Denken en handelen van docenten

Abstract

For two experienced science teachers the relationship between their cognitions and their actions was explored. These two teachers experience a concern touching on an innovation in Dutch upper secondary education: the so called 'Tweede Fase'. The biology teacher fears not being able to have a plenary discussion with students anymore because of less class time (due to choices made by the school in the implementation of TF), and he dreads resorting to monologues. The physics teachers wants to stimulate students to be more autonomous but does not trust students to be willing enough. These concerns determined the content of the cognitions and actions studied. For the biology teacher we for example examined the relationship between cognitions about plenary discussions and actions characteristic for a plenary discussion. Reckoning with explanations for inconsistency in other studies we made some methodological choices in the collection and analysis of the data. We for example stayed as close as possible to a teacher's words; we analyzed lessons through a teacher's own eyes as it where. We furthermore examined two kinds of cognitions: teachers' general perceptions of their conduct and teachers' lesson(situation)specific thoughts. A teacher's general perception of his conduct was derived from semi-structured interviews. It reveals the general perception of certain teacher actions. Lesson(situation)specific were measured through interviews shortly after a lesson: stimulated-recall interviews and interviews 'in retrospect'. Both cognitions were related to a teacher's classroom practice (5/6 lessons in total). We first determined whether a teacher's general perception is consistent or inconsistent with his teaching practice (research question 1). We then tried to explain (in)consistencies through an examination of the lesson(situation)specific cognitions from various perspectives (research question 2). We concluded that the relationship between cognitions and actions proves to be ambiguous. This ambiguity is mainly due to the fact that characteristics of the teacher's general perception of his conduct are at odds. This is the case when a teacher for instance appreciates an action but also has doubts about its' feasibility. When such an action frequently took place we concluded consistency with respect to the appreciation and inconsistency when looking at doubts about its' feasibility. The lesson(situation)specific cognitions furthermore contribute to this ambiguity because they, in most cases, confirmed these characteristics. But even when characteristics proved to be mutually congruent, a teacher's perception of an action proved to be consistent with the observed frequency for some actions as well as inconsistent for other actions. For both teachers we furthermore concluded that their concern does not have an effect on practice as dramatically as expected. The biology teacher still has plenty of plenary discussions and the physics teacher does at several times stimulate students to be autonomous. When answering the second research question, the lesson(situation)specific cognitions do seem to provide for clarity in understanding the observed frequency of actions when they show arguments for actions, especially when they show a recurring pattern in the argumentation for (not) undertaking an action, or when they show the appearance of a hindering or encouraging factor. We concluded that especially a teacher's lesson(situation) specific arguments for (not) undertaking an action prove to be very helpful in explaining a teacher's classroom practice in light of his more general cognitions.