Chapter 2: Literature Review. "A study of the relationship between Interpersonal Choices and Performance Task achievement in an International School in South-east Asia"

Author: Daryl Thompson

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The aim of the study is to test whether student choices within their learning and the autonomy and control that provides will result in success within authentic real life performance tasks. The validity of that test can only be determined if there is empirical evidence of the need and relevance of such an approach. This literature review will attempt to explore if there is a need for cognitive thinking in schools, in particular that of personalization. It will look at the different definitions and perspectives of how that may look and how it may be implemented. This will determine what is most needed for success in a society today which has seen an explosion in information and technology. It will also look at the framework and philosophy which may be required to practically integrate it into the curriculum and explore examples of that implementation and any existing evidence which shows a link to student achievement.

Cognitive Dispositions

Cognition is the process in which our thinking develops through the acts of observation, imagination, memory, judgment and the solving of problems. The art of cognition has developed alongside constructivist learning theories stretching back to Aristotle and Plato’s arguments about transforming experience into informed judgment (Stonehouse et al., 2011). Theorists have talked about stages of cognition starting with Piaget’s (1964) work with the development of children. Vygotsky (1978), added to this work by linking cognition to the internalization of experiences through social interactions and culture which leads to new learning. Lave and Wenger (1991) endorsed the idea that what people learn, see, and do is situated in their role as a member of a community.

Recently Bray (2017), Zmuda and Callick (2017) have linked cognitive development to the thinking process around choices and personalization of the curriculum with increasing student control and voice. They have also advocated a progression in the stages of personalization from teacher generated, to co-created to student generated. Students will be at different points of this journey within their school education as intelligence is not something which is fixed but can be learned and practiced (Zull, 2004). An important goal of education is to promote continuous learning where the students will hopefully meet the required desired results by graduation in order to meet the demands of an uncertain world where problems will need to be continuously solved in the workplace.

Research is showing that in order to shift the paradigm of education from one traditionally seen as a one size fits all model, where recall and memorization in state exams is enough to succeed, to one where there is no limit to the cognitive development of 21st Century problem solvers who can adapt, be flexible and tackle all of the uncertainties within. Zhang and Nouri (2019), describe modern society as the ‘information and knowledge society’ (p.9), and advanced learning analytic as the driver for change in education systems. The authors discuss the role of big data and analytic in the modern world and are vehement when positing that the domain of education should also be data-driven. In many ways their assertions dispel the argument for ‘off the shelf’, one-size-fits-all curricula. Therefore, there is a need to embed cognition into the curriculum and to produce data which will ascertain both its effectiveness in terms of how it is best implemented and how it affects student achievement.

The Habits of Mind (HoM Appendix 1), a set of 16 problem solving dispositions are being added to the curriculum of schools who value cognition as an addition to the procedural, declarative and conceptual understandings required as 21st Century Learners. Indeed, one of those Habits, activating prior knowledge and linking new knowledge to learners’ prior cognitive structures is seen as a central tenet to the theory (Schunk, 1996). Another of these Habits, meta-cognition, is about the art of learning how to learn which enables thinking to develop from the procedural and declarative to the conceptual and cognitive. Utilizing the HoM to solve authentic real world problems helps teachers understand why authentic learning experiences that are relevant to a learner’s own life help facilitate learning.

The development of a curriculum which integrates cognitive learning dispositions and learning through situation and experience is the landscape which can successfully integrate learners into a world which both requires and values the art of problem solving.

Definition

In order to implement PL successfully, there is a need to look into the literature in order to determine a common language for schools to acquire a clear vision of how to practically integrate it into the curriculum.

Instructional leaders are constantly seeking new proven instructional methods to increase student engagement and achievement through cognitive thinking. In response to these needs, school divisions have adopted many transformational educational practices, including PL.

The term has gained considerable traction within research circles since 2008. However, much of the research has found difficulty in coming to a stated definition and critics charge advocates with conceptual inconsistencies (Cutler et al., 2007; Carr, 2010; Gewirtz et al., 2009; Schmid and Petko, 2019). It has been defined as teacher driven individualization of instruction (Wolfe and Poon, 2015), and conversely as student driven creation of content (Walkington and Bernacki, 2020). It seems that this issue of control is the main area of division within the definition, purpose and implementation of an Interpersonal learning approach.

Bray and McClaskey (2010), were the first to define personalization in education with how it related to the learner, rather than how the teacher tailored instruction. Kallick and Zmuda (2017), have a viewpoint on personalization which is much more in tune with constructivist learning theories. They see PL as a model which is driven by students who engage in meaningful and rigorous challenges to demonstrate desired results. This is implemented in a much more student centered curriculum of enquiry and idea generation and is much more suited to a curriculum which teaches for transfer and understanding.

It seems clear what personalization is grounded on but there are quite diverse perspectives on how that instruction is tailored and who has control over that instruction. This is the crux of the current argument. The next section looks at an Interpersonal perspective which seems to go against the purpose of constructivist learning and the freedom associated with the display of cognitive dispositions.

Control within Personalization

There are disparate perspectives within personalization as to what actually constitutes student needs and it is formulated within the confines of freedom and control. There is no doubt that the specter of neoliberalism within education is an influence in this matter. Davies and Bansel (2007), argue that increasingly areas such as health and education which were previously seen as basic human needs are now reimagined as economic products which can be used for profit.

This can be seen within the current debate over learning styles and preferences. This is an area in which the main researcher conducted some Action Research. The tailoring of instruction to perceived learning styles used to constitute an indicator within the teacher evaluation process. However, controversy around the instruction prompted further research. A proliferation of questionnaires sprung up which mainly asked multiple choice questions to determine a student’s particular learning style and subsequently their preference of instruction. There is concern that the marketing strategies and commercial interest behind these questionnaires do not invite debate over their theoretical and empirical veracity. Much research has dismissed the simplicity of fixing staples and preferences for student learning as empirically unproven to specifically enhance student learning and therefore student achievement within cognitive learning (Coffield et al., 2004b; Pashler et al., 2008; Geake, 2008; Riener and Willingham, 2010; Newton, 2015).

Coffield et al’s (2004a) often perceived seminal work on learning styles reviewed the 13 major models in terms of construct validity, predictive validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Coffield (ibid), argued that research on learning preferences was ‘incoherent and conceptually confused’ (p.220). With no agreed theory or technical vocabulary to underpin this theory it is essentially weakened. There is a danger that this belief is resulting in teachers prioritizing the identification of learning preferences over existing levels of knowledge. This is a dangerous distraction from proven pedagogical instruction and this concern needs to be addressed by educational policy and decision makers. It also is a concern over the purpose and implementation of personalization within schools who endorse these questionnaires. Of course. It would be naive to think that an Interpersonal approach with student control could not be monetized but it is argued that at least this would have the interests of the student at its core. As Reeve (2009), succinctly noted, “students relatively benefit when teachers support their autonomy but relatively suffer when teachers control their behavior” (p. 159).

The personalization of learning is not something that comes solely from the teacher or corporate identities but as a co-created construct or even as a solely self-directed student entity. Bray and McClasky (2017), contend that only by involving the student in the direction of their learning does it produce the benefits of personalizing learning and increased engagement. In aiming to meet student individual needs it must be realized that each student is on a different stage of the self-directed spectrum. The ultimate goal is for student self-directedness and autonomy but each journey may be different and the choices students make will reflect their stage of development. There must be consultation between teacher and student when designing learning activities and to maximize learning by identifying the stage of development for each particular task.

Therefore, the role of the teacher is changing within this Interpersonal model. Instead of the teacher being the sole instigator of instruction, they are now seen as a guide to give assistance to students in order to achieve their learning objectives. It merely shifts the role of the teacher from the lead resource and deliverer of information to a “curriculum planner, classroom facilitator and coach, assessor, advisor, communicator, and connector” to form a learning partnership between the teacher and the student (Zmuda et al., 2015, p. 20). After negotiations and consultation, it is the student who is expected to select the methods and context of instruction and to develop autonomy over time. This allows learning to meet individual needs, interests and circumstances which can be quite diverse (Brusilovsky and Peylo, 2003).

In a PL classroom, there will be an ebb and flow of personalizing to, with, and by the learner, depending on the learners and the task at hand (Rickabaugh, 2016). Zmuda et al. (2015) offered a simple continuum to depict control over the learning experience from “teacher-driven learning experience” to “student-driven learning experience” (p. 12). On the other hand, Dickhauser and Meyer (2006), advocates for better math instruction, spoke to the power of teacher-led instruction to deliver and assess content. He theorized giving students control to “determine path and pace…will lead to ‘large knowledge deficits’ in many students, especially those at risk” (as cited in Zmuda et al., 2015, p. 13). It is therefore vital that teachers skillfully identify the level of control that the student requires for each stage of personalization. If this is not an informed decision then it could have negative effects on learning. The curriculum should be aimed at the very best students. It is the teachers’ responsibility to meet their students where they need to be met and discover unique pathways to success for every student (ASCD Webinar: What Matters Most as a New School Year Begins?, n.d.) .

Voice and Choice

If it is determined that the version of Interpersonal learning which leads to greater achievement lies within student control rather than teacher control it is important to explore what that would actually look like in practice. Increased student control results in an increased student voice and the subsequent choices they have over their learning.

When schools take time to invest in Interpersonal learning and actively integrate it into the curriculum, it allows students to begin to take some responsibility for their learning. Increased control lies within the voice and choice of students to be consulted in the design of their instruction, learning goals and means of assessment. This requires curriculum planners to provide choices based around interest, ideas, direction and learning activities. Bray and McClaskey (2014), talk about students being active participants in their learning. Patall et all (2008), equate this participation with increased effort, participation and intrinsic motivation. This is evident when students have the choice to learn about themes and concepts within their sphere of interests, no matter how diverse that may be (Bernacki and Walkington, 2018).

However, Long & Aleven (2013), cautioned that students can feel pressure, intimidation, trepidation when offered control and autonomy when they are not used to it. They stated that learning can be diminished when students decide not to challenge themselves when provided with choices in their learning environment. The school within this study are only now thinking of implementing choices and greater control after 10 years working within the UBD framework. This framework provided students with opportunities to discuss, debate, form perspectives and participate in sharing their opinions. Those students see voice and choice as a natural progression, not all students would. According to Larmer et al. (2015), “The degree of voice and choice must be made with an eye to what students are ready to handle, and what scaffolds and coaching will be available” (p. 42). The goal for the infusion of student voice and choice is to allow learners to build confidence in making logical decisions in life (ibid). If choice is not offered through careful negotiation and co-creation with the teacher it can be counter intuitive (Schwartz, 2004), and may result in negative relationships between the student and the teacher (Netcoh, 2017). Underwood (2007) highlights this problem by explaining that if PL is implemented without a positive mutual consensus it can actually result in increased student disengagement.

Educators can allow for student choice in a variety of ways. Interactive choice boards allow students to select how they will learn about the topic being studied, or students can have choice in how they present or deliver content they learned through technology (Ronan, 2015). For example, students might all have to research a topic but could have the choice to create an animation, slideshow, or interactive mind map depicting their findings. When students have choice in their learning, problem solving and authentic learning are incorporated into the experience, thus making the learning more meaningful (Pilley, 2016).

Teaching for Transfer and Understanding

The progressive elements of student control, voice and choice cannot exist in a vacuum. They need a coexisting theoretical and curriculum framework in which to operate. The theoretical framework of a study is a structure of explanation that can hold or support the research. It presents a notion of why the problem being researched exists. Therefore, the theoretical framework serves as the basis for conducting the research. The constructivist learning theory espouses that it is the construction of understanding of the new information that we acquire as opposed to the recall of that information which is most important. The interpretive and constructivist approach moves learning away from the traditional memory or recall oriented reproductive models, to a more engaging, student-centered approach (Cannella and Reiff, 1994) which incorporates higher order thinking in the form of conceptual understandings and cognitive thinking skills. It is only then that students can be successful in solving problems by transferring their learning to new situations which are authentic and within the context of real life (Potter, 2013).

Interpersonal learning incorporates the elements of constructivist theories in that it requires the designers of instruction to determine through consultation which methods and strategies will best assist learners to actively explore through experience to advance their thinking skills and to encourage their development of their own understanding of knowledge (Schunk, 1996). Personalization empowers students to pursue the tenets of constructivism through the pursuit of aspirations and the investigation of problems through inquiry and questioning (Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015). Through a constructivist framework such as UBD, students can then demonstrate the desired outcomes through meaningful, real-life challenges. Personalization embodies this desire to discover through enquiry and for them to think about what they want to know and to evoke their curiosity.

In an era where learners are looking to give themselves more control over their education, personalization is gaining impetus and traction among progressive thinkers and reformers. Voice and choice are the vehicles for this control. To have the ability to break the shackles of a prescribed curriculum with prescribed content and inauthentic, anachronistic situations is an extremely liberating thought for students of today. PL allows the learner to be an active member of the curriculum and instructional process. “In constructivism, the learner is the key player; learners participate in generating meaning or understanding” (Hunkins and Ornstein, 2016, p. 113).

Costa and Kallick (2004), describe self-directed learners as self-managing, self-monitoring and self-modifying. They believe that as educators in this new world, we can no longer decide for our students what we think they need to learn; we must decide with them not for them. Learners need to be included in the decision-making processes involving curriculum development, teaching strategies, vertical alignment, and discipline. This represents the crux of self-directed learning.

In order for PL to become a deeper change, Zmuda et al. (2015), contended that educators need to be aware of the challenges that lie ahead and be prepared for those challenges and to commit to overcoming the potential pitfalls on the way. The implementation process could be fraught with difficulties, disruption and uncertainty. Initiating new pedagogical and theoretical approaches to schools requires the faculty to examine and even discard beliefs and values which may have been held for a long period of time. It is much easier for schools and the educators within them to continue to pursue what they perceive to be tried and tested means of instruction. There is criticism of constructivist learning theory and the ability to practically implement it as a fundamental shift in direction. Not every student has access to well-funded schools with teachers who are dedicated and experienced to deliver the kind of instruction required for its success (Corley, 1997). It is a reality that students can lack basic skills when the focus is so much on developing conceptual and cognitive understandings (Haney and McArthur, 2002). However, this criticism seems to lie within constraints and issues of implementation as opposed to any doubt as to the value of enquiry, discussion and debate in order to produce confident, self-assertive students who can solve problems.

Implementation and Perception

When schools take on new initiatives which seem to align with their philosophy and framework it is still very important to look at the research on the implementation of the initiative in other institutions and whether that implementation had a positive effect on student achievement. We have seen a variation of perspectives on the definition and the purpose of PL which results in challenges for implementation. For PL to be successful as a concept it is important for educators to build a common language around meaning, understanding, vision, goals and purpose (Bray and McClaskey, 2015). For individual schools it is important to have a clear vision of those elements as well and to learn lessons from examples of its implementation.

Halverson et al., (2014) found that the schools within their study did have a clear vision around choice and the students being active participants. However, they found that school districts in the main still had control over learning goals. Research has shown that there are still a wide range of PL practices employed within schools and within that a variation of how individual teachers implement it (Steiner et al., 2015; Tsai et al., 2020). The ability to clearly analyze the success of PL implementation is compounded when much of the research does not clearly define the features of PL which have been adopted. Halverson’s study (ibid.) was in US schools but Sebba et al (2007) had similar conclusions with their large scale study in the UK. Many of the schools saw personalization as a national policy of fitting individuals to the service rather than vice versa which again accentuates the issue of control within personalization. Hargreaves (2010) highlighted this problem by explaining that it was now clear that personalization could only be successful by taking a new view of the learner as instead of students being expected to fit into the school, the school was being changed to fit the learning demands of students. Sebba (ibid.) insisted that schools had to develop a culture and philosophy conducive to student needs. This would entail a school to become a research center, effectively use data to inform curriculum changes and refinements, have high aspirations, a clear mission and vision and strong leadership.

The literature suggests that schools which give importance to student choice and control view the learner as co-investors in education, not financially, but in their ability to invest and commit to their own learning. These schools maintain the focus on learning and the development of equipping students with the necessary skills required beyond formal education. They endorse lifelong learning and an intrinsic motivation to pursue areas of personal interest. The research shows that such schools have increased student performance, motivation, agency, relationships with teachers and seen a decrease in behavioral problems and dropping out of education altogether (Prain et al., 2013; Swan, 2017; Russell and Riley, 2011).

Smith and Cardaciotto (2011), found that schools that did not necessarily truly value student control, voice and choice, perceptions on implementation were not entirely positive. Further challenges such as issues over grading , integration of data, and time were observed. Effective professional development was also seen as a major influence to the success of PL.

There may be some concerns over implementation of PL. However, it is difficult to argue against the idea that students should be able to have a say in something so vital to their future as education. Schools need to do more to understand PL, to have a clear vision of how it will look in the classroom and to overcome the challenges which will inevitably ensue. It is only through hard work and dedication that the benefits to student learning will become reality.

Student Achievement

While many school divisions are beginning to implement some of Zmuda’s (2017) elements of PL into their classrooms (Appendix 2) , there is little research to show the impact on student achievement (Prain et al., 2013; Pratt, 2019; Pane et al., 2017). This lack of research is exacerbated by the diverse perceptions on

implementation of PL and therefore it is difficult to gauge a correlation between the preferred usage of PL and its effect on problem based assessments.

Underwood et al. (2007) found that increased choice and student control did not result in student investment in their future. They concluded that this may be due to poorly motivated students preferring the predictability of set work over the novelty of risk. This shows as discussed elsewhere in this review that there needs to be a school culture of discussion, debate, valued perceptions and opinions for students to trust their own voice and choice.

There have been some studies that have reported a correlation between Interpersonal learning and student achievement. Fullan (2009, reported that schools in Melbourne improved their reading, writing and mathematical results by 10-20% when they tailored instruction to meet learning and motivational needs. Steiner et al. (2015) found similar improvements although they stated that most were seen after the school had implemented PL for at least three years.

While it may not be clear that PL itself leads to higher student achievement, studies have reported cognitive thinking skills in general to be conducive to greater investment and subsequent achievement. Muscott (2018), showed in his research how the HoM correlate to PT achievement. He concluded that an amalgamation of the social skills, thinking skills, problem solving skills and confidence levels associated with the HoM and cognitive learning had a significant impact on success in authentic transfer tasks. Muscott’s (ibid.) study dispelled the myth that high achievement cannot be accomplished if teachers and students also focus on the process of how to learn and not just what to learn.

Conclusions

This literature review placed the concept of Interpersonal learning within the current context of education which is witnessing a much needed transformation from the acquisition of knowledge to the processing of knowledge. The need for conceptual and cognitive dispositions in the age of information results in the need for greater student control and autonomy. The review concludes that the requirement for cognitive learning is solidly grounded within theoretical research and that there is a positive impact on its implementation for lifelong learning. There is strong evidence that initiatives such as the HoM and PL lead to greater student engagement , motivation and subsequently academic achievement. This correlation validates the purpose of this study and prompts further research into how cognitive learning can best be implemented within schools today.

DMU Timestamp: January 21, 2022 19:02

General Document Comments 0