subset for alpha = 0.05
6. Discussion
6.1. The effect of instructor posting types on critical thinking

The instructor posting effects on critical thinking were clear-cut. The two
conditions containing no instructor postings and facilitating discourse were very
similar while the condition containing direct instruction had significantly higher
levels of critical thinking. This shows that a lack of instructor posting or
instructor posting that is focused on facilitating discourse will not have a
meaningful effect on learner discourse. This can be contrasted with instructor
postings that contain direct instruction, which raises the level of critical
discourse among the learners.
The positive effect that direct instruction has on critical thinking meshes
well with other research on this topic, which has shown that when students
attempt to broaden their ideas and make judgments, direct instruction is more
effective than indirect discovery learning (Klahr and Nigam, 2004). While Fisher
(2001) has shown that some students develop some level of critical thinking
through general educational processes, Stern (2001) has demonstrated that
supplemental instruction in the form of examples of abstract reasoning skills
from instructors, increases students ability to process information critically.
Furthermore, direct instruction is an important feature when predicting
students levels of knowledge construction (Ke, 2010).
40
More directly connected to learner discourse, Van Gelder (2005) has

expressed the idea that learners do not express critical thoughts naturally and
that they require some kind of guidance. His concept of argument mapping, is
for the instructor to help the learners see the underlying principles at play when
a discussion is ongoing. The instructors behavior can function as a discourse
map to give students an exemplar for their own arguments. Paul and Elder
(2000) have claimed that Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical teaching
(p. 335). From this point of view, when an instructor engages with a learner
online (as was done in this experiment), learners will respond in kind. That is,
more directly, the learners will model the behavior of the instructor.
6.2. The effect of instructor posting types on social presence

In regards to social presence, there was also a clear effect, though in this
case facilitating discourse had the effect of raising the level of social presence
more than the other two instructor posting conditions. The direct instruction
was higher than the no posting condition, and there were statistically significant
differences between all three groups. Social presence is a key part of the learning
experience in online environments when students interact (Akyol, Garrison, &
Ozden, 2009). The results here show that that instructor posting of both types
(direct instruction and facilitating discourse) will have a positive effect on
learners levels of social presence. This shows that if instructors wish to
maximize the levels of social presence in their learners discourse they should
choose to use posts containing facilitating discourse.
The results from this research break with Aragons (2003) work
describing the methods by which an instructor can develop and maintain social
presence in an online environment. He claimed that a wide variety of instructor
behaviors would induce higher levels of social presence. These would include
both instructor posts that would fall into the categories of direct instruction and
facilitating discourse used in this experiment. While this explains the benefits
from facilitating discourse found in this experiment, it does not explain the lack
of effect direct instruction has when compared to no instructor posting. Rovai
(2007) points out that behavior that puts the instructor at the center of the
discussion may have a negative effect on social presence. This emphasizes
student to teacher interactions over student to student interactions will cause
social presence to be limited. Facilitating discourse takes learners away from
purely task focused or instructor centered activities. This may lead to the higher
levels of social presence in the facilitating discourse condition found in this
study.
There are four stages that learners should pass through before they start
to model a behavior: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation
(Bandura, 1986). In this study, the posts instructors made were focused on a
particular post by a particular learner. This process will have drawn the learners
attention to the instructors posting style which may then be reflected in the
learners content. Retention is harder to establish, but the iterative nature of
online writing has been shown to increase the amount learners will retain when
posting in online forums (Han & Hill 2007, Jeong 2003). Learners had multiple
41
opportunities to post replies to each other but also to instructor posts which
allowed them to reproduce not only posts in the instructors style, but to also
reinforce that style with more posts of that type. Every subject in this experiment
posted multiple times on a variety of topics giving them ample opportunities to
reproduce in the style of observed instructor postings. The use of the forum was
a graded part of the class and learners were made aware that their post quality
would be used as part of their final grades. For this reason, motivation could
come from the learners desire to improve their grade from improved posts,
which they may perceive as mimicking the instructors posts.
6.3 Conclusion and implications
The variation in social presence and critical thinking caused by differing

instructor posting types has some tantalizing implications. While facilitating
discourse can increase levels of social presence, the fact that those threads
containing facilitating discourse have lower levels of critical thinking compared
to threads containing direct instruction could cause concern for instructors who
intend to intervene in learner discourse. Therefore, the objectives of any course
using asynchronous interaction must be considered before an instructor posts on
an online forum. Differing posting types by instructors will lead to changes in
learners posts; therefore instructors must produce posts of a type they wish
learners to produce. These findings mimic the general findings in academia
regarding the importance of instructor intervention in e-learning environments.
To fully realize the potential of learner interaction, a clear plan must be

created and followed when learners first start engaging online. This research
supports this basic assertion and takes the idea one step further. As can be seen
from the results regarding the injection of posts of direct instruction, they will
have a positive effect on the levels of critical thinking with the learners
discourse. This shows that instructors who wish to increase their learners
critical thinking should deliver posts containing direct instruction. As an
example, for the participants at the university that this experiment took place,
the goal is to do well on a highly academic focused exam. In that case, the
instructor should tighten up the instructional environment to create a discourse
that more closely follows the style learners will be expected to write in future
work that they may be required to do. Furthermore, a more critical discourse
will lead to greater uptake of the contents of the course, which is more in line
with outcomes that will be to the learners benefit. Instructors must look at ways
they can give learners exemplars of the kind of writing they want, provide clear
instructions, have linear content and give consistent feedback. Furthermore,
when they intervene, they must read learners posts and look for cases where
direct instruction will benefit the learner discourse.
Careful consideration must be given to the instructors goals when

intervening in an online forum. This research has shown that if an instructor
delivers posts that are of a certain type, the learner discourse will trend towards
that type of discourse. If the instructor makes posts that contain direct
instruction, then the learners will respond with a discourse that is more critical
42
in nature. On the other hand, if instructors use facilitating discourse when

intervening in an online forum, the learners will tend to create posts containing
higher amounts of social presence. Unlike the issues with design, it seems that
introduction of differing types of instructor posts do not have a negative impact
on other types of discourse. It seems that as with design, instructors must be
wary of how they approach and interact with learners in online environments.
In cases where instructors and instructional designers wish to maximize the
amount of social discourse, instructors should focus on making posts that
facilitate discourse as opposed to posts that contain direct instruction.
This research has given clear guidelines for instructors wishing to push
their learners discourse towards critical thinking or social presence. This can be
done by a variety of intervention strategies. An issue that emerges from this
research is that it seems to be challenging to create a learner discourse that is
balanced between social presence and critical thinking. The conclusion drawn
from the results in regards to balancing learner discourse is that a variety of
intervention strategies should be used. If the instructor mixes posts of facilitating
discourse and direct instruction throughout the discourse, this may move
learners towards a more balanced and sustainable academic discourse.
Of great interest and in need of further study is the question whether

there is a more intimate relationship between levels of critical thinking and
interactions. It may be that critical thinking and interaction levels may be in
direct tension with one another, which will cause a quandary when designing
online learning tasks. This research and the tensions it describes must be
considered when designing online learning environments. Each of the
constituent parts of each thread can be broken apart and subjected to further
more detailed analysis. It is the intention of this author to take results here and
the data analyzed in this study to create further more focused experiments on
the effects of instructor posting types. Furthermore, studies should be carried
out where instructor posting types are combined and varied to see if a more
balanced student discourse is possible.
References
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., &Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of
inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 6583.
Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes,

assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), 249257.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, A., (2001). Assessing teaching
presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 5 (2). 1 17.
Aragon, S. (2003). Creating Social Presence in Online Environments. New Directions for
Adult & Continuing Education.100, 57-68.
43
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struvyen, K., &Dochy, F. (2013). Student-centred teaching
methods: Can they optimise students approaches to learning in professional
higher education? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 14-22.
Bandura, J. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Costley, J., & Han, S. (2013a) Applying Quantification of Qualitative Verbal Data to
Asynchronous Written Discourse.Creative Education, 4, 1-8.
Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think (rev. ed.), Boston, Ma: D.C.Heath.
Dringus, L., Synder, M., & Terrell, S. (2010). Facilitating discourse and enhancing
teaching presence: Using mini audio presentations in online forums. Internet and
Higher Education 13. 75-77.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for
Research and Practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A
framework for adult and higher education. Oxford: Pergamon.
Han, S. & Hill, J. (2007). Collaborate to learn, learn to collaborate: Examining the roles of
context, community, and cognition in asynchronous discussion. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 36 (1), 89123.
Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 22-31.
Hughes, M. & Daykin, N. (2002). Towards Constructivism: Investigating Students'

Perceptions and Learning as a Result of Using an Online Environment. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International 39(3). 217-224
Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in
online threaded discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17 (1), 2543.
Johnson, H. (2007). Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in E-learning: Exploring

students perceptions of their learning while using Blackboards asynchronous
discussion board. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 1 8.
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult
students.Computers & Education, 55(2), 808820.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004) The equivalence of learning paths in early science
instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological
Science, 1, (1). 1-11.
Martyn M.A. (2005). Using Interactions in Online discussion Forums. Educause

Quarterly4, 6162.
44
Mazzolini, M., &Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effort of instructor
intervention on student participation in online discussions forums.Computers in
Education, 40, 237-253.
McCroskey, J. C. &Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Introduction to Human Communication. Boston,

MA: Allyn& Bacon.
Meharbian, A., (1969). Methods & designs: Some referents and measures of nonverbal
behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 203 207.
Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1996). A content analysis method to measure
critical thinking in face to face and online supported group work. Retrieved July 2nd
2013, from http//www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/papers/methods/contpap.html
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000).The role of questions in teaching, thinking and learning.
Retrieved December 7th, 2013, from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/thinking-some-purpose.cfm
Pilkington, R. (2001). Analysing educational dialogue interaction: Towards models that

support learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12, 1-7.
Prasad, D. (2009). Empirical study of teaching presence and critical thinking in

asynchronous discussion forums. International Journal of Instructional Technology
and Distance Learning 6(11),1-10.
Reid, Katz, & Jacobsen. (2005). An investigation of computer generated knowledge

retention activities in computer-based training with adult learners. Journal of
Learning Design, 1 (1), 76-85.
Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. (2002a). Exploring social interaction in computer

conferencing.Journal of Interactive Learning Research13(3), 257-273
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in
asynchronous, text based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education,
15(1), 7-23.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (1999) Assessing Social Presence In
Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing.International Journal of E-
learning and Education 14(2), 50-71.
Rovai, A. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education
10. 7788
Salmon, G. (2002). Mirror, mirror, on my screen... .Exploring online reflections. British

Journal of Educational Technology 33(4), 379-391.
Shea, P. J. (2003). A Follow-up Investigation of "Teaching Presence" in the SUNY

Learning Network.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks7(2), 61-80.
Shea, P., Chun, S. L., & Pickett, A. (2006) A study of teaching presence and student sense
of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet
and Higher Education, 9. 175 190.
45
Shea, P., Frederickson, E., Pickett, A., & Pelz, W. (2003). A preliminary investigation of
teaching presence in the SUNY Learning Network. In J. Bourne and J.C. Moore
(eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium. 279 312.
Shea, P., Li, K. S., & Pickett, A. (2005). Teaching presence and establishment of
community in online environments: A preliminary study. The Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(4). 32-41.
Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important
to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, (6)4
767 779.
Shin, J. K. (2008). Building an effective international community of inquiry for EFL

professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest.
Stern, S. (2001). Learning assistance centers: Helping students through. Los Angeles, CA.
(ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, No. ED 455901)
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and

internal consistency, Journal of Personality Assessment 80, 99-103.
Swan, K. & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online
course discussions. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 115 - 136.
Tan, M., Tripathi, N., Zuiker, S. J. & Seah, H. S. (2010). Building an Online Collaborative
Platform to Advance Creativity. Paper presented at the 4th IEEE International
Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies.
Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in
online classes.
Van Gelder, T. (2007). Making people smarter through argument mapping: Draft. Retrieved
December, 2011, from http://tillers.net/timvangelderdraftpaper.pdf
Appendix 1 Newman et al. (1996) critical thinking indicators

Category Positive Indicator
R+ Relevance R+ Relevant statements
I+ Importance I+ Important points/issues
N+- Novelty. New info, ideas, NP+ New problem-related information
Solutions NI+ New ideas for discussion
NS+ New solutions to problems
NQ+ Welcoming new ideas
NL+ learner (student) brings

new things in
O+ Bringing outside knowledge
OE+ Drawing on personal experience
or
experience to bear on problem OC+ Refer to course material
OM+ Use relevant outside material
OK+ Evidence of using previous
46
Knowledge
OP+ Course related problems brought in
OQ+ Welcoming outside knowledge
A+ Ambiguities: clarified or
AC+ Clear, unambiguous statements
confused
A+ Discuss ambiguities to clear them up
L+ Linking ideas, interpretation L+ Linking facts, ideas and notions
L+ Generating new data from

information collected
J+ Justification JP+ Providing proof or examples
JS+ Justifying solutions or judgments
JS+ Setting out advantages and

disadvantages of situation or solution
C+ Critical assessment C+ Critical assessment/evaluation of own

or others' contributions.
CT+ Tutor prompts for critical evaluation
P+ Practical utility (grounding) P+ relate possible solutions to
familiar situations
P+ discuss practical utility of new ideas
W+ Width of understanding W+ Widen discussion (problem within a
(complete picture) larger perspective. Intervention strategies
within a wider framework.)
Appendix 2. Rourke et al. (1999) social presence indicators

Category Indicators Definition Example
Conventional expressions
of emotion, or
I just can't stand it
unconventional expressions
Expression when ...!!!!"
Affective of emotion, includes
of emotions "ANYBODY OUT
repetitious punctuation,
THERE!"
conspicuous capitalization,
emoticons.
The banana crop in
Use of Teasing, cajoling, irony,
Edmonton is looking
humor understatements, sarcasm.
good this year)
"Where I work, this is
Presents details of life
Self- what we do ..." "I just
outside of class, or
disclosure don't understand this
expresses vulnerability.
question"
47
Software dependent,
Interactiv Continuing Using reply feature, rather
e.g., "Subject: Re" or
e a thread than starting a new thread.
"Branch from"
Using software features to
Quoting Software dependent,
quote others entire message
from e.g., "Martha writes:"
or cutting and pasting
others' or text prefaced by
selections of others'
messages less-than symbol <.
messages.
Referring
"In your message, you
explicitly to Direct references to
talked about Moore's
others' contents of others' posts.
distinction between ..."
messages
Students ask questions of "Anyone else had
Asking
other students or the experience with
questions
moderator. WEBCT?"
Complimen
ting, Complimenting others or "I really like your
expressing contents of others' interpretation of the
appreciatio messages. reading"
n
"I was thinking the
Expressing agreement with
Expressing same thing. You really
others or content of others'
agreement hit the nail on the
messages.
head."
Referring to group "I think John made a

Cohesive Vocatives
members by name good point."
Addresses
or refers to
"Our textbook refers
the group Addresses the group as,
to...""I think we veered
using "us, we, our".
off track ..."
inclusive
pronouns
"Hi all" "Thaf s it for
Communication that serves
Phatics, now" "We're having
a purely social function;
salutations the most beautiful
greetings, closures.
weather here"
48

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 48-63, June 2015
Change in the Era of Common Core Standards:

A Mathematics Teachers Journey
Laura B. Kent
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR
Abstract. This article describes the changing practice of a seventh grade

mathematics teacher as she participates in a professional development
program that focused on how students think about and solve problems
involving rational numbers. Data sources included pre and post test
data on both teacher content measures and measures of knowledge of
student thinking, observations during professional development
workshops, classroom observations and interviews with the teacher.
The data showed that the most significant aspects of the professional
development workshop to impact the teachers change process were the
classroom embedded workshops and her expanding knowledge of how
her own students solved problems. The results provide an encouraging
opportunity to effect changes in classroom practice of secondary
mathematics teachers.
Keywords: Teacher Change, mathematics teaching, professional

development
Introduction
The interplay between teacher knowledge and teacher change in mathematics

classrooms has captivated researchers for decades. Throughout various
transformations in mathematics education such as, changes in standards and
approaches to curricula development and implementation, studies of changes in
teachers knowledge and beliefs about effective mathematics instruction have
highlighted the influence of a multitude of factors that either enhance or limit
their ability to become more effective in their practice (e.g. Goldsmith, Doerr, &
Lewis, 2014). The newly adapted Common Core Standards for Mathematics
(National governors association center for best practices, council of chief state
school officers, 2010) by a majority of the states provides yet another impetus for
mathematics teachers to change their practice for improved student
understanding and achievement in mathematics.
This article describes the evolution of one middle school mathematics teachers
self -efficacy over a five year period that includes both her experiences as a
preservice and inservice teacher. The purpose of documenting her change over
time is to attempt to provide a framework for analysis of secondary mathematics
2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

49
teacher reform in light of overall changes in expectations for mathematics

instruction (CCSS-M, 2011). This framework could provide direction for
secondary mathematics professional development. Three areas of study of
mathematics teachers are integrated in this framework for analyzing teacher
change: Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (Ball, et al., 2008), Teacher
Knowledge of Students Thinking (e.g. Carpenter, et al.,1989), and Teacher
Efficacy (e.g. Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012).
Ball (2008) described six sub-categories of mathematical knowledge for teaching.

This article focuses on the pedagogical content knowledge sub-category,
knowledge of content and students by describing a professional development
(PD) program focused on students mathematical thinking and learning
trajectories that the classroom teacher, Mrs. C, participated in for three years.
Her participation in this PD combined with her evolving self-efficacy
throughout the three year program is described. In particular, two aspects of the
PD placed Mrs. C in a state of disequilibrium that eventually led to her shift in
beliefs that the students could be successful if she taught with an emphasis on
problem posing and assessing student thinking.
Knowledge of content and students could be characterized in a variety of ways.

In this case study, it is used specifically to describe teachers knowledge of
students mathematical thinking processes and trajectories within specific
mathematics content areas. The professional development program provided
teachers with research based information about how students responses to
particular types of word problems can be anticipated and used as part of the
decision-making process.
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching
The distinction between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge

provided a lens for researchers to more closely examine the specialized
knowledge needed to be successful as a teacher. Ball (2010) characterized
components of mathematics knowledge for teaching by further delineating
aspects of both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.
Ideally, mathematics teachers would have strengths in all six of these aspects.
Socio-cultural theories have also been used to characterize teacher learning
(Goos, 2013). Socio-cultural theories provide a lens through which to explore the
constraints faced by teachers as they attempt to change their practice and adapt
reformed based instructional methods.
It may appear self-evident that secondary certified mathematics would require

less professional development for mathematics instruction because their subject-
matter knowledge would already be in place. The literature in fact is replete
with studies of the impact of professional development programs on elementary
teachers content knowledge of mathematics (e. g. Ball & Bass, 2000, etc). The
overarching assumption is that elementary teachers would not generally have a
comparable knowledge base as secondary certified teachers who commonly
have undergraduate degrees in mathematics. Therefore many professional

50
development programs for elementary certified teachers incorporate

mathematics content components into the workshops/seminars. Secondary
professional development programs for mathematics teachers tend to focus
more on curricular and/or technological aspects of teaching middle or high
school mathematics (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2013).
One potential limitation of these apparent distinct goals of professional

development for elementary versus secondary certified teachers is the lack of
consideration for the interaction between understanding mathematics and
understanding students thinking about mathematics (Nathan & Petrosino,
2003). Studies of elementary teacher professional development programs and
measures of teacher content knowledge have incorporated students approaches
to solving problems in attempting to improve teaching and learning
mathematics (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Franke and Kazemi, 2001). Franke and
Kazemi (2001) discussed the idea of generative growth with respect to
teachers learning about their students approaches and progressions in solving
mathematics problems (p. 105). In other words, the dynamic nature of student
thinking about mathematics provides a mechanism for teachers to learn more
about mathematics by engaging in the process of analyzing their own students
approaches.
Much less is known about risk-taking on the part of secondary teachers who are
willing to base their instructional decision-making on their students
mathematical strategies. In particular, secondary mathematics teachers face a
variety of hurdles in attempting to change their instructional practice (Daun-
Barnett & John, 2012). Their challenges are multi-faceted. Curricular constraints
such as textbook materials, pacing guides and standardized assessments
typically prohibit student thinking approaches to instruction. Institutional
factors such as scheduling constraints, administrative and peer pressure to
conform, gaps in students knowledge are just some of the factors that inhibit
opportunities for teachers use new information or knowledge to change their
practice.
Student Thinking Approaches to Professional Development
The knowledge base on childrens problem solving approaches and levels of

thinking in the area of whole number operations and algebraic reasoning is
considered robust (Carpenter, et al., 1999; Fuson, 1992). The progression from
representing all the quantities in the problem to more sophisticated strategies
that utilize specific number relationships linked to number operations is well
defined. This research base is considered robust in terms of the descriptive and
comprehensive levels of students thinking. This information became the basis
of the well-known and studied professional development program entitled,
Cognitively Guided Instruction or CGI. Several studies of the CGI
professional development program documented the effects of teachers
increasingly detailed knowledge of students understandings on their practice
and beliefs about teaching mathematics (Fennema, et. al., 1993, 1996).

51
The longitudinal study of the effects of CGI professional development on

teachers knowledge and changing practice over a four year period showed that
for most of the CGI teachers their practice continued to progress toward an
emphasis on individual students mathematical thinking and strategy
progressions (Fennema, et al., 1996). The degree to which teachers utilized
individual students thinking as the basis for instructional decision-making was
characterized by 5 levels of beliefs ranging from does not believe students can
solve problems without instruction or that students are capable of using their
own strategies (Level 1) to the belief that students are capable of solving
problems on their own without pre-instruction on the topics and that knowledge
about students thinking should inform future instructional decision-making
(Level 4a). The study showed that the majority of the teachers became more
focused on students thinking over the course of the four years of ongoing
professional development.
Secondary Mathematics Professional Development Programs
Designing effective professional development for secondary mathematics

teachers has been an ongoing challenge for educators. Often times, generic
programs fail to provide the specifics that teachers need to implement them with
their own students. Content specific and research based programs, particularly
programs that are sustainable over time, tend to have more impact on student
learning (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Loucks-Horsley, 2003). Guskey & Yoon (2009),
in their analysis state, the professional development program efforts that
brought improvements in student learning focused principally on ideas gained
through the involvement of outside experts (p. 496). They also advocate for
sustained professional development rather than limited or one day only
workshops.
Effective professional development programs for middle school teachers can be

particularly challenging from both the mathematics perspective and the
pedagogical perspective. For middle school teachers who are elementary
certified, the mathematics content is more challenging for them. For middle
school teachers who are secondary certified, understanding how more complex
topics like rational numbers and algebraic reasoning can be made accessible to
middle school students is often times elusive. For the former category of
teachers, students thinking becomes a vehicle to learn content not otherwise
understood. For the latter category of teachers, it is less clear how the impact of
a student thinking professional development model would influence their
instruction.
The premise of this article is that for Mrs. C, who falls into the latter category, a
secondary certified mathematics teacher, teaching seventh grade, related factors
impacted changes in her self-efficacy toward teaching mathematics as a result of
participating in workshops that focused on students thinking. The combination
of sustained professional development focused on students thinking and
approaches to solving middle grades mathematics problems, a classroom
embedded professional development component in which the frameworks of

52
students thinking and problem solving methods were confirmed by students in

real time, and her own state of disequilibrium in instances where she
acknowledged that she was unsure of the mathematics embedded in the
students work, factored into Mrs. Cs transformation from opponent to
proponent of teaching mathematics using problem posing and student responses
as the primary organizing mechanisms of her lessons.
The workshops for which Mrs. C participated were extrapolated from basic
principles of CGI workshops (Carpenter, et al, 1999). Like CGI, this professional
development program focused almost exclusively on student thinking in the
content areas of fractions, proportional reasoning, and algebra (Empson & Levi,
2011; Carpenter, Franke, & Levi, 2001). The underlying basis for CGI
professional development was that providing teachers with detailed information
about how students solve problems and think about concepts of whole numbers
and operations would improve their ability to plan and implement instruction
that productively built off their strategies (Carpenter, et al, 1989; Fennema, et al.,
1993). The core of CGI professional development is the attention to frameworks
of student thinking in relation to problem type structure involving whole
number ideas such as place value and properties of operations.
The combination of the growing knowledge base on students thinking about

fractions and proportions (e.g. Empson & Levi, 2011; Lamon, 2012) and the
renewed calls for improved student performance in prerequisite algebra skills
led to the creation of a professional development program that would later be
referred to as Thinking Mathematically in the Middle Grades or TM. Primary
elements of CGI professional development were extrapolated to TM workshops.
For example, teachers were given the opportunity to explore problem type
structure for fraction problems similar to analysis of whole number problem
type structures in the CGI workshops.
The initial frameworks for study in the TM professional development

workshops focused on students approaches to solving multiple groups problems.
Multiple groups problems are characterized as multiplication or division
problems in which the amount of groups is a whole number and the amount in
each group has a fractional amount (Empson & Levi, 2011). From a research and
developmental trajectory perspective, the first of the problem types explored by
the participants are equal sharing problems for the purpose of generating
fractional quantities. Equal sharing problems have been well-researched across
multiple grade levels as being robust problems for generating concepts of
fractions as quantities and fraction equivalence (Empson & Levi, 2011). The
framework of strategies for equal sharing problems includes making the
distinction between coordinating the number of objects with the number of
sharers and more random partitions of the objects such as repeated halving.
Other strategy distinctions include additive, ratio, and multiplicative (Empson &
Levi, 2011). Similar to CGI workshops, TM workshops are designed to engage
teachers in a deep exploration of these strategy levels and what the levels
represent in terms of students understanding of the content.

53
Multiple groups multiplication problems and division problems are then explored
as a way to consolidate and further extend students understanding of fractions
as quantities. Five consecutive days of the workshop are devoted to helping
teachers gain a thorough understanding of these three basic problem types.
Teachers are positioned as their own students in the workshop and are
encouraged to solve these problems in ways that they think their students would
solve them without formal instruction. They sort strategies by level of
sophistication and reconstruct the strategy frameworks for the problems types.
Teachers interview students as well as watch videos of students solving these
problems in order to reinforce features that characterize different strategy levels.
Teachers are encouraged to pose these problem types to their students without
providing formal methods to them first.
Knowledge of Students Thinking and Teacher Efficacy
Efficacy in relation to teaching is generally described as the teachers belief or

conviction that he or she can influence how well students learn, even those who
may be difficult or unmotivated (Guskey, p. 41, 1987). Teachers with high self-
efficacy believe that they can positively influence student learning. In Guskeys
(1987) study of context variables that influence measures of efficacy, teachers of
all subject areas in the study were more likely to accept responsibility for poor
performance by students if it was entire groups or classes of students than for
individual students. Within traditional models of mathematics instruction in
which teachers are focused on showing students procedures and problem
solving methods, they would be much more reflective on their methods or
procedures that they taught that were not shown to be effective with their
students as a whole group rather than an indication that they had not attended
to the learning of individual students. Both the CGI and TM professional
development programs focus on strategies that individual students use to solve
problems.
The emphasis on individual students thinking about different problem types

without direct instruction positions teachers differently during instruction. For
many teachers, it is counterintuitive to the view that students need procedural
directions on how to solve problems prior to being given the opportunity to
solve them on their own. Particularly in secondary settings in which instruction
is more teacher centered, knowledge of content and teaching and knowledge of
curriculum are more likely emphasized than knowledge of content and students
(Ball, 2008).
One aspect of the reform movement in mathematics in general is the shift from
teacher centered to student centered lessons. Teacher efficacy is potentially
influenced by this shift. For example, student centered lessons might involve
some type of investigation in which students are working individually or in
small groups. Teachers would potentially transition from their own
explanations and strategies to the work of their students. In their study of
teachers beliefs about mathematics reform, Collins and Gerber (2001) found that
teachers personal self-efficacy and outcome expectancy were influenced by

54
student learning characteristics. Consistently, teachers reported relatively low

personal efficacy and outcome expectancy when confronted with scenarios in
which students exhibited characteristics associated with LD such as poor
strategy use and poor affect (p. 67). This is also a typical finding with teachers
early on in the TM professional development workshops. For example, many
teachers are surprised to learn that most students initially solve a variety of
fraction problems using a semantic drawing of the problem and representing all
of the quantities in the problem. Comments such as, I dont think my students
would do the problem this way, or I never would have thought to solve this
problem this way, are typical from teachers early on in the PD.
Thinking Mathematically Professional Development Program
This professional development program was designed to help teachers of upper

elementary and middle school students understand how these students think
about and solve a variety of fraction and proportion problems. The workshop
was part of a three year grant developed to improve teachers content
knowledge in rational number concepts and algebraic reasoning. The PD
consisted of eight days of summer workshops with three follow-up workshops
during the school year, at least one of which was a classroom embedded
workshop held in a participating teachers classroom.
The focus of the workshops was helping teachers understand how students
respond to fraction problems without first giving instruction on formal fraction
content. Teachers are asked to solve equal sharing problems as a student in the
elementary or middle grades might solve the problem (Empson & Levi, 2011).
For example, a problem like 2 cakes shared equally among 3 children might elicit
the following response from teachers: My students would say that each child
gets a half of a cake and gives the leftover to the teacher. Teachers learn that
within the framework of students strategies for equal sharing problems, that
that response would be characterized as non-anticipatory because the child
did not coordinate partitions of each cake with the number of sharers.
The overall goal of the PD is to help teachers make sense of the research base on
how students solve specific types of fraction problems and how initial context-
dependent strategies link to more efficient and mathematically sophisticated
methods. Part of studying how students solve fraction problems requires
teachers to grapple with their own concepts and potential misconceptions
related to fraction content. One of the classic examples of this is the invert and
multiply algorithm for dividing by a fraction. Teachers and students alike
struggle with why the algorithm works (e.g. Tchoshanov, 2011). By allowing
students to solve multiple groups division problems in which the amount in
each group is a fraction amount in ways that make sense to them, many students
use strategies that intuitively apply properties of inverses to solve the problem.
Within Case Analysis

Case study methodologies provide a lens to study the details of one particular
situation and/or individual (Yin, 2013). The case of Mrs. C, while not entirely

55
unique from other participants in the program, is described in order to illustrate

the influence of each phase of the workshop. This particular case study
provided a structure for integrating the data sources linked to her changing
efficacy and instructional practices over the five year period. Figure 1
summarizes factors that influenced Mrs. Cs changing instructional practice.
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching
Classroom Embedded PD Risk Taking/ Efficacy
Change
Knowledge of Students Thinking
Figure 1. Factors that influenced Mrs. Cs changing instructional practice.
Four data sources provided evidence of Mrs. Cs changing practice over a

five year period. Results of her performance on two teacher content measures,
observations of her teaching, observations related to her participation in the TM
workshops, and one-on- one interviews with her throughout the five year period
were analyzed. Her case, while not entirely unique from other participants in
the program, illustrates the influence of each phase of the workshop in Mrs. Cs
evolving personal efficacy over a four year period of time.
Mrs. C was one of 38 participants in the project. The participants
included teachers and coaches spanning grades 4 through 8. Of the 38
participants, 23 were either elementary certified teachers or coaches. Mrs. C was
one of 14 participants who were middle school mathematics teachers and one
was a middle level special education teacher. The participants were from six
school districts from a southern state. The districts represented both rural and
suburban populations. The population of students at Mrs. Cs school were
approximately 75% minority (Latino and Marshallese students) and 90% free or
reduced lunch.
Mrs. Cs Background Experiences

Mrs. C participated in a secondary mathematics Master of Arts in Teaching
program which included a year-long internship in three secondary school
settings. She had a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics with strong
preparation in mathematics courses that included the Calculus sequence,
Abstract Algebra and Geometry (look up her course work). Her work during
her internship was considered impressive by her three different mentors and
administrators. She was hired by the school in which she completed her middle
school rotation prior to completing the MAT program. Observations of her
teaching over the course of the year indicated that she had good communication
skills related to mathematics content and good classroom management
capabilities. In a traditional sense, she was considered a strong mathematics
teacher.

56
As part of her mathematics methods experience in the MAT, Mrs. C was

required to analyze the problem types and strategy levels for ratios and
proportions (Lamon, 2012). She was then required to construct a set of problems
and interview a student to assess her understanding of proportions based on the
responses and strategies for solving the proportion problems. She was also
asked to speculate on how the results of the interview might be useful in her
instruction of ratio and proportion content. Like most of her peers, Mrs. C
acknowledged that the information could potentially help her think various
ways to introduce the content to students. In other words, she would have more
methods that she could show students for solving proportion problems. She
did not recognize that most of the problem types in the framework, with careful
consideration to number combinations could be done by most students without
teachers having to show them anything.
Following her first year as a seventh grade teacher, Mrs. C was nominated from
her school district to participate in the three year TM professional development
program. Two measures were used to assess teacher content knowledge. The
first was the number and computation test DTAMS from Louisville (Saderholm,
et al., 2010). The format of this test is multiple choice and short response. This
instrument primarily assessed teachers content knowledge of rational number
content and operations with some attention to pedagogical content knowledge.
The following problem is an example of a question from one of the versions of
the number and computation tests:
Explain or demonstrate one way to help students understand

why 3/4 2/3 = 1 1/8 other than teaching a numerical
procedure/process and observing that it results in this answer.
(University of Louisville Center for Research in Mathematics
and Science Teacher Development, Number-Computation, Version 6)
A variety of explanations could be used to explain or demonstrate this to

students. However, the basis for the question is such that the teacher should
respond on how he/she might explain the question to students as opposed to
how students might determine the answer using their own methods. These tests
were scored by the University of Louisville Center for Research in Mathematics
and Science Teacher Development. Table 1 shows the comparison between the
mean score of the grant participants on each of the tests and Mrs. Cs scores.
Table 1
Mean scores on DTAMS Number/Computation measures
(total pts Pre-test First post Second post Final post-
possible 40) test test test
Mean 25.8 26.0 26.6 32
Mrs. C 37 36 32 39
The second instrument was an assessment designed to specifically address
teachers knowledge of students thinking about fraction and proportion content.

57
The Fraction and Proportion Thinking Inventory (FPTI) and rubric assessed
teachers knowledge of student approaches to solving various problems (Kent,
2009). The items were piloted with elementary and middle school teachers. The
rubric was also revised based on the results of the field test. Additionally, the
FPTI inventories were scored by members of the project until 90% inter-rater
reliability was reached.
The questions on the FPTI instrument asked participants to anticipate how

students at their grade level or students with general understanding of the topic
would solve the given problems. Since the focus of the professional
development was on presenting research on how students solve fraction
problems without first having been shown a method or standard algorithm, the
FPTI instrument was used to determine if teachers recognized these alternative
approaches as possible ways that their own students might solve the problems.
For example, question 3 asked the participants to show some ways that upper
elementary and middle level students might solve the following problem:
A farmer has 15 acres of land. If he divides the land in parcels,

How many parcels of land does he have?
As part of the TM professional development program, participants learn about

students strategies for solving measurement division problems involving
fractional amounts. This problem is further defined as a partial groups problem
because it involves a fractional group in the answer (Empson & Levi, 2011).
They learn that students could solve the problem by representing all of the acres
and all of the parcels to solve the problem or that they might use more
multiplicative or relational strategies to solving the problem. A summary of
possible strategies is given in Table 2. All participants completed the assessment
four times throughout the three-year project: as a pre-test prior to the start of the
professional development workshop, at the end of the first summer workshop
and then at the end of the second year and third year respectively, of the
workshop. Table 3 summarizes the mean scores of all participants over the three
year project and shows the comparison between Mrs. Cs scores and the mean
scores for the participants as a whole.
As evidenced by high scores on both instruments relative to the participant

groups mean scores, Mrs. C demonstrated strong content, pedagogical content
knowledge, and knowledge of students thinking about and approaches to
solving problems related to fraction and proportion topics. Interestingly, her
scores on both instruments dipped from year 1 to year 2 of the project but
increased from year 2 to year 3 of the project which was also the same time that
Mrs. C began to pose problems to her students on a more ongoing basis.
Changing Personal Efficacy

Mrs. C was one of 15 participants who attended all workshops all three years of
the project. She also was one of four secondary certified mathematics teachers
who participated all three years of the project. Her case is not dissimilar to the
other three secondary certified participants. All four changed their practice over

58
the three years to some degree to include more problem posing in their
mathematics lessons. However, Mrs. Cs particular case was instrumental in
describing the phases that are potentially necessary for secondary certified
teachers to transform their instructional practices from traditional, teacher-
centered to student-centered, inquiry-based lessons.
Table 2
Possible strategies for the parcel problem.
Strategy Level Example
Represents
all/additive
4x=3
8x=6
Grouping/transitional 16 x = 12
20 x = 15
20 parcels with a acre leftover
Each acre contains 1 1/3 parcels, so
15 acres x 1 1/3 parcels/acre = 20 2/3parcels
Multiplicative
Table 3
Mean Scores of FPTI Assessment
(total pts Pre-test First post Second post Final post-
possible 16) test test test
Mean 8.1 8.4 11.3 12.8
Mrs. C 12 14 13 16
Results: Change Process

Figure 2 shows the data sources used to analyze Mrs. Cs change process over
the five year period of her participation in the teacher certification program and
for her first four years of teaching seventh grade mathematics.

59
DTAMS and FPTI Observations TM PD

program
Mrs. C BA in Mathematics
MAT in Secondary
Mathematics
Interviews with Mrs. C Observations of Mrs. C Teaching
Figure 2. Data sources analyzed for the case study of Mrs. C
Interviews with Mrs. C throughout the course of the project also provide
evidence of her changing personal efficacy. During her first year of teaching,
prior to her participation on the project, Mrs. C acknowledged, I basically told
the students how to do the problems. I know the mathematics and it is my job to
show them the correct methods. During her first year of participation in the
project, she stated that she only posed problems to students when assigned to
bring samples of student work to the seminar workshops. She further stated
that most of the time she would assign her substitute to pose the problems to
students, evidence that she did not consider it to be an important aspect of her
own role to observe students as they attempted to solve the problems posed.
She also commented that she did not feel that videos that were shown in the
seminar style workshops were representative of her own students who were
mostly minority population.
Following the second summer of seminar style workshops, the facilitators of the
workshops, adapted a lesson study type of workshop protocol, entitled
Classroom Embedded or CE workshop (Teachers Development Group, 2010)
to use during follow-up workshops. Volunteers from the workshop were
solicited to serve as host teachers for these workshops. The host teacher is
responsible for teaching the lesson while the other participating teachers assist in
the planning of the lesson and observe the implementation of the lesson. A sixth
grade teacher from another school but within the same district as Mrs. C,
volunteered to be the first host teacher for the CE workshop.
Prior to the classroom embedded workshop, the host teacher poses a problem to
her students and collects the student work. The participating teachers sort the
student work and determine a learning goal for the students based on their
strategies for the previous problem and write a new problem/activity that they
then observe the host teacher implement. They may also participate in choosing
students to share their strategies and types of questions the host teacher would
ask to build connections among key mathematical ideas.
Following this observation, Mrs. C began to pose problems to her lowest

performing class of students, of which more than half were considered special

60
education students. She did not use methods from the workshop with her more
advanced students. She acknowledged in later interviews that she wanted to
prove that the ideas did not work and that was why she chose that particular
type of class to try problem posing. However, contrary to her initial hesitations
about the methods, she noticed that these students began to show signs of
problem solving ability. She stated that they began to show more willingness to
persevere in solving problems. Their achievement as measured by state
standardized tests, showed improvement, both from her previous years
students and from their own scores on previous tests.
The third summer of professional development included a component in which

teachers had the opportunity to observe the facilitator of the workshop teach a
fraction lesson to a small group of students. The goal was to provide an example
of problem posing and eliciting student thinking. One of the key aspects of this
lesson for Mrs. C was a reflection by the facilitator with respect to a student who
had used a strategy that led to an incorrect answer. The facilitator stated, I did
not correct Isaiah because my goal was to understand his thinking.
At the end of this particular summer workshop, volunteers from the workshop
were solicited to serve as host teachers for the CE workshops for the upcoming
year. This time Mrs. C volunteered to serve as host teacher. She acknowledged
that both the observation in the sixth grade teachers classroom and the
observation in the summer workshop validated her initial successes with the
methods and gave her the confidence to implement on a more regular basis with
her own students.
Opportunities for Risk-taking
The parallel between risk-taking that students engage in as they attempt to solve
a novel problem for the first time is not unlike the risk-taking on the part of
teachers as they attempt to change their teaching for the first time. The first
standard, and potentially the most important standard for mathematical
practice, Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them requires
students to interpret mathematical situations and use their knowledge to
determine strategies that will be productive towards a solution process (CCSSM,
2010). In a similar fashion, teachers using student thinking to drive instruction,
must use their problem solving skills to make sense of their strategies in real
time and decide on productive applications of their work to help students
connect to big ideas of mathematics. The view of teaching as problem solving
(Carpenter, 1989) encapsulates the complexities of teachers and classrooms and
enhances teachers sense of professionalism and autonomy with their own
instruction. It empowers teachers as best positioned to make instructional
decisions related to the mathematical learning needs of their students (Jacobs, et
al., 2010).
Mrs. C began to increase and utilize her professional noticing of her own
students as her knowledge of students thinking increased and as she
participated in classroom embedded workshops. Neither of these experiences in

61
and of themselves would likely have changed her teaching practice. She
acknowledged that she did not find the seminar workshops compelling in
changing her thinking about instructional strategies. Observations of lessons
without the structure of the classroom embedded protocol would not have given
her the opportunities to make sense of the frameworks of student thinking
applicable to her own students strategies and therefore probably would not
have prompted her to change. It was the intersection of these two experiences
that provided the impetus for her to pose problems to her students and allow for
their diverse methods.
Conclusion
This case study explores the changing practice of one middle school
mathematics teacher as she engaged in professional development focused on
students mathematical thinking and learning trajectories. Even though
students thinking was a part of her graduate degree program, she did not adapt
teaching strategies that allowed her to assess and build instruction on students
thinking until she observed the approach in another teachers classroom with
students she deemed similar to her own. The power of a lesson study style
professional development experience was integral to her changing perception of
her own students (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003). Mrs. C had a strong
mathematics content preparation program, which is similar to most secondary
mathematics majors. However, mathematics preparation is not the same as
preparation in Knowing the content and students (Ball, et al., 2008). Measures
such as the Fraction and Proportion Inventory (Kent, 2009) provide information
about mathematics teachers understandings of how students approach solving
problems which are likely to include methods that are different from the teacher.
The case study of Mrs. C, a secondary certified teacher, provides
information on her changing self-efficacy toward her students and her teaching
practice as a result of a professional development program focused on students
thinking in specific mathematics content domains. One limitation was that the
descriptions of the other teachers in the PD program were not detailed because
most of them did not volunteer to serve as host teachers for the CE workshops.
Giving all teachers the opportunity to have their teaching practices observed by
their peers would determine whether or not this opportunity would change their
instructional practices in the ways that Mrs. C changed her approaches to
teaching mathematics.
Discussion
Mrs. C is not unlike many secondary certified teachers. She entered the teaching
profession with degrees in mathematics and in education. Her collegiate
experience was primarily received in lecture based classes and some attention to
the role of student thinking within instructional decision making. Her field
experiences, by all accounts, were traditional with the exception of utilizing
technology resources such as graphing calculators, smart boards, and clickers, to
facilitate instruction. Her case study exemplifies the complexities in attempting
to capture the factor or factors that transformed her instruction over time.
Three factors proved necessary in her change process: ongoing professional

62
development focused on students thinking in specific domains, observations of

the professional development model in real time with students deemed to be
similar to her own students, and her changing self-efficacy concerning her
impact on students.
This case study illustrates the potential for considerable changes in secondary
teachers classroom practices. In the era of Common Core standards, it is
imperative for teachers to consider the accessibility of content for all of their
students. Professional development focused on student thinking shows promise
because it helps teachers understand how diverse learners make sense of
problems in a variety of domains and therefore can enhance their options for
moving their students toward understandings of important mathematics
content. However, much additional research both on students thinking in
various secondary mathematical content areas and the potential influences of
targeted professional development programs is needed. Other teachers from
this professional development program began to change in a manner consistent
with Mrs. C but were not systematically studied. These teachers and others like
them need to be studied in order to determine if additional factors influenced
their changes. Particularly, institutional supports should be explored in order to
describe ways in which sustained growth can be encouraged beyond the span of
the structure of the professional development programs.
References
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of
adolescents cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal
of educational research, 105(5), 319-328.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching What
Makes It Special? Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. Multiple perspectives on the
teaching and learning of mathematics, 83-104.
Brophy, J. E. (2013). Motivating students to learn. Routledge.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using
knowledge of childrens mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An
experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L, Empson, S. B. (1999). Childrens
mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology
applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A
meta-analysis. Educational research review, 9, 88-113.
Collins, K. M., & Gerber, M. M. (2001). Teachers' Beliefs about Mathematics Reform:
Instructional Implications for Students with Learning Disabilities. Research in
the schools, 8(2), 59-70.
Daun-Barnett, N., & John, E. P. S. (2012). Constrained curriculum in high schools: The
changing math standards and student achievement, high school graduation
and college continuation. Education policy analysis archives, 20(5), 1-25.

63
Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using childrens
mathematical knowledge in instruction. American educational research journal,
30(3), 555-583.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B.
(1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in
mathematics instruction. Journal for research in mathematics education, 27(4), 403-
434.
Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. (2011). Extending childrens mathematics: Fractions and decimals.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student
thinking. Theory into practice, 40(2), 102-109.
Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In Grouws, D.
A. (ed), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: learning: A
project of the national council of teachers of mathematics, 243-275. New York, NY,
England: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Goldsmith, L. T., Doerr, H. M., & Lewis, C. C. (2014). Mathematics teachers learning: A
conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of mathematics teacher
education, 17(1), 5-36.
Goos, M. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives in research on and with mathematics
teachers: a zone theory approach. ZDM, 45(4), 521-533.
Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. The
journal of educational research, 81(1), 41-47.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi delta
kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge
for teaching on student achievement. American educational research journal, 42(2),
371-406. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing
of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for research in mathematics education,
41(2), 169-202.
Kent, L. B. (2009). Fraction and proportion inventory. Northwest Arkansas Mathematics
Science Partnership Project. Arkansas Department of Education.
Lamon, S. J. (2012). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content
knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers.
American educational research journal, 40(4), 905-928.
National governors association center for best practices, council of chief state school
officers, (2010). Common core state standards. Washington D.C.
Saderholm, J., Ronau, R., Brown, E. T., & Collins, G. (2010). Validation of the diagnostic
teacher assessment of mathematics and science (DTAMS) instrument. School
science and mathematics, 110(4), 180-192.
Teachers development group (2010). Classroom embedded protocol. West Linn, OR.
Tchoshanov, M. A. (2011). Relationship between teacher knowledge of concepts and
connections, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades
mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics, 76(2), 141-164.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.

64

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 64-88, June 2015
Cooperative Learning Effectiveness

in the Bureaucratic School:
Views of Greek Secondary Education Teachers
Konstantina Koutrouba,
Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
Ioannis Christopoulos
Arsakeia-Tositseia Upper High Schools,
Athens, Greece
Abstract. The present questionnaire-based study examines 491 Greek

secondary education teachers perceptions about and attitudes towards
cooperative learning (CL) four years after the official introduction of CL
in almost all teaching/learning procedures, in order to find out whether
minor changes in typical bureaucratic educational systems, may
produce major beneficial results for students, teachers, and education
per se. According to the results, significant educational outcomes are
linked to CL in a highly bureaucratic educational system, such as
students self-understanding and empathy-developing, increasing self-
esteem, the attainment of socio-emotional objectives, and providing
teachers with incentives to experiment, diversify and individualize the
teaching process within mainstream classes. Such positive outcomes,
however, seem to be produced only in cases where teachers are
provided firstly with clearly defined socio-affective Curricula objectives,
teaching guidelines, and educational instructions, and secondly with
official authority and entrustment to implement (almost obligatorily) CL
in such a way that major academic objectives can be fulfilled and are not
downgraded.
Keywords: Greece; cooperative learning; secondary education;

teachers views
Introduction
In their widely known work on cooperative learning [CL] and the organization
of secondary schools, Shachar and Sharan (1995) have provided a detailed
description of the bureaucratic model of school organization; teachers,
administrators, and students manifest low levels of active participation in any
innovative educational procedures, their behaviour is strictly predetermined by
official Curricula, experimentation is avoided, academic achievements are high
but affective and social orientations of teaching are vague. In such settings, as

65
Galton, Gray, and Rudduck (2003), Gillies (2007), Johnson and Johnson (2013)
and Kirschner, Paas, and Kirschner (2009) have shown, teachers seem to be more
confident about their professional competences though they often report lack of
training and confidence as regards differentiation or individualization in the
teaching process, high-achieving students dominate in the frontal whole-class
teaching/learning process while knowledge transmission-recitation constitutes
the cornerstone of education.
Shachar and Sharan (1995) have also described, in contrast to the

bureaucratic model, the open-system model of school organization, where
cooperation between students, collegiality between teachers, and collaboration
between school and family/society are encouraged, free exchange of
information on differentiated/alternative teaching practices is allowed and the
initiation of creative experimentation within the classroom is enthusiastically
welcomed. Moreover, in such schools, curricula objectives embed emotional and
social orientations; knowledge, and cognition and regulation of knowledge are
considered to be attainments of equal value, while low-achieving students often
display a discernible improvement as regards participation, communication, and
accountabilitysomething also described by Jacobs, Power, and Lon (2002),
Johnson and Johnson (2003), Sharan (2010) and Tan, Sharan, and Lee (2006).
A huge amount of research findings (Freebody, 2003; Gillies, Ashman, &

Terwel, 2008; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2013; Kagan & Kagan, 2009; Mayer, 2011;
Sharan, 2015) have convincingly shown that if a substantial shift from traditional
teaching in the bureaucratic school to the highly participative multi-layered
learning in the open-system school occurs, cooperative learning should be
considered a linchpin in the educational process. Brody and Davidsons (1998)
widely-known definition of CL as a process where students work in groups
towards a common goal or outcome, or share a common problem or task in such
a way that they can only succeed in completing the work through behaviour that
demonstrates interdependence, while holding individual contributions and
efforts accountable (p. 9), incorporates, in fact, through its words and their
connotations the main objectives, features and values of the open-system school
that most researchers and education policy-makers envisage. In addition, and
regardless of taxonomies suggested and cooperative work models preferred,
researchers seem to agree that piecemeal implementations of group work
learning should be avoided and overall changes in the education system per se
should be attempted (through brave interventions in University education, in
curricula, in the society itself), so that CL becomes the cornerstone of modern
education (Gillies, 2007; Shachar & Sharan, 1995; Sharan, 2010; Slavin, 2014).
Despite however the undisputed need for an overall change in education,

significant positive outcomes have been reported by researchers worldwide for
students after the implementation of CL strategies in ordinary classrooms, even
in cases where teachers relative competences, students awareness, curricula
flexibility, and infrastructure adequacy could not be described as ideal. Gillies
and Boyle (2011), recording the views of teachers who, for two years, had been
embedding in regular school curricula CL strategies in mixed-ability classes

66
(namely, classes where students with special educational needs, low-, medium-,
and high-achievers are co-educated) with 27 to 33 students, reported that even
the traditional loafers and the low-achievers manifested a noteworthy degree of
accountability and willingness, and developed feelings of self-esteem, albeit only
in cases where appointed tasks were clearly defined and evidently
interdependent. The same research also confirmed former findings of Johnson
and Johnson (2003), Howe and colleagues (2007) and Webb and colleagues
(2009) who reported that where the communication and cooperation rules had
been clearly taught and explained to students prior to their engagement in
cooperative processes, stronger intellectual, meta-cognitive, affective, and social
outcomes were obtained, even in schools where cooperative projects covered
only a small part of the official curriculums activities. It is also interesting that,
as Davison, Galbraith, and McQueen (2008) have reported, even mainstream
school students who presented behavioural or learning problems had been
brought into line (as regards academic performance, understanding rules and
cooperation protocol) due to the positive influence of their group, after a short-
term but substantial training of teachers on the implementation of CL in
ordinary schools. As Greany and Rodd (2003), Slavin (2014) and Baudrit (2007)
have shown, it is, in fact, the students personal and collaborative effort to
understand rules, expectations, and routines of actions which helps them better
understand the others (developing, thus, empathy), describe seminal ideas more
precisely (developing resourcefulness) and express personal needs (displaying
meta-cognitive awareness), and more effectively avoid misperceptions and bad
behaviour (triggering thus feelings of adequacy, usefulness, and acceptance).
Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2003), Gillies (2008) and King (2002) have also
shown that the abovementioned benefits are further consolidated when teachers
play a major role in the structuring of the groups, since they can take into
account students individual skills, needs, and learning or social features.
Teachers discreet and well-planned supportive interventions in group

work have also been considered to help make students feel more secure; teachers
are supposed to estimate better the time needed for the completion of the task,
the depth and breadth of the content, the expected achievements of each one of
the students (Baudrit, 2007; Cohen, Brody, & Sapon-Shevin, 2004; Freebody,
2003; Kagan & Kagan, 2008). However, it should not be taken for granted that all
teachers are able to take full advantage of the principles of pedagogy during
student grouping, since group forming very often is negatively affected by a
non-manageable number of students, by inflexible curricula constraints, by the
students varied ability and maturity, by teachers lack of training and so forth,
as Galton, Gray, and Rudduck (2003), Ireson and Hallam (2001) and Kutnick and
colleagues (2005) have shown. Nor should it be taken for granted that high-
achievers are willing to work in groups, that parents support the inclusion of
diverse students in mainstream classrooms, or that the school administration
gives a free hand to enthusiastic teachers, as Cairns, Lawton, and Gardner (2001)
and Johnson and Johnson (1999) have shown.
Nevertheless, such restrictions do not eliminate positive outcomes and

potentials of CL strategies, as reported by Cohen and colleagues (2002),

67
Eastman, Newstetter, and McCracken (2000) and Ginsburg-Block and colleagues

(2006). Cantwell and Andrews (2002), on examining the attitudes of 290
secondary education students towards cooperative work have confirmed that
when students were encouraged (with detailed information provision and
positive training support) to develop more sophisticated ways of addressing the
complexity of CL, basic cognitive, social, and psychological impediments to
effective cooperation (such as feelings of anxiety, discomfort, inadequacy,
tendency to alienation), were minimised while positive outcomes (such as higher
academic achievement aspirations, knowledge and regulation of cognition,
sociability) were further consolidated. Sharan (2010) has also shown that even in
cases where difficulties arise from a severe cultural and linguistic gap which
separates foreign from native students, obstacles can be surmounted when
teachers engage students methodically in activities that promote cultural
sensitization and respect of diversity (such as familiarization with the
achievements of high-profile individuals from different ethnic groups in some
areas, the presentation of historical or cultural achievements, language influence
and so forth). Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2005) and Thanh and Gillies
(2010) have shown that such a merging or understanding of different values and
perspectives could have had a major positive impact on educational practice
where social real-life objectives are considered to be equal to strict academic
expectations.
An apparent need for modernization, namely the need for adjustment to

the requirements of the present and the foreseeable future has driven
educational systems around the world to re-orientate educational policies, aims,
and techniques (Beese & Liang, 2010; Corner, 2012; Crafton & Kaiser, 2013;
Davis, 2013). In Greece, in particular, the educational system has been highly
conservative and bureaucratic for decades; teaching has been based mainly on
teacher-centred, frontal whole-class instruction restricted by limitations set by
official curricula which have inflexibly defined content, pace and, even, methods
for teacher and student task allocations and attainments (Kassotakis, 2000;
Kazamias, 1990; Koulaidis et al. 2006) .Individualization and differentiation
during teaching has been rather prohibitive due to the effort of teachers to meet
a widely-accepted coercive requirement for students high academic
achievements at the expense of social or emotional objectives (Ifanti, 2007). Even
teachers scientifically well-trained and willing to stray from the beaten track
have had to personally shoulder the responsibility of a potential failure (in
particular as regards the overly demanding upper secondary high school
education provided to students aged 15-18 years)an eventuality unacceptable
to administration, students, parents, and colleagues alike (Ifanti & Fotopoulou,
2011; Saiti, 2007; Saiti & Mitosili, 2005). Such discouraging aspects of the system
seem to have been further exacerbated by the lack of decentralization of
administrative power, the poor funding of pre-service training programmes, the
ineffective establishment of learning communities among teachers, parents, and
students, and, above all, due to the teachers and students impression that
education is destabilized, disorientated, undermined and, finally, disintegrated
when experimental alterations, modifications and adjustments threaten a

68
traditionally tested and accepted educational status quo (Anagnostopoulou,

2001; Kaldi, Philippatou, & Onoufriou, 2009; Koutselini, 2008).
However, since 2011, following subsequent minor reforms (Georgiadis,

2007) and probably under long-existing pressure from various directions and
demand for more extensive improvements that would follow international
educational research findings, reforms, and developments (Koutsourakis, 2007;
Traianou, 2009), a few dynamic and optimistic steps to change have been made;
new curricula have embedded compulsory cooperative activities in almost all
school subjects, while the assessment of teachers professionalism have
incorporated criteria such as instructional individualization and diversification,
use of cooperative techniques, utilization of IT, the ability to connect knowledge
with real-life experiences, the ability to communicate effectively with students
and help students do the same with each other (Greek Government Gazette,
2013; OECD, 2011). At the same time, parallel reforms in administrative
hierarchies have motivated younger but well-educated teachers to experiment in
their classrooms and to disseminate or share with more hesitant colleagues
scientific knowledge on cooperative teaching/learning procedures. It is rather
obvious that CL has become the stepping stone of this reform, and, despite
hesitations, doubts and even an understandable resistance to change,
communication, cooperation, and collaborative association has penetrated
(admittedly, somehow audaciously) the core of a highly bureaucratic
educational system (Greek Government Gazette, 2013; OECD, 2015).
Research on the educational positive or negative outcomes of this reform

in Greece remains limited (Kaldi, Philippatou, & Anthopoulou, 2014). At the
same time, the contribution of this invasion of cooperativeness in all learning
processes remains unmeasured, despite recent research recording Greek
students views on and attitudes towards CL (Koutrouba, Kariotaki, &
Christopoulos, 2012).
The aim of this paper is to examine Greek secondary education teachers

perceptions about and attitudes towards CL four years after the
abovementioned reform (which introduced CL in almost all teaching/learning
procedures), in order discover positive outcomes, difficulties, and its potential.
More specifically it examines whether minor changes (regarding the
introduction of CL in learning process) in typical bureaucratic educational
systems, may produce major beneficial results for students, teachers, and the
educational system per se.
Methodology
The present research was conducted during the academic year 2013-2014
and was based on a distribution of 550 questionnaires addressed to a
corresponding number of high school teachers in Athens and its suburbs. A
group of 25 University students were provided by the researchers with
systematic information in order to personally prompt and help teachers
complete a questionnaire comprising 68 close-ended questions. The University
students and the researchers proceeded to visit 50 secondary education schools

69
(i.e., 27 Junior High Schools with students 13-15 years old and 23 Upper High
Schools with students 16-18 years old) and distributed the questionnaires after
making personal contact with school principals and teachers with the
permission of the Greek Ministry of Education. These schools were selected on
the basis of criteria regarding teacher and student population in order to ensure
that as many teachers and students as possible had already been involved in CL
procedures. More specifically, in all the selected schools the ratio of teachers to
students and the ratio of teachers to schools exceeded the national ratios of 1:8.5
and 21.1:1 respectively (OECD, 2011; Eurydice, 2014). As a result, a large number
of respondents were ascertained to have exercised, to a varied degree, CL in
classrooms in order to sensitize students mainly on issues regarding society,
environment and culture. Moreover, social and economic features of the school
area were taken into account in order to ensure that relevant information would
be provided by teachers working in different socio-financial settings, given the
fact that, as Gillies (2007), Kagan and Kagan (2009) and Koulaidis and colleagues
(2006) have observed, the cultural and social features of the learning
environment seem to have a major impact, either positive or negative, on teacher
initiative in implementing CL techniques and, in a broader sense, on the overall
outcomes of every experiential learning procedure. More specifically, the
catchment areas of the schools were divided into three categories (Low,
Medium, High) on the basis of their socio-economic characteristics using a
property value indicator provided by the Finance Ministry (OECD, 2011;
European Commission, 2014). Schools were then allocated to one of three
categories: ten schools were identified as serving areas of low socio-economic
status, 20 as serving areas of medium socio-economic status, and 20 were
considered to serve areas of high socio-economic status. The ratios of the
selected students to schools and of schools to each area represented the
corresponding national ratios, ensuring, as far as possible, that the sample was
representative. It should, yet, be noted that although the researchers ascertained
a strong correlation between the socio-financial features of the school and
teachers willingness to use group work or other alternative teaching strategies
in their classrooms, the examination of such a correlation belongs not to the aims
of the present paper but to the aims of a forthcoming research.
The questionnaire comprised 68 close-ended questions with pre-coded

replies: 7 of which required teachers to provide information about personal
profile and background (see table 1, variables 1-7), while 61 special questions
and their pre-coded replies (which are presented as variables 8-68 in table 2)
referred to teachers perceptions about and attitudes towards CL features and
activities. To maximize respondent awareness and internal consistency in
answers during questionnaire completion, specific questions were not arranged
on the basis of their relation with the ones preceding or following them, though,
in general, question relevance was a criterion for question grouping.
The questionnaire, originally written in Greek and then translated into

English for the purposes of this paper, was self-administered because it was not
possible to identify an instrument from the literature that allowed researchers to
capture all the variables involved in this study. For this reason, the synthesis of

70
the questionnaire was mainly based on the research findings of Cantwell and
Andrews (2002), Cohen, Brody, and Sapon-Shevin (2004), Crafton and Kaiser
(2011), Davis (2013), Davison, Galbraith, and McQueen (2008), Gillies(2008),
Gillies, Ashman, and Terwel (2008), Hmelo-Silver, Chinn, Chan, and ODonnell
(2013), Kagan and Kagan (2009), Kaldi, Philippatou, and Onoufriou (2009),
Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2005) and Sharan (2010).
The scoring of the special questions was based on nominal five-point Likert-
type scales (1=not at all, 2= slightly, 3=moderately, 4=much, 5=very much),
incorporating properties of labelling and classification.
Four hundred and ninety one (491) questionnaires were returned, a

response rate of 89.2 per cent. A statistical coding of questions and answers
followed the collection of the questionnaires. Data elaboration and statistical
analysis was performed using Predictive Analytics Software [PASW] Statistics
21 and factor analysis was employed, using Principal Component Analysis
[PCA] with Varimax rotation extraction method, to pinpoint the main factors
influencing secondary school teachers views about and attitudes towards group
work. All relevant statistical tests were performed at a significance level = 0.01.
A broad outline of the more significant results and conclusions of the present
research is presented below.
Analysis of results
Participants profile
Of the 491 teachers who participated in the research, 62.7 percent were
women, while 37.3 percent were men. The working experience of the majority of
them (43.4%) ranged from 0 to 10 years, while 40.1 percent had over 16 years of
service in school. Moreover, the overwhelming majority (88.4%) of the
participants did not possess any postgraduate degree in Education and 64.4
percent had never taken any further training on the implementation of CL
strategies, although the majority of them (68.4%) were aged from 36 to 55 years
and the majority of the respondents (61.7%) considered further training on the
use of CL strategies to be very to extremely important. Details on the
participants profiles can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Participants profile (in percentages)

1 2 3 4 5
1 Gender (1=women, 2=men) 62.7 37.3
2 Age (1 = 22-25 years, 2 = 26-35 years, 3 = 36-45 years, 4 = 4.5 21.2 34.8 33.6 5.9
46-55 years, 5 = over 56 years)
3 Teaching experience Age (1 = 0-5 years, 2 = 6-10 years, 3 23.2 20.2 16.5 18.5 21.6
= 11-15 years, 4 = 16-20 years, 5 = over 20 years)
4 Specialty (1 = Humanities, i.e. History, Language, 44.9 18.8 25.2 4.7 6.4
Aesthetic Studies, 2 = Social Studies, i.e. Religion,
Sociology, Economics, 3 = Mathematics & Natural
Sciences, i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, 4 =
Information Technologies, 5 = other)
5 Post graduate qualifications on Science of Education (1 = 10.6 1 88.4

71
Master Degree, 2 = PhD, 3 = none)

6 Frequency of participation in seminars on the use of CL 64.4 20 9.2 4 2.4
strategies (1 = 0 times, 2 = 1-2 times, 3 = 3-5 times, 4 = 6-
10 times, 5 = over 10 times)
7 Views on importance of further training on the use of 4.5 12 21.8 29.7 32
CLstrategies(1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly
important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important,
5 = extremely important)
Special questions
Variables 8-21, 46-49 and 51-52 of Table 2 present teachers responses to
questions regarding their views on positive outcomes for students who
participate in CL procedures and group work activities. These responses portray
a student who, through CL, develops the ability not only to understand and
express his/her personal feelings(variable 8) which during puberty are not yet
fully formed and perceived, but also to understand and share his/her
schoolmates experiences and emotions due to empathy developed through
cooperative interaction (variable 14). Moreover, such a student is expected by
the participants to increase meta-cognitive awareness (variable 10) expressing
written and verbal ideas in a more lucid and comprehensible way(variables 18,
19), probably to avoid misunderstandings, and developing non-verbal
interaction (variable 16) to facilitate and strengthen effective communication
with the members of the group. Teachers also report that due to group work
experience students learn how to cooperate harmoniously with the teacher as
well (variable 11), while positive outcomes are strengthened when widely
accepted rules are established (variable 17), when students take creative
initiatives and responsibilities (variable 13) and when they behave in a mature
way during all learning procedures (variable 12).Group work is also reported to
facilitate the development of student self-esteem (variable 9), without however
eliminating the dominance of high-achievers over low-achievers (variable 51), as
well as weak students reliance on the high-achievers performance within the
group (variable 52) and despite the fact that reluctant (but not necessarily weak)
students are considered to participate more actively in group work activities
(variable 47). By jointly examining variables 46, 48 and 49, one could probably
say that, irrespective of their cognitive performance, all students feel useful since
they contribute, to a varied however extent, to the final outcome of the group
through the establishment of interpersonal relationships which are described by
the respondents as meaningful rather than superficial. One could also say that
this contact between students of different performance, attitudes and learning
expectations helps all students develop tolerance towards and cooperativeness
with diverse personalities (variable 21), linking this way school experience to
real life perceptions (variable 20).
Variables 22-45 and 50 of the same table present teachers responses to

questions regarding their views on their personal role during all stages of the
group work process. These responses provide the image of a teacher who, firstly,
displays great interest in presenting by himself/herself the content of every new

72
unit which is afterwards taken into consideration by the students (variable 22),
secondly, who presents in detail the method required for the objectives to be
attained (variable 33), and, thirdly, who pays heed to students profound
understanding and the attainment of cognitive, affective and social objectives as
well (variables 23, 24, 25), though the cognitive accomplishment of the task
seems to notably prevail over the social aspect while social achievements seem
to be slightly predominant over affective ones. The participants also reported
that they have to help students fully realize not only the social skills needed for
successful in-group cooperation (variable 29) but also the rules which have to be
respected so that communication between members is free of misunderstandings
and subsequent conflicts (variable 30). On the other hand, it is apparent that
teachers do not feel secure in leaving students to define by themselves the rules
of communication and cooperation (variables 31, 32), while the same wavering
lack of trust appears as regards students reliability to define on their own the
precise time duration for the task and respect deadlines (variables 34, 35). A
similar teachers lack of trust in luck is also apparent in their responses
regarding their attitude towards the way groups are formed; the majority of the
respondents do not let students set up groups by themselves, probably because
they believe that only teachers can take into account individualized features and
traits of every member of a to-be-formed group (variables 26, 27, 28).In addition,
teachers hold a major role in task assignment; they allocate duties either to the
group as a whole (variable 37) or to each particular member of the group
(variable 36), while often they only present anticipated objectives and outcomes,
letting students apportion duties among the members of the group (variable
38).As regards assessment, this is closely linked to group work process
monitoring; teachers observe carefully the work within the group(variable 39)
and intervene either in case of group malfunction or when they want to ensure
shared responsibility (variables 41, 42). It is, however, apparent that group
outcomes tend to be considered to be more reliable indexes of performance than
individual contributions; teachers provide members with individualized
support (variable 40) but they prefer assessing the final overall outcome of the
group (variable 43), which, in many cases, constitutes a compilation of separate
contributions (variable 50), rather than the contribution of every member
(variable 44). Nevertheless, many teachers tend to prompt students to evaluate
by themselves their personal involvement and contribution in the group
(variable 45).
Variables 53-68 of the same table present teachers responses to questions

regarding their views on positive and negative features of CL as an instructional
technique. For the majority CL as an instructional technique liberates teaching
procedure from platitudinous in-class routines (variable 59), since it reduces
conventionality (variable 62), boosts the teachers feelings of freedom and
innovativeness (variable 61) and brings, consequently, to the fore the quality of
education instruction instead of its quantity (variable 63).On the other hand, this
technique is considered to be time-consuming (variable 53) and tiring as well;
the teacher not only has to be prepared for unexpected eventualities and
diversified routes during a teaching process which is not controlled solely or
primarily by him/her (variables 54, 57), but also to monitor, assist and assess

73
numerous individuals who work in many different ways (variable 55), even
though many teachers feel able to define each students personal traits and
features (variable 65).In addition, the respondents reported that teachers who
plan implementing group work in ordinary classrooms have to be qualified with
specialized knowledge on the use of alternative teaching strategies (variable 56)
and, furthermore, with further experiential training within real-class settings
(58). Despite, however, efforts for professional effectiveness, teachers think that
many parents would prefer the use of traditional teaching strategies for their
children, to ensure maximization of educational outcomes (variable
60).Additionally, as teachers report, the official Curricula and school
administration do not give a free hand to the teachers who want to use
diversified leaning strategies in regular classrooms (variable 68). Finally,
according to the participants, the large number of students in the classroom
(variable 64), their immaturity (variable 66) and, to a smaller degree, the abortive
inclusion of foreigners or students with special educational needs within
mainstream classrooms (variable 67) seem to undermine the effectiveness of the
teacher who attempts to implement group work.
Table 2: Teachers responses (in percentages) to the questions looking at Greek

teachers perceptions about and attitudes towards CL
Moderately
Very much
Slightly
Not at all
Much
CL encourages students to :
8. Understand and express intimate feelings 1.4 7.5 28.4 45.1 17.6
9. Develop self-esteem 0.8 5.1 30.1 44 20
10. Develop meta-cognitive awareness, correct
2 8.8 32.6 44 12.6
misperceptions
11. Cooperate effectively with the teacher 0.6 3.9 23.4 51.1 21
12. Engage actively and maturely in the learning
0.6 5.1 22.4 43 28.9
process
13. Take initiatives and responsibilities 1 9 27.3 45.8 16.9
14. Develop empathy 1.6 13 33 42.6 9.8
15. Strengthen verbal interaction with schoolmates 1.4 9.6 25.9 45 18.1
16. Strengthen non-verbal interaction with
6.5 19.6 40.9 28.7 4.3
schoolmates
17. Establish commonly accepted rules 0.6 5.1 22.4 43 28.9
18. Express ideas unambiguously and consistently 1 9.8 38.2 42.2 8.8
19. Improve writing skills 2 10.2 40.3 38.3 9.2
20. Link school experiences to real life perceptions 1.2 10.8 25.1 40.9 22
21. Display tolerance towards diversity 5.1 13.8 31 35.6 14.5
As a teacher, I:
22. Present the contents of the units in question 3.5 10.6 28.5 40.7 16.7
23. Insist on students understanding and attaining 2.4 14.9 33 40.5 9.2
cognitive objectives
24. Insist on students understanding and attaining 5.7 18.7 43.4 27.5 4.7
affective objectives

74
25. Insist on students understanding and attaining 5.1 14.5 45.6 27.9 6.9
social objectives
26. Form groups without plan/at random 14.5 23.4 24.8 29.6 7.7
27. Form groups on the basis of individualized 8.1 19.3 31.6 32.2 8.8
features of the members
28. Let students form groups by themselves 10.8 26.7 30.1 23 9.4
29. Insist on students understanding the social skills 5.3 11 29.3 38.9 15.5
required during group work (solidarity, mutual
trust, tolerance etc.)
30. Define rules of communication and cooperation to 6.5 11.6 33.6 37.7 10.6
avoid conflicts/misunderstandings
31. Prompt students to define by themselves the rules 7.1 25.9 33.8 25.1 8.1
of communication according to the special features
of their group
32. Do not set rules of cooperation so that students 16.3 29.8 28.5 17.7 7.7
find it necessary to do it by themselves
33. Present in detail the method required for the 4.9 12 35 38.3 9.8
objectives to be attained (research through internet,
access to bibliographical resources etc.)
34. Define precise time for each work phase 2 10.8 30.3 42.8 14.1
completion
35. Define only deadline for entire work completion 9.2 22.2 33.6 27.5 7.5
36. Assign specific tasks to each member of every 4.5 16.7 32.6 36.7 9.5
group in order to ensure control of every students
performance
37. Assign general tasks to every group and the group 5.7 16.3 33.4 37.9 6.7
allocates duties to each member
38. Present objectives to all groups and every group 4.7 18.3 32 36.7 8.3
chooses specifications and then allocates duties to
its members
39. Monitor working process of each group as a whole 4.1 10.6 26.9 41.3 17.1
40. Monitor working process of each group member to 4.5 15.3 34.4 35 10.8
provide individualized support
41. Intervene in group work only upon request or in 4.5 14.7 32 35 13.8
case of malfunction
42. Monitor each members contribution in group 2.8 11 24.6 41.8 19.8
work to ensure shared responsibility
43. Assess every group as a whole after group work 2.4 13.6 34.2 36.7 13.1
completion
44. Assess individually every group member on the 5.2 16.3 37.1 33 8.4
basis of specific criteria
45. Prompt students to assess by themselves personal 5.7 17.9 31 35.6 9.8
contribution in group work
During group work:
46. Meaningful rather than superficial relationships 1.2 5.1 27.7 40.1 25.9
are developed
47. Reluctant students are encouraged to actively 2 7.5 26.9 43.3 20.3
participate in the task

75
48. All members contribute to the final outcome 1.6 8.1 28.1 40.9 21.3
49. All members feel useful 2.2 7.9 27.1 40.9 21.9
50. Each member works autonomously and, at the end, 7.5 17.9 37.5 28.9 8.2
all members compile individual works
51. The more competent members control the weaker 5.1 27.1 40.1 23 4.7
ones
52. The weaker students take advantage of the 5.9 22 45.2 20.2 6.7
stronger ones
As a teacher, I think that CL:
53. Is time-consuming 1.8 12.6 32 35 18.6
54. Fatigues teachers who cannot pre-plan 1.4 11.8 36 35.9 14.9
diversifications, alterations and unexpected
outcomes during learning process
55. Is exhausting as regards teacher monitoring, 2 10.4 34 37.9 15.7
assistance and assessment of members who work
in many different ways
56. Demands teachers specialized knowledge in socio- 1.8 7.5 32 38.5 20.2
affective objectives attainment
57. Enfeebles cognitive outcomes to the advantage of 1.4 5.3 26.5 41.3 25.5
socio-affective objectives
58. Demands further long experiential training of the 1.6 8.1 28.1 37.6 24.6
teacher
59. Liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous 4.5 11.8 32.4 36.7 14.6
in-class routines
60. Makes parents feel reserved as regards academic 11.4 24 31.2 23.6 9.8
outcomes when compared to traditional
instructional strategies
61. Boosts teachers feelings of freedom and 2.6 10.2 23.6 39.6 24
innovativeness
62. Reduces conventionality during learning 1.2 9.4 28.5 39.9 21
procedures
63. Makes quality dominate over quantity 2.2 11.2 30.3 34.7 21.6
64. Is difficult to be implemented when the number of 3.3 10.7 26.5 32.8 26.7
students is large
65. Is highly dependent on teacher adequacy as 9 20.4 32.6 25.5 12.5
regards familiarity with all the personal features of
every student
66. Is highly dependent on the maturity of every group 3.9 15.5 35 33.4 12.2
member
67. Is difficult to be implemented when foreign 15.7 22.4 28.9 22.4 10.6
students are included in the classroom
68. Is supported and facilitated by official Curricula, 15.5 31.6 27.7 16.2 9
school administration and educational authorities
Factor Analysis
Of the above-mentioned variables, thirty three were placed under
consideration, related in level of significance = 1% to the beliefs of the 491
secondary education teachers on CL (chi-square independence tests were

76
performed). All variables used in factor analysis were ordinal numeric ones
which represented five distinct categories (e.g. 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 =
moderately, 4 = much, 5 = very much).
These 33 variables were as follows:
CL encourages students to:
1. Develop self-esteem
2. Develop meta-cognitive awareness, correct misperceptions
3. Take initiatives and responsibilities
4. Develop empathy
As a teacher, I:
5. Form groups on the basis of individualized features of the members
6. Let students form groups by themselves
7. Insist on students understanding the social skills required during group
work (solidarity, mutual trust, tolerance etc.)
8. Define rules of communication and cooperation to avoid
conflicts/misunderstandings
9. Prompt students to define by themselves the rules of communication
according to the special features of their group
10. Present in detail the method required for the objectives to be attained
(research through internet, access to bibliographical resources etc.)
11. Define precise time for each work phase completion
12. Assign general tasks to every group and the group allocates duties to each
member
13. Monitor working process of each group as a whole
14. Monitor working process of each group member to provide individualized
support
15. Monitor each members contribution in group work to ensure shared
responsibility
16. Assess individually every group member on the basis of specific criteria
17. Meaningful rather than superficial relationships are developed
18. Reluctant students are encouraged to actively participate in the task
19. All members contribute to the final outcome
20. All members feel useful
21. The more competent members control the weaker ones
22. The weaker students take advantage of the stronger ones
As a teacher, I think that CL:
23. Is time-consuming
24. Fatigues teachers who cannot pre-plan diversifications, alterations and
unexpected outcomes during the learning process
25. Is exhausting as regards teacher monitoring, assistance and assessment of
members who work in many different ways
26. Demands further long experiential training of the teacher
27. Liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous in-class routines
28. Boosts teachers feelings of freedom and innovativeness
29. Reduces conventionality during learning procedures
30. Is difficult to be implemented when the number of students is large

77
31. Is highly dependent on teacher adequacy as regards familiarity with all the
personal features of every student
32. Is highly dependent on the maturity of every group member
33. Is difficult to be implemented when foreign students are included in the
classroom.
When applying factor analysis, we attempted to ascertain the main factors that
affect teachers views on CL. The value 0.817 of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
for sampling adequacy as an indicator of comparison in the observed values of
correlation coefficients to the partial correlation coefficients implied factor
analysis of variables was acceptable as a technique for analysing the data. In
addition, Bartletts test of sphericity showed high statistical significance of the
statistic 2 (zero p-value), rejecting the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is
an identity one and, consequently, factor analysis was adequate (see table 3).
Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.817

Approx. Chi-Square 4427.235
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity d.f. 528
Sig. 0.000
We applied factor analysis to the group of 33 previously mentioned variables

(Cattell, 1978; Howitt & Cramer, 2014). Since performance of principal
component analysis (PCA) from the first nine components explained 58.198% of
the total variance and that only the first nine components had eigenvalues
greater than 1, we proceeded by using PCA with Varimax rotation extraction
method in nine components that are presented in table 4. Scree Plot (Figure 1)
represents the percentage of the total variance explained by each factor.
Table 4: Factor analysis results

Rotated Component Matrix
Variables Component Commu-
nalities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[1] 0.146 0.771 0.007 0.150 0.049 0.057 -0.021 0.093 -0.078 0.660
[2] 0.204 0.734 0.042 0.171 0.044 0.024 0.020 0.073 0.018 0.620
[3] 0.041 0.687 0.113 -0.007 0.190 0.211 -0.093 0.038 0.022 0.577
[4] 0.176 0.651 0.088 0.182 0.162 -0.034 0.024 0.000 0.079 0.530
[5] 0.022 0.144 0.096 0.677 -0.100 0.216 0.054 -0.056 0.058 0.555
[6] 0.128 0.020 0.006 0.270 -0.021 0.008 0.059 0.770 -0.033 0.688
[7] 0.274 0.091 0.003 0.634 0.168 0.056 0.147 0.147 -0.006 0.560
[8] 0.058 0.039 0.085 0.563 0.210 0.264 -0.350 0.102 0.152 0.599
[9] -0.060 0.053 0.041 -0.142 -0.067 0.136 0.033 0.763 0.126 0.650
[10] 0.039 0.210 0.029 0.512 0.051 -0.007 0.098 0.061 0.011 0.325

78
[11] 0.169 0.056 0.122 0.463 0.235 0.301 -0.126 -0.096 0.078 0.437
[12] 0.156 0.113 -0.019 0.032 0.197 0.036 0.038 0.557 0.139 0.409
[13] 0.122 0.137 0.047 -0.057 0.029 0.745 0.179 0.089 0.074 0.640
[14] 0.158 -0.102 0.071 0.226 0.258 0.646 -0.100 -0.061 -0.050 0.591
[15] 0.254 -0.004 0.040 0.231 0.138 0.625 -0.108 0.062 0.157 0.569
[16] -0.071 0.214 0.061 0.186 -0.084 0.591 0.109 0.138 -0.053 0.480
[17] 0.802 0.237 0.025 0.024 0.012 0.084 0.007 0.088 -0.039 0.717
[18] 0.781 0.204 0.046 0.053 -0.057 0.152 -0.027 -0.005 0.007 0.684
[19] 0.685 0.027 0.011 0.281 0.300 0.061 0.051 0.047 -0.018 0.647
[20] 0.665 0.137 0.152 0.111 0.211 0.105 -0.205 0.129 -0.034 0.612
[21] -0.064 0.065 0.067 0.133 -0.060 -0.007 0.079 0.155 0.803 0.709
[22] 0.001 -0.038 0.058 0.010 0.037 0.102 0.222 0.061 0.778 0.675
[23] 0.043 0.012 0.780 0.094 0.032 0.066 0.220 -0.006 0.098 0.682
[24] 0.066 0.166 0.745 -0.023 0.112 0.091 0.011 0.025 -0.129 0.625
[25] -0.045 0.015 0.743 0.033 -0.018 0.040 0.261 0.020 0.087 0.633
[26] 0.138 0.055 0.681 0.140 0.213 0.009 -0.047 -0.002 0.098 0.562
[27] 0.217 0.208 0.034 0.099 0.673 0.096 -0.142 0.026 -0.069 0.589
[28] -0.024 0.100 0.090 0.245 0.606 0.019 0.031 0.188 -0.083 0.489
[29] 0.128 0.243 0.123 -0.072 0.557 0.131 -0.102 -0.028 0.059 0.437
[30] 0.069 -0.035 0.190 0.011 0.487 0.062 0.431 -0.149 0.123 0.507
[31] -0.074 0.028 0.265 -0.022 -0.066 0.026 0.699 0.037 0.203 0.613
[32] -0.044 -0.020 0.083 0.020 -0.189 0.052 0.659 0.136 0.100 0.511
[33] -0.033 -0.085 0.100 0.236 0.427 0.010 0.601 0.022 0.031 0.620
Rota-
Percentage tion 7.976 7.496 7.360 6.814 6.471 6.350 5.986 5.207 4.537
of total sums of
variance squared
explained load-
ings
Note: Communality or common factor variance: total variance of each variable

explained by common factor.

79
Figure 1: Scree plot
Comments on the factor analysis results
Based on the results of the factor analysis, the nine main factors were as follows:
Factor 1: Relationships, attitudes and contributions during CL: Since the variables
17 [Meaningful rather than superficial relationships are developed], 18
[Reluctant students are encouraged to actively participate in the task], 19 [All
members contribute to the final outcome] and 20 [All members feel useful]had
the highest factor loadings they identify the first main factor. According to the
results, teachers report that unenthusiastic students tend to participate more
willingly in CL activities, feeling therefore as useful as the others since all
students contribute to the final outcome. Such participatory interaction is,
consequently, considered to lead to the development of meaningful rather than
superficial relationships between students of different academic performance.
Factor 2: Students skill development during CL: Since the variables 1 [Develop
self-esteem], 2 [Develop meta-cognitive awareness, correct misperceptions], 3
[Take initiatives and responsibilities] and 4 [Develop empathy] had the highest
factor loadings they identify the second main factor. According to the results,
teachers report that students who participate in CL activities tend to develop a
more profound understanding of themselves and of others and become more
willing to assume responsibilities and display initiative.

80
Factor 3: Counterincentives for teachers using CL: Since the variables 23 [Is time-
consuming], 24 [Fatigues teachers who cannot pre-plan diversifications,
alterations and unexpected outcomes during the learning process], 25 [Is
exhausting as regards teacher monitoring, assistance and assessment of
members who work in many different ways] and 26 [Demands further long
experiential training of the teacher] had the highest factor loadings, they identify
the third main factor. According to the results, many teachers feel unwilling to
implement CL in their classrooms, since CL is considered to be highly
demanding and strenuous, with unpredictable or confounding outcomes.
Factor 4: Teachers role in group forming and rule defining: Since the variables 5
[Form groups on the basis of individualized features of the members], 7 [Insist
on students understanding the social skills required during group work
(solidarity, mutual trust, tolerance etc.)] 8 [Define rules of communication and
cooperation to avoid conflicts/misunderstandings], 10 [Present in detail the
method required for the objectives to be attained (research through internet,
access to bibliographical resources etc.)] and 11 [Define a precise time for each
work phase completion] had the highest factor loadings they identify the fourth
main factor. According to the results, teachers feel more secure, regarding the
effectiveness of CL, when they precisely define the rules and the prerequisite
cooperation skills, the method which has to be used and the time provided for
the accomplishment of the task, as well as when they take into account the
special traits of each student before they place him/her in a specific group.
Factor 5: Benefits from CL and the problem of the number of students: Since the
variables 27 [Liberates teaching procedure from platitudinous in-class routines],
28 [Boosts teachers feelings of freedom and innovativeness], 29 [Reduces
conventionality in learning procedures] and 30 [Is difficult to be implemented
when the number of students is large] had the highest factor loadings, they
identify the fifth main factor. According to the results, teachers believe that CL
offers teachers the opportunity to work unconventionally, on condition that the
number of students in the classroom and the number of members within the
group are limited and, consequently, more manageable.
Factor 6: Monitoring and assessing CL: Since the variables 13 [Monitor working
process of each group as a whole], 14 [Monitor working process of each group
member to provide individualized support], 15 [Monitor each members
contribution in group work to ensure shared responsibility] and 16[Assess
individually every group member on the basis of specific criteria] had the
highest factor loadings, they identify the sixth main factor. According to the
results, teachers find it necessary to monitor equally the final learning product as
an overall outcome and the individualized contribution of each member as well,
though assessment should be focused more on each students personalized and
diversified contribution and less on the quality of the final outcome and the
groups compliance to the teachers requirements.
Factor 7: Factors that CLs success depends on: Since the variables 31 [Is highly
dependent on teacher adequacy as regards familiarity with all the personal
features of every student], 32 [Is highly dependent on the maturity of every
group member] and 33 [Is difficult to be implemented when foreign students are
included in the classroom] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the
seventh main factor. According to the results, a teachers understanding and

81
exploitation of each students character, learning traits and maturity constitute a

prerequisite if CL has to be implemented successfully, but such understanding
should not be taken for granted, especially in cases when students of different
nationality are included in mainstream classrooms.
Factor 8: Assigning responsibilities to the students: Since the variables 6 [Let
students form groups by themselves], 9 [Prompt students to define by
themselves the rules of communication according to the special features of their
group] and 12[Assign general tasks to every group and the group allocates
duties to each member] had the highest factor loadings, they identify the eighth
main factor. According to the results, teachers are willing to assign
responsibilities to the students as regards group formation, communication rules
and task apportionment.
Factor 9: Low and high achievers interaction during CL: Since the variables 21 [The
more competent members control the weaker ones] and 22 [The weaker students
take advantage of the stronger ones] had the highest factor loadings, they
identify the ninth main factor. According to the results, teachers believe that
during CL an apparent interaction between academically strong and weak
students is developed whereby high achievers tend to dominate while low
achievers rely on competent students to guarantee a more successful group
work outcome.
Conclusions and discussion

The present study examined Greek teachers perceptions about CL in a highly
bureaucratic educational system, after reform in 2011 which (i) introduced and
incorporated CL in all-subject syllabuses as an obligatory instructional
technique, (ii) linked CL effective implementation to teachers assessment and
professional development, and (iii) motivated younger teachers to experiment
with CL in their classrooms and disseminate relative knowledge to the school
community (Greek Government Gazette, 2013; OECD, 2011). It should be noted,
however, that, despite this reform, the core character of the Greek educational
system remained conservative and bureaucratic (not only due to the traditional
resistance of education to radical changes but, also, due to urgent financial
restrictions); the content and the pace of knowledge acquisition remained
unaltered (albeit slightly reduced), the books did not change, academic
orientations remained dominant over socio-affective ones, social expectations
from the teachers remained unchanged, classroom size remained unaltered
(with up to 27 students per classroom), teacher training was based more on
personal motivation than on organized, institutional provision of professional
education (Eurydice, 2014; Koutrouba, Kariotaki, & Christopoulos, 2012; OECD,
2015). The researchers have, therefore, the opportunity to examine whether little
but targeted shifts in the conservative educational status quo are able to produce
major beneficial outcomes.
According to the results of this study, the participants reported

noteworthy benefits after the implementation of CL in their classrooms. Overall,
according to their teachers, Greek students, similar to their international
counterparts (Baudrit, 2007; Greany & Rodd, 2003; Slavin, 2014), seem to try

82
hard to understand each other; their efforts to express difficulties and define
needs, to comprehend rules and routines of actions, to avoid misperceptions, to
realize what the others expect from them, is considered by teachers to
simultaneously improve the students self-understanding and generates more
reliable empathy-developing (factor 2: Students skill development during CL).
Curricula planners should, therefore, provide students with more time for
targeted discussions and communication, in order to enable them to develop
and improve relevant cognitive, emotional, and social skills which, as Eastman,
Newstetter, and McCracken (2000) and Cairns, Lawton, and Gardner (2001) have
shown, substantially facilitate learning/knowledge in its wider sense as a major
human value and virtue.
However, the term self-esteem, as presented in factor 2, should not be

arbitrarily considered as conveying an always-positive meaning. When factor 2
is examined jointly with factor 9 (Low and high achievers interaction during
CL), one realizes that the developed self-esteem is not considered to dissuade
students from differentiating their personal objectives and subsequent
contribution and performance according to their traditional academic labelling
as low or high achievers a remark also reported by Shachar and Sharan
(1995), Gillies (2007) and Koutselini (2008).To explain this, one should consider
that due to the prevalence of attaining academic objectives in Greek Curricula,
teachers and students seem willing to use CL, albeit only as a means for higher
academic achievements (Koulaidis et al., 2006; Koutsourakis, 2007). Therefore, if
education policy-planners look for a more beneficial impact of CL on education,
they could probably embed communicative and collaboration attainments in the
very cognitive-academic objectives of each Curriculum. In other words, if
teachers are encouraged to consider that the skills described in factor 2 can be
pursued, utilized, measured and assessed as clear cognitive achievements, they
are likely to help students redefine terms such as low-achievers or high-
achievers. In such a case, a traditional low-achiever could then be described as
a prominent high-achiever, as long as s/he, for example, counterbalances
probable weaker content-knowledge with stronger meta-cognition, more
effective empathy or more responsible cooperativeness, as Gillies and Boyle
(2011) and Davison, Galbraith, and McQueen (2008) have also remarked. And
vice versa, traditional high-achievers may be encouraged to stop remaining
satisfied with their abilities (derived mainly from a high
memorization/recitation ability, as Sharan, 2010, has shown) and to develop
new social and communicative skills. One, however, could ask if it is
scientifically accepted to include social and communicative skills acquisition in,
literally, academic (i.e. cognitive) attainments. Eastman, Newstetter, and
McCracken (2000), Greany and Rodd (2003) and Gillies (2007) have already
convincingly shown that, in fact, all skills that facilitate cognition and regulation
of knowledge can be taught and developed through training and exercise, being
thus, as such, pure knowledge per se. Given, moreover, the fact that Greek
teachers, as Ifanti (2007) and Koulaidis and colleagues (2006) have shown, feel
more secure in implementing innovative learning techniques when they are
officially (and not amateurishly) urged and, almost, obliged to do so, education
policy-planners should not have any hesitation in introducing social and

83
communicative skills acquisition as a core academic objective of the

Curriculum.
Moreover, the official broadening of the meaning of academic

knowledge, as Kassotakis (2000), Kagan and Kagan (2009), Johnson and Johnson
(2013) and Hmelo-Silver and colleagues (2013) have already recommended, will
probably encourage teachers who consider CL as a highly demanding teaching
process to address more effectively the discouraging difficulties reported in
factor 3 (Counter incentives for teachers using CL) (lack of specialized training,
lack of time, lack of standardized measurable objectives) which are also
described by Galton, Gray, and Rudduck (2003), Ireson and Hallam (2001) and
Kutnick and colleagues (2005). When one compares such faltering with the
teachers recorded aspirations for a fresh approach to education as pictured in
factor 5 (Benefits from CL and the problem of the number of students), one
may reasonably deduce, as international research has shown (Gillies, 2008;
Gillies & Boyle, 2011; Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2011; Kaldi, Philippatou, &
Onoufriou, 2009), that teachers are not really afraid of professional exhaustion
but of professional inadequacy which is likely to emerge when the teaching
process is not carefully controlled by they themselves. Teachers should be,
therefore, officially assured that when they help their students firstly develop
meaningful relationships, and secondly hold individual and shared
accountability, as factor 1 (Relationships, attitudes and contributions during
CL) implies, they do attain high educational objectives, as confirmed by Cohen
and colleagues (2002), Eastman, Newstetter, and McCracken (2000) and
Ginsburg-Block and colleagues (2006). Factor 1 together with factor 6
(Monitoring and assessing CL) imply that teachers are willing to support this
orientation if the Curricula planners entrust them with the duty to assess equally
individual and collaborative learning outcomes. For a bureaucratic educational
system like the Greek one, the development of a scientifically defined set of
criteria with which teachers would be able to assess both individual and group
attainments and performances would not be very difficult, given the fact that the
international research has already provided education policy-planners with such
criteria (Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002; Mayer & Alexander, 2011; Slavin, 2014).
Moreover, the present study shows that Greek teachers hesitations are
also linked to the large student population in the classrooms, which hinders
their effort to understand all the varied traits of each student and successfully
allocate, therefore, individually designed learning tasks to each one of them
(factor 7: Factors that CLs success depends on). This problem becomes more
complicated due to the often unplanned inclusion of large numbers of foreign
students within the mainstream classrooms. However, as factor 8 (Assigning
responsibilities to the students) implies, teachers are more willing to allocate
general tasks to every group and then to let students divide the general task in
sub-tasks and assign every sub-task to each one of the group members, as long
as the group has clearly defined, understandable and established rules of
communication. It is rather apparent that by decentralizing the process of duty
allocation, teachers tend to believe that every student who actively participates
in the process of task apportionment will undertake that facet/aspect of duty

84
that better corresponds to his/her personal interests, abilities, and needs. In fact,
factor 8 (Assigning responsibilities to the students) shows how Greek teachers
encourage the classroom to self-regulate itself, in order to address two major
problems of CL implementation, that are reported in factor 7; the large number
of students in the classrooms and the diversity of the students learning profiles.
They are actually the same problems which, as shown in the introduction of the
present study, have been reported (and, also, rather successfully addressed) by
Gillies and Boyle (2011), Johnson and Johnson (2003), Howe and colleagues
(2007) and Webb and colleagues (2009), who reported more successful outcomes
in large-population mixed-ability classrooms in cases where teachers
decentralized the task allocation (keeping however a watchful eye on every
process that followed this allocation). In addition, as regards the diversity of
student personalities which is linked to national, linguistic, religious, and
cultural differences, Sharans (2010) intervention (who proposed students
engagement in activities that promote cultural sensitization and respect of
diversity, as they are described in the present Introduction), could be a solution
for Greek teachers as well; the diversity could be turned into an advantage and
help students become more familiarized with and tolerant of different aspects,
views, attitudes to life, as Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines (2005) and Thanh and
Gillies (2010) have also recommended.
It, however, should be noted that, according to factor 4 (Teachers role in

group formation and rule defining), teachers insist on keeping under their
personal control all processes regarding firstly the precise definition of content
and objectives, rules of cooperation, prerequisite skills, and the time provided
for the accomplishment of the task, and secondly the placement of each student
in a specific group after taking into account the students special traits and
learning features. Such an attitude is also encouraged by students themselves,
who feel more secure when their teachers have a discreet but also active
intervening role in such relevant processes as Koutrouba, Kariotaki, and
Christopoulos (2012), Cohen, Brody, and Sapon-Shevin (2004) and Freebody
(2003) have confirmed. These feelings of security seem to further trigger
students resourcefulness, cognitive awareness, and feelings of adequacy,
usefulness, and acceptance, as Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2003), Gillies
(2008) and King (2002) have already shown. The present work also confirms
Cantwell and Andrewss findings (2002) that when students were carefully
trained, with the positive intervention of the teacher, to address difficulties
arising during CL, various cognitive and socio-affective obstacles to effective
cooperation (feelings of discomfort, insufficiency, and tendency to
estrangement) were removed while positive outcomes (such as the development
of higher rank cognitive skills, and sociability) were maximized. Continual
interventions by teachers seem also to render all CL procedures more reliable
and accepted by students, parents, and colleagues, who all cooperate in the
framework of a bureaucratic educational system where the teacher remains the
cornerstone of education and deputes, with moderation, a part of his/her
power to the students, as described in the above introduction (Baines,
Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2003; Gillies, 2008; King, 2002).It is rather interesting to
note that Greek teachers and students were thoroughly informed about CL

85
(techniques and rules, stages of implementation, expected outcomes, process of

assessment among others) during the summer of 2011 and the first two months
(September-October) of the new school year 2011-2012, and that time was
considered as sufficient for them to welcome this new approach to knowledge,
to introduce it in the classroom, to experiment with it, to provide feedback and
necessary modifications (Matsagouras, 2011). Moreover, the first year of CL
implementation was officially characterised as a year of experimental
implementation of CL; students were literally taught everything about CL as a
separate school subject in the official Syllabus, their relative knowledge was
assessed at the end of the year but the marks they got were not included in the
final overall grade which appears in the students Certificate of Overall
Performance. In other words, a bureaucratic system introduced to teachers and
students an innovative teaching method in a traditional way a way, however,
fully accepted by the Greek educational community. Education policy-planners
should, therefore, not hesitate to use traditional ways to introduce modern
teaching/learning strategies, as long as the objectives, the teachers and the
students tasks, and the social expectations are clearly defined, explained and
officially justified to all the members of the educational community (Baudrit,
2007; Cohen et al., 2002; Gillies & Ashman, 2003; Greany& Rodd, 2003; Kaldi,
Philippatou, & Onoufriou, 2009).
The present research shows that even piecemeal changes in bureaucratic

educational systems can produce significant outcomes, when education policy
planners officially guide teachers to implement innovative learning strategies
with carefully designed, scheduled and clearly defined steps. Teachers working
in bureaucratic educational systems want to feel secure and have officially
assigned tasks that serve major academic objectives. One could probably say that
it is, in fact, the teachers acquaintance with rules and conventions that helps
them adopt, support, and utilize innovation as long as these innovations are
introduced in the form of officially imposed rules, guidelines and Curricula and
as long as teachers are convinced that such a stance is really academically
worthy, officially imposed and educationally justified.
References
Anagnostopoulou, S. M. (2001). Cooperative learning in teaching. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis
(in Greek).
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over pri-
mary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1/2), 9-
34.
Baudrit, A. (2007). Lapprentissage collaboratif: Plus quune mthode collective? Paris: Edition
de Boeck, Collection Pdagogies en Dveloppement.
Beese , J., & Liang, X. (2010). Do resources matter? PISA science achievement compari-
sons between students in the United States, Canada and Finland. Improving
Schools, 13(3), 266-279.
Brody, C., & Davidson, N. (1998). Introduction: Professional development and coopera-
tive learning. In C. Brody and N. Davidson (Eds.), Professional development for coop-
erative learning: Issues and approaches, (pp. 3-24). Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Cairns, J., Lawton, D., & Gardner, R. (Eds.) (2001). Values, culture and education. London:
Kogan Page.

86
Cantwell, R., & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying sec-
ondary school students feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology,
22(1), 75-91.
Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New
York: Plenum Press.
Cohen, E.G., Lotan, R.A., Abram, P.L., Scarloss, B.A., & Schultz, S.E. (2002). Can groups
learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045-1068.
Cohen, E.G., Brody, C., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (Eds.) (2004). Teaching cooperative learning:
The challenge for teacher education. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Corner, C. (2012). Into another world: From creativity to creative learning. Improving
Schools, 15(2), 116-129.
Crafton, L., & Kaiser, E. (2011). The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in
teacher professional development. Improving Schools, 14(2), 104-116.
Davis, J. M. (2013). Supporting creativity, inclusion and collaborative multi-professional
learning. Improving Schools, 16(1), 5-20.
Davison, L., Galbraith, I., & McQueen, M. (2008). Cooperative learning: A partnership
between an EPS and a school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 307-317.
Eastman, C., Newstetter, W., & McCracken, M. (Eds.) (2000). Design knowing and learning:
Cognition in design education. New York: Elsevier Science Press.
European Commission (2014). European economy: The second economic adjustment pro-
gramme for Greece, fourth review. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial
Affairs, Occasional Papers 192, April 2014, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2014/p
df/ocp192_en.pdf [Accessed: 1-5-2015]
Eurydice (2014). The structure of the European education systems 2014/15: Schematic dia-
grams. Eurydice: European Commission, EACEA. Available online:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/facts_and_figures/
education_structures_EN.pdf [Accessed: 1-5-2015]
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage.
Galton, M., Gray, J., & Rudduck, J. (2003). Transfer and transitions in the middle years of
schooling (7-14): Continuities and discontinuities in learning. London: DfES.
Georgiadis, M.N. (2007). Educational reforms in Greece (1959-1997) and human capital
theory. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2), 342-368.
Gillies, R. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gillies, R. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students be-
haviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School
Psychology International, 29(3), 328-347.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (Eds.) (2003). Cooperative learning: The social and intellectual out-
comes of learning in groups. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gillies, R., Ashman, A., & Terwel, J. (Eds.) (2008). The teachers role in implementing coop-
erative learning in the classroom. New York: Springer.
Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2011). Teachers reflections of cooperative learning (CL): A two-
year follow-up. Teaching Education, 22(1), 63-78.
Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review
of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732-749.
Greany, T., & Rodd, J. (2003). Creating a learning to learn school: Research and practice for
raising standards, motivation and morale. London: Campaign for Learning.
Greek Government Gazette (2013). I. Ministerial Decision 30972/1/5-3-2013 (614//15-
3-2013): Evaluation of school units' educational work and self-evaluation process. II.
Law 4142/2013 (83/A/9-4-2013): Authority for quality assurance in primary and

87
secondary education. III. Law 4186/2013 (193/A/17-9-2013): Restructuring of secon-

dary education and other provisions. III. Presidential Decree 152/1-11-2013
(240/A/5-11-2013): Evaluation of teachers of primary and secondary education. Ath-
ens: National Printing House. Available online:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Greece:Legis
lation#anchor6_4186 [Accessed: 1-5-2015] (in Greek).
Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & ODonnell, A. (Eds.) (2013). The international
handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.
Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston , K., Jessiman,
E., & Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organ-
isational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5),
549-563.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2014). Introduction to Statistic Psychology. 6th ed. Harlow:
Pearson.
Ifanti, A. (2007). Policy and curriculum development in Greece. The case of secondary
school curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15(1), 71-81.
Ifanti, A., & Fotopoulou, V. (2011). Teachers perceptions of professionalism and profes-
sional development: A case study in Greece. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 40-
51.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. London: Paul Chapman.
Jacobs, G.M., Power, M.A., & Loh, W.I. (2002). The teachers sourcebook for cooperative learn-
ing: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, R. D., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive
and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social in-
terdependence theory. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative learning: The
social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, (pp. 136-176). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. 11th ed.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan.
Kaldi, S., Philippatou, D., & Onoufriou, M. (2009). Co-operative group teaching and
learning in the Greek and Cypriot primary education. The International Journal of
Learning, 16(11), 407-422.
Kaldi, S., Philippatou, D., & Anthopoulou, B. (2014). The effectiveness of structured co-
operative teaching and learning in Greek primary school classrooms. Education 3-
13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 42(6), 621-
636.
Kassotakis, M. (2000). Greece. In C. Brock and W. Tulasiewics (Eds.), Education in a single
Europe, (pp. 184-205) (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.
Kazamias A. (1990). The curse of Sisyphus in Greek educational reform: A sociopolitical
and cultural interpretation. Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, 6, 33-53.
King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing.
Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33-40.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1),
31-42.
Koulaidis, V., Dimopoulos, K., Tsatsaroni, A., & Katsis, A. (2006). Young people relation-
ship to education: The case of Greek youth. Educational Studies, 32(4), 343-59.
Koutrouba, K., Kariotaki, M., & Christopoulos, I. (2012). Secondary education students
preferences regarding their participation in group work: The case of Greece.
Improving Schools, 15(3), 245-259.

88
Koutselini, M. (2008). Teacher misconceptions and understanding of cooperative

learning: An intervention study. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(2), 34-44.
Koutsourakis, G. (2007). The new educational policy for the reform of the curriculum
and the change of school knowledge in the case of Greek compulsory education.
International Studies of Sociology of Education, 17(1-2), 131-46.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Grouping of pupils in secondary school
classrooms: Possible links between pedagogy and learning. Social Psychology of
Education, 8(4), 349-374.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., Clark, H., MacIntyre, H., & Baines, E. (2005). Teachers under-
standings of the relationship between within-class (pupil) grouping and learning
in secondary schools. Educational Research, 47(1), 1-24.
Matsagouras, E. (Ed.) (2011). The innovation of project in Upper High-school: A guide for
teachers educators. Teachers book. Students book. Athens: Ministry of Education
Institute for Educational Policy (in Greek).
Mayer, R., & Alexander, P. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of research on learning and instruction
(Educational Psychology Handbook Series). New York: Routledge.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2011). Education pol-
icy advice for Greece. Strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD
Publishing. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/greece/48407731.pdf [Ac-
cessed: 1-5-2015]
OECD (2015). Education policy outlook: Making reforms happen. OECD Publishing. Avail-
able online: http://www.oecd.org/publications/education-policy-outlook-2015-
9789264225442-en.htm [Accessed: 1-5-2015]
Saiti, A. (2007). School leadership and educational equality: Analysis of Greek secondary
school data. School Leadership and Management, 27(1), 65-78.
Saiti, A., & Mitosili, E. (2005). Parental perception of the education of their adolescent
children: Evidence from Greek secondary education. Journal of Career and Tech-
nical Education, 22(1), 9-30.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1995). Cooperative learning and the organization of secondary
schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (1), 47-66.
Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: Valued pedagogy,
problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 300-313.
Sharan, Y. (2015). Meaningful learning in the cooperative classroom. Education 3-13: In-
ternational Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 83-94.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Educational Psychology. Theory and practice (11th ed.). Boston: Pear-
son/Allyn and Bacon.
Tan, I., Sharan, S., & Lee, C. (2006). Group investigation and student learning. Singapore:
Marshall Cavendish.
Thanh, P. T. H., & Gillies, R. (2010). Group composition of cooperative learning: Does
heterogeneous grouping work in Asian classrooms? International Education Studies,
30(3), 12-19.
Traianou, A. (2009). The uncertain character of recent educational reform in Greece. Fo-
rum, 51(2), 131-142.
Webb, N., Franke, M., De, T., Chan, A., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. (2009).
Explain to your partner: Teachers' instructional practices and students dia-
logue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49-70.

89

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 89-98, June 2015
Peer Tutoring as an Approach in Analysing Case

Studies in a Business English Course
Siew Fong Lin

Tunku Abdul Rahman University College
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract. The main purpose of this study is to discover the impact of the
use of peer tutoring in helping students to analyse business case studies in
a Business English course. 10 Advanced Diploma in Financial Accounting
students with mixed proficiency in English from an institution of higher
learning formed 2 peer tutoring groups in this study. Data was collected
using video recordings, interviews, diary entries and observations. The
results of this study indicated that peer tutoring has positive results on
both tutors and tutees. The characteristics of the tutors, the level of
confidence of the tutors and the element of trust from the tutees were
significant factors affecting peer tutoring. Due to the diverse perceptions
and viewpoints created in the process of case study analysis, tutors need to
be flexible in their level of acceptance towards the different interpretations
of situations produced by the tutees. It is recommended that debriefing
sessions between the tutors and researchers be conducted when the former
lack confidence in decision making in the course of tutoring. Reciprocal
Peer Tutoring is encouraged to be used as an approach in analysing case
studies instead of having a tutor solely in charge of disseminating
information to increase the effectiveness of tutoring.
Keywords: peer tutoring; case studies; trust; characteristics of tutors;

Reciprocal Peer Tutoring.
Introduction
Malaysian graduates have faced a serious problem in these past few years. It is
the problem of unemployment. The situation is a matter of concern to many
parties including academicians, economists, business players, politicians and of
course, the graduates themselves.
According to a report released by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education
on the statistics of unemployment among graduates in 2009, only 45% out of 155
278 graduates were employed. It was further supported by a report in the
following year from Statistics of Labour Force Malaysia (2011) which showed
that among the total labour force of 12 575 400, only 3.4% were unemployed. In
addition, Statistics of Labour Force Malaysia (February 2012) showed an increase
of the unemployed by 16 600 persons (4.3%) to 402 200 persons.

90
According to Yu (2013), there are up to 40% of public university Malaysian

graduates who are either unemployed or facing job mismatch problem.
Therefore, TalentCorp collaborated with World Bank in carrying out a survey to
investigate graduate employability in the year 2014 (mystarjob, 2014). The study
covered 200 companies and involved 245 000 employees from organisations
representing National Key Economic Areas. It was discovered that skills
mismatch was a main driver in graduate unemployment.
There are other possible reasons for the high unemployment among graduates in
Malaysia. They are a lack of proficiency in English, insufficient knowledge and
competency in the occupations the graduates applied for in the course of job
seeking (Yu, 2013). It is a situation best described by Paramaswari, Ambigapathy
and Illangko (2014) as:
However, the present challenge of graduate education system defects in
producing multi-skilled and talented graduates who are capable to meet the
changing complexities in a borderless world.
(p.2)
Therefore, RM200 million was allocated in the Federal Budget 2012 for the
setting up of Graduate Employability Taskforce. It was a strategy to increase the
employability of graduates. Furthermore, an additional of RM400 million was
provided for Skills Development Fund Corporation. The organisation functions
to provide loans for applicants to undergo the process of re-training in order to
increase employability.
Furthermore, the unemployment state of graduates could be attributed to their
poor communication ability and their lack of critical thinking skills (The Star
Online, 5 March 2012). This concurs with the view of Ambigapathy and Aniswal
(2005), Sangaran (2006) and Tarmizi, Md. Yunus, Hamzah, Abu, Md. Nor,
Ismail, Wan Ali, & Abu Bakar (2008) that a main cause of the inability of
Malaysian graduates to gain employment is due to their lack of critical thinking
skills. Therefore, there is a need for the emphasis on the teaching of soft skills
such as critical thinking in institutions of higher learning.
Therefore, Malaysian Education Blueprint (2013-2025) stresses much on
developing students thinking skills after recognising the loophole in the
education system. It is one of the attributes that every student should have
besides possessing knowledge, leadership skills, bilingual proficiency, ethics and
spirituality and national identity. The goal is for every child to be able to acquire
knowledge, connect knowledge and eventually, create knowledge on ones own.
This can be made possible by ensuring that a range of cognitive skills
comprising problem solving , reasoning, conflict resolution, sound judgement
and courage to do what is right are fostered.
The blueprint aims to promote creativity and innovation among students.
Therefore, Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) are incorporated in both
teaching and learning. HOTS are defined in the Malaysian Education Blueprint
2013 as:
the ability to apply knowledge, skills and values while reasoning
and reflecting to solve problems, make decisions, innovate and create.
(p. 50)
One of the programmes planned under the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-
2025), i-THINK, focusses on developing critical thinking and problem-solving

91
skills (Rozanna & Lim, 2014). It caters to equip the next generation in thinking
critically and being adaptable in order to function well in the future. i-THINK
supports higher order thinking skills approach through seven elements
comprising curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, resources, community support,
co-curricular activities and teacher-capability building.
In the same vein, critical thinking is given much prominence when designing
English courses taught at tertiary level. Consequently, case studies are introduced
as one of the components in an English course (WXY 553) in a local institution of
higher learning. The other components included in the syllabus are public
speaking, business proposals, and meeting skills.
However, in the course of teaching WXY 553, it was discovered that there was a
challenge in teaching case studies using the lecture and tutorial modes. Students
were found to be unable to analyse case studies successfully. Therefore, peer
tutoring was used in this study to seek if it was viable in increasing students
ability in handling case studies.
Theoretical Background
Peer tutoring and cooperative learning are two of the most researched areas
placed under peer learning (Topping, 2005). Many studies have been conducted
to obtain information on the learning process occurring. Much research input has
been gathered on the use of peer tutoring at different levels of education.
A characteristic of peer tutoring is the clear and specific role set for tutor and
tutee (Topping, 2005). In peer tutoring, a member of a group is regarded as more
knowledgeable than others and knowledge is transmitted in unidirectional
manner to novice (McCarthey & McMahon, 1992).
In the early years, peer tutoring was regarded as children playing the role of
surrogate teachers in assisting other students in learning. However, present day
perception is slightly different. It is a situation when individuals who are non-
trained teachers from the same social groupings teach in order to help others but
including themselves in the learning process (Topping, 1996).
Nowadays, the use of peer tutoring is extended to all age groups. Tutoring can be
conducted in the formal classroom or in informal social settings. In addition, it
can be carried out on a one-to-one basis or in small groups.
Research has shown that tutors benefit more than tutees in the course of peer
tutoring. This was due to a few tasks that tutors were involved in. They were
meticulous preparations by the tutor before embarking on teaching (Allen &
Feldman, 1973; Annis, 1983; Benware & Deci, 1984), cognitive restructuring or
elaboration of knowledge which improved retention (Dansereau, 1985; Wittrock,
1978).
General theoretical perspectives that support use of cooperative learning on
performance are motivation, social cohesion, cognitive-developmental
perspective and cognitive-elaboration perspective (Slavin, 1996). Motivation is
created when reward structures result in goal achievement and when the whole
group is successful while social cohesion emphasises on link between
achievement with cohesiveness which regards success of individual group
members as crucial. Cognitive-developmental perspective focuses on social
interactions among students which produce effective learning through higher
mental processes for a lot of knowledge cannot be attained alone and the zone of

92
proximal development is regarded as crucial in making progress in learning

(Vygotsky, 1978). Development of high quality conceptualisations from cognitive
conflict takes place when students discuss and have differing views. Diverse
opinions and perspectives create disequilibrium resulting in learners
accommodating new information and changing their thinking to achieve a state
of equilibrium in order to produce new knowledge (Piaget, 1959).
Tutors are selected based on their academic ability. They are usually students
who have performed well in a course previously and are not deemed as experts
but can foster learning in a non-threatening environment (Gosser, 2001). This is a
means to promote spontaneous learning.
In fact, Gartner and Riessman (1993) have distinguished two models of peer
tutoring. The old model regards tutoring as more capable students helping less
abled students in remedial work while the new model of tutoring is having all
students being involved in the tutoring experience. Tutoring in United Kingdom
is geared towards the new model.
Peer tutoring results in many advantages to its users. Therefore, the use of peer
tutoring has been extended to students at different levels of education. They
range from kindergarten (Brady, 1997), elementary (Heward, Heron & Cooke,
1982), middle school (Nazzal, 2002), high school (Maheady, Sacca & Harper, 1987)
to college level (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly & Dimeff, 1989).
Research has shown that peer tutoring has many benefits on students. It increases
student achievement (Bargh & Schul, 1980; Jenkins & Jenkins, 1985; Slavin, 1991,
1996), boosts student performance (Sharan, 1980), creates a learning community
(Fougner, 2012), encourages critical thinking (Bell, 1991), and improves ones
learning (Oates, Paterson, Reilly & Statham, 2005).
Methodology
Participants
The participants in this study were 10 Advanced Diploma in Financial
Accounting students. They formed 2 peer tutoring groups, namely, Groups 1 and
2. Each group consisted of students with mixed proficiency in English.
Each group was led by a tutor who had the best result in the English course they
took in the previous semester. The tutor for Group 1, Chong, scored a B+. Ella,
the tutor for Group 2 had an A for the course. The tutees in both groups had
grades ranging from C+ to C- for the English course they took in the previous
semester.
There were 4 tutees in Group 1. They were Lam, Tee, Jim and Koh. Lam scored C-
while Tee, Jim and Koh obtained C+ for their English results.
In addition, there were 4 tutees in Group 2. They were Beh, Pang, Yeow and Gan.
Beh and Pang scored C- while Yeow and Gan received C+ for their English
results.
Analysis of Case Studies

Both peer-tutoring groups had to analyse 2 case studies with individual length of
500 to 800 words. The first one was Some Millionaires Will Not Retire while the
second one was NIKE Controversies. Eventually, the students had to answer 5
questions for each case study as well.

93
Both groups spent 3 hours analysing each case study. The students, with much
guidance from their tutors, read the case studies aloud twice, discussed meanings
of difficult words and important points in the text, summarised points from every
paragraph and finally, answered the accompanying questions. The tutees were
strongly encouraged to make preparations for the sessions. Most of them had
read the case studies and attempted the questions before attending the sessions.
The tutors had received training from the researcher prior to the peer-tutoring
sessions. The training lasted for one and a half hours. They had to perform
various sub-tasks involving reading the case studies together, discussing
meanings of difficult words and important points in the text, summarising points
from every paragraph and lastly, answering the questions.
Furthermore, the researcher spent half an hour for a debriefing session with the
tutors after every peer-tutoring session. It was a bid to increase their level of
confidence in facilitating future sessions. During the debriefing session, there
were further discussions on alternative answers provided by the tutees which the
tutors were unsure if they were acceptable for the task. Furthermore, the tutors
sought guidance on how to further improve their roles as tutors.
Data Collection
All of the peer-tutoring sessions were video-taped. It was to facilitate
observations to be carried out. Furthermore, both the tutors and tutees were
interviewed and they were required to produce diary entries describing their
experiences during the sessions. The different research methods provided the
triangulation required in this study.
A summary of the case study tasks and data collection is provided in Figure 1
Training of Tutors

Peer-Tutoring Sessions (Analysis of 2 Case Studies, Observations carried out by
researcher)

Interview & Diary Entries (Tutors and Tutees)

Debriefing Sessions (Tutors and Researcher)
Figure 1: A Summary of Data Collection
FINDINGS
Characteristics of Tutors
Chong, the tutor for Group 1 was observed to be a shy, inhibited, easily confused
but organised person. He initially had reservations about being a tutor. However,
after consulting with the researcher and receiving training prior the peer-tutoring
sessions, he gained some confidence in playing his role.
In contrast, Ella, the tutor for Group 2 was articulate, knowledgeable but
impatient person. She was very optimistic and excited about becoming a tutor.
This was due to her personal belief that she would gain deep understanding of
the case studies and she felt that she would enjoy interacting with her friends in
the course of tutoring.

94
To sum up, Chong and Ella had opposite characteristics from each other.
Interestingly, it was observed that the tutors characteristics had different impact
on their tutees. Detailed explanations are provided in the following sub-sections.
Chong in Group 1
It was also observed that Chong did not establish much eye contact with his
tutees in the first session due to his shyness. The tutees were not paying much
attention to him. They were talking among themselves causing Chong to lose
confidence and focus.
In addition, Chong did not know how to create rapport with his tutees. He was
merely providing lectures to his tutees rather than using a personal and informal
approach in communicating with them. Therefore, his tutees looked bored and
seemed to lose interest in his sessions.
Hence, during the debriefing session, the researcher advised Chong on how to
improve his performance as a tutor. He was reminded to look at his tutees
intently as he taught them and pay extra attention to those who looked confused.
Furthermore, the researcher advised him to form friendships with his tutees and
to teach them in an informal manner. Consequently, his tutees concentration
level slightly improved during the next few peer-tutoring sessions.
However, the tutees revealed through their interviews and diary entries that they
found Chongs peer-tutoring sessions boring. In addition, they felt that he could
not answer their questions in a few encounters. This caused them to suspect that
their tutor did not prepare well for the tutoring sessions. Nevertheless, the tutees
were appreciative of their tutors efforts to facilitate their sessions.
Ella in Group 2
It was evident that Ella was comfortable and enthusiastic in playing her role as a
tutor throughout the sessions. Her tutees were very attentive and interested in
her teaching. She seemed to increase her tutees interest in the case studies.
There was a lot of brainstorming going on during the sessions. In addition, the
tutees asked many questions during every session. However, Ella seemed
flustered and unable to handle the questions successfully.
Therefore, during the debriefing session, the researcher praised Ella on her
positive role as a tutor. Furthermore, she guided Ella on how to answer questions
posed by her tutees. Ella admitted that she was surprised with the large number
of questions posed by her tutees. In addition, she confessed that she felt unhappy
with the time spent in answering the questions because she was concerned that
she would not have enough time to complete the sub-tasks she had planned for
the session. The researcher reminded her to have patience in answering the
enquiries and to regard questions as positive for they reflected the high level of
interest the tutees had for her sessions.
Generally, the tutees were satisfied with the peer-tutoring sessions. They
described Ella as helpful and informative. They admitted that their interest level
on the case studies was increased due to her influence. On the other hand, some
of them felt that she should allocate more time in answering questions rather than
rushing through in answering them. It had resulted in them feeling that the tutor
was unhappy in entertaining their questions.

95
Level of Tutors Confidence

The tutors level of confidence when playing their roles affected the outcomes of
the peer-tutoring sessions. It was observed that Chong had less confidence than
Ella. Ella could control her group better than Chong. As a result, the tutees in
Group 1 claimed that they did not benefit much from their tutors facilitation in
comparison to Group 2.
From the tutees interviews and diary entries, it was discovered that they claimed
that they were adversely affected by their tutors lack of confidence when
handling them. They judged their confidence based on their knowledge level,
verbal and non-verbal language. The majority of tutees in Group 1 did not find
their tutor confident while the tutees in Group 2 were impressed with their
tutors poise.
The tutees in Group 1 realised that their tutor, Chong, was uneasy in playing his
role. They described him as lacking in knowledge of the background of the
companies discussed and unsure of the sequence of materials to be presented to
them. Some of them commented that their tutor had the same level of knowledge
as them. Consequently, they lacked interest in the sessions conducted.
In contrast, the tutees in Group 2 were favourable of having Ella as their tutor.
They found her possessing deep knowledge of her subject matter, taught
effectively and very comfortable in playing her role as a tutor. Some of them were
of the opinion that Ella had conducted extensive research in preparing for her
tutoring sessions. Therefore, the tutees claimed that they enjoyed discussing with
her their ideas and learning from her tremendously.
However, according to Hammond, Bithell, Jones & Bidgood (2010), a tutors
confidence can increase after being involved in peer tutoring. It is ideal for tutors
to be confident at the start of the sessions. On the other hand, some tutors may
have their confidence level improving in the course of playing their role as tutors.
Consequently, they may become better tutors than before.
Element of Trust from Tutees

The element of tutees trust was found to be important. Tutees did not possess
automatic trust of their tutors in the course of peer tutoring. The researcher
observed that the tutees needed some time to decide whether they could be
convinced that their tutors could teach as well as their researcher. The decision
could only be made after a few rounds of tutoring.
Tutors needed to earn their tutees belief in them before the latter regarded their
sessions seriously. This concurs with the result findings of a study conducted by
Colvin (2007) on peer tutoring which showed that tutors spent a considerable
amount of time to engage in impression management before their tutees trusted
them totally. It was explained as:
The peer tutors had to convince the other students in the classes
that though they were students just like everyone else, they had
additional insight and credibility that allowed them to function as
a resource apart from the instructional staff.
(p. 174)

96
The tutors from Groups 1 and 2 had mixed results within their groups on their
tutees trust in them. Only one tutee in Group 1 had trust in Chong as the tutor. In
comparison, 2 tutees in Group 2 claimed that they had faith in Ella as their tutor.
The findings from the interviews and diary entries revealed that the tutees
gauged the trustworthiness of their tutors using a few methods. Firstly, they
preferred that their questions be answered instantaneously by their tutors.
Secondly, they wanted their tutors to have complete and detailed answers to their
questions. Thirdly, they verified the answers given by researching on them on
their own to make sure that they were correctly provided by their tutors.
CONCLUSION
The findings from this study revealed 3 major factors which affected peer-
tutoring sessions when analysing case studies. They consisted of the
characteristics of the tutors, their level of confidence and the element of trust from
the tutees. Eventually, they had mixed results on the outcomes of the peer-
tutoring sessions.
Ella was more enthusiastic than Chong when tutoring their friends. It could be
attributed to Ellas sociable nature for she enjoyed communicating with others.
Consequently, Ellas tutees were favourable of her as a tutor.
Again, Ella had more confidence than Chong in the course of tutoring. Her tutees
praised her abilities in providing extra knowledge in the subject matter, teaching
effectively and being comfortable in playing her role as a tutor. Some of them
were of the opinion that Ella had conducted extensive research in preparing for
her tutoring sessions.
However, there were mixed opinions on the level of trust the tutees had of their
tutors. Only one tutee in Group 1 had trust in Chong as the tutor. In comparison,
2 tutees in Group 2 claimed that they had faith in Ella as their tutor. The tutees
judged the trustworthiness of their tutors based on the time required to answer
questions, the detailed level of the answers and the correctness of answers
provided.
Debriefing sessions between the tutors and researcher were discovered to be
extremely useful. The tutors could discuss their difficulties with the researcher. In
addition, the researcher could encourage the tutors and provide suggestions on
how to improve their tutoring skills. Consequently, the tutors confidence would
improve.
It is suggested that Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT) be encouraged to be used as
an approach in analysing case studies. This approach is better than having a tutor
solely in charge of disseminating information to the tutees. Reciprocal Peer
Tutoring would allow sharing of information from both tutors and tutees. It is
crucial for tutors to be flexible in accepting different interpretations of situations
and answers to questions when analysing case studies.
References
Allen , V. L., & Feldman,R. S. (1973). Learning through tutoring: Low achieving children
as tutors. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 1-5.
Ambigapathy, P., & Aniswal, A. G. (2005). University curriculum: An evaluation on preparing
graduates for employment. National Higher Education Research Institute, Pulau Pinang,
Malaysia.
Annis, L. F. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39-47.

97
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 593-604.
Bell, J. H. (1991). Using peer response groups in ESL writing classes. TESL Canada Journal/
Revue TESL du Canada, 8(2), 65-71.
Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive
motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.
Brady, N. C. (1997). The teaching game: A reciprocal peer tutoring programme for
preschool children. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 123-149.
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behaviour and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
733-750.
Colvin, J. W. (2007). Peer tutoring and social dynamics in higher education. Mentoring &
Tutoring, 15(2), 165-181.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. Segal S. Chapman, & R. Glaser
(Eds.). Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic research, Vol. 1. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Egbochuku, E. O., & Obiunu, J. J. (2006). The effects of reciprocal peer counselling in the
enhancement of self-concept among adolescents. Education 126 (3) Project Innovation Inc.,
Mobile, Alabama.
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal
peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 173-177.
Fougner, A. (2012). Exploring knowledge through peer tutoring in a transitional learning
community: An alternative way of teaching counselling skills to students in social
work education. British Journal of Social Work Education, 31(3), 287-301.
Gartner, A., & Riessman, F. (1993). Peer tutoring: A new model. New York, NY: Peer
Research Laboratory.
Gosser, D. K. (2001). The peer-led team learning workshop model. In Gosser D. K.,
Cracolice M. S., Kampmeler J. A., Roth V., Strozak V. S., Varma-Nelson P. (Eds.), Peer-
led team learning: A Guidebook (pp. 1-12). Upper Saddle Riber, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hammond, J., Bithell, C., Jones, L. & Bidgood, P. (2010). A first year experience of student-
directed peer-assisted learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 201-212.
Heward, W. L., Heron, T. E., & Cooke, N, L. (1982). Tutor huddle: Key element in a
classwide peer tutoring system. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 114-123.
Jenkins, J., & Jenkins, L. (1985). Peer tutoring in elementary and secondary programmes.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 17, 3-12.
Maheady, L., Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. F. (1987). Classwide student tutoring teams: The
effects of peer-mediated instruction on the academic performance of secondary
mainstreamed students. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 107-121.
Malaysian Education Blueprint Annual Report 2013. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.padu.edu.my/files/AR/PADU_AR_2013_ENG.pdf
McCarthey, S. J., & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: Three approaches
to peer interactions during writing. In Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Norman Miller
(Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mystarjob. (2014, August 9). Matching talent to jobs: Trends in graduate employability.
Retrieved from mystarjob.com
Nazzal, A. (2002). Peer tutoring and at-risk students: An exploratory study. Action in
Teacher Education, 24(1), 68-80.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1992). Childrens instrumental help-seeking: Its role in the social
acquisition and construction of knowledge. In Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Norman
Miller (Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

98
Oates, G., Paterson, J., Reilly, I., & Statham, M. (2005). Effective tutorial programmes in
tertiary mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and
Technology, 36(7), 731-740.
Paramaswari, J., Ambigapathy, P & and Ilangko, S. (2014). Language courses,
transversal skills and transdisciplinary education: A case study in the Malaysian
university. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(2), 1-10.
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge and Kagan Paul
Ltd.
Rozanna, Latiff & Lim, B. (2014). Promotion to higher grade for 5000 teachers. New Straits
Times. 17 May 2014, pp. 1, 4.
Sangaran, S. (2006). Addressing tech unemployment. New Straits Times. (retrieved October 2,
2006 from
http://findarticles.com/p/newsarticles/newstraitstimes/mi_8061/is_20061002/add
ressing-tech unemployment/ai_n44342964/)
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on
achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-
271.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership,
48, 71-82.
Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement?
Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Norman Miller
(Eds.). Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,
what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
Tarmizi, R. A., Md. Yunus, A.S., Hamzah, R., Abu, R., Md. Nor, S., Ismail, H., Wan Ali, W.
Z., & Abu Bakar, K. (2008). Critical thinking: Are Malaysian students engaged? The
International Journal of Humanities, 6(6), 149-158.
The Star Online. (2012, March 5). Local grads not up to mark. Retrieved from www.
thestar.com.my
Topping, K. J. (1996). Effective peer tutoring in further and higher education, SEDA Paper 95,
Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wittrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Psychologist, 13,
15-29.
Yu Ji. (2013, July 27). Close to half of Malaysian graduates either jobless or employed in
mismatched fields. The Star Online. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Community/2013/07/27/Close-to-half-of-
Malaysian-graduateseither-jobless-or-employed-in-mismatched-fields.aspx/

99

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 99-106, June 2015
A Case Study Exploring Junior High School

Students Interaction Behavior in a Learning
Community on Facebook: Day and Time
Chun-Jung Chen and Sheng-Yi Wu

University of Kang Ning
Tainan, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Abstract. Because Facebook has become another site where students

spend much of their time, more and more teachers and researchers
conduct teaching activities on Facebook. As a result, teachers must
understand the students interaction behaviors in Facebook groups
before creating a learning community on Facebook. This research aimed
to explore teachers posts, students posts and students responses (read,
like, and reply) to posts. The results showed that students preferred to
reply to teachers posts instead of students posts. Students participated
in online interactions mostly at night, before weekends and between
8:00 pm and midnight on school nights. Thus, it is recommended that
teachers be aware of students online interaction behaviors so they can
arrange appropriate schedules and actively post articles to allow student
discussion.
Keywords: Learning community; Facebook, Interaction behavior
1. Research Background, Motivation and Purpose

With the onset of the digital era and the maturing of the Internet, the online
social community has been increasing. The online social community is derived
from the concept of clubs in real society. Netizens can establish various clubs
through community websites to connect and communicate with each other
(Zhong, Salehi, Shah, Cobzarenco, Sastry, & Cha, 2014: Tsovaltzi, Puhl, Judele, &
Weinberger, 2014; Albayrak, & Yildirim, 2015). In such cyberspaces, people can
interact to share information with each other. So far, Facebook has been one of
the most popular Social Network Services in the world (Barbera, 2009; Madge,
Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009).
The trend of social communities has also changed the learning environment. For
example, teaching innovations in recent years have flipped teaching, Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been instituted, etc. The trend has created
learning tools that are not restricted to books. Because the social community has
become a new site of learning, many teachers have currently adopted Facebook
as a learning community (Aydin, 2012). Teachers can use Facebook groups to

100
design teaching content, guide students through Questions and Answers

(Q&As), or even complete learning tasks through cooperative learning. On such
platforms, teachers and students may interact to discuss interesting questions
with each other. Thus, students can explore knowledge in the learning
environments that teachers have built, and teachers may reflect on their teaching
based on students feedback (Wu, Hou, Hwang, & Liu, 2013; Wang & Hou, 2014;
Hartnett, Rosielle, & Lindley, 2015).
According to relevant studies, Facebook Groups have become a type of new
learning site. Facebook Groups can be used as a tool for mutual exchanges,
learning, and communication between teachers and students and among
students (Aydin, 2012). In the findings of Mazman and Usluel (2010), because
students usually use Facebook to interact with people, they will feel more
comfortable participating in the informal and highly interactive learning
environment on Facebook, where teaching and learning can be integrated. Hou,
Wang, Lin, and Chang (2013) compared the online discussions set up on
Facebook clubs and on regular learning platforms. The results showed that
Facebook could enhance students social interactions and emotional exchanges.
As a result, the discussion area on community websites (such as Facebook
Groups) will increase their influence on learning outcomes. Since Facebook
became a new site of learning communities, few studies have explored how to
manage learning communities on Facebook. For example, McCarthy (2013)
indicated that teachers should pay attention to privacy issues and clearly guide
students to participate in learning activities on a Facebook Group. Moreover,
teachers may try to combine many actual teaching activities with online
activities as much as possible.
According to the above-mentioned works, there was demand for applying
learning communities on Facebook to classroom teaching, and this application
has shown some effects. However, the learning communities are student-
oriented and could not function if no members interacted. As a result, it is very
important to know how teachers conduct the learning communities on Facebook
and guide students to interact with each other (Whittaker, Howarth, & Lymn,
2014; Sharma, Goodwin, & Wilkinson, 2014; Chang 2014). To increase
interactions in the community, teachers should thoroughly understand students
interaction behaviors (such as posts, replies, liking, and reading). Therefore, it is
worth exploring whether certain days of the week or certain periods in the day
would influence students interactions because such knowledge would help
teachers determine a proper timing for posting articles and terminating
activities. In the past, it was the teachers who led the online learning
communities; however, as the social-networking interaction increases, it is also
worth exploring whether the interactions in learning communities would
change, namely, whether students responses to teachers posts and those to
students posts differ.
In summary, through exploring the learning community on Facebook Groups,
which was founded by teachers for students to participate in learning activities
in their spare time, this research could investigate teachers posts, students
posts, and students responses (reading, liking, and replying) to posts; we
further analysed these data, conducted interviews based on the results, and

101
finally proposed relevant suggestions. The study questions were proposed as

follows:
1. Are students responses (reading, liking, and replying) influenced by
whether a post was written by a teacher or another student?
2. On which day would students participate in learning interactions more
frequently?
3. At what time would students interact in the learning community most?
2. Research Design
2.1 Experimental Design and Procedures
To address the research questions, the research included a 30-day teaching
activity. Based on the research structure, teachers posted one article every day
during these 30 days and encouraged the students to reply as well. After this
teaching activity terminated, the statistics of the number of students posts and
the responses to teachers and students posts (reads, likes, and replies) were
gathered, in addition to information about which days and times the behaviors
took place (see Figure 1).
Teacher posts On which day
Interaction Behaviors on Facebook
(reads, likes, and replies)
Student posts At what time
Figure 1. Research Framework
According to the research framework, the detailed procedures were as follows:

1. Using a Facebook Group as a learning platform, teachers built a class club
and invited all students to join the club.
2. In accordance with class schedules, teachers divided posts of a Natural
Science unit on Light into 6 parts, including the curricular announcement,
highlights, online practice, experimental videos, supplementary materials,
and information sharing. Teachers posted an article at 17:00 every day and
asked students to learn and discuss with each other in their spare time.
3. The club was not open to the public. The content was open to only
members of the club. When teachers posted the curriculum to the clubs
Wall, students could use like and reply functions provided by Facebook
Groups to respond. Students could also post content, including text, videos,
and pictures, to the Wall of the club and interact with their classmates.

102
4. During this experiment, the teachers were not involved in the students
discussions or sharing. The students could discuss and share things with
each other based on their actual situations in their spare time. After this
experimental curriculum ended, the teachers gathered statistics about the
students feedback, the number of likes and the number of replies.
5. Last, we analysed the statistics gathered, conducted interviews, and finally
drew conclusions and proposed suggestions.
2.2 Participants
The participants of the research were junior high school students in Grade 9 in
Taiwan. The class was comprised of 31 students. Because the experiment was an
after-school teaching activity, the number of students actually participating in
this activity was 28, with 12 males and 16 females, excluding the students
without the approval of their parents and those without personal Facebook
accounts.
2.3 Instruments and Data Analysis
Because Facebook is currently the social networking site regularly used by
students, the research adopted a Facebook Group as an online interactive
platform. After the one-month case study, Nvivo and NCapture were used to
download all of the data from the Facebook Group. After the data were
downloaded, the descriptive statistics and analyses were conducted by
calculating the sums, averages, and percentages.
3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Teachers Posts vs. Students Posts
This section addresses Question 1. According to Table 1, the number of teachers
posts was 30, and the number of students posts was 56. The number of students
who liked the teachers posts was 10% greater than that of students who liked
other students posts; the number of students who replied to teachers posts was
also 32% greater than that of students replying to other students posts. In terms
of posts, the number of students who read the teachers posts and that of
students who read other students posts were almost the same; that is, each
student read almost every article posted, whether by teachers or students.
Table 1. Interactive frequency of teachers posts and students posts

Like Read Replay
Post (N)
Total Average % Total Average % Total Average %
Teacher 30 585 19.50 55.0 916 30.53 50.2 244 8.13 65.8
Student 56 893 15.95 45.0 1697 30.30 49.8 237 4.23 34.2
The results showed that students preferred to reply to the teachers posts and
felt more interested in the teachers posts. Based on the interviews, students
indicated that the teachers posts were more systematic; thus, they trusted them
more, paid more attention to them, and further raised relevant questions to
discuss and share with their classmates. Thus, the students held positive
opinions about the application of Facebook as a learning community, and the

103
teachers posts had a greater influence on the students responses than the
students posts.
3.2 On which day did students participate in interactions?

As demonstrated in the previous section, the students held positive attitudes
toward Facebook being adopted as a learning platform and interacted with each
other well. Then, on which day should the teachers post their articles for the
students to better participate in discussions and interactions? This section
explores Question 2.
In general, people may think that junior high school students have more time on
the weekends to participate in online after-school discussions and interactions,
which is mainly because the students may be able to spend more time surfing
the internet on weekends. Table 2 shows the number of posts and responses
each week in this class. According to Table 2, students posted most of the articles
and replied to the most posts on Fridays, followed by Tuesdays. This result was
inconsistent with the expectation. To understand this finding, one should further
understand the students lifestyles and habits. According to the interviews, the
reason that students participated in the online discussions and interactions on
Fridays and Tuesdays was because they did not have to participate in after-class
tutoring or go to cram schools (namely, additional learning activities after the
regular curriculum) and thus had relatively more time. Moreover, because
Friday was the last day for school for the week, the students did not have to go
to school the day after and felt relaxed enough to surf the internet. Additionally,
some parents restricted their children from surfing the internet, but they usually
allowed them to go online near the weekends; hence, the chance of going online
on Fridays increased significantly.
Table 2. Number of posts and responses each week

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Teachers
5 5 4 4 5 5 5
posts
Post
Replay
Post
Replay
Post
Replay
Post
Replay
Post
Replay
Post
Replay
Post
Replay
Students
action
Students
2 53 17 67 3 41 5 57 8 104 11 69 10 67
response/day
Total 55 84 44 62 112 80 77
3.3 At what time do students participate in interactions?

Last, this section explores the period in the day during which students
participate in discussions and interactions and thus addresses Question 3. Figure
2 shows the statistics on the number of student interactions in the Facebook
Group each hour of the day. According to Figure 2, most of the students
interacted in the learning community after 5 pm and between 8 pm and 12 pm,

104
especially from 10 pm to 11 pm. Because the school day ended at 5 pm, some
students could go online and interact in the learning community soon after
school, whereas other students had to do housework, homework, and after-
school tutoring, etc., and participated in their interactions later, after 8 pm and
especially after 10 pm. Thus, if teachers could consider such situations to
determine the right time to post articles while using a learning community on
Facebook to teach, they could encourage the best interactions between the
students.
120
116
106
100
80 87
60 63
40 39
33 36
20
8
4 5 6 3 1 2 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
16:00~16:59
18:00~18:59
20:00~20:59
10:00~10:59
11:00~11:59
12:00~12:59
13:00~13:59
14:00~14:59
15:00~15:59
17:00~17:59
19:00~19:59
21:00~21:59
22:00~22:59
23:00~23:59
0:00~0:59
1:00~1:59
2:00~2:59
3:00~3:59
4:00~4:59
5:00~5:59
6:00~6:59
7:00~7:59
8:00~8:59
9:00~9:59
Figure 2. Total number of students responses each hour
4. Conclusions and Suggestions

This study focused on a learning community on Facebook, which was adopted
by teachers as a learning platform for students to engage with the curriculum in
their spare time to explore the students interaction behaviors on the social
networking site. According to the analysis of three research questions and
subsequent interviews, we found first that the teachers posts had a greater
influence on the students responses (reading, liking, and replying) than the
students posts. Second, the students participated in learning interactions on
Fridays more frequently than on the other days. However, such a result may be
subject to the family factors and lifestyles of the students, and the frequency of
going online every day may differ as well. Last, most of the students started to
interact in the learning community from 8 pm to midnight. Moreover, in the
interviews conducted by the researcher, it was revealed that the students
thought that it was quite feasible to apply a learning community on Facebook to
after-school tutoring, which could help them extend their learning activities and
further enhance their learning efficiency. As a result, teachers must change from
their traditional teaching methods to a more student-based teaching. A learning
community on Facebook has become a new classroom for teachers and students.

105
Teachers should have the courage to apply it to their teaching (Staines & Lauchs,
2013).
To conclude, this study proposed relevant suggestions, which we hope are taken
into account by teachers and students while using learning community websites.
First, teachers should properly apply a learning community on Facebook and
post most of the articles, which can be supported by the students posts.
Moreover, teachers should post the materials at the most appropriate time for
the students lifestyles. Second, because this was only one case study, the
conclusions should be considered in the context of junior high school students in
each county. Thus, it is recommended that teachers, while conducting such
learning activities in the future, adjust their posts based on the students
interaction behaviors and times and pay attention to whether the duration of the
posts and expected time for termination are enough for students to participate in
online discussions and interactions.
References
Aydin, S. (2012). A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment.
Educational technology research and development, 60(6), 1093-1106.
Albayrak, D., & Yildirim, Z. (2015). Using Social Networking Sites for Teaching and
Learning Students' Involvement in and Acceptance of Facebook as a Course
Management System. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 155-
179.
Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in eportfolio assessment: An approach to the
netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 342357.
Chang, W. J (2014). Group Communication and Interaction in Project-based Learning:
The Use of Facebook in a Taiwanese EFL Context. International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 1(1), 108-130.
Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., Lin, P. C., & Chang, K. E. (2013). Exploring the learners
knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous
platforms: comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, (ahead-of-print), 1-11.
Hartnett, J. L., Rosielle, L. J., & Lindley, L. D. (2015). Crowdsourcing Your Major: Using
Facebook to Encourage Faculty-Student Interaction and Student Engagement.
Essays from E-xcellence in Teaching Volume XIV, 35.
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and
informal learning at university: it is more for socialising and talking to friends
about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology,
34(2), 141155.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook.
Computers & Education, 55(2), 444453.
McCarthy, J. (2013). Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from
2008 to 2011. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3). 337-356.
Sharma, R., Goodwin, R., & Wilkinson, B. (2014, January). Can a Facebook Group Serve
as an Additional Learning Resource for Introductory Programming Students?.
In International Conference on Infocomm Technologies in Competitive
Strategies (ICT). Proceedings (p. 114). Global Science and Technology Forum.
Staines, Z., & Lauchs, M. (2013). Students' engagement with Facebook in a university
undergraduate policing unit. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 29(6), 792-805.

106
Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Group awareness support
and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook.
Computers & Education, 76, 108-118.
Wang, S. M., & Hou, H. T. (2014, July). Exploring Learners' Cognitive Processing
Behavioral Patterns of a Collaborative Creativity Project Using Facebook to
Support the Online Discussion. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT),
2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on (pp. 505-507). IEEE.
Whittaker, A. L., Howarth, G. S., & Lymn, K. A. (2014). Evaluation of Facebook to
create an online learning community in an undergraduate animal science
class. Educational Media International, 51(2), 135-145.
Wu, S. Y., Hou, H. T., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2013). Analysis of Learning
Behavior in Problem Solving-based and Project-based Discussion Activities
within the Seamless Online Learning Integrated Discussion (SOLID) System.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 6182.
Zhong, C., Salehi, M., Shah, S., Cobzarenco, M., Sastry, N., & Cha, M. (2014, April). Social
bootstrapping: how pinterest and last. fm social communities benefit by
borrowing links from facebook. In Proceedings of the 23rd international
conference on World Wide Web (pp. 305-314). International World Wide Web
Conferences Steering Committee.

107

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 107-120, June 2015
Towards a Framework for Culturally Responsive

Educational Leadership
Brian Vassallo
Malta
Abstract. In this paper the author makes a case for an innovative and
dynamic model for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership. The
paper starts by giving a socio-pedagogical account of Culturally
Responsive Educational literature and the effect it had on emerging
pedagogical practices. Misconceptions surrounding culturally
responsive philosophies and their effects on current educational
leadership practices are discussed. The need for effective and
transformational leadership is highlighted as an essential vehicle to
promote transformational change in the reflexive processes needed to
engage in new forms of teacher-student interaction with the
participation of all stakeholders. The extensively researched theoretical
underpinnings have prompted the author to suggest a model for
Culturally Responsive Educational Practices. The model can be used as
a guide to stimulate further thinking processes emanating from new and
productive societal interactions. Such processes may then be used to
inform newly constructed Culturally Responsive Leadership practices.
Keywords: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy; Culturally Responsive

Education; Culturally Relevant Leadership model.
Introduction
Culturally responsive educational leadership is a construct which emanates

from pedagogies which actively respond to the diversity in our school
populations. Gay (2002) defines Culturally Responsive Education as using the
cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance
styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant and
effective for them.
International literature has depicted schools as a two faced coin either grounds
for conflict or grounds for hope. On one side, school have been described as a
fertile ground for harmony, coexistence and cultural cohesiveness while on the
other side, they have been described as an arena for cultural conflict and
destruction (eg: Agenga & Simatwa, 2011; De Dreu, 1997; Di Paola & Hoy, 2001;
Fillipo & De Waal, 2000). This two-pronged conception of the cultural impact on

108
educational processes has brought little meaningful scholarship towards the

necessary change which we need to better our schools.
Misconceptions and effects on Educational Leadership
A number of misconceptions still permeate our understanding of such processes.

In particular:
(i) Schools function as a separate entity from societies. There still exists
literature which purports the perception that schools are not influenced
or are not able to influence the outside world.
(ii) The one size fits all philosophy should prevail and that the culture of
students has little or no impact on learning.
(iii) Cultural differences are a threat to school functioning and that
teaching and learning should be placed in a monocultural context rather
than pushing the notion that different cultures and subcultures may exist
moving through different school systems and perceived differently by
each and every individual (Bonner, Marbley & Agnello, 2004; Boyle-Baise
& Sleeter, 2000).
The three general notions have their own ripple effect on Education Leadership
and practice and give way to three general streams of thought. The first suggests
that every school should develop its identity culture irrespective of the different
cultures residing in it and that all individual entities existing within that culture
must accommodate within the prevailing culture. The second is that culture can
be thought of shared norms, traditions, beliefs, rituals and others and hence
school leadership should concentrate its efforts at work towards the integration
of such shared notions in a peaceful and resolute manner. The third is that
educational leadership should focus on polices which mitigates against
oppressed and margainalised groups.
Literature Review
Cultures can be thought of as shared systems, beliefs, norms and traditions

pertaining to a group of people where each group define the boundaries which
dictate the extent to which these implicit rules are shared. Of course,
boundaries vary from culture to culture and from within the same culture
hence the existence of subcultures. It must be stated that these inherent rules are
also passed on to other cultures and groups and consequently traditional
boundaries become more permeateable. Consequently, not only are culturally
induced boundaries permeatable but also are the values traditionally held
within the home and community system of that culture. These, boundaries then
evolve into new cultural subsystems and are then passed on from one
generation to the next developing into new insights, perceptions and
experiences. It is an ardent task to try to understand the multitude of
experiences which such processes contrive but we can appreciate the differences
they create, honour them and share our own experiences and perceptions with

109
others, fully cognizant of the fact that there is no one real culture but an curious
mix of cultures (Bourdieu, 1973, 1986, 1990).
There seems to be a common understanding that cultures belong to either at
school or at home rather than a curious mix of both complexities. There exist
home cultures, school cultures, work-based cultures, community cultures,
national cultures, disability cultures, global cultures and a multitude of others.
We all belong to each of these cultures to some extent or another. It is not
uncommon for educators to stress the dichotomies between school and home
cultures, between national and international identities, between abilities and
disabilities and fail to realize that school culture cannot be disconnected from
community and global culture. But reinforcing an attitude of disconnectivity
educators are reducing students into a single monolithic culture which is neither
relevant nor realistic.
Phillips (1993) defines school culture as the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours
that characterize a school in terms of: how people treat and feel about each other,
the extent to which people feel included and appreciated, and rituals and
traditions reflecting collaboration and collegiality.
Therefore school culture is composed of both formal and informal elements,
written and latent curricula, suggested or explicit teaching policies, school
development planning, communication patterns, language styles, building of
inter-relationship, discipline, curriculum development, professional
development sessions and other matters associated with schooling. Such actions
and processes take place during school hours and also outside school hours.
Both during and after school hours culture is mediated between students, staff,
administration, parents and the whole outside community at large including
students and teachers exchanges, international studies collaboration and policy
making.
Many schools fail to recognize culturally mediating factors as a major influence
on students performance (Heck & Marcoulides 1996; Fullan, 2001). Only in the
past 15 years has the impact of culture been studied as an essential ingredient in
the formulation of new school reforms (eg: Cullingford and Gunn, 2005; Dale,
2005; Daun, 2002, Eilor et. al. 2003). Researchers in school and classroom culture
(eg: Vassallo, 2008) argue in favour of its importance and the necessity to study
the impact it has on students success. Heckman (1993) argues that school
culture exists in the beliefs of teachers, students and school managers. Such
beliefs are transformed into meanings which are the shaped and reshaped into
behaviour and unconsciously dictate how people think, feel and act. For a school
culture to be developed it must be fuelled by the joint vision of all stakeholders.
Fullan (2001) claims that personal blindness prevents school leaders from
initiating exploratory processes. As Delpit(1995) puts it
We do not really see through our eyes or hear through our ears, but
through our beliefs. To put our beliefs on hold is to cease to exist as
ourselves for a moment and that is not easy. It is painful as well,
because it means turning yourself inside out, giving up your own sense
of who you are, and being willing to see yourself in the unflattering light
of another's angry gaze. It is not easy, but it is the only way to learn what

110
it might feel like to be someone else and the only way to start the
dialogue (1995, p.35).
Such processes would be aimed at developing new transformational approaches

and actively engaging all stakeholders into participating dialogues which will
challenge long rooted assumptions.
Theoretical underpinnings
A number of researchers has made it their personal mission to address social

injustice and inequity in schools (eg: Barry, 2000; Carr, 2001; Chungmei, L. &
Orfield, G., 2005, Haycock, K, 2001; Shrivastava & Shrivastava, 2014; Ferreira &
Gignoux 2014; Greenstone, 2011; Shoho, Barnett, & Tooms, 2011).
Oppression, is a term frequently used when describing situations suggesting

inequity between those who have power and those who have not. There is
therefore a connection between the oppressors and the oppressed (Marx &
Engels, 1964) which also implies a imbalanced relationship favouring those who
oppress.
One way of mitigating against oppression is through the use of a transformative

curriculum (e.g., Shea et al., 2006, Boske, 2014a, 2014b; Brown, 2004; Marshall &
Oliva, 2010). A transformative curriculum therefore calls for a reform in the way
school leadership is set to prepare teachers, parents and students to increase
critical consciousness (e.g., Brown, 2004, 2006). It also calls for reflection and
transformative actions on school leaders proposing such changes (Freire, 1970;
Kaak, 2011).
A transformative curriculum would therefore require deeper and more

systematic analytical skills strategically targeted to work against domineering
school practices (Bogotch & Shields, 2014; Marshall & Oliva, 2010). Hence, the
preparation of school managers to embrace transformational curricular practices
remains central. School leaders should be trained in building bridges across
cultures using the primary senses as the vehicles to achieve the purpose.
A sensory curriculum (e.g., Cahnmann-Taylor & Siegesmund, 2008; Ellsworth,

2005; Erlmann, 2010; Howes, 2005; Menon, 2010; Ranciere, 2010) gives priority to
the bridging of curricular experiences through expression of photography,
videography, poetry, artistic outputs, musical performances and dance. Sensory
curricula express the need to understand who we are in relation to the world
(Boske, 2014a; Greene, 2004; Pinar, 1988). Hence, learners need to be provided
with opportunities which move beyond their very self, explore imaginative
possibilities, construct creative alternatives, and utilize new evolving knowledge
to empower themselves and reshape a new encompassing world (Boske, 2014a,
2014b; Greene, 1988; Pinar, 2011). There is a growing need to train school leaders
to utilize the senses to become social actors to enact what they learnnegotiate
meaning through changing educational contexts, interpersonal interactions with
colleagues and students, and social exchange with the wider community. These

111
broader opportunities have a profound influence on school leaders

management styles, value-based judgements and decision making. Sensory
curricula empower school leaders to move the office walls, urging teachers to
follow suite and moving away from formal settings onto informal ones.
Beachum and McCray (2011) are powerful in their assertion that

communicating to students the schools attitudes toward a range of issues and
problems, including how the school views them as human beings. This compels
us to reflect upon the devastating consequences upon our students if we are not
responsive to the issues and problems which are presented to us and which take
the form of Cultural Racism.
By exerting power into our systems of instruction and organisational culture we,
as educational leaders are manipulating the cultural dynamics of the classroom.
Such dynamics might not all be apt to the cultural composition of the classroom.
It therefore transpires that the people exerting most influence on children do not
share the same culture as the students they teach. Howard (2006, p.54) captures
the essence of this in his book We cant teach what we dont know: White teachers
multicultural schools and states that In this way, the educational process has
allowed those in power to selectively control the flow of knowledge and
inculcate into young minds only those truths that solidify and perpetuate their
hegemony. White middle class cultures are overrepresented in schools as is the
dominant culture represented in the social media. It must be stated that white
teachers fail to perceive whiteness as a race and are unaware of the
implications that this may hold. As the dominant group, white teachers do not
hold perspectives. Instead, they hold universal truths and the message they
deliver to students of other cultures is that of dominance and authoritativeness.
If teachers in our schools are not cognizant of their own culture and the way this
impacts on instructional processes, then they cannot be expected to effectively
include the various cultures of the students residing in their classes and design
and implement a culturally relevant pedagogy which is more apt to the
educational needs of the individual students present in their classrooms. For
teachers to be trained in a Culturally Relevant Pedagogy they must first be
aware of their baseline assumptions that all students belong to the same culture,
pertain to the same home environment, exposed to the same curriculum and
thought by the same teacher, and therefore should learn what is prescribed by
the authorities on the subject matter.
But, of course, such argument is mined by a number of potholes. Children do
not come to school carrying the same luggage of experiences and cultural
dispositions. Their viewpoints are coloured according to the cultural baggage
they are carrying in the form of values, norms, behaviour, experiences which
characterises their identity. They do not come to school from the same cultures,
their experiences are unique as much as their values are. If a teacher is able to
use the cultural capital present in his/ her classroom then s/he would be able to
discover different truths present in his/ her classroom and becomes cognizant
of the notion that there is not only one truth but a multitude of truths existing
concurrently.
The concept of the melting pot being frequently put forward as a metaphor for
describing a heterogenous society becoming increasingly homogenous

112
(Wikipedia, 2015) is itself a celebration of the whole pot rather than the
ingredients composing that pot. Hence it is arguable whether the melting pot
methaphor can be conveniently used to in the classroom situation. Deriving
from our own experiences, what truly happens in our classrooms is that students
engage in an inner struggle to concede fragments of their culture in an attempt
to negotiate acceptance from their peers in return a process which Herbst
(1997) in his study on cultural discrimination in North America calls
Deculturalisation.
Banks (2012) states that deculturalisation is the destruction of the culture of a

dominant group and its replacement by the dominant group. For school leaders
and managers an understanding of deculturalisation assumes vital importance
in school development planning. Primarily, curricula have been set in ways
which promulgate sets of values and norms over others, transforming
themselves into effective vehicles for deculturalisation processes and be able to
devise effective strategies which prevents the dismantling of minority cultures at
the expense of the dominant culture.
Drawing from sociological theory (Eg: Bourdieu, 1984; Bernstein, 2002), Spring,
2009 is adamant on the process of deculturalization and insists that schools have
to some extent or another committed cultural crimes in the interest of
assimilation and integration.
Spring (2009) distinguishes distinguishes between the terms cultural genocide
and deculturalization. While cultural genocide is an attempt is an attempt to
destroy culture, deculturalisation moves a step forward and attempts to replace
minority culture with the dominant culture. For (Spring 2009, p.9) assimilation is
merely an attempt to absorb and integrate cultures into the dominant culture,
which actually means that the minority must succumb to the dominant culture.
Schecter & Bayley, (2002) exemplify Springs (2009) explanation of assimilation
by citing the example of Spanish speaking students being urged to adapt to
English Language, the final result being that students are in a continuous
comparative exercise of comparing their home cultures with the school or
classroom cultures, with the classroom culture taking the lead in the whole
process. Although school do foster a culture of pluralistic values, there seems to
be little or no effective results in students maintaining their own language,
traditions and cultural artifacts. This is further amplified and promulgated by
catch words as For all children to succeed, No child left behind, Building the future
together and Towards a curricular strategy for all,- notably implying that everybody
can learn within the framework as experts dictate.
Schools have themselves a dichotomous paradigm of two cultures, the school
culture and the home culture of which both are surreal in their existence.
Through this process of dichotomising school-home culture, students feel
compelled to surrender their own culture to the dominant school culture,
eventually silencing themselves to hear the deafening voice of the loud culture.
There are certainly more apt ways which school leaders can develop to celebrate
the culture of students residing in their school. School should embrace policies
which encompass all cultures in their schools, and build schooling around the
complex and multifaceted nature of students and their culture taking into
account all incoming cultures modifying formal and informal learning to suit the

113
cultural composition in their schools and classrooms. This would, in turn,

transform itself in an environment which is truly accepting, safe conducive to
emotional stability, reduces levels of stress and points to higher quality learning,
in other words, a culturally responsive pedagogy.
This would allow students the flexibility to learn in the way that suits them
most, from their own vantage point thus influencing stakeholders to engage in
critical reflexive processes aimed at reshaping policies and pedagogic
repertoires.
Basic Tenants of a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) is not based on pure academics. Instead

it relies on formal, informal and non-formal education. It celebrates all kinds of
success. Banks and Banks (1995, p.160) explain that despite the current social
inequalities and hostile classroom environments students must develop their
academic skills. The way these skills are developed may vary but all students
need literacy, numeracy, technological, social and political skills. Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy advocated for the use of academic skills both outside and
inside the classroom and extends success to include vaster conceptual
understanding of what is termed to be successful i.e. social, emotional,
economic, political, humanitarian and others without disregarding the
importance of reading, writing and arithmetic as essential prerequisites for
academic and social functions. This is what Freire (1970, 1973) calls critical
consciousness.
A culturally relevant pedagogy advocates for acculturisation a process by
means the dominant and minority cultures construct a new vibrant reality
(Nieto, 2000; Sleeter, 1992) rather than one culture being subservient to another
or absorbed into a greater encompassing culture.
By means of successive acculturization processes, culturally responsive
educators and their students build positive, constructive, trustful, knowledge
based interaction rather than imbalanced unhealthy relationships paving the
way for tensions and radical practices.
CRP pushes forward a critical reflective processes delving interchangeably
between the self and the other within a context of a peaceful educational journey
for both teachers and students. Culturally relevant pedagogy urges a line of
thought where both teachers and students are active actors in an evolving
drama, construct a pedagogy where they become masters of their own culture,
and subservient only to the new scaffolded pedagogy as a result of their
interaction. This interaction is transactional in nature since it leads to heightened
awareness of each others culture, maximising the learning opportunities of both
teacher and students. Together the whole concept of education is reconstructed
paving the way for multifaceted ways in which the actors involved can teach
and learn.
CRP then becomes a tool where barriers are dismantled and new cultural values
are reconstructed based on what teachers and students learn and teach. CRP
therefore works at deconstructing hidden curricula and rebuilding new concrete
ones.

114
A Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership Model
Teachers and students enter the classroom with a number of preconceptions,

predispositions and biases into the teaching and learning processes so each and
every member within the classroom must deliberately engage in an intrinsic
effort to deconstruct his/ her prejudices and engage in a collective effort to
construct new learning paradigms. To be able to do this, leaders must engage in
a process of reflection whereby prejudices, biases, assumptions and
preconceptions make space for newly constructed knowledge. Below is a model
which attempts to captivate the essence of the underpinnings outlined above.
Reflective Process
L L
e Teacher -Student Interaction e
a a
d d
e e
r r
Deconstructing Reconstructing
s s
h h
i i
p p
New Knowledge
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Figure 1: A Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership model

115
The cyclical process of the model calls for an active engagement from both
teachers and students and such mobile engagement should not be limited to the
teaching and learning process within the school but goes beyond, permeating
school walls and effectively reaching society at large.
Following the reflective stage the actors are now in a position to deconstruct
knowledge. This process would involve a critical examination, the extent of
which is measured in the light of the cultural relevance of the participants and
the curriculum they are supposed to be following. Parts of the curriculum which
contain culturally relevant pedagogy should be endorsed by all the stakeholders
while elements involving culturally biased assumptions and prejudices are
reconstructed in manners which ease transactional learning processes between
teachers, students, school administrators, curricular designers and society at
large. An effective deconstructive- constructive process will essentially prove its
worth when all stakeholders shoulder collective responsibility for the new
constructive knowledge driving emergent norms, values and pedagogical
processes to unprecedented ethical heights. This would, in turn, culminate in
more equitable student learning, greater teacher satisfaction, more involvement
from stakeholders with rippled positive effects to the wider society. School
leaders need to act as catalysts urging students and teachers to be participative,
proactive and initiate parallel processes, thus stimulating culturally relevant
pedagogical practices. These processes would then feedback new reflective
processes along new avenues facilitated by effective leadership. It is the Schools
Senior Management Team responsibility to motivate, energise and stimulate
processes in the mutual interest of all stakeholders. Thus, a culturally responsive
pedagogy would endure that a knowledge base is developed by both students
and teachers within and beyond classroom setups and by curricular and
pedagogical leaders within and beyond school setups.
This would, in turn, inform and stimulate the wider society who will itself
become an active proponent of culturally relevant practice in its multifaceted
functions. Curricula would therefore do away with being immovable or serving
the needs of those who constructed them rather than those who dwell in them.
Curricula are therefore constantly challenged and deliberated distabilized to
accommodate each and every participant. Thus there is no single research based
practise but rather a plethora of practices, informing pedagogical responsibility
of both teacher and student. The long practised didactic relationship (teacher
teaching directly to the student) would become less relevant, making space for
the continuous evolution of constructed knowledge and mutual exchange of
experiences. Curricular leaders must therefore build leadership, curriculum and
instruction on the cultural baggage which themselves and the students build.
A Culturally Responsive Pedagogy brings to the surface what is already present

in a meaningful and progressive manner, dismantling traditional walls
between teachers and students permitting the space for students to teach and
teachers to learn.

116
Conclusion
School leadership is in a constant change of flux. The more the presence of

other cultures in our schools prevail, the more urgent is the need for culturally
responsive leadership. There is an unprecedented need to cultivate the fertile
ground which will embrace all students and educators irrespective of their
cultural or linguistic background. This presents a challenge for school leaders to
immerse themselves into what actually constitutes an effective culturally
responsive leadership.
It is hoped that the model presented above (figure 1) would serve as a trigger to
stimulate a public discussion on the necessity of raising awareness among
educational stakeholders to engage themselves in deliberate thinking
mechanisms aimed at facilitating culturally responsive leadership. It is a
challenge for educational stakeholders to continue proposing different
frameworks (or a refinement of this framework) aimed at increasing cultural
responsiveness. School leaders are in an enviable position to lead critically
responsive teams for such models to effectively come to life. Effective leaders
can use the model to further involve parents into school activities urging them to
contribute from their own cultural capital. This contribution will then form the
basis for new knowledge to be negotiated among all stakeholders, further
informing leadership processes. This would enable the wider community to be
more equipped to embrace the contribution that each culture and each
individual has towards a more just and peaceful society.
References:
Agenga, A. R. & Simatwa, E. M. W. (2011). Assessment of conflict management and

resolution in public secondary schools in Kenya: a case study of Nyakach district.
Educational research, 2 (4), 10741088.
Banks, J (2012). Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education
Banks, C. A. M. & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of
multicultural education. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 152-158.
Barry, B (2000). Culture and Equality. Cambride, UK: Polity Press.
Beachum, F. D., & McCray, C. R. (2011). Cultural collision and collusion: Reflections on hip-
hop culture, values, and schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Bell, D (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The Permanence of Racism, New York, N.Y:
Basic Books.
Bernstein (2002). Educational codes and Social control, British Journal of sociology of
Education (23), 4.
Blankstein, A. M., & Houston, P. D. (2011). Leadership for social justice and democracy in our
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bogotch, I., & Shields, C.M. (2014). Introduction: Do promises for social justice trump
paradigms of educational leadership and social (in)justice. In Ira Bogotch & Carolyn M.
Shields (Eds.)International handbook of educational leadership and social (in)
justice.(pp.1-12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

117
Bonner, F. A., II, Marbley, A. F., & Agnello, M. F. (2004). The diverse learner in the college
classroom. E-Journal of Teaching and Learning in Diverse Settings, 1(2), 246-255.
Boske, C., & Diem, S. (2012). Global leadership for social justice: Taking it from the field
to practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Boske, C., & McEnery, L. (2012). Catalysts: Assistant principals who lead for social justice. In
A. R. Shoho, B. G. Barnett, & A. K. Tooms (Eds.), Examining the assistant principalship:
New puzzles and perennial challenges for the 21st (pp. 125-152). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Boske, C. (2014a). Critical reflective practices: Connecting to social justice. In I. Bogotch & C.
Shields (Eds.), International Handbook of Social [In] Justice and Educational Leadership
(pp. 289-308). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Boske, C. (2012). Educational leadership: Building bridges among ideas, schools and nations.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Boske, C. (2014b). Using the senses in reflective practice to prepare women for transforming
their learning spaces. In W. Sherman & K. Mansfield (Eds.), Women interrupting,
disrupting, and revolutionizing educational policy and practice (pp. 225-253). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Boyle-Baise, L. & Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Community-based service learning for multicultural
teacher education. Educational Foundations, 14(2), 33-50.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction, Routhledge pp. 5-41.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Brown Richard (Ed.),
Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change, 71-112. London, UK: Tavistock.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Brown, K. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 79-110.
Brown, K. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,42 (5), 700745.
Brooks, J. S. (2012). Black school white school: Racism and educational (mis) leadership. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York. Harper & Row.
Cahnmann-Taylor, M. (2008). Arts-based research: Histories and new directions. In M.
Cahnmann-Taylor & R. Siegesmund (Eds.), Arts-based research in education:
Foundations for practice (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cullingford, C. and Gunn, S. (2005). Globalization, Education and Culture Shock: Monitoring
Change in Education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. )
Carr, K. (2001). Missing out: The politics of exclusion and inequality. Paper presentation to
Australian Fabians Society Conference For the rest of their lives Education and
Inclusion, 3031 March, Melbourne.
Chungmei, L. & Orfield, G. (2005). "Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational
Inequality". The Civil Rights Project. Harvard University: 147.
Dale, R. (2005). Globalization, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education.
Comparative Education 41(2): 32.
Daun, H., Ed. (2002). Educational Restructuring in the Context of Globalization and National
Policy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive Conflict: The importance of conflict management and
conflict issues. In DeDreu and Van De Vliert (Eds.). Using conflicts in organisations, 9
22. London: Sage.

118
Delpit, L. (1995). Other Peoples' Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York:
New Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Toms River, NJ: Capricorn Books.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and education. Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.
Di Paola, M. F. & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Formalization, conflict and change: constructive and
destructive consequences in schools. The International Journal of Educational
Management, (15), 238-244.
Eilor, J, et. al. (2003). Impact of Primary Education Reform Program (PERP) on the Quality of
Basic Education in Uganda. Paris:
Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school
programs. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. New York: Routledge
Falmer.
Erlmann, V. (2010). Reason and resonance: A history of modern aurality. Cambridge, MA:
Zone Books.
Farkas, G. (2006). "How Educational Inequality Develops". National Poverty Center. Working
Paper Series, 150.
Ferreira, F. & Gignoux, J (2014). The Measurement of Educational Inequality: Achievement
and Opportunity. World Bank Economic Review, 28, (2), 210 246.doi:10.1093/wber/lht004.
Fillipo, A. & De Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Natural conflict resolution. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press
Frattura, E. M., & Capper, C. A. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all
learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York]: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. [1st American ] ed. A Continuum book.
New York, : Seabury Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).
Gamoran, A. (2001). "American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the 21st
Century". Sociology of Education (74), 135153.doi:10.2307/2673258.
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gershon, W. S. (2010). Entertaining ideas and embodied knowledge: Musicians as public
intellectuals. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, Burdick, & J. Burdick (Eds.), The handbook of
public pedagogy, 628638. New York: Routledge.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (2004). Curriculum and consciousness. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.),
The curriculum studies reader (2nd ed.), 135-147. New York, NY: Routledge.
Greenstone, M. (2011). "Improving Student Outcomes: Restoring America's Education
Potential". The Hamilton Project. Strategy Paper, 130.
Heckman, P. E. "School Restructuring in Practice: Reckoning with the Culture of School."
International Journal of Educational Reform (July 1993): pp.263-71.
Haskins, R & Kemple, J (2009). A New Goal for America's High Schools: College Preparation
for All. The Future of Children (19), 17.
Haycock, K (2001). Closing the Achievement Gap. Helping All Students Achieve (58), 611.
Heck, R. H. and Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). School culture and performance: testing the
invariance of an organizational model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
7(1), 7696.

119
Herbst, P. (1997). The color of words: An encyclopedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United
States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Howard, G. R. (2006). We can't teach what we don't know: White teachers, multiracial
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
Howes, D. (Ed.) (2005). Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader (179191). Oxford:
Berg Press.
Kaak, P. A. (2011). Power-filled lessons for leadership educators from Paulo Freire. Journal of
Leadership Education, 10(1), 132-144.
Kalyanpur, M. (2003). A challenge to professionals: Developing cultural reciprocity with
culturally diverse families. Focal Point, 17(1), 16.
Kincheloe, J., & Pinar, W. (2003).(Eds.). Curriculum as social psychoanalysis: The significance
of place. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kridel,C. (2010). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies.USA: SAGE publication, Inc.
MMoE. (2015).Official Website for Malaysia's Smart School Project .Retrieved 17th June 2015,
from http://www.ppk.kpm.my/smartschool/National Council for Curriculum and
Assessment (2004). Curriculum Assessment and ICT In the Irish Context: A discussion
paper.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2002). Theories and practices of antioppressive education. In K. K.
Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive education, 3-
76. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer
Leavy, P. (2009). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2010). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in
education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1964). The German ideology. Moscow: Progress.
Menon, R. (2010). Seductive aesthetics of postcolonialism. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Mills, C. (2008). Reproduction and transformation of inequalities in schooling: The
transformative potential of the theoretical constructs of Bourdieu. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 29 (1), 7989.
Mills, C. (2005). Reproduction and transformation in disadvantaged communities: A
Bourdieuian perspective on improving the educational outcomes of students. Paper
presented to the Australian Association of Research.
Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming Teacher
education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180187.
Noddings, N. (1984). The Challenge to Care in Schools, New York: Teachers College Press
Phillips, G. (1993). What is school culture? http://www.schoolculture.net/whatisit.html/
Pinar, W. F. (1988). Autobiography and the architecture of self. Journal of Curriculum
Theorizing, 8(1), 7-35.
Pinar, W. F. (2011). What is curriculum theory? New York, NY: Routledge.
Ranciere, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. New York, NY: Continuum.
Schecter, S. R., Bayley, R. (2002). Language as cultural practice: Mexicanoes en el Norte.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shea, Kelly A., Balkun, Mary McAleer, Nolan, Susan A., Saccoman, John T., Wright, Joyce.
(2006). One more time: Transforming the curriculum across the disciplines through
technology-based faculty development and writing-intensive course redesign. Across the
Disciplines,( 3) . Retrieved June 17, 2015, from
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/shea2006.cfm
Shrivastava, M & Shrivastava, S (2014). Political economy of higher education: comparing
South Africa to trends in the world. Higher Education, 64 (6): 809822.

120
Shoho, A. R., Barnett, B. G., & Tooms, A. K. (2011). Examining the assistant principalship:
New puzzles and perennial challenges for the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Keepers of the American dream: A study of staff development and
multicultural education. London, UK: Falmer
Spring, J. (2009). American Education (14th Ed). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Theoharis, G., & Brooks, J. S. (2012). What every principal needs to know to create equitable
and excellent schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tooms, A. K., & Boske, C. (Eds.) (2010). Building bridges: Connecting educational leadership
and social justice to improve schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Vassallo B (2008). Classroom climate as perceived by Maltese and non-Maltese pupils in
Malta, Malta Review for Educaional Research. Avaialble from
http://www.mreronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MRERV6I1P61.pdf. [20
June 2015].
Wikipedia (2015). Melting Pot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot.

121

Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 121-130, June 2015
The Survey on Classroom Discussion of Middle

School Students
Hua Zhang
School of Psychology, Southwest University, Key Laboratory of Cognition and
Personality of the Ministry of Education (Southwest University), Chongqing,
400715, China.
Jinhui Cheng
No 2 Middle School, Zunyi, Guizhou province, Zunyi, 563000, China.
Xinyu Yuan
No 1 Middle School, Longling, Baoshan, Yunnan province, Baoshan, 678300,
China.
Ying Zhang
School of Computer and Information Science and Software, Southwest
University, Chongqing, 400715, China.
The study has been supported by a grant from the Youth Fund Program of
the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Ministry of Education in China (the
number is 14YJC190024) and the Youth Fund Program of the Social Sciences in
Chongqing of China (the number is 2014QNSH18).
Abstract: Classroom discussion was an effective method to cultivate

students thinking ability, expressing ability and creativity. This study
investigated the status of classroom discussion of 1228 middle school
students by a self-compiled scale. The results showed that the scale of
classroom discussion had good reliability and validity. In the three
dimensions of the classroom discussion, the teacher support gained the
highest score; the discussion topic and form gained the lowest score and
the student participation was in the middle level. However, these three
dimensions had not reached the satisfactory level. There were significant

122
differences in the three dimensions of classroom discussion between

students from only child and multiple children families. Also the junior
school students and high school students were significantly different in
the classroom discussion.
Keywords: classroom discussion; creativity; middle school students
Introduction
The report of learning to survive from International Education Development
Commission of UNESCO pointed out that the education could not only develop
creativity but also stifle creativity (Chun Lin, Jing Wang, 2000). Even though
teaching or learning creativity may seem to be a very challenging task for
educators In education, it is possible to discover the creativity of an student and
to eventually develop this potential(Lee Kyunghwa,2015). To cultivate creative
talents, the teacher should give students the opportunity training the ability of
creative thinking in the class. Classroom discussion was a kind of free discussion
on an important topic prepared by the students and guided by the teachers
(Chun Lin, Jing Wang, 2000). It plays a vital role in developing students-centred
learning, stimulating students speculative thinking and cultivating their
cooperative spirit (Xingjiang Li, 2014). Classroom discussion provided a good
chance for students to cultivate their ability of creative thinking. It was one of
the teaching methods which can be easily realized in middle school classroom.
This study attempted to investigate the status quo and characteristics of middle
school students on classroom discussion by a self-compiled scale. It not only
could provide a measurement tool for classroom discussion but also find out
whether the current situation of middle school students in classroom discussion
was satisfactory.
Creativity was unique to human beings, and it was a psychological trait which
one brought novel, unique, feasible and applicable products by certain
conditions. (Qinglin Zhang, Sternberg, Jiwei Si, Zhan Xu, 2002). The creativity in
the field of education was to cultivate the students' creativity, and it was the
premise. Namely it was a thinking activity which on the basis of acquired
knowledge one imagined, conceived and got creative ideas, or analyzed and
solved all kinds of problems which there were on solution to the formers.
Classroom discussion was one of the important ways to cultivate students'
creativity because its major characteristic was cultivating students creative
practice and its major form was constructing educative, creative and practical
activities. Thus, classroom discussion was most suitable for cultivating the
students creative thinking (Jian Niu, 2001).
The research on classroom discussion paid more attention to the purpose, the
function and the theme of the discussion. The purpose of classroom discussion

123
was to motivate the students' interest and curiosity in learning content, stimulate
students to think, question, explain, reflect and recall (Chuanbao Jin, 2011).
Discussion was an effective way to develop students' consciousness of
participation. It was also beneficial to train students language skills, enhance the
mutual understanding between teachers and students and between students,
and cultivate students' confidence, cooperation spirit, thinking ability and
innovative ability (Mancang Liang, 2009). Classroom discussion provided a
stage for students to develop their own thinking ability and display their talent.
It not only benefited to their cultivation of thinking ability, but also could foster
their presentation skill, participating consciousness and innovative
consciousness (Jiafang Wei, Zhuying Ling, 2003).Regarding to the subject of
classroom discussion, how to choose it was not optional. The topic or subject of
classroom discussion should be determined by the students' common problems
in the study (Tizheng Wang, 1984).
In addition, in the activities of the classroom discussion, the participation of
students and teachers attracted many researchers to study. From the students
side, there were some differences between the students of different gender. The
boys tended to feel happy questioning about the reading material, while the girl
would resist a discussion that seemed to be hostile to them. Most boys more
easily accepted the classroom debate as a learning tool, and arguing in the
classroom was more suitable for boys (Xiaozhen Shi, 1997). The teacher should
keep the proper silence in classroom discussion and gave enough time to wait
students explaining the answer. As a teacher, it was important to remain calm
and patient. When the students were thinking, teachers just wait (Chuanbao Jin,
2011).
On one hand, teachers should try to control their emotions, avoid randomly
revealing the appreciation or opposing opinions to students, and trait them
equally as much as possible. On the other hand, teachers should timely analyze,
guide, and correct some contradictory conclusion, wrong inferences, superficial
argument of the students, but they were sure to take the right way to avoid
hurting the students' self-esteem and depressing students enthusiasm to
discuss. Teachers should ensure that each student participate the discussion
equally, pay more attention to the students who lack enthusiasm for
participation. At the same time teachers should stimulate their performance
desire, give their opportunity, not demand quality, and focus on emotional
support and encouragement (Baoqun Ai, 2006). The teacher should pay attention
to the answer of the students who were not consistent with his own views, and it
was likely that the answer is a new understanding and explanation that the
teacher had not expected (Jinkuan Cheng, 1996).

124
Research design
On the basis of referencing the previous research literature, an open-ended
questionnaire about class discussion was given out to 10 normal students and
some items were collected. After classifying and consolidating these items, 3
experts discussed and modified them several times, and 25 items about
classroom discussion were obtained. Using Likert five point rating table, subjects
were required to judge the description of 25 items among fully accord,
mostly accord, generally accord, less accord, and do not accord. These
answers were scored by using 5 points for fully agree down to 1 point for do
not agree. In order to test the criterion validity, the creativity of one part of
subjects was also measured by Williams Creativity Assessment Packet(Williams,
1980).The scale had 50 items, the answer had three, and the subjects were asked
to choose one from the three, that is full accord, partial accord and do not
accord . The score was divided positive score and reverse score. The scale
measured ones creative tendency from four dimensions, which were adventure,
curiosity, imagination and challenges.
Questionnaires were distributed to 1400 middle school students in Chongqing
and Tianjin of China. Permission was obtained from teachers in classes. After a
brief explanation of the study, prospective participants were sought. They were
given the questionnaire with the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality of
responses. Participants were informed that they were not under any obligation
to participate and they had the right to withdraw at any point if they felt
inclined to discontinue with the investigation. Participants were also informed
that there were no right or wrong answers and were encouraged to be honest in
their responses (Hua Zhang, Xuechun Yang, Ying Zhang & Brian John
Hennessy, 2014). 1228 valid questionnaires were returned, the effective recovery
rate was 87.71%. The subjects were between 11 and 20 years old, and the average
age was 14.95 years (the standard deviation is 1.651). Male students were
557(45.4%), female subjects were 659(53.7%), and the missing was 12(1%). Only
children are 591(48.5%), non-only children are 624(50.8%), and the missing was
8(0.7%). The junior school students are 635(51.8%), high school students are
591(48.2%), and the missing is 2(1%). The subjects who filled out the scale of
Williams Creativity Assessment Packet were 522. Data were processed by
AMOS17.0 and SPSS16.0.
Results
The reliability and validity of the scale of middle school students
Combining the reliability of items and content analysis for one 614 samples, 6
items were deleted. The left 19 items were divided into three dimensions
including the discussion topic and form (7 items), for example, the topic of
classroom discussion always interested me; the student participation (7 items),
for example: team members often encouraged each other to speak as much as

125
possible; and teacher support (5 items), for example: in the discussion, the
teachers encouraged us to thinking and questioning others opinions. The
Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of three dimensions were respectively 0.778, 0.795,
and 0.660 and the total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the total questionnaire
was 0.893.
The reliability of another 614 samples had a good level. The Cronbach's Alpha
coefficients of each dimension were also acceptable. The discussion topic and
form was 0.766, the student participation was 0.788, and the teacher support was
0.798.The total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was 0.906. Further analysis found
that the total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the 1228 was 0.902, and the
Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of junior school students almost aged from 12 to
15 was 0.891, and the Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of high school students
almost aged from 15 to 18 was 0.907. It showed that the scale had a good
reliability and was suitable for different ages in middle school.
The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the main indicators of fitting the
model were good. The fitting index of 2/df was 4.594, RMR was 0.085, GFI was
0.900, TLI was 0.857, CFI was 0.876, and RMSEA was 0.077. The fitting index
reached the recommended standard (Chongzeng BI, Xiting Huang, 2009),
suggesting that classroom discussion scale had good construct validity.
The creativity of students was measured. The total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
of Williams Creativity Assessment Packet in this survey was 0.906. There was no
significantly correlation between the topic and form, the student participation in
classroom discussion and the imagination in creativity in Table 1. However, the
other dimensions of classroom discussion and creativity were significantly
correlated with different degrees. It showed that the scale of the classroom
discussion had good criterion validity.
Table 1. The correlation coefficient between classroom discussion and creativity.

Adventure Curiosity Imagination Challenges
The discussion topic and form 0.144** 0.124** 0.053 0.092*
The student participation 0.184** 0.145** 0.068 0.140**
The teacher support 0.194** 0.181** 0.102* 0.164**
* p0.05, ** p0.01.
The characteristics of middle school students classroom discussion

The means of the three dimensions of the classroom discussion of middle school
students (N=1228) were at the lower level, including the discussion topic and
form (3.360.84), the students participate (3.670.82), and the teacher support
(3.780.82). From the current situation of classroom discussion, the teacher
support was the highest level, the student participation was in the second, and
the topic and the form was the lowest. It was obvious that the middle school
students evaluated the objective factors relatively lower, and evaluate the

126
subjective environments relatively higher. There was no significant difference in

the three dimensions of classroom discussion in different gender students.
Table 2. The t test of classroom discussion for the middle school students
between students from only child family and multiple children families.
Means and standard deviation
Students from Students from
Classroom discussion t, p
only child multiple children
families (n=596) families (n=624)
The discussion topic and 3.390.84 3.330.83 t=1.224,p=0.221
form
The student participation 3.730.83 3.610.82 t=2.498,p=0.013
The teacher support 3.730.82 3.830.82 t=-2.268,p=0.024
* p0.05, ** p0.01.
The means of the discussion topic and form, and the student participation of
students from only child families were higher than those from multiple children
families in Table 2. It was found that there was significant difference in the
student participation by independent samples t test (p0.05), and the student
participation of students from only child families was significant higher than
those from multiple children families. However, in the dimension of the teacher
support, students from multiple children families were significant higher than
those from only child families (p0.05).
Table 3.The t test of classroom discussion between junior school students and high
school students.
Means and standard deviation
Classroom discussion Junior school High school t, p
students (n=635) students (n=591)
The discussion topic and 3.540.78 3.170.85 t=7.793,p=0.000
form
The student participation 3.780.81 3.550.83 t=4.798,p=0.000
The teacher support 3.890.82 3.660.81 t=4.981,p=0.000
* p0.05, ** p0.01.
From Table 3, the means of all three dimensions of classroom discussion for
junior school students were higher than high school students, and there were
significant differences between them (p 0.05). The junior school students
evaluated the discussion topic and form, the student participation and the
teacher support higher than high school students.

127
Discussion
General characteristic of classroom discussion
The structure of classroom discussion included objective factor and subjective
factor. Objective factor referred to the content and way of classroom discussion,
was also named the discussion topic and form; subjective content was about the
participant, namely the student participation and the teacher support. From the
results of this survey, the middle school students evaluated the classroom
discussion not so highly, which showed that there was still a lot of room for
improvement in the classroom discussion. Regarding to the discussion topic and
form, it should be targeted, typical, challenging and open, thus the purpose of
learning and mastering knowledge could be achieved (Kunling Fu, 2013). And it
was necessary to take more flexible and novel form in classroom discussion.
In the classroom discussion taking the student as the center, the student
participation should be very important, however the middle school students
evaluated this lower than the teacher supports. The activity of classroom
teaching was not only the bilateral activity between the teachers and students,
but also the multilateral activity between students. The advantages of classroom
teaching activity for students' individual development is that the interaction and
mutual influence of the learning community. It should be said that in most
occasions, good cooperation between students is better than personal efforts
(Guoping Wu, 2000). In classroom discussion, the student was in the main
position, the communication between students and the encouragement from
each other would play the effect on the classroom discussion activities.
Middle school students evaluated the teacher support the highest, which
showed that the idea of cultivating students' comprehensive quality had been
recognized by many teachers, and they put the idea into action and supported
students exploratory behaviors. Students were the center of classroom
discussion, teachers were a guide, partner, sharer, and teachers should teach
them how to master the cooperative learning method and the necessary
cooperative skills (Kunling Fu, 2013). The relationship between teachers and
students in classroom discussion was equal, and teachers and students listened
to each other, they were also questioners and responders. Only in this way,
students could speak freely, said the doubt and got it on their thinking in a
relaxed, equal, free atmosphere of dialogue teaching, (Cuirong Yang, ChengJun
Zhou, HongTao Wei, 2013). In the course of the classroom discussion, the
teacher could not easily interrupt and evaluate, but guided them timely
according to the rhythm of discussion, maintained a warm and harmonious
learning environment (Rui Li, 2012). Teachers also accepted students to question
and supported students with different ideas, encouraged students to participate
in classroom discussions, thus, students in the classroom would be more eager
to speak, put forward different questions and viewpoints (Yackel & Cobb, 1996).
Another finding about it was meaningful. Students were more prone to

128
elaborate their contributions, more easily engaged in discussion topics aligned

with their interests, and resolved conflicts if they were in peer-led discussions
than teacher-led discussions (Jeong-bin ea al., 2015).
Group differences in classroom discussion
The mean of the student participation for students from only child families in
classroom discussion was significant higher than those from multiple children
families. It may be related to the family environment of the only child. In the
only child families, they had no brothers and sisters and lacked of peers and
communication in peers in most time. When the class carried out such activities,
the only child had the opportunity for discussing with peers, and perceived
more student participation, peer encouragement and so on. In the dimension of
teacher support, the students from multiple children families were significantly
higher than students from multiple children families. Because of family
environment, students from multiple children families might get less parents
concern and opportunities for communication, compared with students from
only child families, they lack the interaction with the elders. Thus in classroom
discussion activities, various supports from teachers gained their much more
recognition.
The junior school students were significantly higher than the high school
students in all three dimensions of classroom discussion. It demonstrated that
the junior students recognize the classroom discussion higher than the high
school students. In the high school classroom, the classroom discussion was
conducted less and less, especially for the high grade students. Their pressure of
college entrance examination not only made them difficult to carry out regular
classroom discussion, but also have less time to participate the classroom
discussion fully. The classroom discussion was helpful to the development of
divergent thinking. Students in the multilateral communication dared to express
their unique views, which were conducive to the cultivation of innovative
consciousness (Guoping Wu, 2000). But at this time, the classroom discussion
gave way to exam oriented education, and this problem should deserve
concerns.
Conclusion
This study had the following conclusions. Firstly, the classroom discussion scale
had good reliability and validity, which could be used to measure students'
classroom discussion. Secondly, the classroom discussion of middle school
students did not reach the ideal level, the discussion topic and form was the
lowest, followed by the student participation, and the teacher support was the
highest. Thirdly, there were significant differences in the student participation
and the teacher support between students from only child families and multiple
children families. In all three dimension of classroom discussion, junior school

129
students and high school students were significantly different. There was no
difference in the classroom discussion between different gender students.
References
Baoqun Ai. (2006). The problems and countermeasures of the classroom discussion.
Educational Practice and Research,(6), 4-5.
Chongzeng Bi, Xiting Huang.(2009). Preparation of self-confidence questionnaire on
young students. Acta Psychological Sinica, 41(5), 444-453.
Chuanbao Jin. (2011). The study on effective technology for primary and middle school
teachers to nourish the classroom. Basic Education, 8(3), 104-109.
Chun Lin, Jing Wang. (2000). Cultivating students self-learning and innovation ability
by the classroom discussion. Journal of Shanxi Medical University (Preclinical
Medical Education Edition) ,(2), 199-200.
Cuirong Yang, Chengjun Zhou, Hongtao Wei. (2013). Promote the teacher questioning in
classroom discussion. Contemporary Education Science,(12), 20-22.
Guoping Wu. (2000). Conduct discussion timely and cultivate creative
potential--training the innovative consciousness of students in mathematics class
discussion, Study on Teaching Method,39(9), 41-42.
Hua Zhang,Xuechun Yang,Ying Zhang, Brian John Hennessy.(2014). Dimensions of
Perceived Support for Innovation Scale: A Comparison of Students from Only
Child and Multiple Children Families in a Chinese UniversityBritish Journal
of Education, Society & Behavioural Science,(5), 633-646.
Jiafang Wei, Zhuying Ling (2003). The role of classroom discussion playing in cultivating
students' creative thinking ability. Journal of Baicheng teachers college, 17( 4),
108.
Jian Niu (2001). The classroom discussion and creative thought cultivating. Journal of
Gansu Education College (social sciences), (17), 2237-239.
Jinkuan Cheng. (1996). The strategies of stimulating the classroom discussion activity.
Elementary & Secondary Schooling Abroad,(10), 28-30.
Jeong-bin Hannah Park, Diane L. Schallert, Anke J.Z. Sanders, Kyle M. Williams,Eunjin
Seo , Li-Tang Yu , Jane S. Vogler, Kwangok Song , Zachary H. Williamson
,Marissa C. Knox.(2015). Does it matter if the teacher is there?: A teacher's
contribution to emerging patterns of interactions in online classroom
discussions.Computers & Education ,(82), 315-328.
Kunling Fu. (2013). Organize the effective classroom discussion. Learning Weekly,
186(6), 90.
Lee Kyunghwa.(2015). Development and Validation of K-ICT (Korea-Integrative
Creativity Test) for Elementary and Secondary School Students. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences,(186),305 314.
Mancang Liang. (2009). Cultivating students consciousness of participation and the
classroom discussion. Development(4), 88.

130
Qinglin Zhang, Sternberg, R. J., Jiwei Si, Zhan Xu.(2002).Creativity Research

Handbook.Chengdu: Sichuan Education House,China,6-8.
Rui Li.(2012). The composition and strategy of classroom discussion oriented by the
students. Journal of Beijing Peoples Police College, (5), 84-86.
Tizheng Wang. (1984). Class discussion. Journal of Higher Education,( 4), 59-61, 73.
Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity assessment packet (CAP): Manual. Buffalo: D.O.K.
Publishers, Inc.
Xingjiang Li.(2014).Make mathematics classroom discussion real. Math Teaching In
Middle School,(1).39-42.
Xiaozhen Shi. (1997). The gender differences and equal opportunities in the classroom
discussion. Elementary & Secondary Schooling Abroad,(6), 42-43.
Yacke,E., & Cobb, P. (1996) .Socio -mathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy
in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, (2), 458-477.

Vol 12 No 2 - June 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol 12 No 2 - June 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJLTER.

Towards a Framework for Culturally Responsive Educational Leadership ............................................................... 107

The Survey on Classroom Discussion of Middle School Students .............................................................................. 121

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher

B. Jean Mandernach, PhD

Abstract. Educational research increasingly highlights the importance of

Keywords: student engagement; assessment of engagement;

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Defining Student Engagement

The range of definitions for student engagement converges to emphasize three

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Examining these indicators as the impetus behind measures of student

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Items to Gauge Types of Engagement

Behavioral Cognitive Affective

Understanding assessment of student engagement rests in an awareness of the

Inherent in assessment debates concerning the definition and scope of student

Despite this subtle distinction, most measures of student engagement

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

involvement in a variety of activities and interactions both in and out of the

Table 2: Data Collection Methods to Measure Student Engagement

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

perceptions of alignment between observable, behavioral

Informal measures of engagement provide formative data to guide instructional,

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

instructional strategies or institutional initiatives to more effectively foster

Complementing formative feedback, formal measures of engagement provide

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

institutional levels. The integration of any of these formalized measures must be

Institutional Assessment of Student Engagement

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The National Survey of Student

College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ). The College Student Experiences

Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ). The Student Engagement Questionnaire

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). The Faculty Survey of Student

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). The Community

College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ). The College Student

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Course Assessment of Student Engagement

Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE). Designed as a complementary

Student Engagement Index. Developed to identify specific measures of classroom

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ). In contrast to the measures

Behavioral Engagement Related to Instruction (BERI). Designed to quantitatively

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

As highlighted by these conceptual defintions, student engagement cannot be

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

@2015 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

The Relevance of using Heuristic Strategies

Abstract. This article demonstrates the relevance of using heuristic

Keywords: ameliorative experiment; mathematical heuristic techniques;

2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

The research hypothesis

2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

The stages of the experiment

The research methodology

Types of heuristic teaching strategies in problem solving

2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

physical and mental activity is decomposed into a series of sequences, with a

2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

2015 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.