Towards an Educational

Frame of Reference

Prof. dr. Martin Valcke

Department of Educational Studies

http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

Towards an Educational Frame of Reference

Learning objectives After studying this theme you are expected to master the following learning objectives: • You are able to describe in your own words what the field of instructional sciences

comprises. • You can work out independently a scheme/mindmap in which the actors, variables and

processes playing a role in instructional settings, are represented in an integrated way. • On the basis of the frame of reference you are able to describe reports from the media

(articles, radio messages, research on education…..) in a structured way. • To understand the evidence-base behind the frame of reference. • To be able to interpret effect sizes in discussions about the efficiency, efficacy of

processes and variables related to student achievement. • You are able to give examples illustrating the concrete meaning of the different actors,

processes and variables in the frame of reference. • You can illustrate the structure of the frame of reference with a number of examples. • You are able to exemplify the relation between micro, meso and macro level. • You are able to illustrate in formal and non-formal situations the different components of

a didactical activity on the base of original examples. Structure of this theme Below you find an introductory scheme that represents the general structure of the contents of this theme. The scheme can be seen as a basic structure, an organizer helping to keep an overview of the complex content of this theme. In the literature, a variety of concepts is used to refer to this type of graphical representations: concept map or mind map. Pay attention! This proposed scheme is a possible (result) elaboration of the content of this theme. Finally, when you are studying the content, it is better to work out yourself a similar scheme and reconstruct the content of the theme at a more detailed level on the base of your mindmap. By doing this you will process and integrate the learning content in far better way. The backbone of this theme is the overall frame of reference. But , behind this frame, there is large body of knowledge that has been derived from the research literature. We rely in this context on the review study of John Hattie (2009) who synthesized over 50.000 educational research studies that focused on processes and variables affecting learning outcomes: Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analysis relating to Achievement. The structure of his review is based on clusters that fit the key structuring features of the frame of reference outlined below. A key concept in the research review methodology of Hattie is the analysis of

p. 2

effect sizes. Effect sizes add extra information to statistical analyses that provide information about the differential impact of e.g., interventions (t-test, analysis of variance, regression analysis). Effect sizes do not only tell if an intervention leads to statistically significant differences, but also tells the size of the observed impact. Remember that in many studies, we observe statistically significant differences, but they are small and as such not very relevant to inform educational practices. Effect sizes are therefore helpful to tell us something about the statistical power of the differences found (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). In the meta-analysis review of Hattie, effect sizes are in addition helpful to bring together the results of different educational research studies and to summarize the overall effect of a cluster of studies about a certain variable. In meta-analysis studies, effect sizes are used as a common measure that can be calculated for different studies and then combined into an overall summary. In a way, effect sizes are a way to look at results in a standardized and thus comparable way (and thus taking into account differences in sample size, standard deviations, etc. between the different studies). Though there is heavy debate about the way effect sizes have to be interpreted, Hattie presents some critical rules of thumb to give meaning effect sizes (abbreviation d; calculated as Cohen’s d). This is partly illustrated in the reprinted example below (Hattie, 209, p.19). First of all there are reversed effects. Some educational interventions have a negative impact (negative effect sizes). Secondly, whatever we do, children/students evolve and part of the changes in observed outcomes are due to developmental effects. Therefore, effect sizes up to d = .2 are less important. Thirdly, the moment teachers intervene; there is always a basic impact. Hattie states that this accounts for another value of d = .2 . As a consequence a value up to d = .4 is a-either explained by developmental effects and/or teacher effects. This leads to a rule of thumb that only effect sizes larger than d = .4 are interesting to guide educational practices since they can be considered to reflect a sufficiently differential impact of an intervention, mediating variable or other educational variable/process being studied.

Example of the way effect sizes are reported and summarizes in Hattie (2009,p.19).

In the next sections, we will build on part of Hattie’s overview to ground the variables and processes - related to specific actors – in our frame of reference. Before starting this theme, we will also stress a short conceptual discussion. In most English language textbooks, the concept “education” and “schools” are dominant keywords. In the present handbook we stress the concepts “learning and instruction” and “instructional sciences”. This is a deliberate choice to prevent the reader to limit the field of learning and instruction to the formal school setting. We want the reader to understand that learning and

p. 3

instruction is also as important outside formal school settings. We refer e.g., to professional instructional settings, in-service training, corporate training units and initiatives, etc. But next to this growing field, we also refer to informal learning contexts such as museums, exhibitions, holiday camps, television programs, documentaries, manuals, … Learning and teaching are also central in these settings and deserve clear attention by people concerned about the quality of learning in our society. Although much of the content of the present handbook will be covered in a traditional “education” textbook, we still think it is important to focus our attention to these less formal instructional contexts.

p. 4

Advance Organizer Activity 1 Read the following newspaper article. You can do this independently or together with some colleagues. After reading each article, you will be asked to react in a specific way to the article content. In doing the latter, you will be invited to adopt a certain “role”. Try to enlighten in your reaction your specific point of view. You will discuss this with colleagues who adopted another “role”. Try to consider the possible consequences of adopting different roles and try to understand the nature of and causes of these differences in points of view.

Reprint of the Times-online of January 5, 2010

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/a_level_gcse_results/primary_schools/) Possible roles to adopt: • A starting teacher making choices to apply for a position in a number of schools; • A mother/father discovering that his/her pupil goes to a very low ranked school; • A school principal of a top ranked school; • The Minister of education having to make decision as to cuts in the education budget.

p. 5

Compare the different reactions when adopting different roles. Try to indicate clearly the differences in the reactions and try to explain why the reactions are different. Activity 2 Discuss the following extract from a Guardian newspaper article of May 3, 2009.

Adopt one of the following roles: • A Minister who has to take decision about the criteria to give special grants to higher ed

students. • A girl who wants to become a vet, but has to take a loan in order to pay for her studies.

p. 6

• A dean of a faculty of veterinary sciences who sees a dramatic drop in student numbers due to the high fees.

Compare again the different reactions when adopting different roles. Listen carefully to the argumentations. Try to sum up to what extent the reaction differ and try to explain why the reactions are so different. Approaches towards learning and instruction: the base to distinguish dimensions in the frame of reference Based on your experiences when discussing the advanced organizer, you recognize large differences in the approaches towards learning and instruction. The differences in these approaches are related to a number of dimensions. The advance organizer makes clear that “Instructional sciences” is a discipline that is strongly influenced by the position one takes. Teachers and professors will react in a different way as compared to parents, government, learners, or a student coach. It is obvious that they have different interests. Therefore actors are also called ‘stakeholders’. Stakeholders, dependent on their interests will (re)act/behave differently. The way actors approach an issue, also depends on the aggregation level of the discussion:

• At the micro level we focus on a concrete learning situation (e.g. in the classroom, in a training hall, …) and everything related to concrete actors in this particular interactive setting. When you adopted - in the advance organizer – the role of a parent thinking about their own child, then you adopted a microlevel perspective. But when you adopted the perspective of a principal or of a minister, you clearly jumped to a higher aggregation level.

• At mesolevel, we put a larger organizational actor at the centre of the discussion. We focus at the level of a school, faculty, institution, organization, company. In the advance organizer we discussed e.g., a principal of a top 100 ranked school, a dean of a faculty, ….

• At the macrolevel, we point at very large, broad regional, national or international perspectives. We talk e.g., about educational policy, government, accreditation organisations, legal issues, etc. At the macrolevel, learning and instruction are approached in a more abstract and institutionalized way. In the advance organizer, we discussed the efficacy of a national educational system, by comparing output indicators of schools. Or we focus at the society cost of a higher education. In a way, we hardly find concrete individuals at the macrolevel, it is rather organisations, aggregations of responsibilities that are represented by presidents, chairs, Ministers, etc.

Look again at the comments and remarks made when working with the advance organizer. Observe the different roles and the different points of view. Try to order them according to the three aggregation levels. You will clearly notice that certain ideas, remarks surpass the concrete level of a class room at microlevel. The implications are far fetching and affect whole schools, programs, or even regions and countries. What you also can deduce from the experiences with the advance organizer is that particular parts of the frame of reference are being discussed. Some arguments relate to the learning objectives (curricula), or to learning materials, the choice for appropriate instructional

p. 7

strategies, exercising, organization of the learning activities, particular attention paid to assessment and evaluation or quality control, etc. In addition, some of the remarks will also be related to organizational issues, such as the time available, the number of staff members, the budget, infrastructure, etc.

Informal learning in the context of a dinosaur exhibition in the City museum, Utah, USA.

Summarizing, the following dimensions are important in our frame of reference: • Actors: individuals or institutionalized persons (organizations, institutes) like parents,

pupils, trade unions, school administration, politics, business, community, educational organizations etc. . The actors are stakeholders who undertake some roles like the role of the instruction person in charge, learner, curriculum developer, educational publisher, instructional designer, school support staff member, educational innovator, educational researcher, etc.

• Aggregation levels - microlevel: class, group, direct interaction between learner and the instruction person in charge. - mesolevel: organization units like school, institution, university, training institute, education center, etc. - macrolevel: society, politics, educational institutions that set up schools, etc.

• Context: all learning and instruction decisions are influenced by the particular context in which they take place. This context affects the educational decisions being made. At the microlevel, this context is related to the physical setting of a school, organization (rural/urban, industrialized area, historical site, …), this context also affects the characteristics of all actors involved and will have a clear impact on their characteristics. At the mesolevel, this will affect the organization, institution, program, school. At the macrolevel it will play a major influence as to the legal, financial and structural decisions that affect earning and instructional. For instance, what is the economical situation of a country, is it a region with a high or low Gross Domestic Product (GDP), …

• Organization: the different approaches reflect differences in time available, space, money, infrastructure ………….

• Didactical activities: these are the concrete activities actors create to realize learning activities. Didactical activities can also be called instructional activities. Different actors can pay attention, in a different way, to certain components of these didactic strategies. In

p. 8

some cases more attention is e.g., paid to media use (elearning, laptops, Internet usage) or the specific selection of learning content (mapping knowledge domains, developing source materials for learners. Infra we discuss the different components of a didactic activity.

• Learning activities: we expect pupils to show certain expected learning activities; mostly depending on the design of the didactical activity.

The first three dimensions influence the consecutive dimensions. Actors on a certain aggregation level and considering a particular context, will, depending their view about learning and instruction, define how the organizational, didactical and the learning dimension will get shape.

The frame of reference Bringing together the former, we can represent the educational frame of reference in the following way (see figure on next page). In relation to the frame of reference, sometimes the question is asked: is this frame of reference the basis of “all” learning and instruction situations or is it simply a tool in the context of this book that helps to assimilate the contents and to solve tasks. The answer to this question, we have to stress the fact that the instructional sciences is a scientific field of theory construction and empirical research. Nevertheless, it is still a very recent discipline. It is a science where many differing approaches coexist towards actors, processes and variables. Therefore it is difficult to reach a comprehensive and shared view on learning and instruction. This helps to understand why there exist so many different points of view, theories, directions in the context of instructional sciences. Nevertheless, there is already a large body of empirical research that helps to clarify the specific impact of certain variables and processes in relation to certain actors in specific contexts and at specific aggregation levels. As explained earlier, we will build on recent meta-analysis studies to clarify this issue. The purpose of the frame of reference is also meant to be a guideline to look at instructional settings in a comprehensive and neutral way. First, if a certain theory present a particular view on learning and instruction, the frame of reference will be helpful to see whether this new theory considers all the variables and processes, and whether this new perspective also considers the aggregation levels, the context and all actors involved. This might help to find “blind spots” in the theory. Secondly, the frame of reference does not take a position as to the nature of the position or influence of individual actors, processes and variables in the model. In a way, it is intended as a “objective” mirror. Nevertheless, in each situation (theoretical, concrete, research), it will be clear that choices are made as to the nature, influence, impact of the actors, variables and processes. The frame of reference is therefore rather a “thinking tool” that tries to cover the entire object dealt with in the instructional sciences. It is to be seen as a way to structure the thinking about actors, processes and variables and it is considered to be applicable in a variety of sub disciplines of the field of instructional sciences.

p. 9

The educational frame of reference at micro-, meso- and macrolevel Earlier, we presented the instructional sciences as a scientific field. It is important to keep in mind that there are a few fundamental requirements before we can define a field as a “science” 1. There should be a clearly defined object ; 2. the field should build on a specific terminology; and 3. The field should build on a specific methodology and research techniques. The frame of reference is - in this context – also an attempt to delineate the foundation of scientific thinking and acting in the field of learning and instruction. The actors, variables and processes refer to the object of the field of science. The terminology about these “objects” of

p. 10

the instructional science is thoroughly developed; to start with in this theme. The specific methodology and techniques will also be discussed. It is especially in relation to the latter that different approaches towards learning and instruction will be translated into unique and very different methodologies and instructional techniques. In the frame of reference it is quiet easy to distinguish - at each aggregation level - the actors. Also the variables and processes can be found at the different levels; though they are sometimes labeled differently. Variables refer to characteristics of actors and processes. Processes refer to concrete actions, procedures, activities that are set up in a systematic or less systematic way. The frame of reference at the microlevel

Elaboration of the frame of reference at microlevel

At micro-level we look at a concrete learning and instruction activity in a specific instructional setting; e.g., a classroom, a playground, a museum setting, an exhibition, etc. The attention goes to the direct interaction between a concrete trainer, professor, teacher, professional, supervisor, expert (in general we label this type of actor as the “instructor”) and the learner. We can e.g., talk about a nursery school teacher Ann who organizes e.g. a group discussion for her 12 pre-school children. Or we can talk about the way a security-training is set up for a group of lumbermen of the company ‘Woodcraft’ in Vancouver. The attention goes to concrete actors such as teachers, a trainer or a learner. Actors are responsible for specific processes (instructional activities, learning activities) and have certain characteristics. Typical characteristics of learners and instructors are: age, preparatory training, prior knowledge, interests, their personal approach towards learning and instruction, etc. To make it clear that the characteristics of the learner play a critical role – e.g. on academic performance – we can build on part of the meta-analysis results of Hattie (2009, p. 39). The

p. 11

following table shows a number of characteristics that clearly affect learning performance at a level higher than d = .40.

Impact of characteristics of the learner, according to Hattie (2009, p.39).

In the table, we find some variables we expect to play a role (e.g., prior achievement, early intervention programs), but also variables that are hardly considered playing a role (e.g., initial birth weight). A surprising finding is that gender does not play an overall role on achievement. Of course, in the meta-analysis the results are summarized of studies involving learners of varying age levels and backgrounds. In specific settings or knowledge domains, there are nevertheless significant differences in learning performance due to the variable gender (e.g., science performance in 15 year old learners, as described in the PISA-studies). The actors interact throughout didactical activities (also called instructional activities) and learning activities.

p. 12

In some cities (here Ghent, Belgium), education is also set up by the local city authorities. In such a case, there is a deputy mayor for education who plays a central role as an “instructor” at the macrolevel.

In addition, the context also plays an important role. The context is the totality of external variables/processes that influences the design, the development and the implementation of instruction. At the micro-level the teacher can e.g., take into account there is a castle in the neighborhood of the school, that there is a pond and a factory,…..He/she can directly relate this context to the didactical activity. The person who is responsible for the instruction of the training (from now on called the “instructor”) of a firm can e.g. involve suppliers of the direct environment in the training of security. Learning activities are considered as the result of didactical activities. In the figure the arrow between learning activities and didactical activities is reciprocal. In certain approaches towards learning and instruction the learning activities of the learners can be the starting point of the didactical activity; they start the learning-activities and influence the instructional activities and the place and role of those who are responsible for the instruction. From theme 3 on we will study in a more profound way this special relationship. In this introductory theme we don’t study this relation in detail because this relationship clearly depends on the interpretation of the learning and instructional situation. In our frame of reference the organization dimension is explicitly mentioned separately. At the micro-level the concept is very relevant because aspects of the organization determine the way the other processes and variables and the way actors interact. Typical examples are: size of the instructional groups, the time available, the time table, the number of subject teachers/specialists, whether or not there is an open learning centre, a library, a corner for self-study, the accessibility to infrastructure (time, physical,…), the size of the infrastructure,……. At the meso and the macro level, the organization will also important because it will determine semi-permanent characteristics of the instructional system. When there is e.g., a policy that fosters teachers of different classes working together, team teaching becomes possible at the micro level. When there is a computer class available, teachers can promote self study, independent learning, … and adopt specific instructional strategies at micro level.

p. 13

Again, we can build on the results of educational research to exemplify the impact of organizational variables on e.g., learning performance. Part of the meta-analyses of Hattie (2009, p.74) summarize the impact of school related variables.

Impact of characteristics of the organization (school related), according to Hattie (2009, p.39).

Though some of the research results rather focus on mesolevel issues, they clearly show how organizational variables have a mediating impact on microlevel results, such as learning performance of individual learners.

p. 14

In learning activities, the individual or group activity of the learners is the central process. In the Bay Area Discovery Museum in San Francisco, USA learners can breed their own type of fish. They manipulate the food, antibiotics, the type of fish you select for breeding en they simulate thousands of years of breeding to experience the gradual and sudden evolutionary steps to arrive at new types of goldfish.

At the micro-level we especially pay attention to the didactical activities, also called instructional activities. In the literature we find a variety of models to characterize the didactical activity. Models to describe instructional activities can strongly be different dependent on the knowledge domain from which they emerge and can also differ depending on theoretical and empirical assumptions. Recent models differ essentially from more ‘historical’ models. De Corte, Geerligs, Lagerweij, Peters & Vandenberghe (1976) distinguish between the following components of the didactical activity: • Pedagogical theoretical models • Information theoretical modellen en • Learning theory based models. We especially focus on the latter type of models. Our model to structure the components of the didactical activity/instructional activity In our frame of references – at the micro-level – we propose the following structure to look at the didactical activity:

p. 15

Learning objectives

Assessment & Evaluation

Instructional strategy

Learning content

Media

Assessment & Evaluation

Learning activities

Didactical activity

Model to structure the components in the didactical activity / instructional activity

In the context of the present theme the components of the didactical activity will continually turn back as a key concept. Different approaches towards learning and instruction will put other components at the centre or stress other interrelations between the didactical actors, variables and processes. We present the following working definitions for the different components. We stress that these definitions can change when we consider the components in the light of a different approach towards learning and instruction. Learning objectives: A learning objective is an operational indicator of what we try to achieve with our instruction. An “operational indicator” implies that (1) we can actually observe changes in the behavior of the learner (e.g., the learner gives independently an example of a mammal) and (2) we can clearly delineate the learning content-category influenced by the behavior of the learner (e.g. a causal relationship between gravity and the tide). of this book we use learning aims and learning objectives as synonyms.

Students, studying interior design develop an interior at the Provincial University College PHL in Hasselt (Belgium). The objectives of their instructional activity is clearly focused on the application of professional skills. Since, in addition, they also have to master a large set of conditional prior knowledge, this type of instruction is called competency oriented.

p. 16

In a later theme in this handbook, the theme focusing on curriculum development we will discuss in detail focus types of learning objectives and the different concepts used in literature (e.g., objectives, final objectives, development-aims, competency, abilities,…). In the context Learning content / learning material: the’ material from which you learn’; this is the concrete selection of information which the actors use in their learning activities (e.g. to read, to summarize, to make a scheme……). There is a clear relationship between the learning material and the content category of the learning objective; but they do not necessarily correspond. To discuss the relation between e.g., relief and the climate you can use strongly different learning materials (a Map of Central-Africa, the content of a website of the NASA, the weather forecast for Limburg en a atlas, the weather forecast of the morning paper…). We easily confuse the learning material with the content dimension in the learning objectives. Look for a moment at following illustration of a recent publication of the PISA-study about the mathematics proficiency of 15 year old students (De Meyer, De Vos & Van de Poele, 2005).

Test item from the PISA-study focusing mathematical proficiency of 15 year old students

(De Meyer, De Vos & Van de Poele, 2005). The selected learning material is a drawing that represents the speeds of a racecar at different intervals while driving on a race circuit. This specific piece of learning material is chosen to pursue specific mathematical learning objectives. As a matter of fact the learning objective is not acquiring knowledge about racing or racing circuits. The focus is on the mathematical content that learners are able to developed, building on this representation. They can e.g., derive from the graphic the speed of a driver of the distance from the start; or, learner can relate the shape of the graphical representation with the speeds of the car. Lower speeds are easy to relate to the differences in the shape of the curves in the race circuit. Or that they are able to replace this graphic by one of the following possibilities:

p. 17

Test item from the PISA-study focusing mathematical proficiency of 15 year old students

(De Meyer, De Vos & Van de Poele, 2005).

Instructional strategy (didactical strategy): this comprises the concrete actions of the instructor that will elicit the learning activities of the learner (e.g. ask questions, instruct, give a demonstration, start a discussion, present a problem, give a construction task,…..). Depending on the specific approach towards learning and instruction, we will see how typical didactical strategies will be applied. Media: this refers to the ‘materialized’ form of the didactical materials and/or tools that are used in the didactical activities (books, projectors, computer, blackboard, fiches, self-study set, website, e-learning environment,…). In this context, the printed book is a dominant medium. This seems to be a traditional medium that is simply to develop. But don’t underestimate this. Compare e.g. the following pictures that show the elaboration of different handbooks covering the topic instructional sciences and you will notice immediately how the design can influence the attractiveness, the accessibility of the didactical material, the studability, and so on. The impact of the different components of instructional activities is also underpinned by empirical research. In the meta-analysis of Hattie (2009, p.162), we get the following overview of instructional activity related decisions and their impact on learning performance. Look carefully at the effect sizes and detect those instructional decisions that seem to have a differential positive impact that is higher than d = .40.

p. 18

Impact of decisions related to components of instructional activities as summarized in Hattie (2009, p.162).

Though the overview of Hattie introduces the impact of very concrete instructional decisions, it is important to see the impact of making explicit the learning goals (d = .56), the impact of evaluation (feedback d = .73; providing formative evaluation d = .90),

p. 19

Reprint of page 226 from Omrod, 2003

Reprint of pages 136-137 from Schunk, 2004

Assessment and evaluation: this refers to the ways (contents, materials, activities and organization) to control whether or not the objectives have been attained by the learner.

p. 20

Assessment in a professional training for interior architects is done in very different ways as compared to paper and pencil tests. In this picture taken in the Provincial University College PHL (Hasselt, Belgium) we see that student have to develop in view of their final assessment not only paper based reports, but also 3D models. This is clearly an example of performance based assessment.

The model of Van Gelder, and others (1973) Our model is partly based on the founding model of Van Gelder and others (1973). This model was dominating the instructional science literature of the seventies of the last century. Until then hardly attention was paid to a systematic reflection on learning and instruction processes that went beyond the nature of the learning content being pursued. When studying institutional sciences in textbooks or journal articles one will notice that systematic attention to learning and instruction processes only appears from the 1960’s on. The model of Van Gelder and others presents an answer to a number of key questions in view of setting up instruction. The model answers the key questions by delineating the basic components of every instructional activity. What do I try to achieve in those who learn?

Learning objective

How can I connect with the basic knowledge of the learner?

Starting situation

How can I select and order the learning material?

Learning materials

What kind of learning activities do I provoke by choosing a good instruction strategy?

Didactical strategy (e.g., discussion, lecture, group work, independent study, etc.)

What kind of media is most suitable to be used?

Learning materials

What is the result of my instructional activity?

Evaluation of the learning outcomes

p. 21

Answers to the question of Van Gelder provide the key components of a didactical activity which he represents as follows in a schematic way. One recognizes clearly the components being described earlier in our model:

The model of Van Gelder e.a., (1973)

The model of De Corte, Geerligs, Lagerweij, Peters & Vandenberghe ( 1976) Later authors have extended the model of Van Gelder model. They mainly adopted, and adapted the internal structure. A typical example is the model of De Corte, Geerligs, Peters &Vandenberghe (1976). They extended the model of Van Gelder and emphasize the cyclic character of a didactical activity.

p. 22

The model of De Corte, Geerligs, Lagerweij, Peters & Vandenberghe (1976).

It is still easy to recognize the model of Van Gelder. But, De Corte, and others highlight alternative grouping approaches and organizational settings before defining the pedagogical and didactical setting. In our model, organization is situated outside the didactical activity because it can’t be influenced that freely and typically is constrained by defined, given or external variables (available space, time, infrastructure, …).

• Grouping refers to decisions of the instructor to work with individuals, little groups, heterogeneous or homogeneous groups, large class groups, or total cohorts. Grouping is strongly related to the choice for an instructional strategy. Grouping can also be dictated by external factors ( e.g. a very large overall group of university students so that it becomes impossible to split the total group up into small groups for discussion purposes.

• Organization refers to decisions that are related to the use of space, classes, timing, use of time, etc. This component is again closely related to the choice of an instructional strategy, but might also mainly be determined by external factors.

Critical remarks as to the initial models to structure the components of the didactical activity In other and later models for the didactical activity, particular accents can be found. The analysis of the variety of initial and “historical” didactical models points at a number of critical issues that stress the need to refine these models: • The models focus too strongly on the central role of the instructor. In more recent views

about learning and instruction, the learner is also at the center of the teaching and learning situation (e.g., constructivism)

• The models are limited to the micro-level. More recent models accentuate the direct interdependency with meso- and the macro-level components.

p. 23

• The models are strongly related to a particular view about learning and instruction. Moreover, in most models the particular view about learning and instruction is even not made explicit. As stated earlier, the frame of reference has to be generic and objective and not too tightly linked to biased views about the role and impact of specific components in the instructional activity. As will become clear later, depending on a behaviorist, cognitivist or constructivist view about learning and instruction, other choices will be made as to the nature and position of a specific component.

• In addition it is to be stressed that most model are too linear; a real didactical activity is mostly not limited to a linear process; the process is rather cyclic in nature.

These critical points are obvious when we consider innovative approaches towards learning and instruction; such as independent study, self-regulated learning, problem-based education, etc. In these new instructional approaches the emphasis is mainly on the learner and on the larger instructional context. Therefore, in our frame of reference, a two-directional arrow is explicitly drawn between the learner and the didactical activity. In some – state- of-the-art - approaches towards learning and instruction, the learner is e.g., given the responsibility to determine or to choose the learning objectives, to adopt an instructional strategy, to select learning materials or to direct part of the assessment and evaluation process (self- and peer evaluation). A typical example of the latter is the problem based learning approach that has been adopted institution-wide by the University of Maastricht. The model of Dochy (1992) A more recent example where a too linear structure of the didactical activity has been skipped, is the model of Dochy (1992). He puts the evaluation at the core of the model. The result is a completely different view of the interaction of the components of the didactical activities:

p. 24

The model of Dochy (1992, p.187).

The alternative approach of Dochy introduces a new position for the component ‘evaluation’ (1992, p.187). In the model, evaluation is seen as a permanent activity and so is no longer limited to play a role at the end of an instructional activity. Dochy strongly extends the aim or functionality of evaluation activities. In his model all the learning objectives are geared towards the student. The objectives are related to the basic knowledge. To make this tuning possible, he suggests the implement prior knowledge tests. The information from these tests helps to reformulate the learning objectives and to direct the learning activities (B). During the process of learning the student regularly makes a progress test that helps to control the extent to which the learner attains the objectives, and to obtain the most suitable instructor support and to define the next study task. The model of Dochy was conceived in the context of adult education and was experimentally worked out in a distance education context. This explains very well why a number of responsibilities are transferred to the learner. But also many computer-supported learning packages for independent study reflect decisions based on the model of Dochy. These start e.g., from a prior knowledge state tests to adapt the instruction to the test results (adaptive testing). Explore e.g., the following electronic learning environment for statistics (http://www.elestat.be/). Depending on the answer-patterns on the prior knowledge test, you are presented other learning materials and follow an individualized learning path. This results in a more efficient (less time) learning process and fastens the throughput of instruction. The following pictures present some screen shots from this learning environment.

p. 25

The ELESTAT learning environment (http://www.elestat.be/)

An extension or adaptation of the traditional models for the didactical activity illustrates how in theory and in practice a number of decisions can change in view of the dimensions in our frame of reference. Initially the field of the “institutional sciences” mainly concentrated on the learning and teaching of children and adolescents (primary school and secondary school). This is clearly reflected in the terminology adopted by Van Gelder and others; they write about pupils, teacher, class, school, etc. Since the instructional science literature now also focuses on adult learning, professional development, corporate training, etc. the terminological changes in the frame of reference become apparent. In more recent models, the instructor is called a coach, a guide, a facilitator, a learning arranger, and others. This is consistent with the attention that is paid to learning of adults, livelong learning, corporate training, business training, training on the job, or informal learning. Models at the micro-level give support to work out concrete instructional activities. Depending theoretical choices and assumptions, these microlevel instructional designs will centre on other actors, variables, and/or processes and will stress to a different extent on issues at micro-, meso- and/or even macrolevel. But at a basic level, the frame of reference at the microlevel indicates what kind of decisions have to be taken to guarantee that a complete picture of the learning and teaching situation has been drawn.

p. 26

The frame of reference at the mesolevel

Characteristics of a cohort of learners: social

economical status, race, rural/city, school

transport need, …)

Characteristics and institutional

aspects of the instructor at

mesolevel (organisation):

Representativity, collaborative

actions, community links, study

options in the institute,

participatory actions, ...

Support learner(s): inclusion coordinator, student

support centre, logopedic help, health support,...

Meso perspective

upon didactical

activities

Context:

Collaboration

school-company,

philosophical choices,

economical context

Support of the instructor(s) at

meso level:

educational development unit,

quality assurance unit, learning

material development unit, pupil

support centre, staff support

services, ...

Meso-

organisation

Team, instructor(s), subject related unit,

school level team, expert team, ...

Cohort Learner(s): age group, class,

level, study option, ...

Meso perspective upon didactical

activities:

School work plan

Study programme

Test item bank

Year plan

Electronic learning envrionment

Learning method

...

Meso perspective upon

organisation:

Available hours

Number of instructors

Media library – resource centre

Open learning centre

School system

Hours for support staff and inclusion

staff, coaches

Finances

Rooms /infrastructure

Elaboration of the educational frame of reference at the mesolevel The frame of reference at the mesolevel repeats in fact all elements (actors, variables, and processes) that were already distinguished at the microlevel, but now they are considered at a higher aggregation level. Now, we no longer focus on very concrete actors, such as individual learners and a specific instructor, but we now focus on larger organizational units such as groups, teams, representatives of an organization, and the educational institution as a whole. In the instructional science literature, less attention is paid to this aggregation level of the instructional context. Nevertheless it is a crucial aggregation level since it also determines and constrains the learning and teaching processes at microlevel. At the mesolevel, the context plays a stronger influencing role. The context comprises persons, organizations (local authority, associations, enterprises, regional economical initiatives). These stakeholders have a clear interest in the fact that instruction at mesolevel is set up in a certain way ( e.g. the length of the training, the infrastructure, the options available, the accessibility, the cost price, the particular focus on certain values, …..) A school takes e.g., into account the opinion of the parents’ council, the church, the city council, the industrial partners funding the organization or program, etc. Or when a school is situated in an underprivileged neighborhood, support facilities and priorities will be different.

p. 27

Impact of decisions related to contextual variables and processes according to Hattie (2009, p.162, p.61).

In the former table, Hattie (2009, p.61) , summarizes research that refers to certain variables and processes that play a role in the context of an instructional activity. To correctly frame the context, we can see it as the “luggage” that learner bring to the classroom. It affects their personal characteristics, the way the instructor will take decisions, the organizational framework. As to the latter, we see e.g. how welfare policies play a negative role when we consider their impact on learning performance. This example repeats that not all educational decisions will result in positive outcomes and that it demands a continuous effort in quality control, monitoring, evaluation to be able to understand why certain measures have a positive, a significant, or counterproductive outcomes. At the mesolevel, the organization, within the frame of reference, strongly determines the interaction between actors, variables and processes. Typical examples at the mesolevel are the available lesson hours, the number of instructors, the student-staff ratio, facilities for multimedia, provision of an open learning center, classroom infrastructure, the budget, hours for care an inclusion coordinator, student support staff, the school regulation/rules, examination rules, etc.

p. 28

In this example, students are – at institutional level – informed about the examination rules. These are applicable

for their complete educational program (http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1469). The actors at the mesolevel are not always individuals (such as a principal), but mostly groups, teams, and/or institutionalized units (a parents’ council, a participation council, a student representation, etc.). In view of the actors there are specific organizations that provide support at the mesolevel. In formal instructional contexts there are laws that define how schools get school based support and guidance. Another example related to learners there are rules at school level that foresee special care for students with special needs. In less formal instructional contexts, learners can attend educational information centres, open learning centers, etc. Those who are looking for a job can get coaching by coaching-services in view of retraining and job reorientation. Also the components of the didactical activity play a role at the mesolevel, but now rather as general facilities, guidelines, choices for materials that go beyond the microlevel. Examples:

• a school work plan; • the availability of an open learning centre to encourage independent learning; • local training initiatives to enable working with information and communication

technologies (ICT); • after school supervision for children who receive no study coaching at home by their

parents; • coaching of home work; • a collaborative effort of a team of teachers who develop an itembank to guide their

evaluation in a more objective way; • a training offer adapted to the characteristics of workmen in a packaging department.

At the mesolevel, the instructional organizations, units, institutes have to make some major decisions about the nature and structure of the learning objectives being pursued. This results

p. 29

in explicit or implicit choices for types of curricula. In the literature, there is much debate about the added value of specific types of curricula. In Hattie (2009, p.130), we find a summary of research that shows the differential impact of a variety of curricula for specific or knowledge domains in general.

Impact of types of curriculum choices on learning performance (Hattie, 2009, p.130).

Also in less institutionalized instructional context, the mesolevel plays an important role. Training in enterprises is e.g., seen as an economical factor that is balanced to the outcomes of primary enterprise processes. This is manifest in the following questions:

• What will be the return on investment? • How can we keep the skills of our workers up-to-date? • How we develop our knowledge management, how can we preserve our cooperate

memory? • How do we start the training, internal or external? • What kind of infrastructure do we need to support learning?

p. 30

The frame of reference at the macrolevel

The frame of reference at the macrolevel

Compared to the mesolevel, we position again the same actors, variables and processes that have been distinguished earlier, but now at a higher aggregation level. Again, specific actors play a role, but now at the level of organisations, policy development organisations, policy makers, decision makers, multi-nationals, strategy developers, innovation specialists, etc. In the following newspaper article, we can e.g. read how a minister of education discusses the final goals of secondary education. He questions the relevance of a part of the curriculum.

p. 31

At the macrolevel– certainly in formal instructional contexts – the organisation dimension of our frame of reference plays a determining role. In the next picture one can see the organisational structure of the UK educational school system as it has been defined for the complete school system.

Organisational structure of the UK educational system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_England).

Also at the macrolevel, the context plays a defining role. Political choices can e.g. determine instructional policies. The new laws in relation to tertiary education, lifelong learning, and adult education have e.g., affected largely the new educational provisions. In non-formal educational context, we find comparable examples. In companies, we see that the strategic planning of a multi-national can affect the development of training departments. Considering the economic crisis In the context we can observe that a large variety of stakeholders will play a role to defend their interests or take their responsibility. In view of the growing use of technology, we see e.g., that organisations representing private companies push the government to change the curriculum of secondary schools to integrate new sets of objectives that promote the use of information and communication technologies.

De Standaard Online 20 01 2005 Learning to drive a car at school is still an idea for the future Learning to drive is part of the curriculum, but nobody knows how to realize this BRUSSELS – From this school year on, students from secondary schools have to prepare themselves at school for taking a theoretical exam. This is stated in the new curriculum, but nobody knows whether and how this is being implemented. Minister R. Landuyt promotes the idea of a collaboration between school and the private sector Car Driving Schools could – according to him – play a major role in realising the ambitions of the new curriculum.

p. 32

Article focusing on the challenges to the educational provisions due to the economic crisis in Australia

(http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/vol11/forward).

The impact of the contextual macro perspective on the different dimensions in our frame of reference is not to be neglected. In our society, we have developed a complete institutionalized educational system with government funding, central control, quality control systems, etc. This does not only imply a legal system, budgeting, centralized structures, central management units, etc. but also ways to deal with society problems. The latter is exemplified in the example above. Comparable examples can be observed when society reacts to some dramatic news and when reference is made to a responsibility of schools in dealing with these issues. People expect schools to take up additional charges to cope with society problems, such as paedophilia, racism, youth violence, international mobility, language development, road safety, etc.. It is also wrong to think that the components of the didactical activity would be of lesser importance at the macrolevel. Consult e.g., the webpages of governmental bodies describing the official lists of aims that schools have to pursue in order to be financially supported by the

p. 33

government. These lists cover curricular goals for e.g., kindergarten, primary school, the variety of secondary educational programs and even the profession al qualifications for teacher training. The following website is an excellent example of how the macrolevel fosters the innovation of these objectives.

Screenshot describing national goals for Australia compulsory education

(http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/national_goals_for_schooling_in_the_twenty_first_century.htm).

Whereas it is easy to understand that national educational authorities put forward strict requirements that schools have to meet for compulsory education, it is less easy to see how the macrolevel also affects tertiary education ‘e.g., university programmes’. Nevertheless, also at the macrolevel, general rules, quality criteria, etc. are being put forward. This is especially done by the government and/or national organisations that represent specific professions (e.g., accountants, dentists, …). In the screen dump, depicted below, a nation-wide Northern American organisations puts forward the requirements that have to be met by foreign educated hygienists and dentists.

p. 34

Dental hygiene licensure facts for foreign-educated hygienists and dentists (http://www.adha.org/careerinfo/foreign_trained.htm)

Other examples of the impact of the macrolevel on the components of the didactical activity can be found when we look for the centralized approach towards evaluation. In a large number of countries, children are expected to take central exams at the end of pirmary school or secondary education. This is e.g., the case in the United Kingdom, the USA, France, the Netherlands, etc.

Section of the Nation’s Report Card, in which standardized mathematics scores attained by secondary schools

are compared for the last decade (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/natachieve-g4.asp).

p. 35

Check the above example via the following URL http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/, and one can observe how the impact on evaluation at the macrolevel leads to comparing the efficacy of the educational system in different districts, states, schools, and how parents receive information about the overall quality of the educational system. The impact of the macrolevel on learning and instruction is not only of importance at the level of institutions and in the context of formal educational contexts. Also informal learning contexts are clearly influenced. Consider e.g., the impact of central regulations on adult education, lifelong learning initiatives, company based training, etc.

Characteristics of learners at macrolevel:

educational level, cultural background, social

economical status, race, educational level,

work experiences, …)

Characteristics institutionalized

« instructors » at macrolevel:

Investors in education,

managers educational networks,

legal instances, pressure

groups, stakeholders

Support learners: Ombuds organisations, legal

advice offices, ...

Macro perspective

upon didactical

activities

Context:

Political context,

conjuncture, society

problems, philosophical-

religious debates, budget

situation

Support of institutionalized

instructor at macrolevel:

Central authorities, central

support organisations, ...

Macro-

organisation

Macro perspective on didactical

activities:

Final goals

Professional competencies

Professional qualifications

Sectorial agreements as to

requirement

Centres for media development

National instructional systems (e.g.,

Open university)

National assessment centres ...

Macro perspective upon

organisation:

Typical organidsational structure of a

school

Typical options, study programmes in

the system,

Legal frameworks about security,

buildings, ..

Budget

Legal constraints to appoint staff

ICT-professional activities

...

The frame of reference at the macrolevel. In the above scheme, we integrate the different dimensions at the macrolevel and annotate the actors, variables and processes.

p. 36

Summary

1. The instructional sciences focus on the central processes: learning and instruction. 2. Different actors put forward different perspectives/approaches towards learning and

instruction. 3. The different approaches towards learning and instruction affect the different

dimensions in our frame of reference: actors, aggregation levels, organisation, the didactical activity and the learning activity.

4. At microlevel we focus on the concrete interaction between an instructor and the learner. This interaction is operationalized by the explicit choices made in relation to the components of the didactical activity.

5. In a state-of-the-art model of the didactical activity the following components play an interrelated role: learning objectives, learning content, media, instructional strategies, and assessment and evaluation.

6. At mesolevel we discuss learning and instruction from the perspective of an institute, the organisation. The components of the didactical activity are especially influenced by the organisation dimension in the frame of reference.

7. At macrolevel we look at learning and instruction from an institutionalized and managerial perspective. The context and the organisation are the central dimensions influencing the other processes, variables and the actors in the frame of reference.

8. The instructional sciences are a young filed of study with a variety of relatively independent subfields of study. A broad perspective on learning and instruction is needed to integrate the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of the object of study.

9. The educational frame of reference is backed by the results of educational research that underpin the potential impact of the actors, variables and processes at the different aggregation levels and in different contexts.

p. 37

Key concepts

• Actors • Aggregation levels: micro-, meso- and macrolevel • Components of the didactical activity: learning objectives, learning content, media,

instructional strategies, and assessment and evaluation. • Context • Didactics • Effect size • Frame of reference • Institutionalisation • Instruction • Instructional sciences • Instructional strategies • Instructor • Learner • Learning activities • Organisation • Roles • Stake holders

References Biggs, J.B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 48, 266-279. Boonen, R., Boelen, R., Herteweg, C., Vandeput, L. & Weymiens, C. (1994). Carpe

Didactica. Antwerpen: Plantyn. de Klerk, L. (1996). Het toekomstperspectief van de onderwijskunde. Tijdschrift voor

Onderwijsresearch, 21(3), 278-283. Dochy, F. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning.

Utrecht: Lemma. De Corte, E., Geerligs, C., Lagerweij, N., Peters, J. & Vandenberghe, R. (1976). Beknopte

Didaxologie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. de Klerk, L. (1974). Van leerpsychologie naar onderwijspsychologie. Deventer: Van Loghum

Slaterus. De Meyer, I., De Vos, H. & Van de Poele, L. (2005) Programme for International Student

Assessment – Voorbeelden van Testitems. Gent/Brussel: Universiteit Gent/Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, departement Onderwijs.

de Vries, G. (1985). De ontwikkeling van wetenschap – Een inleiding in de wetenschapsfilosofie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Eraut, M. (1989). The International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analysis relating to Achievement. Milton Park, Oxon: Routledge.

Hedges & Olkin, (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. London: Academic Press. Lagerweij, N. & Vos, J. (1987). Onderwijskunde: een inleiding. Groningen: Wolters

Noordhoff.

p. 38

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, departement onderwijs (2005). ONDERWIJS IN VLAANDEREN - Het Vlaamse onderwijslandschap in een notendop. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

Moust, J., Bouhuijs, P. & Schmidt, H., (1997) Probleemgestuurd leren. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff

Moust, J., & Schmidt, H. (1998). Probleemgestuurd Onderwijs: praktijk en theorie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Ormrod, J.E. (2003). Educational Psychology – Developing learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson - Merrill Prentice Hall.

Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Schunk, D.H. (2004). Learning Theories – an educational perspective. Upper Saddle river, NJ: Pearson - Merrill Prentice Hall.

Van Gelder, L., Oudkerk Pool, T. & Peters, J. & Sixma, J. (1973). Didactische analyse. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Veenman, S. (1987). Onderwijskunde en de opleiding. In N. Lagerweij & J. Vos (Eds.), Onderwijskunde: een inleiding, pp.179-196. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

VSNU (1998). Onderwijskunde - Onderwijsvisitatie de kwaliteit van het universitair onderwijs. Utrecht: VSNU.