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
Defining the Issue
curricula
Schemas for
teaching &
learning
=
motives or goals
Perceived
Constraints
policy
Student
Learning
Image from http://reversethinking.typepad.com/weblog/brain/
Enacted
Practice
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?
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
Theoretical Frameworks
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)
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
Student
Responses
Evaluation
Criteria
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)
Methods
Research Design,
Context & Participants
 Qualitative exploratory comparative case study (Yin, 1994); theorybuilding 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
Name1
M/
F
Race
Degree
Yrs.
Exp.
Class
Size
A-A
Free/
Red.
Lunch
Prior Achiev.
(Basic-Prof.-Adv.)
Factor
Score
(%tile)
Arlene
F
Cauc.
Doct.
30
22
100%
73%
36%-50%-5%
42nd
Christine
F
Cauc.
Bach.
6
22
68%
55%
5%-64%-23%
73rd
Julie
F
Cauc.
Mast.
9
25
64%
9%
5%-68%-27%
26th
Data Collection
-
-
-
Schema of
Effective
Practice
Enacted
Practice
Perceived
Constraints
Student
Learning
Outcome
Quantitative
(from larger
study)
- 2 sets of
survey items
- 6 task ratings
- 1 set of survey
items
- 2010 & 2011
Standardized
test scores
- RTA ratings
(class set)
Qualitative
- 2 60-min
semistructured
interviews
- 6 tasks
- 2 60-min
semistructured
Interviews
- RTA (class
- RTA (class
set & focal
set & focal
responses)
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)
Focal Students
Sex
A-A
Free/Red Lunch
Avg 2010
State Test Score
Avg Gain
Score 2010-11
Arlene
n=6
4M, 2F
6 (100%)
5 (83%)
416.00
9
Christine
n=6
3M, 3F
5 (83%)
1 (17%)
424.50
2
Julie
n=9
1M, 8F
0 (0%)
1 (11%)
422.67
17
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)
Schema of Effective Practice:
Sample Categories & Codes
1. Main goal of
reading instruct.
2. Role of textbased writing
tasks
3. Ideal form of
text-based writing
prompts
4. Ideal text-based
writing prompts
1.1 Comprehend
text literally
2.1 To confirm
understanding of
plot & characters
3.1 Brief
constructed
responses
4.1 Comprehension of discrete
information
1.2 Apply strategies
& skills
2.2 To convey in
writing ideas from
discussion
3.2 Response
journals
4.2 Summary of plot
events
1.3 Make text to self 2.3 To explore ideas 3.3 Extended
connections
freely
essays
4.3 Descriptive
Characterization
1.4 Understand big
ideas/themes
2.4 To argue a point
of view
3.4 Multiple-choice
responses
4.4 Analysis of how
text elements
1.5 Apply themes to
real life
2.5 To form an
opinion based on
ideas in text
3.5 Graphic
organizers
4.5 Opinion-based
interpretation /
application of text
Enacted Practice:
Sample Category Codes
- amount
- nature
- level
- cognitive demand
- form of task
- type of writing
- skill
- focal literary element
- required use of text
- pre-writing
instructional
activities
Prompt
Feedback
Instruction
Writing Task
Evaluation
Criteria
Student
Responses
- quality of high vs.
medium
- variation
- form of scheme
- criteria
- levels
Perceived Constraints:
Sample Categories & Codes
State
District
School
Classroom/
Teacher
Policy/Organiz
ational
State
testing
Formative
testing
Department
alization
Rules &
routines
Curricular
State
standards
Framework
Pacing
Support
Resources
Environmental
General
Climate
General
Climate
Ability
grouping
Class size
Human
Resources
Support
Personnel
Support
Personnel
Colleagues
Support
Personnel
Inter-grade
coordinat.
Grading
Instructional
Intrapersonal
(Buechler, 1991; Duffy & Roebler, 1986)
Patience
Teaching
strategies
Student
Behavior
Prior
knowledge
Student Learning Outcome
Sample 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
Findings & Discussion
Schema of Effective Practice
& Enacted Practice
Coded
Arlene
Element Schema
Christine
Julie
Enacted
Schema
Enacted
Schema
Enacted
make
thematic
connection &
application
to real life
express
supported
opinion
apply big
ideas to real
life
Main goal
of reading
inst.
comprehend
text literally
/summarize
accurately
comprehend
text literally,
on a surface
level
learn & apply
reading
strategies &
skills
apply
reading
strategies
Role of
text-based
writing
tasks
communicate
freely,
authentically;
communicate
ideas from
discussion
identify
fragmented
text info
about
characters
and plot
communicate
ideas from
discussion
explain how
elements
help
readers;
comprehend
plot
Prompt:
Cognitive
Process
summary /
analysis
basic
comprehensi
on
analysis
basic
inference;
BCR
opinionbased
interpretation
opinionbased
interpretation
Prompt:
Form
authentic, nonformulaic,
BCR
graphic
organizers
multi-part,
open ended;
BCR
BCR; graphic
organizer
open
response
short open
responses
express
opinion about
big ideas in
text
Representative Enacted
Writing Task
Prompt
Form
Focus
Arlene
Name three traits for a character, and
identify one piece of textual evidence for
each trait.
Graphic
Organizer
Character
Christine
Explain how the author uses sensory
details to help readers visualize. Provide
supporting details from the text.
BCR
Author’s
craft / Text
element
Julie
Respond to one of four opinion-type
questions on big ideas addressed in the
story. Provide text support. (e.g., Why is
it important for everyone to have
something to believe in?)
Short
answer
Big idea
Schema of Effective Practice
& Enacted Practice
Coded
Arlene
Christine
Julie
Element
Schema
Enacted
Schema
Enacted
Schema
Enacted
Instruction
/Guidance
discuss
prompt;
model
w/other text
discuss
prompt;
group work
w/prompt;
model w/text
discuss
prompt;
group work
w/prompt;
model
response
discuss
prompt;
graphic org.;
model w/text
ensure und.
of prompt
discuss text;
complete
graphic org
for text; no
direct teaching of prompt
Feedback
Form/Proces
s
conference;
peer
feedback;
“authentic”
limited
conferences
post
exemplary
responses,
comments in
margins,
conference,
allow rewrite
written
comments
conference,
narrative
comments,
allow
revisions
discuss
response
w/peer&
revise before
submission,
written
comments
Coherence Between Schema &
Enacted Practice
Coded
Element
Prompt
Arlene
Julie
weak/med.
med.
strong
Form
weak
med.
med./strong
Instruction
Process
strong
strong
strong
Assessmen
t
Content
med.
med.
med.
Form
weak
weak
strong
n/a
med.
strong
med.
med.
med.
weak/med.
med.
strong
Feedback
Content
Christine
Content
Form/Process
Overall
Trend
Perceived Constraints
State
District
Policy/Organiz
ational
ARLENE
CHRIS.
Curricular
ARLENE
Arlene
Instructional
School
Classroom/
Teacher
Julie
JULIE
Student
CHRIS.
Julie
Arlene
Intrapersonal
CHRIS.
Julie
Julie
Student Learning
n
Fully
addresses
prompt
w/full text
Partially
addresses
prompt
w/part of
text
Characteriza
tion of
Character’s
Feelings
Summary
Arlene
20
15%
25%
40%
10%
5%
5%
Chris.
21
19%
38%
29%
5%
10%
0%
Julie
22
45%
32%
5%
14%
5%
0%
n
Fully addresses
prompt w/full text
Partially addresses
prompt w/part of text
Personal Copied
Response Text
Characterization of
Character’s Feelings
Arlene
6
0
33%
66%
Christine
9
17%
50%
33%
Julie
9
56%
33%
11%
Emergent Hypotheses of
Relationships Among Constructs
1. Enacted practice at least partially aligns with or follows
from schema of effective practice.
2. Enacted practice significantly influences student
learning.
3. Perception of high-level policy-oriented constraints is
associated with greater inconsistencies between
schema of effective instruction and enacted
instruction.
4. The content and form of the prompt (along with the
feedback process) are most susceptible to perceived
constraints.
…Emergent Hypotheses of
Relationships Among Constructs
5. Coherence among elements of the schema is
associated with stronger practice and student
outcome.
6. Prioritizing tasks requiring analysis or interpretation of
text is associated with better student outcome.
7. 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.
Limitations
Methodological Limitations
 Small sample size
 Inter-rater agreement pending
 Focus on text-based writing tasks
Questions & Comments
References
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.
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.
Student
Responses
Prompt
Writing Task
Evaluation
Criteria
Instruction
- 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
- criteria
- levels
Instruction
- pre-writing instructional
activities