The Icelandic educational system is in transition. Many educators and parents are concerned about its current status as well as its future. I have recently conducted a video-based classroom study of mathematics lessons in Finnish and Icelandic primary schools. The study, which served as the basis for my doctoral dissertation (see above for a pdf-link), focuses on what is actually happening in the mathematics classrooms in these two countries. Connections between pedagogical theory and the classroom practices evident on the video footage are explored in the study. Of special interest is the comparison of the Review-Lesson-Practice-script of the Finnish lessons and the Individualized learning-instructional paradigm, which has become popular in Iceland.
Five teacher-related themes that I consider significant are summarized below. Please keep in mind that there certainly are Icelandic teachers that don’t need all this advice. Comments are welcome! (lasse@ru.is)
1. Content-related social interaction is important. Learner-based instructional strategies have become the norm in most Icelandic schools. I observed a number of Icelandic classrooms where the teacher simply tutors the students one-on-one for the duration of the lesson. In these classes there was no content-related public discourse whatsoever. The teachers working in this fashion are overlooking an extremely helpful pedagogical resource—their students.
Whole-class discussions are crucial. The students as a group are more than the sum of their parts. There is no replacement for the kind of negotiating of meaning that takes place in group discussions. I would advise every teacher to frequently discuss important ideas with the entire class, even if the students are on different pages in the book. By doing this, the teacher can help everyone in the class.
2. Teachers should teach in ways in which they are comfortable. There is no instructional strategy that works well in all teaching situations. Teaching methods should be selected keeping in mind a) the students, b) the content, and c) the teacher. In particular, if a teacher is not comfortable with or skilled in a certain instructional method with a certain topic and/or a group of students, then he or she should not use it. Experimenting with various methods can be valuable, but only the instructional practices deemed effective—as determined by the teacher—should be used in the long-term.
3. The Individualized learning-strategy is not supposed to be minimally-guided. Decades of educational research has shown that unguided or minimally-guided pedagogical strategies are not as effective as approaches that emphasize direct guidance of the student learning process (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). The cognitive load theory states that if the learners are left to discover or construct the procedures and the basic knowledge about a subject by themselves, their cognitive faculties—the working memory, to be exact—can be overloaded. This hinders learning as our limited working memory cannot transfer information to the long-term memory if it is being overloaded. Altering long-term memory is the goal of all instruction; if the long-term memory has not been changed, nothing has been learned.
According to Kirschner et al. (2006), when it comes to the basics, the students should be shown what to do and how to do it. Only after that should they go and apply the learned knowledge and procedures to various situations. Other researchers, such as Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007), maintain that constructivist instruction strategies can be effective as long as appropriate scaffolding is provided for the learner; however, this can be quite challenging for the teacher to accomplish.
The cognitive load-based argument applies only to novice and intermediate learners. Thus someone who already knows the basics can benefit from minimally-guided instruction. This would apply to, for instance, students at the university level.
Tomlinson’s (e.g., 1999) ideas about differentiated instruction have been popular in Iceland. Unfortunately, based on the evidence from the video study, they have not been fully implemented in the mathematics classrooms. Tomlinson calls for attention to the students’ dissimilar learning styles, tiered activities, and differentiated curricular materials to accommodate the diverse learning needs of the students. The reality is that the students are usually taught using the same instruction methods and learning materials; they are only moving ahead in the book at somewhat different speeds.
Teachers and administrators should keep in mind that teaching according to the Individualized learning-strategy is not easy. It is not simply omitting the public lesson and tutoring the students instead, lowering the responsibility of the teacher. In fact, Individualized learning requires much more effort from the teacher than does teaching using, for instance, the Review-Lesson-Practice-method. The teacher has to find ways to vary the curriculum, curricular materials, instructional methods, motivators, scaffolding, expectations, and ways of assessment to suit each student’s needs. If there are 15 or more students in a class, this can quickly become overwhelming. This strategy can have many benefits when executed well; but if it is not done with a great of effort and expertise, it may have disastrous results.
4. Teachers can demand more from their students. Teachers risk losing control of the quantity and quality of learning when they ask their students to formulate their own learning goals. Giving an immature pre-teen or a 14-year-old the power to set their own goals for in-school work and homework can result in laziness and lack of ambition.
Learning to set and reach goals is important, and it should be taught. But unfortunately many school children rarely feel intrinsically motivated to learn school subjects and, as a result, set rather low learning goals for themselves. Surely many Icelandic parents have noticed that the time their children spend on homework has dropped drastically in recent years; PISA data obtained from Námsmatsstofnun confirms this. The teacher should set the homework assignment—at least for the underachievers—and hold the students accountable for its completion.
5.
References
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
OECD. (2007). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2007. Paris: OECD Publication.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
|