Implementation of Authentic Instruction in Dutch Secondary Schools

IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION IN DUTCH SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Paper Presented at theEuropean Conference on Educational Research, ECER 98; Lljublijana, Slovenia, 17-20 September 1998.

DRAFT VERSION (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE)

Erik Roelofs & Thoni Houtveen
Utrecht University
Department of Educational Sciences
E-mail:
E-mail: / Mailing address:
Utrecht University
Department of Educational Sciences
Heidelberglaan 2
3584 CS Utrecht
The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The national curriculum for the first stage of Dutch secondary education, Basic Education, implies apart from a change in the educational content, also a change in the instructional process. The knowledge students acquire has to be connected to their everyday life and must be meaningfully embedded in society. Furthermore, the student is expected to gain general skills like collaborating, expressing one's opinions, and carrying out research. The accompanying leaving environment asks for active learners and for teachers using strategies to promote meaningful and strategic learning. The main question to be addressed is to what extent do teachers realize authentic instruction, to accomplish this form of learning. In addition, the relation between the implementation of authentic instruction on the one hand and conditions at schools level and teacher level on the other hand was studied.

Based on previous studies and a literature survey a questionnaire and an interview guide have been developed, covering characteristics of authentic instruction, and school and teacher level factors considered important for implementation. A total of 173 teachers, teaching either Dutch language or math, from a representative sample of Dutch secondary schools were included in the study. Data collection took place in the fall of 1996.

The results show that single aspects of authentic instruction are implemented to a reasonable extent, such as referring to students' personal worlds, using process-oriented instruction, and sometimes using forms of cooperative learning. However teachers seldom create learning environments in which the boundaries between school subjects, between in and out of school learning are broken, and the content matter in textbooks is transcended. Important differences exist between math and Dutch language teachers, whereas the first give more attention to process-oriented instruction and the latter more to aspects of cooperation and communication.

Realization of authentic instruction is related with the fulfillment of preconditions regarding the quality of classrooms and (modern) media present, with the extent to which teachers feel capable of teaching in the innovative aspects of Basic Education.

An instructional approach is proposed, that takes into account problems of students characteristics, and still is aimed at meaningful and strategic learning, without falling into the dichotomy of transmission versus construction of knowledge: adaptive instruction for meaningful and strategic learning (AIMS).

1.Introduction

Constructivism and situationism induce a worldwide shift in the theory on learning at school. In general terms, the student’s active role in the acquisition and use of knowledge as well as the importance of interaction both between teacher and students and between students in the acquisition of knowledge are emphasized. Above all, learning situations should be authentic. Other demands are placed on content and teacher behavior in order to enable the creation of constructive, authentic learning situations.

These changing notions are recognized in Basic Education, a major innovation introduced at the start of the school year 1993-1994 in the first stage of Dutch secondary education. All students in the new system receive a national curriculum containing common objectives for 15 subjects and given two years or more to reach these objectives. In the second stage students are reallocated to different levels, leading to certificates for particular streams. Moreover, apart from changes in academic content, the so-called ASC-characteristics were formulated to indicate an ‘ideal’ teaching-learning process in the new program: application, skills, and connectedness (PMB, 1993a; 1993b). According to the Process Management Basic Education[1], applicable instruction implies that the knowledge to be acquired should be lifelike and authentic, and should bear relevance to personal life and society. Learning by doing should occupy an important place. For instruction to be applicable, a number of skills should be developed, like conducting simple research, expressing opinions, cooperating on an assignment and jointly presenting results. The characteristic ‘connectedness’ implies the importance of an evident relation between the main objectives of various school subjects dor instance by means the use of subject-transcending themes. Connectedness also refers to the connection between indoor and outdoor class activities.

Consequently, teaching practices should be directed at the promotion of meaningful and strategic learning situations, which we have summarized by the term 'authentic instruction'.

In this article the question is answered as to what extent authentic instruction is realized by teachers in Basic Education. Furthermore, the connection between the realization of authentic instruction on the one hand and teachers characteristics and school level conditions on the other hand is examined. First, the ASC-characteristics are outlined in more detail. Then recent insights on learning are described and related to the ASC-characteristics. Finally, the design and results of the study are described.

2.Basic Education as innovation

Basic Education aims at a number of objectives. Among them is a general increase of the level of youth education. Increase of that level mainly relates to the change of content and approach of instruction, so students are better equipped to participate in a complex and rapidly changing society (The Dutch Lower House, 1991).

For 15 subjects core objectives are formulated in order to realize Basic Education. As a supplement to these core objectives, the Process Management Basic Education (PMB) as one of its main innovation-supporting activities formulated the so-called ASC-characteristics: application, skills and connectedness (PMB, 1993a; 1993b). Although these characteristics are not part of Dutch law as such, they indicate the direction desired with regard to the teaching strategy.

Application

Application is described by means of three features: recognizability and applicability in instruction and learning by doing. The manner in which knowledge is offered to students should be life-like. Ideally, the subject matter is related to situations recognizable to students from every-day life.

Applicable instruction implies students should be able to apply their knowledge in daily practice, i.e. in personal life and in society. The PMB furthermore describes the feature ‘learning by doing’ which indicates students make themselves familiar with the subject material in an active manner. This comprises 'do-assignments' which involve activities such as presenting, communicating and concrete practical activities.

Skills

Not merely knowledge, but also skills matter greatly. It is emphasized that skills are acquired in connection with ‘application’. The skills can be subject-specific and subject transcending. Five general skills are mentioned specifically: conducting research, expressing opinions, cooperating on assignments, making connections between study and profession, and applying criteria in evaluating assignments. In table 1 these skills are depicted, with sub-objectives per skill.

Apart from these five general skills, two more skills are mentioned: students should learn to live and work independently and with others. Students should know themselves, take care of themselves and determine their behavior in order to realize this objective. The skill to live with others requires for students to know and understand others, to take care of others and to acquire insight into other students’ behavior.

Connectedness

The third characteristic is ‘connectedness’. The PMB mentions three aspects of connectedness: connectedness in content, and connectedness in instruction and counseling, connectedness across organizational levels.

Connectedness in content is displayed in connectedness between subjects and subject areas. This can result in consultation between departments on the basis of common core objectives on the use of themes (project learning), the integration of subjects, and on the reinforcement of relations on the basis of content.

Connectedness in instruction and counseling relates to the subsequent elements: reinforcement of the relation between subject-related classes and student adviser classes, the realization of a collective choice counseling system in school and the connection between indoor and outdoor class activities.

Connectedness across organizational levels. Connectedness across organizational layers revolves around the level which the characteristics application and skills are attuned to: within a department, in some departments, in various or all departments or within the whole school. On all levels connectedness had to be achieved.

The line of thought as stated in the ASC-characteristics was inspired by the changing notions on learning and instruction. Below these changes are outlined.

3.Theoretical framework on the subject of learning

Partly due to the progress in insights in educational psychology, in recent years the conception of learning changed. This changed notion can be summarized with the help of three principles. More and more consensus is reached on these principles.[2]

Learning as a constructive and cumulative process

Influenced by Constructivism, the notion has emerged that students actively construct knowledge by relating new elements of knowledge to cognitive structures already existing (Bruer, 1993). To the constructivists, knowledge is not the result of transmission, but of the student’s own construction of meaning. Knowledge is shaped within a constantly changing social context. It comes into existence by the student’s own actions, by research and active experience, not by passive consumption. Several representations of reality are possible (Vanderbilt Cognition and Technology Group, 1990).

Constructivism is not an entity as such, but it comprises various movements (Phillips, 1995). To sum up, the following principles apply within Constructivism:

1.Students have a natural need to search information. Students are actively organizing creatures as opposed to passively absorbing creatures;

2.Understanding implies more than merely absorbing information. Students impose structure on the information received;

3.The knowledge schemata created change in the course of a child’s development either because it gains experience or spontaneously develops;

4.Understanding is never definitive. Schemata are constantly reorganized by experience and consideration of the experience;

5.The level of the learner's development restricts the extent to which he/she can learn. The amount of students' prior knowledge and experience determine what can be learned;

6.Reflection and reconstruction stimulate learning. Students develop a theory on self-regulated learning (SRL) by reflecting on the way they learn (what worked out and what went wrong?). From this theory, they retrieve the information on what they can and cannot handle in dealing with a particular learning task. Then they check whether their assumptions are correct and accordingly adapt their theory on learning.

In several American innovation projects, experiments were conducted on learning situations in which students had to deal with multiple integrative assignments aimed at knowledge construction. Students were asked to organize complex information, to synthesize, to interpret and to evaluate. In these assignments, students were asked to think of alternative solutions, and to use both various learning strategies and different perspectives, e.g. ‘anchored instruction’ by the Vanderbilt Cognition and Technology Group (1990). The term ‘anchored instruction’ is used because the instruction is imbedded in complex problem situations which are presented to students in order for them to acquire knowledge and skills on the subject of -in this particular case- mathematics.

The developments depicted can wrongly suggest that according to learning psychologists, the learning process should be solely left to the learner. However, this is not the case. It is acknowledged that the independent construction and creation of a flexible knowledge base requires gradual acquisition for a large number of students. As far as Dutch research is concerned, in this respect the works of Boekaerts and Simons (1993) and De Jong (1992) are of great importance. Boekaerts et al. distinguished three different educational regimes in which more or less the students’ learning functions are controlled for by the teacher. By 'learning functions' are meant the cognitive and metacognitive activities by teachers or learners to prepare for learning, to carry out learning and to evaluate learning.

The choice of the regime depends on the learner’s prior knowledge and SRL-capabilities. According to Simons (in Lowyck & Verloop, 1995), the SRL- capability implies the extent to which the student manages different learning functions on his own.

On the basis of an extensive review of literature, De Jong (1992) distinguished seven possible learning environments in which the desired self-regulation can be realized: discovery learning, guided discovery learning, learning by observing, guided participating learning, context-independent learning, goal-oriented expository learning and responsive, social interactive learning. Teachers model their strategies thinking aloud if students do not yet possess sufficient skills. In case problems occur, ‘scaffolds’ can be applied, e.g. teachers give clues or process answers as a response to students’ questions. In the learning situation this is called cognitive apprenticeship (see Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989).

Concluding, the innovation in the theory on learning implies learning should be viewed as a constructive and cumulative process in which the student should increasingly acquire learning functions. The teacher’s task in a constructive and activating learning situation mainly involves stimulation and guidance.

Learning embedded in a specific socio-cultural context

At the beginning of the twentieth century, educational reformers like John Dewey and Peter Peterson already were turning against the alien character of instruction and the gap between learning in and out of school (Imelman & Meijer, 1986). In the Netherlands, so-called traditional innovation schools still exist such as ‘Montessori’-schools, ‘Dalton’-schools, and ‘Jenaplan’-schools. In all these types of instruction, children’s intrinsic urge to learn is appealed to. Moreover, students apply recognizable real life phenomena in a school context. The last ten years, an increasingly stronger learning-theoretical basis developed on learning in meaningful contexts.

A number of modern learning psychologists referred to as situationists (Greeno, 1988, 1996; Lave, 1991; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) emphasize knowledge is the product of activities in a context determined by culture. Knowledge is inextricably interwoven with the social and physical environment in which the knowledge concerned is developed and applied. It is not an abstract factor in itself. For a large part, the context determines the structure and content of, and the connection between the concepts used. Knowledge is related to increasing and changing insights in the user culture. According to the psychologists mentioned above, learning always takes place situated. Their ideas are often indicated by the term ‘situated learning’.

‘Situated learning’ results in a different approach towards learning at school. Great importance is attached to the context in which information is given. The school in itself is a context deviating from real life. Lave (1988) and Resnick (1987) stated learning by ordinary people (‘just plain folks’) and learning by professional practitioners differ little among themselves but differ in a number of respects from learning in a school context. Ordinary and employed people think and act according to concrete situations. Problems in school are abstract and usually lack a concretized framework. Problems are often unclear in real life and working contexts. Adequate structure has to be acquired by means of individual perceptions. In school, assignments are clear, relatively simple and pre-structured. Usually, only one solution is possible. In contexts beyond school, often several solutions are possible and acceptable results are negotiable.

Within the subject pedagogy regarding modern foreign language learning (Van Essen, 1990) and arithmetic/mathematics, learning in a context meaningful to students has been playing a central role for a longer period of time now. These developments were on-going long before the introduction of Basic Education. The insights acquired coincide with those stemming from learning psychology, on which teaching methodologists partly base their views. Daily life is a starting point within teaching-learning processes whenever possible.

As far as meaningful contexts are concerned, personally meaningful contexts and socially or culturally meaningful contexts can be distinguished. Personally meaningful contexts have been dealt with above. Apart from that, Newmann, Marks & Gamoran (1995) discuss ‘value beyond school’. Attention for daily life involves communicating with students about their own experiences and daily life, whereas value beyond school deals with students’ incorporation within a culture of knowledge users (Lave, 1991). In reform pedagogy, learning psychology and in specific subject pedagogy the importance of the application of acquired knowledge and skills is emphasized, even though the terminology differs (resp. 'social defensibility', ‘culture of practice’, and 'application within contexts'). A number of American educational experiments reveal examples: the foundation of a city of the future taking into account conflicting social interests, and conducting research of which results are presented to a real audience (Brown & Campione, 1994). These experiments seem to produce durable effects to students.

This view on learning implies for learning situations, that knowledge should be offered in meaningful situations in which students can be induced to learn. Situations should be meaningful with regard to students’ daily lives and to the student as a member of a culture of knowledge users.

Learning as a process of cooperation and communication

In Resnick’s frequently quoted article (1987) on learning in and out of schools more attention is advocated for tasks in which students cooperate as is the case in many instances of learning beyond school. Constructivism emphasizes knowledge originates from negotiation and is continually subject to outdating. Moreover, students are supposed to acquire a newer and better insight by confrontations of insights via a cognitive conflict. Accordingly, the acquisition of knowledge is regarded as a confrontation of opinions, as well as a process of cooperation and co-construction of knowledge. The application of this principle in projects is mainly retrieved in the ‘community of learners’-approach (Brown & Campione, 1994). This approach has proved to be particularly effective in the development of argumentative and writing skills (Campione, Shapiro & Brown, 1995). This approach assumes a diversity of expertise in class. Each student contributes his own knowledge components. Students cooperate on assignments (such as small research) within which the group result is the first matter of importance and all students are responsible for delivering a contribution. Communicative elements are manifested among others in the presentation of results to fellow students or during mutual contacts via computer networks.