The Role of Classroom Mediation in Young Children's Problem-solving A phenomenographic study. Jean Ashton University of Western Sydney, Nepean PO Box 10, Kingswood, 2747 Telephone: (047) 360732 email: jashton@nepean.uws.edu.au. Paper prepared as part of symposium on "Culture, diversity and learning: the contextualisation of young children's thinking and problem-solving" for the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference (AARE) held in Singapore between 25 - 29 November 1996 Introduction Quality student learning is accomplished in a variety of sociocultural contexts, most especially at school, within the family, and amongst peers. In western society formal learning has become synonymous with institutions such as preschools, schools, colleges and universities. Institutionalised learning within these contexts, and the methods employed to impart assessable knowledge have therefore become the focus of much research over many years. Although a great deal of this attention has been directed toward improving outcomes for primary, high school and even university students, it must be remembered that the early childhood years are also important, indeed they may even constitute the most critical period for the development of cognitive behaviours in young children. Children are at the very threshold of what is likely to be twelve years or more of formal, school based learning. Frequently, the behaviours learnt in the early childhood years impact greatly on the motivation, approaches to learning and eventual outcomes of children as they progress through their school years. This paper, drawn from a PhD study, looks at aspects of the learning behaviours of children in these early childhood years. Even five year olds, in their very first year of school have been found to display attitudes toward learning which are likely to influence their perceptions as they progress into the more demanding school years. Considerable research (Bruner, 1985; Elliott, 1995; Fleer, 1995; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) has shown that the environment within which students learn, and the way teaching is effected has critical implications for the way children learn. Shifting paradigms From a behaviourist perspective on teaching and learning where students were motivated extrinsically by the use of rewards and punishment, the theoretical emphasis shifted dramatically in the 1960s to a more child centred approach which encouraged intrinsically motivating factors. At that time, Piagetian theory and research offered greater insights into the learning process (Fleer, 1995), giving due recognition to the child as an active participator in its own learning. Latterly however, researchers (Bruner, 1985; Rogoff, 1990; Elliott, 1995,) have questioned aspects of Piaget's theory, arguing that while the shift to a more child-centred learning style has been vital and essential for education, there has remained some ambiguity regarding the role of the teacher, which, following the shift, was not quite so clearly defined. Indeed, frequently, the teacher's main responsibility has been to facilitate learning by planning developmentally appropriate activities and through the provision of creative learning environments, where intrinsically motivated, discovery learning could take place. In some instances, most particularly in early childhood settings, and the first years of school, "teaching" per se, has been discouraged as it was felt to inhibit personal initiative and creativity. The greatest challenge to Piagetian learning theory has come from adherents to the work of Vygotsky (1978), such as Wertsch (1985), Bruner (1985), Rogoff (1990), Elliott (1995), and others. They argue that learning, rather than following development as Piaget believed, in fact leads development, and occurs in the social and cultural contexts, such as the classroom, within which children exist. Vygotsky makes reference to the ZPD or Zone of Proximal Development, which represents the potential development possible when assistance by an adult or more able peer is offered (Wertsch, 1985). In this manner, effective learning may be accomplished, often before developmental readiness in the Piagetian sense, as a child works together with an adult, rather than independently. The process offered to mediate thinking between adults (experts) and children (novices) in the ZPD (Elliott, 1995), has been termed "scaffolding" (Bruner, 1985), as it provides a cognitive support mechanism enabling tasks to be completed which otherwise would be beyond the immediate capabilities of children. Effective scaffolding supports immature thinking through a series of prompts, cues, answers, questions, modelled behaviours and suggestions leading eventually to successful task completion. In socially mediated contexts, most scaffolding is verbalised, providing children with a window into skilled thinking processes. The interchange of ideas and thought occurring as a result, leads to a restructuring of cognition (Elliott, 1995). Ultimately as understanding grows, verbal, externally provided thinking, is internalised for use with similar tasks and generalised for application in other domains. Biggs (1988) has even suggested that when children internalise externally provided support, and recognise such support mechanisms as vital for learning and future problem-solving, then they have begun to develop some of the characteristics of deep approach learners. When such cognitive supports are not offered however, or when students are not explicitly taught to use them, then students may well display the characteristics of surface approach learners. Deep versus Surface Learning Approaches According to Biggs and Moore (1993) significant differences are apparent in the learning outcomes of individual children; outcomes reflecting perceptions about learning at either a deep or surface level. Ideas regarding approaches to learning were originally conceptualised by Marton in the 1970s (Biggs & Moore, 1993), who found that students generally approached set tasks with one of two intentions. If, for example, their task was comprehension of text, they might focus on remembering the words used, or alternatively, focus on discovering the author's meaning. Depending on the intention, either rehearsal strategies designed to facilitate rote learning, or else strategies for the creation of links and understanding might be adopted to facilitate meaning. Biggs (1988) suggests that there are three dimensions congruent to learning, namely, motives, strategies and achievement motivation. He has also noted that each of these approaches produces a particular type of outcome or learning, at a deep or surface level. Each of these Biggs (1988) describes as follows: surface, where the motive is to meet institutional requirements minimally and the congruent strategy is limiting the target to essentials that may be reproduced through rote learning; deep, where the motive is intrinsic interest in the content learned, and the congruent strategy is discovering meaning and acquiring competence by reading widely, and inter-relating with existing knowledge; achieving, where the motive is ego enhancement through high grades, and the congruent strategy is organising time, working space, and syllabus coverage in the most efficient way; surface-achieving, where the motive is to achieve, but where the student conceives that the accurate reproduction of much detail, as the way to do so; deep-achieving, where the student is motivated both by interest and high grades, and so approaches work through an organised and strategic search for meaning (Biggs, 1988, p.129). Deep achieving approaches to learning and problem-solving involves the use of metacognitive strategies which requires both self-knowledge as well as task knowledge. Surface approaches on the other hand, suggest a reliance on fact and detail without a clear understanding of the importance of harmony between motive, strategy and achievement. Biggs (1988) goes on to say that because surface approaches rely on rote learning while deep approaches seek meaning, at any given moment, the two are mutually exclusive. Deep achievers not only search for the structure and meaning from learning tasks but also organise their time and context optimally. Although there are a range of influential factors intrinsic to students, such as attention, motivation and self-esteem (Biggs, 1988; Eysenck & Keane, 1996; Meece, 1994; Sinclair, 1991), factors external to the learner, such as the teaching environment and the teaching approach, may be even more crucial. If the teaching environment encourages participation and if children are offered support in their learning endeavours, then attention, motivation and self-concept are more likely to be enhanced. Previously, teachers in many classrooms have been viewed merely as the providers of information, through direct instruction. Anderson (1989) however, suggests that the teacher's role should rather be mediational, effected through interaction with students and through provision of problem-solving tasks. Mediators encourage the use of strategies to help children see conceptual connections between new ideas and skills and encourage the generalisation of these strategies across learning domains. Biggs (1988) notes that as "metacognition" is a process and not an end state, the teaching of cognitive skills should be undertaken "metacognitively", perhaps via special sessions but almost certainly as a regular activity within the context of regular classroom lessons. Ultimately, of course, a better approach to learning must be the outcome of any metalearning activity. Metacognition and the use of metacognitive strategies "Metacognition refers to an awareness of one's own cognitive processes and the self-regulation and the orchestration of those processes in relation to a learning tasks" (King, 1989, p.367). Others have defined the term by dividing it into two components, namely, a "knowledge about cognition" and "regulation of cognition". Pressley, Borkowski, and O'Sullivan (1985) cited by Borkowski, Estrada, Milstead and Hale (1989) have conceptualised metacognition in terms of a number of interactive, mutually dependent components which, they suggest, can assist in explaining differences in problem-solving skills between individual children, when components are weak or misunderstood. Borkowski et al (1989) have identified these components as (a) Specific Strategy Knowledge, (b) Relational Strategy Knowledge, (c) General Strategy Knowledge including attributional beliefs and self-efficacy, and (d) Metacognitive Acquisition Procedures or executive processes. When understanding about these components is strong and executive processes are functioning, then self-regulation of the learning process occurs. Self-regulation Pressley and Ghatala (1990) believe that self-regulated information processing involves knowledge of important concepts, procedural knowledge about specific tasks and metacognitive knowledge about how and when to use procedural knowledge. In addition to this, they suggest that understanding the efficacy of the use of strategies for task achievement is also critical. Self-regulated learners are self-motivated, and willing to continue with tasks, practice or study even without direct extrinsic control. Intrinsic or self-motivation has been thought to derive from student's perceptions of their own self-efficacy, however it has also been linked to their use of self-regulatory behaviours during learning (Zimmerman, 1994). Zimmerman also notes that self-regulating students tend to rely on planned automatised methods of learning, or learning strategies, and he divides these into two major classes: strategies associated with product or outcome, and those associated with the learning or task process itself. It is the latter, "process" strategies which Zimmerman (1994) terms self-regulatory, and which may include, goal setting, planning, organising, transforming, record keeping, rehearsing, memorising, self-monitoring and evaluating. Schunk and Zimmerman (1994, p.ix), note that the cognitive and metacognitive skills which determine self-regulation, refer to "students' self-generated thought, feelings, and actions, which are systematically orientated toward attainment of their goals". Classroom connections Sociocultural theories of learning (Bruner, 1985; Kozulin, 1990; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978) value the efforts of the teacher as an effective mediator in the thinking processes of students. Her task is to scaffold or support these processes as thinking and problem solving proceeds, thereby extending learning beyond students' immediate capabilities. The task of the teacher is also to portray learning as a process involving the use of strategies designed to facilitate understanding for meaning, not just to meet the requirements of the institution within which teaching is carried out. Through verbalisation of the cognitive processes necessary for satisfactory completion of tasks, teachers should encourage students to develop an awareness of a variety of strategies, and how they are used for successful learning. When such strategies are internalised by students for later use with related tasks or generalised for use in other learning domains, then the process of self-regulation has begun. Although most early childhood services in recent times have adopted a Piagetian, child-centred approach to learning, instruction given in schools, especially after the kindergarten, first and second grades, has adopted a more didactic teaching style. It has largely been domain specific focusing on the acquisition of facts, with the development of skills following in a disparate fashion. Anderson (1989), has noted the incongruence in the development of expertise and academic processes and has suggested that the learning of facts and skills in isolation has become the end goal of instruction rather than a means to fuller understanding. Certainly the emphasis placed on formal assessment at higher levels tends to reinforce this. According to Vygotsky (1978), Wertsch (1985) and Rogoff (1990) mediation is most effective during social interactions generally occurring naturally within the classroom, when teacher and students or students working together are engaged in problem-solving tasks. Interaction between teacher and learner, jointly working to reach solutions on problem-solving tasks eventually leads to the internalisation of self-regulatory skills. The first task during mediation is to discourage surface or superficial learning. Children are likely to engage in surface strategies as a matter of pragmatics; as a means of self preservation. Biggs (1988) believes that amongst children who exhibit stress as a consequence of authoritarian attitudes, poor personal relationships, non negotiable assessment procedures and irrelevantly perceived tasks, then the major inducement to surface learning is pressure. The second task during mediation is the corollary to the first, that is, to encourage deep learning. Rather than applying pressure to accomplish tasks, Biggs (1988) suggests that by arousing the interest of students in the task to be completed, then deep learning is likely to result. This will only be accomplished, however if students become actively involved and can be encouraged to reflect on their approach in order to achieve optimal results. As a consequence of, but also integral to the previous mediational tasks, is successful task achievement. In the past, achievement has been associated with the teaching of study skills, however when students are encouraged to optimise the use of their time and working space as well as monitor their study activities, they become self-managers of their own learning and begin to develop an achieving approach (Biggs, 1988). Differences in Learning Approaches High and Underachieving Children Significant differences in the self-regulating strategies and learning approaches used by high and underachieving children are evident (VanLeuvan & Wang, 1991). While high achieving children have been found to adopt a deeper approach to learning, by looking beyond content areas to develop an understanding of the processes required to successfully complete complex tasks, lower achieving children have been found to rely heavily on content, see learning as a means to an end (assessment) and lack the ability to generalise strategy use on a range of tasks. Children who underachieve in classroom tasks are most likely to be motivated by extrinsic factors, such as rewards and punishment; they are more surface oriented and tend to be more critical of themselves. Achievers on the other hand, develop a more personalised belief system and are motivated more frequently by factors intrinsic to themselves or to the task at hand (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994). So, while encouraging children in the classroom to feel confident about themselves and their abilities, to expend greater effort on tasks and to persist in the face of challenge is an admirable goal, it is only through increasing intrinsic motivation, by giving students a sense of personal ownership over their learning, through the acquisition of self-regulating support skills in addition to a knowledge of content material that learning outcomes will ultimately be improved. Self-regulatory skills deficits Underachieving children typically encounter difficulty with tasks in school which require intentional effort and the effective use of metacognitive skills (Palinscar & Klenk, 1992). Many underachieving children have been found to lack the metacognitive skills necessary for self-regulation of their own learning, such as the spontaneous use of attentional and mnemonic strategies, the ability to encode and identify stimulus items and the planning, monitoring and evaluation necessary for such activity (Slife, Weiss & Bell, 1985, citing Hallahan, Kauffman & Ball, 1973, 1976; Torgesen, 1977; Torgesen & Goldman, 1977; Spring, 1976; Spring & Capps, 1974; Palinscar & Klenk, 1992). Deficits in executive processes have also been observed by Snow (1992, p.265), who has suggested that underachievers have "disrupted organisational abilities, generalised memory deficits, difficulties with mental flexibility and poor task initiation". VanLeuvan & Wang (1991) have noted that underachieving children use less self-monitoring verbalisations with their discourses being less self-instructive than their normally achieving peers and they also display greater off-task behaviours. Overall, underachieving children have been found to be generally less accurate than achieving children on a range of metacognitive measures dealing with the regulation of cognition and the ability to monitor and check their own problem solving attempts (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994; VanLeuvan & Wang, 1991). According to Borkowski and Thorpe (1994), underachieving children may fail to comprehend the links between strategy based actions, the importance of focusing effort on specific tasks or elements of a task and the understanding that ability can be measurably enhanced through strategy governed actions. Developing Self-Regulatory Strategies Swanson (1989) has argued that unless underachieving children are explicitly prompted in the use of metacognitive strategies, through consistent teacher scaffolding their ability to access knowledge will remain inert, and their learning efforts are likely to remain at a surface level. Children who are encouraged to develop and subsequently use self-regulatory strategies on problem solving tasks, have been found to display deep learning approaches, which leads in turn to greatly improved performance, frequently reducing the discrepancy between perceived cognitive ability and task related activities. Study Rationale Given the importance of the teaching environment and classroom mediation for the development of metacognitive, self-regulatory skills, as well as the impact they have on students' perceptions of the goals of learning, this paper seeks to address three questions. Initially, it looks at the individual behaviours of a small group of children, some of whom have been previous participators in an experimental teaching program, before moving on to ascertain characteristics of deep or surface approaches to learning. Lastly, differences apparent in the behaviours of children from the experimental group and those from a control group are discussed. Firstly, then, this paper addresses the question of whether children in their first year of school use metacognitive, self-regulatory strategies, and it details the nature of the strategies used. Secondly, the paper addresses how strategic behaviours may indicate qualitatively different approaches to learning amongst individual children. Thirdly, differences in strategy use and the learning characteristics of children who have previously been exposed to learning environments where strategies matched to task have been identified, discussed, modelled and their use encouraged, are also addressed. Methodological Approach Phenomenography According to the International Encyclopedia of Education (Marton, 1994, p.4424) phenomenography has been described as "the empirical study of the limited number of qualitatively different ways in which various phenomena in, and aspects of, the world around us are experienced, conceptualised, understood, perceived and apprehended". From a phenomenographical perspective, these differences are characterised in terms of categories of description which are logically related to one another and form hierarchies in relation to given criteria. The characterisation of the qualitative differences in the outcome of learning has been found to be based on students' accounts of their understanding of learning tasks. Students who focus on meaning are said to have adopted a deep approach to their learning while those who focus on being able to simply reproduce task elements, are believed to have adopted a surface approach. In numerous studies, Marton and Saljo (1976) and Marton, Hounsell and Entwistle (1984) found that deep approaches to learning were closely associated with higher categories of outcome while surface approaches were associated with shallow understanding which led to lower categories of outcome. From this viewpoint, it was therefore determined that some students are better at learning because they differ in their approach to learning tasks. The way children understand certain phenomena, for example, their approach to mathematical concepts such as numbers, is of vital importance to the way they will deal with arithmetic problems, which ultimately will affect mathematical outcomes on given tasks. Prosser (1993), as well as Walsh, Dall'Alba, Bowden and Martin (1993), suggests that because individual students even within the same class will inevitably experience substantially different teaching emphases, the phenomenon of any lesson is therefore different for each student. Logically then, from any one classroom encounter, one student will have gleaned information about mathematics as being the development of understandings about facts, knowledge and skills, for future reproduction (the "what" of the experience), while another will have viewed the same session as focusing on the concepts and processes (the "how") of tackling mathematics problems. Within the same classroom, although the reality of a lesson may be identical for all children, "what" and "how" that reality is experienced will be qualitatively different for each individual. Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas and Prosser (1994) believe that students' conceptions of learning and how learning occurs, can be determined by analysing data in terms of deep and surface activity. Surface approaches to learning are demonstrated when attention and activity are centred on short term, instrumental goals often seen as the mandatory reproduction of knowledge acquired through transmission by experts such as the teacher. Conversely, deep approaches to learning indicate a more global perspective in which existing conceptions and understandings are revised, internalised and applied when confronted by new information (Entwistle & Marton, 1984). The type of approach employed to learning closely relates to the academic outcome (Marton & Saljo, 1976). Surface approaches almost inevitably rule out the possibility of a deep outcome, however the reverse is not necessarily inevitable. Entwistle and Marton (1984) suggest that while a deep approach to learning is necessary for full understanding, it does not always appear to be solely sufficient as previous knowledge as well as cognitive skills will affect the degree to which deep intention is converted into a deep outcome. It even appears to be possible, to move within a single task, between surface and deep approaches (Laurillard, 1984). Laurillard found that variations in approach are consistent with students' perceived thoughts on task purpose, the nature of the task, their relationships with the tutor and their interest in, and considered importance of the proposed task. Entwistle and Marton (1984) noted that while there is basic consistency in the problem solving approaches of deep learners, there will inevitably be some variability and that it should not be a surprise that certain tasks, or teachers may influence students to vary from what may otherwise be a habitual way of approaching learning. What appears to be important from the phenomenographic perspective is the ways students experience teaching, having regard to both the "what" (the content) and the "how" (concepts and processes) (Prosser, 1993). If deep level approaches to learning are necessary for full understanding of even the content material, then teaching sessions must be delivered in a manner which will encourage students to develop the concepts and processes associated with this type of approach. From a phenomenographic perspective, student task outcomes may not necessarily reflect the reality of general classroom teaching. What they may reflect however, is the student's experience of a teaching session and demonstrate whether or not that experience has helped to develop a deep or surface approach to learning. Prosser and Webb (1994, p.125), note that phenomenographic research is generally conducted from within a "second order perspective" in which the focus is on describing the experience of learning from the viewpoint of the student. Although the "voices" of the students in this study are as frequently non-verbal as they are verbal, the approach has nonetheless been adopted because the language displayed when engaged in problem solving tasks, has been felt to be a significant indicator of approaches to learning. Participants Participants were selected in conjunction with a previous study which measured changes in the mathematical performance of four kindergarten classes (plus four control classes) over a six week period of experimental teaching. During this time, teachers who had undergone an intensive training program, taught mathematics "metacognitively". Each teacher explicitly discussed, modelled and promoted the use of a range of strategies designed to encourage self-regulation. Eight children from the experimental classrooms, and eight from the control group (four high achievers and four low achievers from each group) completed a range of selected tasks, following the post-test stage of that study. All children were from similar social and economic backgrounds and all attended schools on the North Shore of Sydney. Children were matched as closely as possible for age and gender. Each child was either five or six years of age and all were in their first year of school, having already completed three terms of regular classroom tuition, prior to the study. Procedures Several problem-solving tasks were devised for the study described in this paper to ascertain children's' self-regulatory behaviour, when presented with a variety of mathematical puzzles, one of which was a maze (Appendix A). Children were instructed to find a path through the maze which took them, once only, through every opening. Several data collection methods were used in the original study such as the TEMA-2 (Test of Early Mathematical Ability - Edition 2) and the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (Harter, 1982). The results from these tests were also used in the thesis from which this paper is drawn. Videotaped session The problem-solving activity of all children was videotaped for viewing and observation. From these videos, each child's metacognitive, self-regulatory behaviour could be monitored, and recorded to determine frequencies of strategy use. In addition to this attitudinal behaviours such as attention, interest and motivation were noted. Each child's task behaviour was recorded for approximately half and hour, depending on the motivation and attention of the individual. If a child's attention and enthusiasm waned to the point where it was not able to be brought back to task, then the session was terminated. Analysis Videotaped material was transcribed and the videotapes replayed many times in order to ascertain whether aspects of metacognitive, self-regulatory strategies which had previously been categorised on other studies (Brown & Palinscar, 1982) were suitable for this analysis. In addition to these identified strategies, numerous behaviours were discerned which were felt to characterise each strategy. Based on these identified strategies and their characterisations, a recording matrix was devised (Appendix B). Both verbal (such as direct questions or statements) as well as non-verbal (shake of the head, tracing with finger, pointing) behaviours were deemed to be indicators of self-regulation. Observations of each child as they completed the tasks were analysed for evidence of strategy use, and their behaviours noted on the recording matrix (see sample - Appendix B). Results and Discussion Use and range of Strategies Firstly, while not all children displayed the same confidence in strategies, nor used them to the same degree, even after only three terms of school, all children were found to use a range of strategic behaviours to assist learning and problem-solving. Four specific strategies were found in students' problem-solving behaviours; (1) Identifying Problem; (2) Planning Task; (3) Self Monitoring; and (4) Reflection. A range of responses was found to characterise each strategy. Strategies and their components were only identified after numerous screenings of the videotaped data by several independent researchers to ensure reliability. These four strategies and their components were combined to create a recording matrix. For example, strategy number 1 which has been labelled "Identifying Problem", was characterised by four tasks used most frequently by children as (a) Questioning the teacher about problem; (b) clarifying problem with teacher; (c) seeking confirmation of perceived problem; and (d) concentrating during explanation (See Table 1). Table 1 Identified Strategies and the characteristics common to each strategy. Strategy 1 Identifies Problem Characteristics Questions Child questions teacher about task Clarifies Questions or comments to clarify objective Confirms Child questions, comments to confirm understanding Concentrates Child attends with concentration when task explained Strategy 2 Plans Task Points Child points or moves finger when planning moves Plans Child verbally outlines plan (if I go there...., perhaps I should......) Alternatives Child verbally or non verbally considers alternatives Goal Questions, states, confirms or indicates non-verbally final goal Strategy 3 Self-Monitors Thinks Child obviously thinking about task Attends Child attends to task Self-Questions Child uses self-quest techniques (should I do that? Where should I go now?) Discuss Child discusses task with teacher Concentrates Obvious concentration to meet task demands Change Changes strategy if necessary Checks Checks previous moves and assesses next Retrace Retrace to error Strategy 4 Reflection Review Child reviews either verbally or non-verbally elements of task Challenge Child challenged to consider performance may review strategy However, as Table 2 suggests there were considerable differences in the frequency of strategic behaviours used by different children. Most of the students who had previously been identified as high achievers, demonstrated considerably greater use of metacognitive strategies, and self-regulatory behaviours, than their lower achieving peers. This of course is consistent with the research (Borkowski, Weyhing & Turner, 1986; King, 1989; Pressley & Ghatala, 1990) which suggests that both a knowledge of as well as the consistent use of higher order strategies is at least one contributing factor in the academic outcomes of children. Successful academic performance, is just one however, of a range of outcomes evident amongst children who frequently use metacognitive strategies when learning and problem-solving. Another significant outcome of self-regulation through strategy use is a way of viewing learning as a desire for meaning, by incorporating newly acquired knowledge into existing schemata, through the adoption of deep level learning approaches Table 2 Observable frequencies of strategy use on Maze puzzle _____________________________________________________________ Experimental Grp Control Grp n=8 n=8 ________________________________________________________________________ Strategy 1 - Establish ProblemHL H L __________________________________________ Questions 2 1 2 1 Clarifies 3 1 2 1 Confirms 2 1 1 Concentrates 2 2 3 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Strategy 2 - Planning Task __________________________________________ Points 2 1 1 1 Plans move 2 2 2 1 Alternatives 2 1 1 Goal 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Strategy 3 - Self-monitoring __________________________________________ Thinks 3 1 2 1 Attends 3 1 1 Self Questions 1 Discusses 3 1 1 Concentrates 3 3 3 1 Change 3 1 1 1 Checks 2 1 2 Retrace 3 2 1 ________________________________________________________________________ Strategy 4 - Reflection ___________________________________________ Review 3 3 3 1 Challenge 1 2 ________________________________________________________________________ ______ Qualitative differences in learning approaches amongst individual children The strategic behaviours observed, and the frequency of which are noted in Table 2, have suggested that there were qualitative differences in the approaches to learning adopted by the children. Strategic behaviour alone however, did not always match the achievement performance of the child, nor was it always an indicator of a deep or surface learning approach. Nevertheless, when coupled with a range of internal factors such as attention, motivation and self-concept, the problem-solving behaviours of several children suggested that they viewed learning and problem-solving tasks as a search for meaning. This was quite different to the behaviours of others which suggested that most school based tasks were perceived as chores to be completed to meet institutional requirements. Take Andrew, for example, a high achieving child, who almost certainly approached learning at a deep level. Not only did Andrew attend to the task with great concentration and interest, but his self-concept was high and he was motivated by a sense of challenge and fun. For Andrew, there was as great an emphasis on the process of the task as on its ultimate completion. Indeed, the two appear to be so intricately linked that in the understanding of the child, the task and its process are not seen as two aspects of a whole but indeed, as the whole itself. For Andrew then, thinking about and ultimately solving the problem was a process, involving the use of a range of strategies which included initially clarifying the problem ("Where do you have to go?"), planning the task (while tracing through the plan with his finger, says "If I go down like this.....down there........I mean...I'll come through that....), self-monitoring task progress (monitors behaviour by clarifying problem again saying "Can you go through there twice.......to get back there"......points to where started), and finally reflecting on his successful outcome ("Well I'd already worked out the way in my mind and that's where I started"). Observations of other children suggested that their orientation to learning was at a more surface or superficial level. For them, tackling problem-solving tasks was a chore to be completed in the shortest possible time. As well as keeping strategic behaviours to a minimum, some of these children displayed other behavioural characteristics such as anxiety, impulsiveness and a high need for approval. Timothy was one such child! A classmate of Andrew's, Timothy was a little boy who was underachieving on all academic tasks. He did not display the same degree of strategic behaviour, and indeed he was anxious to just complete the task rather than invest any time and effort in procuring a successful outcome. For example, indicators of problem understanding were only assumed following observation of the videos, as no dialogue ensued as Timothy concentrated while the goal was explained. Planning strategies were evident only when Timothy attempted the maze task a second time as he said "Start from here" (while placing pencil at a point on the plan). Regulation of the task was teacher rather than student directed, and reflection only occurred after considerable prompting. The frequency of strategy use therefore, displayed by Andrew and Timothy as they worked on one task (the maze) are markedly different, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Observable frequencies of strategy use on Maze puzzle - Andrew & Timothy _____________________________________________________________ AndrewTimothy ________________________________________________________________________ All Strategies__________________________________________ (all characteristics) 17 7 ________________________________________________________________________ While Andrew and Timothy both used strategic behaviours to facilitate problem-solving, Andrew was motivated by the challenge of the task to use them more frequently, directing his attention to the more relevant aspects of the tasks for special processing. Already, even at the age of six, Andrew and Timothy have developed many of the characteristics of deep or surface learning approaches. If surface learning approaches are to be challenged and possibly redirected, then the learning environment must be supportive and the goals of learning must be clearly established. The importance of the learning environment The learning environments within which each child worked were significantly different. Eight of the children had participated in an experimental program where the teacher scaffolded cognition, discussed and modelled strategies and encouraged children to meet challenges and expand their own thinking. The remaining eight children had been participators in regular classrooms where "best practice" was adopted, but where strategy instruction was not a feature. Some quite significant differences in strategic behaviour and self-regulation were evident between those students who had participated in the experimental study and the children from the control. Much higher frequencies of strategic behaviour were recorded amongst the students who had been explicitly taught to use self-regulating strategies, irrespective of their achievement level (see Table 2). In most cases the students from the control group were generally less inclined to question the researcher, discuss the problems, or verbalise their thoughts. It may be assumed therefore that the learning environments of the students in the experimental groups were effective in encouraging attention, and in motivating students to examine their own learning behaviours through the use of metacognitve, self-regulating strategies. Teachers in both experimental and control groups demonstrated their affection, concern and care, both in a pastoral as well as an academic sense. While the teachers in the control groups however, gave clear instruction, support when necessary and positive rewards such as "Well done!""Good try!", the teachers in the experimental groups were more focused in their behaviour. They stretched students' own cognitive processes by probing and teasing through questioning and modeling. Cognitive thinking was discussed with the children and a range of strategies were explored. Feedback was frequent but challenging as well as rewarding with comments such as "You worked that plan out really well, before you started the task""That was a good try, but do you see where you have made the error?""Where could we move instead?" Conclusion Even in the first years of school many of the behaviours which support effective learning are already present. While acknowledging that the home and preschool environments are also likely contributors to the development of such behaviours, it is the school, which will have the most significant impact on formal learning, from the time a child enters the kindergarten year. Although a thorough understanding of strategies takes months and years to develop, after only six weeks of "metacognitive" teaching, the students from the experimental groups displayed considerably greater frequencies of metacognitive, self-regulating behaviour than did the students from the control groups. Even the strategic behaviours of the lower achieving students from the experimental groups were considerably higher than those of the control groups. On some tasks, the frequency of behaviours of the low achieving students from the experimental group almost matched the frequency of behaviours displayed by the high achievers in the control groups. Differences in achievement can often be explained by adopting a phenomenographic approach which helps us understand why some children achieve at a higher level than others. It is suggested that the what (the content) and the how (processes) of the material being learnt, are intertwined and indeed inseparable (Prosser, 1993). It may be assumed then, that each student's expression of what has been previously taught, is a reflection of the way material delivered in the classroom (or at home) has been understood. Andrew, for instance, the high achiever who displayed self-regulatory characteristics suggestive of deep approaches to learning, such as intrinsic motivation and the use of metacognitive strategies, is presumed to have understood classroom instruction in those terms. Contrastingly, Timothy, an underachiever who was extrinsically motivated to complete the task as rapidly as possible, and whose main focus was on reproducing what he already knew, may be presumed to have understood classroom instruction in those terms. If it is possible to significantly increase the metacognitive, self-regulatory strategy behaviours of students then presumably, it is also possible to modify the perceptions about learning held by individual students. While it is recognised that strategy instruction is a long term affair (Brown and Pressley (1994; Pressley, 1995) and that effective problem-solving and self-regulatory strategies need to be offered as part of general classroom practice throughout the whole school year, and in all subject domains, even after six weeks significant behaviours can be noted. As important however, is clear training advising when strategies should be used, the type of strategy likely to be of most benefit and the importance of strategies for increased academic performance. In addition to this teachers must clearly impart the goal of learning, focusing more on its intrinsic worth to the learner than on assessment. The findings from this study suggest that the learning behaviours of children in their first year of school can be enriched through the adoption of metacognitive teaching programs. Research (Bruner, 1985; Elliott, 1995; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) highlights the role of the classroom teacher once more, as crucial for the development of the facts and skills required for assessment purposes, but also for knowledge of the strategies necessary for deep transferable understanding of the processes required for successful task outcomes. Ultimately the aim of instruction must be to ensure that students are confident, competent and eager to regulate their own learning and problem-solving. Self-regulation is enhanced by knowledge of important concepts, procedural knowledge about specific tasks and metacognitive knowledge about how and when to use procedural knowledge (Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). Students who are competent at regulating their own learning tend to engage in activity for meaning, thereby adopting a deep approach. Deep learners are intrinsically motivated and develop both task knowledge as well as the metacognitive skills necessary to apply it across a range of situations (Biggs, 1988). Surface learners tend to rely on fact and detail rather than processes, and show significant deficits in their understanding of and their ability to use metacognitive, self-regulatory skills. Phenomenograhic approaches to analysis of student's learning indicates that deep level understanding, developed through the use of metacognitive, self-regulatory strategies leads most frequently to high levels of achievement (VanLeuvan & Wang, 1991). Conversely, shallow understanding, where the focus is primarily on reproduction of facts or skills, has been linked to low overall levels of achievement (Marton & Saljo, 1976; Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1984). Classroom interactions have been thought to hold the key to understanding much about the approaches that students adopt in their learning. Prosser (1993) has suggested that if deep level approaches to learning are to be adopted by students, then teaching sessions must be delivered in a manner which will encourage students to use strategies, and to look beyond the mere reproduction of facts. By teaching and encouraging the use of metacognitive, self-regulatory strategies, in addition to facts and skills, students gain a sense of personal ownership of their learning which leads to increased intrinsic motivation for future tasks (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994). References Anderson, L.M. (1989). Implementing instructional programs to promote meaningful, self-regulated learning. Advances in Research on Teaching, 1, 311-343. Biggs, J.B. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32, (2) 127-138. Biggs, J.B. & Moore, P.J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd Edition). NY, Prentice Hall. Borkowski, J.G., Estrada, M.T., Milestead, M. & Hale, C.A. (1989). General problem solving skills: Relations between Metacognition and Strategic processing. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 57-70. Borkowski, J.G. & Thorpe, P.K. (1994) Self-regulation and motivation: a life-span perspective on underachievement. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp 45- 73). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A.L., & Palinscar, A.S. (1982). Induced strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-controlled training. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-7. Brown, R. & Pressley, M. (1994). Self-regulated reading and getting meaning from text: the transactional strategies instruction model and its ongoing validation. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp155-179).Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: An historical and conceptual perspective. In J.V.Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp21-34). London, Cambridge University Press. Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: the perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 4 (4), 331-345. Elliott, A. (1995). Scaffolding young children's learning in early childhood education settings. In M. Fleer (ed). DAP Centrism: Challenging developmentally appropriate practice. Canberra, AECA. Entwistle, N. & Marton, F. (1984). Changing conceptions of learning and research, in F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle, The Experience of learning. Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press. Eysenck, M.W. & Keane, M.T. (1996). Cognitive Psychology: A student's handbook. UK, Psychology Press. Fleer, M. (ed.) (1995). DAP Centrism: Challenging developmentally appropriate practice. Canberra, AECA. Harter, S.(1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development. 53 (1), 87-97. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students' comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366-381. Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's Psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Lancy, D.F. (1993). Qualitative research in education: an introduction to the major traditions. New York, Longman, Laurillard, D. (1984). Learning from problem-solving, in F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N.J. Entwistle (eds.) The Experience of Learning. Scottish Academic press, Edinburgh. Levin, J.R. (1986). Four cognitive principles of learning-strategy instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21 (1 & 2), 3-17. Marton, F.(1994). Phenomenography: T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.) Volume 8, Pergamon. Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experience of learning. Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press. Meece, J.L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp25-44). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mehan, H. (1993). Why I like to look: On the use of videotape as an instrument in educational research. In M. Schratz (Ed.) Qualitative Voices in Educational Research, London, The Falmer Press. Palincsar, A.S. & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering Literacy Learning in Supportive Contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (4) 211-225. Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30 (4), 207-212. Pressley, M. & Ghatala, E.S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3-17. Prosser, M. (1993). Phenomenography and the principles and practices of learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 12 (1), 21-31. Prosser, M., & Webb, C. (1994). Relating the process of undergraduate essay writing to the finished product. Studies in Higher Education, 19 (2), 125-138. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking - Cognitive Development in a Social Context. New York, Oxford University Press. Sinclair, K.E. (1991). Students' affective characteristics and classroom behaviour. In K. Marjoribanks (Ed.) The foundations of students' learning. Sydney, Pergamon Press. Slife, B.D., Weiss, J. & Bell, T. (1985). Separability of Metacognition and cognition: problem solving in learning disabled and regular students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (4) 437-445. Snow, J.H. (1992). Mental Flexibility and Planning Skills in Children and Adolescents With Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (4) 265-270. Swanson, H.L. (1989). Strategy Instruction: Overview of Principles and Procedures for Effective Use. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 3- 14. VanLeuvan, P. & Wang, M.C. (1991). The nature of students' self- monitoring in the first and second grade. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, April, 1991. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard Press. Walsh, E., Dall'Alba, G., Bowden, J. & Martin, E. (1993). Physics students' understanding or relative speed: a phenomenographic study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30 (9), 1133-1148. Wertsch, J.V. (1985).Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: a conceptual framework for education. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp3-21). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.