Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning

1. Exploring Relationships Among Teacher’s Schema of Effective Practice, Enacted Practice, & Student Learning A Study of Text-Based Writing Tasks in Reading Instruction Elaine Wang University of Pittsburgh Learning Sciences & Policy Ph.D. Program Milestone Two Presentation August 23, 2012

2. Defining the Issue curricula Schemas for teaching & learning = motives or goals Perceived Constraints policy Enacted Practice Student Learning Image from http://reversethinking.typepad.com/weblog/brain/

3. Purpose of Study • This study aimed to investigate and generate hypotheses about the relationships among teachers’ schema of effective practice, their enacted practice, and student learning, specifically around text-based writing tasks in reading instruction at the fourth grade. • Some questions the resulting hypotheses might address: • Do particular teacher schemas seem associated with particular student learning? • Which factors might moderate the relationship between teachers’ schema of effective practice and enacted practice? • Which elements of schema of effective practice might be more susceptible to constraints in enacted practice? • What might (mis)alignment between teacher’s schema and enacted practice mean for student learning?

4. Significance of Study • Better understanding of the relationship between teachers’ schema of effective practice and enacted practice could improve student learning • Identification of constraints that hinder teachers from enacting ideal instruction could lead to interventions or PD that explicitly address these concerns and perceptions • Recognizing role of teachers’ schema has implications for supporting instruction aligned with approach advocated by standards and frameworks

5. Theoretical Frameworks

6. Schema Theory • Schemas help individuals understand the world by organizing one’s assumptions or accumulated knowledge into distinct and strongly interconnected patterns that are later accessed (Anderson, 1977; Bartlett, 1932; Piaget, 1926). • Schemas have the potential to instigate action; they can function as motives or goals (d’Andrade, 1992). • Areas of theoretical work on teaching reflecting this function of schemas: • Mathematics teaching and learning (Ernest, 1988) • Teacher decision-making framework (Bishop & Whitfield 1972) • Policy implementation research (Coburn, 2004; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002)

7. Research on & Frameworks for Examining Writing Tasks • Examination of writing task includes characterizing cognitive demand of prompt, rigor of evaluation criteria, accepted student responses (Doyle, 1983; Matsumura, 2003), and teacher feedback (Hattie & Gan, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007) Prompt Feedback Instruction Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Student Responses

8. Characterizing Cognitive Demand of Tasks • Ambiguity and risk (Doyle, 1983;Doyle & Carter, 1984) • Cognitive rigor (Matsumura et al.,2003) • Taxonomy of Skills for Reading and Interpreting Fiction (Hillocks& Ludlow, 1984) • Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2011) • Depth of Knowledge (Webb, 2002)

9. Methods

10. Research Design,Context & Participants • Qualitative exploratory comparative case study (Yin, 1994); theory-building case study (Einsenhardt, 1989) • Three 4th grade language arts teachers from three schools in a public district in mid-Atlantic state • Second-year participants in larger project • Sample representative of larger group of 59 teachers

11. Data Collection - RTA (class set & focal responses) • What ought to be the role or purpose of text-based writing tasks? • What should an effective text-based writing task look like? • Plus artifact-based q’s • Cover sheet • Task • Assessment scheme • 4 pieces of graded student work (2 med., 2 high) • “Overall, how do you think Otis feels about his decision to hire the Tomcat? Explain…using 3-4 examples” (Correnti et al., 2012)

12. Focal Students

13. Qualitative Data Analysis Transcription  Multiple re-readings, analytic memos, iterative inductive coding, constant comparative method  Descriptive case study write-ups  Cross-case comparisons with matrix displays (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994)

14. Schema of Effective Practice: Sample Categories & Codes

15. Enacted Practice:Sample Category Codes - cognitive demand - skill - form of task - focal literary element - type of writing - required use of text - amount- nature- level - pre-writinginstructional activities Prompt Feedback Instruction Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Student Responses - quality of high vs. medium - variation - form of scheme- criteria- levels

16. Perceived Constraints: Sample Categories & Codes (Buechler, 1991; Duffy & Roebler, 1986)

17. Student Learning OutcomeSample Categories • Understanding of nuance of text • Cognitive level at which students approach task • Extent to which prompt is addressed • Claims made • Reasons given in support of claims • Relevance and nature of textual evidence • Explanation of inferences

18. Findings & Discussion

19. Schema of Effective Practice & Enacted Practice

20. Representative Enacted Writing Task

21. Schema of Effective Practice & Enacted Practice

22. Coherence Between Schema & Enacted Practice

23. Perceived Constraints ARLENE CHRIS. CHRIS. ARLENE Arlene Julie JULIE Julie Arlene CHRIS. Julie Julie

24. Student Learning

25. Emergent Hypotheses of Relationships Among Constructs • Enacted practice at least partially aligns with or follows from schema of effective practice. • Enacted practice significantly influences student learning. • Perception of high-level policy-oriented constraints is associated with greater inconsistencies between schema of effective instruction and enacted instruction. • The content and form of the prompt (along with the feedback process) are most susceptible to perceived constraints.

26. …Emergent Hypotheses of Relationships Among Constructs • Coherence among elements of the schema is associated with stronger practice and student outcome. • Prioritizing tasks requiring analysis or interpretation of text is associated with better student outcome. • A schema of effective instruction (and enacted practice) that focuses on providing extensive, explicit guidance on the given prompt hinders students’ development of higher-level thinking skills.

27. Limitations

28. Methodological Limitations • Small sample size • Inter-rater agreement pending • Focus on text-based writing tasks

29. Questions & Comments

30. References

31. References Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (1984). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press. Bishop, A. J. & Whitfield, R. (1972). Situations in teaching. London: McGraw Hill. [out of print] Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification for educational goals. New York: David McKay Company. Buechler, M. (1991). Constraints on teachers’classroom effectiveness: The teacher’s perspective. Policy Bulletin. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Education Policy Center. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244. Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., Hamilton, L., & Wang, E. (2012). Combining multiple measures of students’ opportunities to develop analytic text-based writing. Educational Assessment. (in press). D’Andrade, R. G. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In R. G. D’Andrade, & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models, pp. 23-44. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of educational research, 53, 159-199. Doyle, W, & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129- 149. Duffy, G. & Roebler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education. 37(1), 55-58. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.) Mathematics Teaching: The State of the Art, pp. 249-254. London: Falmer Press.

32. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 249-27). New York: Routledge. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Hess, K. K. (2009). Cognitive rigor matrix. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/CRM_ELA_KH11.pdf Hillocks, G. Jr., & Ludlow, L. H. (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 7-24. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313. Matsumura, L. C. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 207–229. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. B. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions ‘at-scale’. Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267-300. Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A., Levison, A., Peterson, M., Resnick, L, & Junker, B. (2006). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment Toolkit to investigate the quality of reading comprehension assignments and student work. (CSE Technical Report #669). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schutzwohl, A. (1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1182-11. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387-431. Webb, N. L. (2002). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

33. Student Responses Prompt Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Instruction

34. - cognitive demand- skill - form of task - focal literary element - type of writing - required use of text - quality of high vs. medium - variation Student Responses Prompt Writing Task Evaluation Criteria Instruction - pre-writinginstructional activities - criteria- levels