Differentiating instruction

of teachers and coaches; (b) transition, characterized by decreasing scaffolding of environmental supports and increasing of apprenticeship arrangements that offer guided practice and foster self-monitoring, the learning of self-regulatory skills, and the identification and discrimination of standards and criteria for higher levels of performance, and (c) self-regulation, a later phase of competence in which much of the design of the learning environment is under the control of the learner as a developing expert (Glaser, 1996: 305).

A similar argument has been made for the learning of L2 teachers. Freeman (1991b) has called this “InterTeaching” while Kleinsasser (1995) refers to it as “interknowledge”.

InterTeaching suggests that teaching has phases, each of which is internally coherent as a phase of InterTeaching, and these phases are linked together by a developmental logic, a continuum of InterTeaching. As with interlanguage, each phase of InterTeaching seems to be systematic and rule-governed for the teacher who is in it; it makes sense at some level. And those phases develop according to a pattern which has both predictable and idiosyncratic aspects to it (Freeman, 1991b: 14).

The important point is that at each stage different forms of learning may be more effective than at other stages. According to Paas and his colleagues, the problem is that

“many instructional design recommendations proceed without an explicit reference to learner knowledge levels…a large number of CLT [cognitive load theory] effects that can be used to recommend instructional designs are only applicable to novices and can disappear and even reverse as a function of increasing expertise” (Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003:3). Supporting this position is a significant amount of research showing that beginners benefit from different kinds of instruction than more advanced learners.

First of all, novices seem to benefit when learning activities at least superficially resemble the activities practitioners engage in, while more advanced learners benefit more from deeper, structural similarity. For example, low achieving chemistry students benefited much more from contextualized, problem-based learning activities than high achieving students (Nentwig, Parchmann, Demuth, Gräsel & Ralle, 2005). Novick (1988) looked at the effect of worked out problem examples on solving math word problems by math novices (i.e., college students with low math SAT scores) and by experts (i.e., college students with high SAT math scores). The novices profited from examples which were superficially similar to the test problems, but the experts did not.

The experts, on the other hand, benefited from examples which had the same underlying problem structure as the test problems, but the novices did not. Similar findings were reported by Robertson (2000). The reason for this, according to Roberson (2000), is that novices lack the schemata to recognize underlying patterns in the problems, so they rely on imitation to solve problems, and this is helped by surface similarity. For experts, on the other hand, problems with similar underlying structure are more helpful because these can trigger relevant schemata which can then be used in problem-solving, while examples that are only superficially similar would only trigger the wrong schema.

In addition, novices seem to benefit from assistance in problem-solving during learning experiences, but more knowledgeable learners do not. One example of this is a series of tasks on electrical circuits which Kalyuga and his colleagues performed with technical apprentices. The results showed that there are a number of learning aids that were useful or not depending on the developmental level of the learner. For example, having a text-based explanation and a diagram was helpful for novices, whereas the intermediate level learners only needed the diagram (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1998). The

intermediates also were not helped by exposure to worked out examples, but profited from solving problems (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen & Sweller, 2001). The beginners benefited from worked out problems, but only with difficult problems (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2001). Riesslein and her colleagues also looked at learning about circuits but with engineering students. They found that beginners benefited most when they received a worked out example problem first and then tried to solve a similar problem. Intermediates, on the other hand, benefited most from practicing problem-solving first and then receiving the worked out example (Reisslein, Atkinson, Seeling &

Reisslein, 2006). Van Gog and her colleagues concluded that those with more expertise learn more from instructional formats which provide broader information (worked out examples, diagram plus explanation, etc.) because they can use their schema to quickly recognize what to focus on, so they do not need this information. They looked at eye movements of beginners and intermediates while solving electrical circuit problems.

They found that the intermediates quickly fixated their gaze on the major fault in the circuit and spent less time in the problem orientation phase, indicating that they were able to quickly find the problem (van Gog, Paas, & van Merrienböer, 2005).

Teacher learners with little knowledge of L2 teaching may require significant assistance to learn from some learning activities, while more knowledgeable teacher learners will not require such help. Studies of beginning teachers have also revealed that their lack of sophisticated knowledge and schema makes it difficult to do some activities. Davis (2006), for example, found that the novice teachers in her study could critique materials and plans based on instructional goals, but, lacking extensive schemata, they were not able to critique how content was represented in materials and plans. Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) looked at novice teachers in their practicum. They found that these teachers could focus on classroom management issues, but were not very good at focusing on student learning in the classroom. More broadly, Teachers have shown themselves to be better at examining dynamics in the classroom than understanding the dynamics in the broader school context. “Students seem to have few or no concerns about things that have little bearing on the pupils or the instructional task of teachers such as things that happen outside of the classroom” (Swennen, Jörg, & Korthagen, 2004: 280). Finally, when observing classroom vignettes beginning teachers are not very good at defining and representing the nature of discipline problems. Instead, beginning teachers jumped right to finding a solution: “novices’ problem-solving reflects a need to find a solution rather than any need to systematically define the problem…Expert teachers place a priority on defining and representing the problem as well as evaluating possible strategies, whereas novice teachers tend to represent problems in terms of their possible solutions” (Swanson, O’Connor & Cooney, 1990: 549).

In the cases mentioned above learning is much easier when you know more. However, there are some situations where knowing more makes learning more difficult.

“Instructional techniques that are highly effective with inexperienced learners can lose their effectiveness and even have negative consequences when used with more experienced learners” (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler & Sweller, 2003). Sternberg (1997) suggests that there are not only benefits, but also costs to gaining expertise. “One such cost is increased rigidity: The expert can become so entrenched in a point of view or a way of doing things that it becomes hard to see things differently” (Sternberg, 1997:

347). As mentioned in the second chapter, this effect has been called “The Curse of Knowledge” (Camerer, Loewenstein & Weber, 1989) or the “Expert Blind Spot”

(Nathan & Koedinger, 2000a; Nathan & Petrosino, 2003). “Better-informed agents are

unable to ignore private information even when it is in their interest to do so; more information is not always better” (Camerer, Loewenstein & Weber, 1989: 1232). In terms of teaching, this suggests that those with extended experience in teaching will find it more difficult to understand alternative ways of thinking about teaching and learning.

Evidence that those with more knowledge can be more inflexible in problem-solving comes from a variety of studies. For example, Wiley (1998) used a series of experiments with puzzle problems to investigate this effect. She found that “[a]cross all experiments, the subjects with the most domain-related knowledge were least able to solve problems correctly when their knowledge suggested an inappropriate solution” (Wiley, 1998: 726).

It appeared that knowledge limited creative problem-solving in that those who knew more relied on what they knew and were less likely to look for alternative solutions to the problems. “[D]omain knowledge not only biases a first solution attempt but also fixates the high-knowledge subject by defining and narrowing the search space, preventing a broad search, and decreasing the chances of finding an appropriate solution”

(Wiley, 1998:727). In a task simulating the running of a business, Stark and her colleagues found that business students did much worse than those with no business background because they used tactics important in the business world, but not in the simulation (Stark, Renkl, Gruber & Mandl, 1998).

Knowledgeable teachers appear to have similar problems. Teachers with high subject matter knowledge tend to have difficulties understanding students’ thought processes and conceptions of the subject matter. For example, Nathan and his colleagues found that math teachers who had high math knowledge made more inaccurate predictions for which kinds of problems would be most difficult for students (Nathan & Koedinger, 2000a; Nathan & Petrosino, 2003). In fact, their predictions were more similar to how the textbook (and the field of mathematics) organized math knowledge than the natural progression of math students (Nathan & Koedinger, 2000a). In addition, Van Dooren, Verschaffel and Onghena (2002) found that novice math teachers clearly preferred the use of algebra, both in their own solutions and in their evaluations of students’ work, even when an arithmetical solution was easier and more straightforward. This suggests that SLTE programs need to provide more knowledgeable teacher learners with activities which help them overcome the Curse of Knowledge.

Therefore, it may be beneficial for teacher learning if SLTE programs tailor their instruction to the needs of their teacher students depending on the kind of knowledge they bring to the program and the developmental stage of their expertise. This is not to suggest that it is easy to diagnose what level a learner is at. Learning “stages” can be more complex than they sound: “when acquiring a complex skill, a learner may be in the intermediate stage with respect to some subcomponents (i.e. when they still need to be understood), and he or she may be in the late stage with respect to some other subcomponents (i.e., understanding is already reached)” (Renkl & Atkinson, 2003: 21).

7.4.2 Differentiating due to personal knowledge base and learning styles

Research also indicates that SLTE learning activities should address the specific needs of individual teachers. Teacher education is often approached as if there is a canon of knowledge for the field that every teacher should acquire uniformly (i.e., Brown, 2000;

Hedge, 2000; Shrum & Glisan, 2004). However, teacher education is not a one-fits-all activity. Studies of teachers’ use of knowledge from teacher education programs have

shown that teachers learn such information in very idiosyncratic ways (Almarza, 1996;

Ball, 1990; Cohen & Ball, 1990; Peterson, 1991; Richards, Ho, & Giblin, 1996;

Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2001; Simon & Schifter, 1991; Wiemers, 1990; Wilson, 1990).

Even in situations where teachers are strictly trained in a particular way of teaching, each novice teacher understands and uses the concepts differently.

[W]hile a program such as the UCLES/RSA Cert is build around a well-articulated model of teaching, the model is interpreted in different ways by individual trainee teachers as they deconstruct it in the light of their teaching experiences and reconstruct it drawing on their own beliefs and assumptions about themselves, about teachers, about teaching, about learners (Richards, Ho, & Giblin, 1996: 258).

As discussed previously, people learn by using previous knowledge and schemata to interpret and construct new information, and information which does not fit well with existing knowledge and knowledge structures is more difficult to integrate and, hence, to learn and subsequently use for teaching (Belz, 2005; Carless, 1998; Dann, 1992;

Hazelrigg, 2005; Urmston, 2003; Wood, Cobb & Yackel, 1991). Therefore, to maximize learning in SLTE programs, courses may need to focus on knowledge that teacher students are ready and able to integrate into their knowledge base (Edward & Worthy, 2001).

Furthermore, people have different cognitive styles or personal preferences which effect learning which should be taken into account when designing and carrying out SLTE activities. For example, Dahlman (2004) reported on a study of ten novice teachers working in schools. She found that they had different ways of, for example, deciding if an idea or activity was good for a certain purpose in a specific class. While some preferred to reason everything out, some used their gut feelings, and the remaining teachers used a trial and error approach. Some saw information from their university courses as valuable background knowledge; some only valued it as a source of classroom activities and problem solutions; and still others saw it as a source of personal inspiration. Stark and her colleagues discovered that the more tolerant of ambiguity business and accounting students were while completing simulated tasks, the more they were able to learn (Stark, Gruber, Renkl & Mandl, 1997; Stark, Mandl, Gruber & Renkl, 2002).

More importantly, Korthagen (1988) surveyed over a hundred teacher students from their teacher education program and found that “student teachers differ in the degree to which they prefer to learn via reflection. We call this learning by internal direction and we use the term internal orientation. Other students have an external orientation, that is, they prefer to learn through external direction, from a supervisor or a book, for instance. They want structure and guidelines from outside” (Korthagen, 1988: 42). He also reported that the teacher education instructors had difficulties understanding the learning styles of external oriented students: “teacher educators only understand the way reflective students learn, possibly because they themselves have a reflective style” (Korthagen, 1988: 45).

Alarmingly, while most of the students who completed the program were seen to have an internal orientation, when Korthagen selected eight students from those who had left the program, all of these had external orientations to learning, suggesting that students might be leaving teaching simply because the teacher education instructors were not able to accommodate their learning styles. This suggests that SLTE programs need to provide teacher students with learning experiences which do not clash with the SLTE teachers’

learning styles. In the same vein, SLTE teachers need to be careful that they do not create

learning experiences which fit their own learning styles, but not those of their teacher students.

SLTE programs also need to address the different needs of teachers from different work contexts. Students in teacher education programs are not only different in terms of their existing knowledge or their learning preferences, but also the kinds of knowledge they are interested in acquiring. For example, Anglo-American SLTE programs have often been criticized as not providing the kind of instruction that would help teachers from outside of the US or the UK (e.g., Li, 1998; Liu, 1998; Lo, 2005). For example, the teacher in Lo’s (2005) longitudinal study was frustrated because the ideas he learned in his SLA class were not discussed in terms of the typical school contexts and questions of his home country. This can be a problem even outside of Anglo-American contexts. Ma and Luk (1996) studied 27 EFL teachers and found that the teacher education programs they attended in Hong Kong do not meet many of the needs as non-native speaking English teachers.

7.4.3 Summary

Managing cognitive load means being able to assess the knowledge level of teachers in SLTE programs and providing activities which challenge them but do not overload their explicit processing capacity. In many situations novice teachers require more support and more specific detail than experienced teachers. Due to the “Curse of Knowledge”, however, teachers with high levels of knowledge in one area may use that knowledge even in areas where it is not appropriate or useful. Therefore, with more experienced L2 teachers, SLTE teachers need to make sure that their teacher students’ knowledge does not prevent them from understanding and using new perspectives for language teaching.

Learning styles and values for teaching also affect teachers’ cognitive load for SLTE activities. Teachers’ idiosyncratic internal knowledge base for teaching, mainly gained through their apprenticeship of observation (the 13,000 or so hours they have observed teachers in school) also means that the same activity might be within one teacher student’s ZPD while it results in cognitive overload for another teacher student. SLTE teachers should try to tailor their instruction so that it meets the cognitive abilities and capacities of their teacher students.