Vršnik Perše, Tina; Ivanuš Grmek, Milena; Javornik Krečič, Marija
Planning for lessons – teachers and students perspective
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of
Ghent, 19-21 September 2007
In the first part the paper defines the grounds and the effects of the teachers’ planning for
lessons. The second part presents the outcomes of the empirical evaluation study about the
teaching practices and curriculum in the general upper secondary school (gymnasium) from
the teachers’ and students perspective. The results will be presented that will indicate: the self
evaluated frequency of different planning strategies by the teachers; the frequency of
teachers’ preparation of students for the following lessons; the frequency of including
students into teachers’ planning of lessons. The results will also indicate the differences
between teachers and students estimates.
Regarding characteristics of the 21st century society transferring knowledge by a teacher to
the students is not enough for them to gain the kind of knowledge needed for the development
of successful life strategies. Learning process is not only determined by the content of the
lessons but also largely by the methods used by the teacher. The methods as well as the
content to some extent are both affected by the teachers’ planning for lessons. That comprises
every day and long-term planning for gaining the long-term goals.
The question on how should lesson be undertaken to stimulate students' mental activity and to
allege them for independence and quality knowledge refers particularly to the teaching
methods. Still classifications of teaching methods are not enough – it is important to set exact
theoretical grounds and the following structure of education strategies. It is important to keep
educational goals insight and to determine the methods for achieving them.
It should also be emphasized that the purpose of the method isn’t only to mediate but also to
change; not only to learn the content but also to form the methodological and methodic
thinking of students. Therefore it is reasonable to use the term the strategy and not only the
term method. The lessons should be focused on students, not only on goals and methods, they
should be differentiated and individualized to enable the students to anticipate and to
participate.
It should also be said that one can not derive the teaching methods directly from the
constructivism theory (B. Marentič Požarnik, 2004: 50). But again there are some methods
that contribute more to students’ active participation and gaining certain goals then other
methods. Also it must be emphasized that planning (and implementing) the experimental
learning and teaching methods requests a lot of knowledge, skills, discretion and flexibility.
Teacher should be able to influence and form certain class relations, to empathize with
students and to balance their guidance and independence. The planning for lessons comprises
of planning the lessons’ content, theoretical framework, educational strategies and of the
evaluation of the achieved goals. The planning of lessons is vital for the success of the
learning process, regardless of the level of education.
Methodology
Some results will be presented based on the research project Evaluation of the gymnasium
education with regards to complexity of curriculum, cohesion of knowledge and
representativeeness of goals. The gymnasium in Slovenia is general upper secondary school,
preparing students for entering the university education. It is a 4 year upper secondary school
and the students are between 15 and 19 years old.
The research study was carried out in January 2006. The study was carried out on 3104
students and 420 teachers from 29 out of 56 gymnasiums in Slovenia. The data was collected
using anonymous questionnaires. The questionnaires for the students and the teachers both
incorporated the same contents and additionally some questions were only designed for the
teachers’ questionnaires. There were descriptive and causal non-experimental methods used
for the analysis of the data.
Results
Both students and teachers were answering the question type: How often do you… and the
possible answers were:
1 – never
2 – rarely
3 – sometimes
4 – frequently
5 – always
The presented results are the mean of the given answers.
Firstly let’s look at the characteristics of the preparation for lessons of teachers and students.
Graph 1: Preparation for lessons of teachers for teaching 1st or 2nd year vs. teachers for
teaching 3rd or 4th year – self evaluation of teachers
4,30
3,40
2,5
2
3,32
3,30
3,80
3
3,64
3,5
3,82
4
4,26
*
*
4,22
3,98
3,76
3,20
3,91
4,29
4,5
1,5
*
Teacher prepares exercises
for practicing corseware
Teacher includes the up-todate topics into lesson
preparation
Teacher prepares for each
lesson separatley (in writting)
*
Teacher searches for
information, point of interes on
internet
*
Teacher prepares
assessories (didactic tools)
required for lesson
*
0
Teacher searches for
(additional) literature on the
discussed topic
0,5
Teacher pays regards to
pupils' requests and interests
during lesson planning
1
1st and 2nd year
3rd and 4th year
On average teachers indicated that they use each of the items frequently (label 4) – between
sometimes and always.
Almost all items of the questionnaire indicated that the teachers of senior classes statistically
significantly more often implement these items when planning the lessons. The only non
significant difference was
indicated with item Teacher prepares accessories (didactic tolls)
requires for lesson. Therefore one could argue that teachers are more focused on lessons
planning in senior classes than in junior classes.
Table 1: Reasons for differences in lessons’ planning of teachers regarding the grade
Teachers' planning differs between junior classes and senior classes
because of:
F
Students' maturity
173
Approaching of the matura (final) exam
145
Familiarity with students' interests and requests
100
Lack of time
41
Other
47
Note: participants could answer more then one answer.
Teachers indicated the maturity of students and approaching matura (final) exam most
frequently as reasons for differences in lessons’ planning of teachers regarding the grade.
Evidently teachers perceive senior students as more mature and ready to comprehend the
lessons and are therefore more engaged in planning lessons for senior students. However,
since the teacher contributes most for students’ maturing it would be even more important to
exactly plan the junior lessons. If planning for lessons is done less frequently and is more
superficial for teaching in junior classes the students will become aware of it and their attitude
towards school will be resembling. Different attitude of teachers in junior classes on
presenting and understanding the lessons content might influence the students’ attitude on
school and learning.
The second reason for differences in lessons’ planning of teachers regarding the grade is
according to teachers the up-coming matura (final) exam. Meanwhile they are not aware of
the fact that by continuous planning since the 1st grade a lot of problems emerging during
matura final exams would be effectively prevented. Such problems are: lack of study and
learning skills, to many contents, lack of time, etc.
Let me illustrate the outcomes by a teachers’ response to this question – she has stated that
she has only realized during answering our questionnaire that she is handling the lessons’
planning differently for junior or senior students. Meaningful comment - it indicates that at
least this teacher did not reflect much on her actions, their theoretical grounds and effects.
Graph 2: Preparation for lessons of 1st or 2nd year students vs. 3rd or 4th year students
4
3,48
3,79
3,5
3,69
*
2,19
*
1st and 2nd year
*
Students only complete what teacher asks
of them
*
Students practice on exercises that they
find for themselves
2,14
Students prepare the assessories required
for lessons
*
Students prepare for potential oral
examination
*
Students search for (additional) literature on
discussed topics
Students revise the topics of last lesson
1,48
1,45
*
0
Students read from textbook about next
lessons' topics
0,5
1,95
1,76
1,81
1,32 1,43
1,5
1
1,97
Students prepare questions on topics of
interest
2,51
2
2,55
Students search for information on the
internet
2,08
2,5
3,33
3,13
3
3rd and 4th year
Considering the differences of lessons’ planning of teachers for junior and senior classes it is
extremely interesting to look at the data on how often students prepare for lessons. The first
difference is in frequency of preparing for lessons. As seen on the graph the students on
average prepare for lessons less frequently then teachers. Only on one or two items their
responses were that they implement it sometimes or frequently. Most items they implement
rarely on average. Also it is interesting that junior students statistically important more
frequently prepare for lessons than senior students on most items.
The results have also indicated that students often prepare for lessons only in terms of
preparing the accessories and complete the tasks given by the teachers, which are important
external motivation factors. On the other hand the factors that would indicate students’
internal motivation are only mentioned rarely or never.
One of the research questions was also the question on how often do teachers include students
into preparing / planning the lessons. Here only few items are presented that were included in
the questionnaire to explore this research question, but the trends are similar in all items. The
differences will be presented between teachers’ and students’ perspective and between math
and mother tongue (Slovene) in the 1st and 4th grade.
Graph 3: Teacher presents the educational goals to the students before discussing new topic –
teachers and students estimation
4,5
4,5
4
4
3,5
3,5
3
3
2,5
2,5
2
2
1,5
1,5
1
1
0,5
0,5
0
0
teachers
students
Mother tounge 1
Math 1
Mother tounge 4
Math 4
Graph 4: Teacher considers students’ observations and suggestions regarding methods of
teaching
4
4
3,5
3,5
3
3
2,5
2,5
2
2
1,5
1,5
1
1
0,5
0,5
0
0
teachers
students
Mother tounge 1
Math 1
Mother tounge 4
Math 4
The differences between estimations of teachers and students were statistically important on
most of the items regardless of the teaching subject or grade. Statistically important were
teachers’ estimates higher than students’ – according to teachers they are including students
into specific factors of preparing the lessons more often the according to the students.
Graph 5: Teacher encourages students to suggest changes and supplements of discussed topics
3,5
3,5
3
3
2,5
2,5
2
2
1,5
1,5
1
1
0,5
0,5
0
0
teachers
students
Mother tounge 1
Math 1
Mother tounge 4
Math 4
Graph 6: Teacher consults with students on their requisites for next lesson
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Mother tongue 1
Math 1
Mother tongue 4
teachers
students
Math 4
Also it is interesting that both students and teachers regarding the grade on average reported
statistically importantly different frequencies of including students into preparing the lessons.
In other words there are statistically important differences in including students into planning
the lessons in 1st and in 4th grade both by the students’ and by the teachers’ estimates. On
most items both students and teachers reported of more frequent inclusion of students into
lessons planning in the 4th year.
Conclusions
The results indicated statistically significant differences in the estimation of the frequency of
different characteristics of planning for the lessons between groups of teachers and students.
It is plausible to argue that the reason for the discrepancy could be the level of critical
evaluation of the matter by the students and the lack of criticism of the teachers. The
differences caused some concerns since it raises the question on quality and adequacy of the
communication between teachers and students concerning the learning process.
The evaluation study attempted to determine how the curriculum changes performed in
practice. It can be gathered that teachers on average estimate most in the questionnaire
included characteristics of the lessons as frequently or always present – here we have
presented the factors of lessons’ planning. But when asking the students the same questions it
becomes obvious that teachers’ intentions don’t reach the students, namely the students often
don’t perceive the teacher’ intentions and efforts.
The realization of the great differences in perceiving of specific actions by teachers and
students is valuable. At the same time it is concerning. Namely it is possible that teachers do
believe that they are “doing the right thing”, but they are implementing them in the
framework of their own conceptions and experience.
Let me illustrate: teachers believe that they are determining the teaching goals but in fact they
only announce the topic; they believe that they are providing students with the feedback when
assessing but they only give them the grade without the explanation why, etc. They proceed
from their own experience and therefore they understand the links that are invisible for
students without those experience that are in first contact with the matter. Some students’
comments illustrate that: professors don’t realize that we (students) have to be prepared for
more then 6 school subjects every day in therefore can’t be self-evident that we will
remember last years content for all of them. Teachers renew their knowledge each year with
younger students, but us, we forget…
Not only the students then, but also the teachers should be constantly reminded of their
obligations and of the obligations for students. With respecting the students they will win the
respect back.
References
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. What the student does.
Buckingham: Open university Press.
Ivanuš Grmek, M.& Javornik, Krečič, M. (2004). Impact of external examinations
(Matura) on school lessons. Educational Studies, 30, št.3, str. 319-329
Ivanuš Grmek, M. & Kobal Grum, D. & Novak, B. & Vršnik Perše, T. & Javornik Krečič, M.
& Rutar, T. (2006). Evalvacija gimnazijskega izobraževanja z vidika obsežnosti učnih
načrtov, povezanosti znanja in zastopanosti ciljev (Evaluation of the gymnasium
education with regards to complexity of curriculum, cohesion of knowledge and
representativeeness of goals). Končno poročilo - Final report. Ljubljana: Pedagoški
inštitut.
Javornik Krečič (2003). Spreminjanje didaktične paradigme vzgojno-izobraževalnega
procesa v srednji šoli (Changing the didactial paradigms of the education preocess in
the upper secondary school). Magistrsko delo. Maribor: Pedagoška fakulteta
Javornik Krečič, M. (2004b). Priprava dijakov na obravnavo nove učne snovi in vloga
učitelja pri tem (Preparing studets for discussing new teaching contents and the role of
the teacher. Pedagoška obzorja 19(3/4), 26−36.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional Growth Among Preservice and Beginning Teacher.
American Educational Research Journal, 2, 129−169.
Marentič Požanik, B. (2004). Konstruktivizem v šoli in izobraževanje učiteljev
(Constructivism in schools and teachers' trainning). Ljubljana:
Center za pedagoško izobraževanje Filozofske fakultete
Rutar Ilc, Z. (2003). Pristopi k poučevanju, preverjanju in ocenjevanju (K novi kulturi
pouka) (Teaching, testing and assessing aproaches). Ljubljana: Zavod Republike
Slovenije za šolstvo.
Šteh, B. (2000). Kakovost učenja in poučevanja v okviru gimnazijskega programa (The
quality of learning and teaching in grammar schools). Doktorska disertacija.
Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta
Vermunt, J. & L. Verschaffel. (2000). Process-Oriented Teaching. V: Simons, R. & J. J.
Linden & T. Duffy (2000). New Learning. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publisher, str. 209–225.