€55... 3%....
5.9% a“ .a.

.3. >M witty“.
.r

:x
I arwgnlmuvﬁ .b

.255 $24.43...
..

Llrmﬂ..tlr.

an)

if...“
....

 

 

 

 

lt-‘Xﬂ‘tit’f.
.«1> ‘4‘. A . Lyn-I‘D}... 5:1. .‘uue.\v-
Jankarusﬁi... .....ﬂ.2!..ui.
.5. .2. r... tmﬁx L.
...2..... 3.
. .
_ - .
.15....
.. .

.

I { 3 5,."

. ....§..a.:..%22...
5 2....... .

 

 

:52 is}

s~§s.r...u

\I! .2
$2.31 .10!‘
8:

 

 

 

, . Wv
:1 . I . ., . . .
.25... .

 

I .: .
’1. El! .! f
ngrsgv. n

. I .1.(nyt

 

 

IUI“ﬁllIﬂllzﬂﬂﬂilfﬂﬂﬂlﬂmllllINIHMHINIHI
LIBRARY 0488643
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

MEANINGFULNESS OF LEARNING FROM TEACHERS' PERSPECTIVES:

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF EXPERIENCED TEACHERS' LEARNING
IN TAIWAN

presented by

Cheng-hui Chen

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Educational Psychology

 

   

ajor - rofessor

Date 20 00

MSUL! an Afﬁrmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 chIRCIDatoDmpBS—p 14

 

MEANINGFULNESS OF LEARNING FROM TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF EXPERIENCED TEACI-IERS’ LEARNING
IN TAIWAN
By

Cheng-hui Chen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2000

ABSTRACT

MEANINGFULNESS OF LEARNING FROM TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF EXPERIENCED TEACI-IERS’ LEARNING
IN TAIWAN
By

Cheng-hui Chen

Exponential growth in opportunities for global communication and access to information
means that both our institutions and knowledge are dynamic and changing in the modern
society. For teachers in such a constantly changing environment to be successful, they
must become lifelong learners. This dissertation is concerned with the problem that there
are practicing teachers who are not strengthening their attitude toward lifelong learning,
or, even worse are ignoring the precepts of continuing teacher education speciﬁcally
designed to support teachers’ focus on to becoming lifelong learners. The research
assumes that a positive attitude toward lifelong learning is likely enhanced when
practicing teachers ﬁnd their own inservice learning experiences meaningful in
signiﬁcant ways. What kinds of inservice learning do experienced teachers ﬁnd
meaningful? How do teachers who share instructional events differ in what they ﬁnd
learning meaningful? This study seeks to understand the kinds of learning that practicing
teachers appreciate, believe to be worthwhile, and want to experience again--learning
they ﬁnd supportive in encouraging them to commit seriously to learning. I began with 9
experienced teachers in a university-based summer professional development program in

Taiwan--a graduate program in school guidance that teachers attend for four consecutive

summers. Before the class began, the teachers were given a survey about their learning
experiences. After attending classes with the teachers, I led 5 focus group interviews and
9 individual interviews with the teachers to identify those experiences each found
meaningful. I used grounded theory strategies to analyze collected data: survey
responses, classroom observation ﬁeldnotes, and interview transcripts. I found
perspectives on meaningfulness of learning to vary among teachers, but to emphasize
practicality, relationship with instructors, and consistency of ideas with their current
thinking. Teachers found learning meaningful in three areas: growth, instructor, and peer.
The extent to which learning experiences contributed to intellectual growth was the most
common criterion teachers applied in judging them to be meaningful. I developed a three-
layer model to represent the nature of learning contributing to teachers’ intellectual
growth. When describing meaningful learning experiences, teachers claimed that they
grew in three domains: taught disciplinary knowledge, serendipitous knowledge, and self-
knowledge. Teachers appreciated learning both conceptual and procedural knowledge.
Some of teachers emphasized that learning experiences were strongly meaningful when
they learned the knowledge they desired to obtain. Teachers held multiple perspectives
on meaningful learning. A common perspective was wanting to continue learning when
the taught disciplinary knowledge was learned well. Teachers varied in ﬁnding
meaningfulness in the same courses. They varied in their perceptions less in the courses
that they highly valued than in those that they did not. Differences in their perceptions
emerged in the areas of grth (taught disciplinary knowledge, serendipitous knowledge,
and self-knowledge) each teacher valued, as well in the teachers’ emphasis on the content

that they desired to learn.

Copyright

Cheng-hui Chen

2000

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents for their giving me power to learn and
freedom to search. I say a special thank to my partner, Mr. Sze, Tat Ming, for his love
and encouragement on the way of understanding the world of adulthood. I also say thanks
to both Professor John (Jack) Philips Smith III and Professor Lin, Sieh-Hwa for their
kindness to offer me advice and help when I was down in my graduate study. Finally, this

dissertation is to remember Professor Lu, Ching Ming for his graciousness.

ACKNOWLEDGIVIENTS

The assistance of the following individuals is grateﬁilly acknowledged. Each
provided special expertise, guidance, and thoughtful questions and comments.

Ralph T. Putnam, Ph.D., my chairperson, for his guidance and support.

Stephen L. Yelon, Lynn Paine, and Linda Anderson, my committee, for their
insightful comments and discussion.

I owe also sincere thanks to several professors and instructors in the summer
program, who kindly permitted the use of their classes for the investigation, and to the
nine participant teachers who served as informants in this study, generously taking time

from their crowded days to share me their experiences and perspectives on learning.

vi

CM
RIVI

 

 

 

CHA
\lE

CHI;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. x

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
Focus of the Study ............................................................................ 2
Characteristics of the Teachers as Lifelong Learners .................................... 3
Problem of Concern ........................................................................... 6
Assumptions ................................................................................. 10
Purpose and Research Questions .......................................................... 12
Signiﬁcance of the Study .................................................................. 13
Overview of the Study ..................................................................... 16

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................... 17
A Framework for Understanding and Describing Learning Experience ............ 18
Characteristics of Meaningful Learning .................................................. 27
Meaningful Leaming for Practicing Teachers ........................................... 38

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD ............................................................................................ 47
Design ....................................................................................... 47
Subjects and Contexts ..................................................................... 52
Limitations .................................................................................. 56
Variables .................................................................................... 56
Instrumentation ............................................................................. 61
Procedures of Data Collection ........................................................... 64
Analysis ...................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS ............................................................................................ 78
Growth, Model Instructors, and Supportive Peers: Three Main Characteristics of
Meaningful Learning to the Experienced Teachers ................................... 81
Meaningful to Whom ..................................................................... 109
In what situations are the characteristics salient to teachers? ........................ 125
Same Boat, Different Journey ........................................................... 130
Summary of Findings of this Research ................................................. 146

vii

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 149
Characteristics of Meaningful Learning ................................................ 149
Implications for Further Research ...................................................... 158
Implications for Teacher Education ..................................................... 161

APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 164
A: Experienced Teachers’ Learning Survey .......................................... 164
B: Classroom Observation Guide ...................................................... 172
C: Focus Group Interview Guiding Questions ........................................ 174
D: Course Valuing Inventory ............................................................ 175
E: Individual Interview Guide .......................................................... 177
F: Notebook for Summer Program Learning .......................................... 178
G: Letter of Invitation ..................................................................... 179
H: Assurance Form ........................................................................ 180

REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 181

viii

T35. L

 

. . k 1 .u..\ . .Uﬂ
.WHL. . D 1hk
.1“ d

_ T

Tabit

l JPN

Tabir

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 — Dimensions of Learning Environments ............................................. 23
Table 2.2 — Scales of the Course Experience Questionnaire ................................... 23
Table 3.1 — Participant Teachers’ Demographic Backgrounds ............................... 53
Table 3.2 - Content of the Four Scales of the Course Valuing Inventory ................... 64
Table 3.3 — Description of Scales and Items of Course Valuing Inventory .................. 66
Table 3.4 — Teachers’ Learning Focus Group Interview Guide ............................... 74
Table 3.5 — Coding Scheme ........................................................................ 77
Table 4.1 — Individual Teachers’ Perspectives on Meaningful Learning ................... 110

Table 4.2 —- Perceived Meaningful Learning across Learning Situations: Survey
Responses and the lst Focus Group Interview ................................... 128

Table 4.3 — Perceived Meaningful Learning Across Learning Situations: All the 2"", 3'“,

4'“, and 5"I Focus Group Interviews ................................................. 129
Table 4.4 -— Perceived Values of the 5 Summer Courses ...................................... 133
Table 4.5 — Correlation between Scales of the Course Valuing Inventory ................ 134

ix

 

III-,-
FIN.
5

Fleur

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 — Two dimensions of experience ..................................................... 25
Figure 3.1 — Overview of the research design .................................................. 51
Figure 3.2 — Furniture arrangement of the room for focus group interviews ................ 62
Figure 3.3 — Overview of research procedures of fieldwork .................................. 68
Figure 3.4 — Overview of the classroom arrangement ......................................... 69

Figure 4.1 — Three characteristics of meaningful learning from the nine participant
teachers’ perspectives ................................................................ 89
Figure 4.2 - Proportions of teachers’ comments on the meaningfulness of experienced
learning ................................................................................. 89
Figure 4.3 — A three-layer model of growth out of meaningful learning ..................... 91
Figure 4.4 - Distribution of teacherS’ perspectives on the 3-layer model of growth.. . .. 103

Figure 4.5 — The ways teachers found learning meaningful .................................. 108

II?
ﬁrm.
hop.

for ___-
III 0 '0.

mi:

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

We live in a time of such rapid change and growth of knowledge that only he who is in a
ﬁmdamental sense a scholar — that is, a person who continues to learn and inquire — can
hope to keep pace, let alone play the role of guide.

Nathan M Pusey

Modern society is marked by rapid change. Exponential growth in opportunities
for global communication and access to information means that both our institutions and
knowledge are dynamic and changing. For teachers in such a constantly changing
environment to be successful, they need to continue to learn and inquire throughout their
teaching career. Not only must teachers learn continually in order to keep up with
changes in knowledge and in approaches to teaching, but they must also be lifelong
learners who can serve as models for this disposition for their students (Cropley & Dave,
197 8), thus equipping them for success in a dynamic global society. Today’s teachers
need to show that they teach because they know. Furthermore, they teach because they
are learning to know throughout their lifetime.

Many practicing teachers are lifelong learners, continually striving to become
more effective with students and at the same time ﬁnding personal intellectual challenge
in their work (F emain-Nemser, 1983). Like the veteran teacher interviewed by David
Hawkins (1973), they believe that there is much to be learned even aﬁer teaching for
years. Not a few people, however, observe that experienced teachers stop learning after
they have mastered the routine tasks of teaching. Teachers who resist change once they

have set up workable teaching routines are also subject to criticism (F eiman-Nemser,

1983). There are also those who, not entirely without reasons as being thinking of
teachers: lazy, and conservative, lacking in spontaneity, imagination, ﬂexibility, and
intellectual rigor (Lightfoot, 1983). Obviously, the criticism cited above would ﬁnd it
difﬁcult to think of teachers as lifelong learners.

Focus of the Study

This dissertation is generally concerned with the problem that admittedly there are
practicing teachers who are not performing as lifelong learners, are not strengthening
their attitude toward lifelong learning, or, even worse are ignoring the precepts of
continuing teacher education speciﬁcally designed to support teachers’ focus on to
becoming lifelong learners.

There are many issues involved in the problem of teachers’ lack of focus on their
primary goals, despite their participation in teacher education programs. In this
dissertation, however, I did not choose to focus on the complexity of this problem.
Instead, I began with the assumption that a positive attitude toward lifelong learning is
likely enhanced when practicing teachers ﬁnd their own inservice learning experiences
meaningful in signiﬁcant ways. Conversely, a negative attitude toward lifelong learning
frequently is the result of unproductive and/or meaningless learning experiences, as
Wight (1972) pointed out:

If something is not meaningful to a person, he is not likely to develop concerns,

interests, or attitudes toward it, and it is not likely to be incorporated in his system

of constructs, beliefs, values, goals, ambitions, etc. (p. 10)

What kinds of inservice learning experiences are meaningful to practicing

teachers? What are the bases on which teachers determine one learning experience to be a

meaningful and another to be a waste both time-effort? This study is an exploratory

venture in identifying these factors. It seeks to understand the kinds of learning that
practicing teachers appreciate, believe to be worthwhile, want to experience again,
learning they ﬁnd supportive in which encourages them to commit themselves seriously
to leaming.

I began with a group of experienced teachers in a university-based summer
professional development program in Taiwan--a graduate program in school guidance
that teachers attend for four consecutive summers. After attending classes with the
participating teachers, I led focus group interviews with nine of the teachers to identify
those experiences each found meaningful in that days’ classes. For purposes of these
interviews, the following deﬁnition of “meaningful learning” was used to identify the
kinds of learning experiences each felt might lead to the development of a positive
attitude toward lifelong learning:

Meaningful learning is learning that teachers appreciate, believe to be

worthwhile, want to experience again, and ﬁnd supportive in becoming willing to

commit to learning seriously.
This research represents an attempt to describe the characteristics of meaningful learning
in continuing professional education from experienced teachers’ perspectives.
Characteristics of the Teachers as Lifelong Learners

I shall begin with an explanation of the phrase, “teachers as lifelong learners.” It
seems to me that teachers-as-lifelong—learners are not merely continuing to learn
throughout lifetime, as all people do, in one way or another I mean teachers whose

learning is deliberately focused, as that they (a) participate in continuing teacher

education, and (b) keep that they consciously strive to improve and validate their teaching
methods.

The criterion of continuing to learn throughout lifetime is not sufﬁcient to
distinguish teachers who are performing as lifelong learners from those who are not,
because every teacher, like every live human being, is always learning (consciously or
unconsciously) something throughout life. The key issue involved in the concept of
teachers-as-lifelong-learners is that teachers need to adopt their knowledge continually in
order to teach successfully in a changing society. Of course, not every kind of learning
experience contributes to a teacher’s teaching performance, enhancing his/her
competence to cope with the challenges of his/her work in a changing society. It is rather
the kind of intentional learning for the purpose of teaching improvement that can help
teachers to cope with current challenges and as they present themselves to become
successful teachers. McClusky (1974) had elaborated the issue of intentional learning
required by people for adjusting to a changing society, pointing out:

It is now clear that man cannot cope with the over-powering fact of massive

change by a simplistic and uncritical (the accent here is on ‘uncritical’)

application of what has been learned in the past, nor can change be coped with by
resorting to a strategy of trial and error improvisation. Our only hope lies in the

realization of the fact that continuous change requires continuous education. (p.

101)

McClusky’s choice of the term, continuous “education,” instead of continuous
“learning,” designates the boundaries of lifelong learning, excluding the spontaneous,
unplanned, or unconscious learning of everyday life, from the concept of lifelong
learning in the context of changing environment. “Education” refers to engagement of

purposeful learning or of “deliberative learning,” (Tough, 1971), that the learner has

clearly in mind an intent to make concerted efforts to gain and to retain certain particular

knowledge and skills. For a practicing teacher to perform as a lifelong learner, he or she,
therefore, continues to participate in on-going teacher education in which teachers are
involved in deliberative learning for the purpose of teaching improvement.

Focusing on continuing teacher education that includes only intentional or
deliberative learning should not be interpreted as a denial of the role of other kinds of
teachers’ learning, such as unplanned learning, in teachers’ growth. Rather, it emphasizes
the signiﬁcant impact of deliberative learning on teachers’ response and adaptation to a
rapidly changing environment. Continuing teacher education includes both planned
learning activities that are initiated by teachers themselves and programs offered by
accredited institutes of teacher education, such as, training programs or workshops for
teachers.

Cropley and Dave’s (1978) work inspired my thinking of the characteristics of the
teachers as lifelong learners. They identify four characteristics of the teachers as lifelong

learners as follows:

I”

“[They] are aware of the need for lifelong education, and of its potential to
achieve signiﬁcant changes in educational practice. . .. and to practice lifelong
education as a means of improving the quality of their own lives” (p. 37).

b. “[They] practice self-directed learning, and assume the responsibility for self-
initiated and self-directed inservice education. . . .and, helping [their pupils] to
become lifelong learners” (p. 37).

c. “[They] integrate their own learning experiences by linking formal studies
with out-of-school, real-life experiences, and would seek to foster such
integration in the learning experiences of their pupils” (p. 38).

d. “[They] regard formal education structures as part of a wider life curriculum,
existing in society as a whole. . .. would emphasize the structure, processes and
key concepts of disciplines of study, not their speciﬁc facts” (p. 38).

The ﬁrst two characteristics Cropley and Dave cite indicate that a practicing
teacher regularly participate in continuing teacher education and incorporate into their
teaching newly learned materials and/or methods where appreciate to their interests and
needs.

The third and fourth features of the Cropley/Dave list cites the concept of
teachers-as-lifelong-learners keeping central the goal of learning to teach by participating
in teacher education programs. It emphasizes that the teachers-as-lifelong-learners are not
merely motivated solely by their own development as teachers nor by insidental personal
derived from continuing learning but they do not drive themselves to learn only for that
reason. Whenever they engage themselves in inservice learning and educational
activities, they focus on signiﬁcance and nature of the particular experience and its
applicability to their speciﬁc learning methodology and discipline.

Problem of Concern

I began to reﬂect on the problem - that practicing teachers are not strengthening
an attitude toward lifelong learning by their participation in continuing teacher education
-- after I worked on my practicum research several years ago. That research was inspired
by a conversation with my friend, Tai-Ang, an undergraduate cohort student in Taiwan,
in which we talked about what she had learned in a university-based summer professional
development program, a graduate program in school guidance that experienced secondary
school teachers attend for four summers.

I visited Tai-Ang at that summer institute. It was her third year in the program,
and she was busy writing a research proposal with her partner, Wei-Yi, another

undergraduate acquaintance. They were reviewing literature about metacognition and

met

con?

mOIL

 

Tai-Ang asked me what metacognition really meant. I answered that metacognition was a
thinking mechanism which controlled and supervised humans’ attention and cognition.
"Thinking of it as a manager supervising labor in a factory", I advised. Tai-Ang thanked
me for my explanation but still locked puzzled. I tried to talk more to her but she stopped
me immediately.

She said she knew the deﬁnition of metacognition and was enthusiastic about
learning the concept from instructors in the summer program, that it was new to her and
helped her to appreciate the richness of her personal knowledge. She puzzled, however,
about how to use the concept in her own teaching. After she and Wei-Yi began writing a
research proposal for investigating the relationship between metacognition and teaching
practices, she was struggled with this problem more than she had before. She felt that
metacognition might be more useful to her if she were an educational researcher, who
could use the concept to understand the cognitive processes. It could also, she thought, be
more meaningful to her if she were a subject matter teacher, for example, a math teacher,
who could teach students metacognitive strategies of learning mathematics. Nevertheless,
as a middle-school counselor, she could not ﬁgure out what metacognition could mean to
her. “I could pretend to be an educational researcher or a subject matter teacher and write
a research proposal about metacognition,” Tai-Ang said. “This research proposal,
however, will become another required assignment if I don’t know at all how this concept
can help my own school work,” Tai-Ang criticized. Wei-Yi nodded with smiles.
Listening to Tai-Ang’s explanation, I then realized that she was not asking me for a
deﬁnition of metacognition, but wanted instead to ﬁnd its relevance or usefulness to her

as a counseling teacher.

Tai-Ang's inquiry of her learning of metacognition led me to think that teachers’
perceptions of relevance of inservice learning to their own teaching seemed to be one of
their major concerns about their own learning. Tai-Ang was happy to be learning new
things. She could see the learned concept related to a researcher’s work or a school
subject matter teacher's teaching. She doubted her learning, however, when she could not
see any relevance of the learning to her teaching as a school counselor. More speciﬁcally,
I found that Tai-Ang‘s frustration with her learning might have stemmed from a difﬁculty
of not being able to see relevance between her own learning and her students' learning.
Like many teachers, teacher educators, and educational researchers, Tai-Ang assumed
that the most important purpose of inservice teacher’s learning was to improve students'
learning through enhanced teaching (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1990). If a teacher’s
learning was not related to his/her teaching and to his/her pupils' learning, why was the
course called teacher learning?

Educational researchers have long recognized this problem of relevance. Writing
about typical university-based inservice programs, for example, Feiman-Nemser (1983)
noted:

Ifteachers ﬁnd intellectual stimulation in formal study, they oﬁen have

trouble seeing the connection with their daily classroom work... As a

result teachers do not adapt new approaches to their own teaching

situation and school practices do not change. (pp. 163- 164)

Being aware of the problem of relevance, I conducted my practicum research to
understand how experienced teachers perceived relevance and irrelevance between

inservice learning and their own school teaching. I visited the Taiwanese summer

program again two years my conversation with Tai-Ang and met 32 experienced teachers

who were taking a computer course in the program. I observed the group of teachers
learning in classroom and talked which them aﬁer classes. After instruction in the ﬁrst
unit, Intemetl, was completed, I asked those teachers whether or not they found relevance
between learning about the Internet and their own teaching. If so, what relevance did they
see?

Most of the participant teachers could see relevance either by making connections
themselves or by rephrasing those connections pointed out by the course instructor. Yet
some of these teachers enjoyed learning in that course and some did not. Of particular
note were teachers who showed little interest or enthusiasm in their learning even though
they could describe the relevance of the leaming to their teaching. Some of the teachers
were nervous about assignments; some were angry at classroom instruction; some were
tired of copying a peer’s homework; some told me that they were too old to learn
computers; some told me that they did not want to commit to long-term learning
anymore. I was confused with what I saw and heard from their groups of teachers. Ifthey
could perceive the relevance of inservice learning to their teaching, why were they not
appreciating learning as their peers were? Why were they not willing to commit to
another learning journey even though they had achieved the tangible result of being able
to send an e-mail to a friend? I was surprised to realize that I had met a group of
practicing teachers who could learn but preferred not to do so at that moment, and
perhaps in the future. To some degree, the teachers seemed to be tuning their backs on

being lifelong learners and chose not enhance their attitude toward lifelong learning.

 

1 Internet was not popularly used in secondary schools in Taiwan at that time. Most of the
participant teachers had no experience using Internet. The course instructor taught the group of
teachers how to send mail with e-mail software and to download ﬁles with FTP clients.

tea.

COL

l0\\

163.
SOCL
but:
ad..
deli

lee;

 

CONN
This

Euler

My practicum research experience led me to think that the problem of practicing
teachers’ learning may not be simply a matter of relevance or usefulness. Rather, the
teachers’ more general attitudes toward learning appeared to be involved. I became
concerned with the problem that practicing teachers are not developing a positive attitude
toward lifelong learning aﬁer having participated in continuing teacher education.

Assumptions

I don’t think that there are any schoolteachers who would reject the concept that a
teacher ought to perform as a lifelong learner to be successful in a constantly changing
society. A disposition toward lifelong learning is, however, not something a teacher is
born with. Nor is such a disposition easy to obtain or to maintain. It is a challenge to any
adult in the teaching professions to commit to constant serious learning, partly because
deliberative learning requires hard work. We can always ﬁnd excuses in our daily life to
keep ourselves from the effort regarding for continuing professional education.
Practitioners, practicing teachers in this case, need to foster an attitude toward and a habit
of lifelong learning through individual efforts as well as with supportive conditions. One
of the most important functions of continuing teacher education, hence, should be to help
practicing teachers develop an attitude toward lifelong learning. Unfortunately, some of
those teachers whom I observed and interviewed in my practicum research seemed not to
develop a positive attitude toward learning after their participation in the program. On the
contrary, the required educational activities seemed to push teachers away from learning.
This problem is not unique to the summer program that I observed. It is a problem

endemic to many educational systems. As Dewey (193 8) pointed out:

10

an;

 

 

The experiences which were had, by pupils and teachers alike, were largely of a
wrong kind. How many students, for example, were rendered callous to ideas, and
how many lost the impetus to learn because of the way in which learning was
experienced by them? (p. 26)
Dewey emphasized the signiﬁcant impact of the learning experience on the formation of
an attitude toward learning.

Experience does not go on simply inside a person. It goes on there, for it

inﬂuences the formation of attitudes of desire and purpose. (p. 39)

Of course, a practicing teacher’s learning experiences in a teacher education
program can not totally determine whether or not that teacher will continue to learn in the
ﬁiture. The learner’s family situations, his teachers (teachers of teachers, in this case), his
nature intelligence as well as other personal traits may have an impact on the teacher’s
attitude toward learning (Houle, 1982). Nevertheless, learning experiences do play an
important role in shaping a teacher’s attitude toward learning. As Wight (1972) said:

We have feelings about what we are doing (or what is being done to us)

and develop attitudes toward the experience. If an experience is pleasant,

enjoyable, or rewarding, we develop positive attitudes toward it. If it is

painful or unpleasant, our reactions will be negative, and in the future we

tend to dislike, avoid, or reject whatever was associated with the

experience. Ifan experience means little or nothing to us, it is neither
positive nor negative and acquires neither an attractive nor an aversive

quality. (p. 2)

This dissertation is based on the assumption that an attitude toward lifelong
learning is most likely enhanced when the teacher ﬁnds his or her own learning
experiences meaningful. On the contrary, disappointing or frustrating learning

experiences typically hinder the teacher from becoming a lifelong learner.

11

 

inc

Purpose and Research Questions

My practicum research experience led me to consider the problem that practicing
teachers are not supported in their attempt to become lifelong learners by continuing
teacher education. I began to reﬂect on the relationship between teachers’ learning
experiences and the development of an attitude toward lifelong learning. I made the
assumption that an attitude toward lifelong learning is likely enhanced when teachers ﬁnd
inservice learning experience meaningful. Beginning with this assumption, I explored the
characteristics of inservice learning experiences that teachers consider meaningful and
ﬁnd supportive in developing an attitude toward lifelong learning. The research aimed to
identify and describe experienced teachers’ perceptions of meaningful learning
experiences in their continuing professional education.

Often, researchers or teacher educators begin with assumptions about what they
think is important for teachers to learn. They, of course, can deﬁne what kinds of learning
are meaningful or “healthy” to practicing teachers. They can not decide, however, what
kinds of learning teachers themselves ﬁnd meaningful because teachers are adult learners
with perspectives subject to their unique experiences and roles. Only when we hear from
teachers’ voices, can we understand the kinds of learning they perceive as meaningﬁrl.
Hence, it is essential to identify the kinds of learning from the teachers’ own views.

Learning from my practicum research experience, I was also aware of the issue of
individual differences involved in teachers’ perceptions of their learning. As I mentioned
earlier in this chapter, some teachers appreciated learning about the Internet and looked
for other learning opportunities which other teachers were uninterested in the Internet,

even though they saw its relevance to their own schoolwork. Although they shared the

12

sin

0’
*‘1

{CM

 

same instructional activities and resources, the teachers seemed to have different learning
experiences and different perceptions of their learning. Researchers (Prosser & Millar,
1989) have also recognized that the variation in the college students’ perceptions of their
learning is remarkable when the students are all in the same learning and teaching
situations. This research, therefore, took the issue of individual differences into account
for the purpose of describing the variance of practicing teachers’ perceptions of the
learning experiences that they ﬁnd meaningful and supportive in developing an attitude
toward lifelong learning.

The following questions served as a focus for the study:

a. What kinds of inservice learning do experienced teachers ﬁnd meaningful--
appreciate, believe to be worthwhile, want to experience again, and ﬁnd

supportive in becoming willing to commit seriously to learning?

b. How do teachers who share instructional events differ in what they ﬁnd learning

meaningful?

Signiﬁcance of the Study
These research questions are worthy of study pursue for two reasons. First, the
research ﬁndings can add to our understanding and knowledge of practicing teachers'
perspectives on continuing leaming and education in the teaching profession. The
information obtained can serve as a foundation for further research on practicing

teachers’ development as lifelong learners. Second, teacher educators can build on this

13

06V

bet

[63.

the

CONS

Egg,

 

new understanding to design teacher education program which help practicing teachers to
become lifelong learners.

Most research on practicing teachers' learning has focused on whether teachers
acquire recommended skills and knowledge -- pedagogical techniques, subj ect-matter
content for teaching, or theoretical constructs believed to be important for teaching--
whether and how teachers' classroom practice changes, and various factors affecting
teachers' learning. Less attention has been paid to the impact of learning experiences on
the teachers' disposition to pursue additional learning opportunities in the future.

Teachers' attitudes and beliefs have certainly not been ignored in research on
teachers' learning (Richardson, 1996). Attitudes, beliefs, and prior knowledge are
considered key “independent” factors in learning. As Showers, Joyce, and Bennett (1987)
argued, for example:

Teachers bring to staff development their knowledge and skills, their

learning and teaching styles, and their personal characteristics such as

states of growth, conceptual ﬂexibility, sense of efﬁcacy and self-

concepts. They also bring perceptions about their needs and preferences
for certain kinds of staff development. (p. 79)

What teachers know and believe has been shown to have a profound inﬂuence on what
they learn—how they make sense of various learning opportunities (e.g., Borko, Mayﬁeld,
Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997; Heaton, 1992; Remillard, 1992). The more congruent a
teacher education program is with the teachers’ prior beliefs, the more likely it will
enhance the teachers’ learning in a particular domain (Tillema, 1995). The failure of
many inservice education opportunities has been attributed to their failure to meet

teachers’ perceived needs (F ullan, 1990).

14

Researchers have taken seriously the role of teachers' attitudes and beliefs in
assessing whether and how they learn. The impacts of various learning experiences on
teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward learning, however, have received much less
attention. This study is an exploratory venture in that direction. It seeks to understand
what kinds of learning teachers ﬁnd meaningful and supportive of their becoming
lifelong learners.

There is a common belief that teachers attend professional development
programs, just wanting “recipes”, asking only for practical techniques to use in their
classrooms. According to this common view, we can claim almost immediately that
meaningful learning to practicing teachers is the kind of learning from which teachers
learn practical techniques for teaching. In other words, the prime value of continuing
learning and education of teachers is its practicality, form the teachers’ viewpoint.

Doing my practicum research, I learned that some teachers were indeed looking
for practical skills or concrete directions for their teaching; other teachers were not asking
just for practicality, however. Does it really matter that inservice learning be closely
related to the teachers’ classroom work? How important is it for teachers to feel they are
gaining important new understanding compared with their acquisition of practical
techniques? There is a need for a research for the sake of better understanding the
variances in teachers’ perspectives on the subject of meaningful learning.

By understanding teachers' perspectives on meaningful learning, we can better
know what makes teachers want to continue to learn. Current inservice teacher education
program tend to use external rewards (e. g., salary increases or rank promotions) to

motivate teachers to learn, perhaps orienting teachers away from an intrinsic motivation

15

to learn and failing to foster positive attitudes toward learning. Recently, some
educational psychologists have emphasized the value aspects of motivation in education.
Jere Brophy (1999), for example, argued that educators should build learning
environments to help learners to appreciate the domain’s value and experience its
satisfaction so that the learners are willing to continue learning for its own sake. If
inservice learning experiences are meaningful to teachers, teachers may become lifelong
learners without relying on external rewards. Teacher educators could then build on these
new understandings to design teacher education program in which learning experiences
might be more consistent with teachers’ existing perspectives on meaningful learning, or
they might be designed to promote changes in teachers’ perspectives to develop a more
uniformly positive attitude toward lifelong learning.
Overview of the Study

In the chapter entitled Literature Review, I explained how I developed a
conceptual framework for understanding and describing learning experiences, as well as
citing characteristics of meaningful learning that researchers and practicing teachers have
identiﬁed in the past. In Chapter 3, I describe how I collected data in the ﬁeld and
analyzed data during and after my ﬁeldwork. In Chapter 4, I present the results of the
study. In Chapter 5, I discuss the implications of the study and suggest directions for

further teacher education and research.

16

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This research focuses on the characteristics of learning experiences that teachers
ﬁnd meaningful and supportive in becoming lifelong learners. Drawing from a
representative selection of deﬁnitions of experiences, this chapter presents a conceptual
framework for understanding meaningful learning experiences from two perspectives: (a)
the processes of interaction between the self and learning situations; and (b) the outcomes
of the interaction. This framework will be used for describing the kinds of learning that
the participant teachers found meaningful in continuing teacher education.

The issue of meaningful learning has fallen in and out of focus in educational
psychology, psychology, and philosophy at several times in the past. Researchers have
conceptualized meaningful learning in several ways and have pointed out several
characteristics of meaningful learning experiences. Drawing from this body of literature,
I describe the characteristics of meaningful learning from various researchers’
perspectives.

Although the issue of meaningfulness of learning has not been the main focus of
research on teachers’ leaming, researchers have documented practicing teachers’
experiences in continuing teacher education and their comments on those experiences,
both positive and negative. In addition, teacher educators and researchers have discussed
the values of continuing leaming in the teaching profession. Drawing from these two
groups of literature, I present a selection of characteristics of learning experiences that are

meaningful to practicing teachers for their professional development.

17

th:

Ic‘

Th

how

ma

at}

fit}

an:

ex:

 

 

The characteristics of meaningful learning that are identiﬁed from the literature
will serve as a reference for understanding which characteristics of learning experiences
are important and unique to practicing teachers. The literature review is organized in
three sections: (a) A Framework for Understanding and Describing Learning Experience;
(b) Characteristics of Meaningful Learning; and (c) Meaningful Learning for Practicing
Teachers.

A Framework for Understanding and Describing Learning Experience

Experience has been a major issue raised by researchers in the study of the mind.
The word —experience— is also widely used by people in everyday life. Experience,
however, deﬁes easy deﬁnition. Many researchers have noticed the difﬁculty of
managing this term and have made efforts to deﬁne it clearly (Boud, Cohen, & Walker,
1993; Oakeshott, 1933). By reviewing the literature about the issue of human experience,
a framework can be developed for understanding and describing learning experience
from two aspects: (a) processes of interaction between the self and learning situations,
and (b) the outcomes of this interaction.

The Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987) captures two aspects of
experience. As a noun, experience is either a process of feeling something and being
affected by it, or knowledge in a particular area that one has gained over time. Whereas
experience is viewed as the process of a person’s feeling something and being affected by
it, it also implies that experience needs to be understood as a process involving an
interaction between a subject and an object. The notion of knowledge suggests describing

experience in terms of the outcome status of the subject after the process of interaction.

18

 

or

01’.

,
Ah

:2
Iv‘

err
r.

 

Process of Interaction between the Self and Learning Situations

Scholars have emphasized experience as a whole, using both the subjective aspect
of the perception of mind as well as the objective aspect of knowledge gained overtime.
Dewey (1916), for example, viewed experience consisting of the two elements:

The nature of experience can be understood only by noting that it includes an

active and a passive element peculiarly combined. On the active hand, experience

is trying-a meaning which is made explicit in the connected term experiment. On
the passive, it is undergoing. When we experience something we act upon it, we
do something with it; then we suffer or undergo the consequences. We do
something to the thing then it does something to us in return: such is the peculiar
combination. The connection of these two phases of experience measures the
fruitfulness or value of the experience. Mere activity does not constitute
experience. It is dispersive, centrifugal, dissipating. Experience as trying involves
change, but change is meaningless transition unless it is consciously connected

with the return wave of consequences which ﬂow from it. (p. 139)

The active element of experience, according to Dewey, is the way that an individual acts
on the learning situation; the passive element of experience refers to the consequence
responding to the individual. The “peculiar combination” of both active and passive
elements means the process of interaction between the subject and the object.

Of particular note is Dewey’s rejection of viewing experience as merely
sensation. Dewey derived his conception of experience from William James (1904) who
claimed that experience is double-barreled: subjective (experiencing) and objective (to be
experienced). Dewey (1925) argued that experience has objective and deﬁnitive
characteristics that can be described without reference to subjective perception of the self.
Dewey (1925) explained:

It is not experience which is experienced, but nature-stones, plants, animals,

diseases, health, temperature, electricity, and so on. Things interacting in certain

ways are experience; they are what are experienced. Linked in certain other ways

with another natural obj ect-the human organism-they are how things are
experienced as well. (p. 4)

19

What men do and suffer, what they strive, love, believe, and endure, and also how
men act and are acted upon, the ways in which they do and suffer, desire and
enjoy, see, believe, imagine-in short, processes of experiencing. “Experience”
denotes the planted ﬁeld, the sowed seeds, the reaped harvests, the changes of
night and day, spring and autumn, wet and dry, heat and cold, they are observed,
feared, longed for; it also denotes the one who plants and reaps, who works and
rejoices, hopes, fears, plans, invokes magic or chemistry to aid him, who is
downcast or triumphant. It is “double-barrelled” in that it recognizes in its
primary integrity no division between act and material, subject and object, but
contains them both in an unanalyzed totality. (p. 10)

Dewey claimed that experience is an unanalyzed totality of interaction between act and
material, subject and object.

Like Dewey, Oakeshott (1933) viewed human experience as a concrete whole,
and furthermore claimed that there is no need to describe experience from both the
subjective and objective elements:

“Experience” stands for the concrete whole which analysis divides into

“experiencing” and “what is experienced”. Experiencing and what is experienced

are, taken separately, meaningless abstractions; they cannot, in fact, be separated.

Perceiving, for example, involves a something perceived, willing a something a

something willed. . . .The character of what is experienced is, in the strictest sense,

correlative to the manner in which it is experienced. These two abstractions stand
to one another in the most complete interdependence; they compose a single
whole. It would, then, be possible to build up one’s view of the character of
experience either from the side of experiencing, or from the side of what is
experienced; and it would be superﬂuous to do both, for whatever is true of the

one side will be true also of the other. (p. 9)

Oakeshoot’s opinion the issue of objective existence of the world. We know there are
things out there and they interact with each other. However, the characteristics of those
things are perceived through the mind. That is why Dewey claimed that experience is an
“unanalyzed totality “of interaction between subject and object and why Oakeshott argued
that the single whole can not be described from either side. The key issue involved in

these arguments is that the subjects perceive the objects; we are never sure how close the

perceived objects are to the physical existence of the objects. The “objects” of experience

20

l
1

are

ACI

em

cl:

 

ti;

 

are the perceived objects, which are the interaction of self and the ontological objects.
Accordingly, the objects of learning experience are not materials or people in the learning
environment. Rather, the objects are the individual’s perception of the learning
environment.
Dictionaries of psychology and philosophy also contain deﬁnitions of experience.
The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (198 5) points out the subjective and objective
elements of experience:
...some now use the term with reference to the real world, where experience is
characterized in terms of what is “out there” and others speciﬁcally use it only to
refer to personal subjective phenomena and the experience is characterized in
terms of what is “in the head.” (Reber, 1985, p. 257)
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994) also deﬁnes experience with
elements of objective entity and subjective existence:
Along with consciousness, experience is the central focus of the philosophy of
mind. Experience is easily thought of as a stream of private events, known only to
their possessor, and bearing at best problematic relationships to any other events,
such as happenings in an external world or similar streams in other processors.
The stream makes up the conscious life of the possessors. With this picture there
is a complete separation of mind and the world... .The aim of much recent
philosophy, therefore, is to articulate a less problematic conception of experience,
making it objectively accessible, so that the facts about how a subject experiences
the world are in principle as knowable as the facts about how the same subject
digests food. A beginning on this task may be made by observing that experiences
have contents: it is the world itself that they represent to us as being one way or
another, and how we take the world to be is publicly manifested by our words and
behavior. (Blackburn, 1994, p. 130)
Experiences refer to events through which a person lives with in his or her consciousness.
The events can be characterized in terms of both some existences out there in the world

and subjective phenomena inside the person’s head. The deﬁnitions of experience in the

psychology and philosophy dictionaries still emphasize the nature of experiences as the

21

private perceptions of subjects who possess the events, but include the objective aspect of
events which is public to observers other than the possessors of the experiences.

Extending from this position, learning experience can be characterized in terms of
the objects interacting with the learner in the processes of leaming. The objects of a
learning condition in the processes of interaction can be the instructors’ and peers’
behavior (verbal or nonverbal), textbooks, syllabus, activities, assignments, and so forth.
Ramsden (1979, 1991) developed the Course Perception Questionnaires to identify
students’ perceptions of their learning environments. Ramsden (1979) identiﬁed eight
dimensions of learning environments (see Table 2.1). The ﬁrst and most important factors
identiﬁed in his analysis were “lecturers’ understanding of students and commitment to
good teaching” (p. 416). Ramsden (1991) then modiﬁed the questionnaire in the 90’s,
identifying ﬁve characteristics of learning environment based on a nation-wide sample in
higher education in Australia (see Table 2.2).

Both the factors “relationships with students” and “commitment to teaching” in
the original questionnaire were combined into a single factor called “good teaching” in
the new form of this questionnaire. Both the factors “vocational relevance” and “social
climate” were not included in the new form. The factor “appropriate assessment” was
added to the revised form of the questionnaire.

To summarize, experience has been deﬁned by researchers as an interaction

between subjects and objects.

22

Table 2.1

Dimens_ions of LeamingEnvironments

 

 

Factors Items

Relationships Closeness to lecture/student relationships; help and understanding shown to

with students students.

Commitment to Commitment of staff to improving teaching and to teaching students at a level

teaching appropriate to their current understanding.

Workload Pressure placed on students in terms of demands of the syllabus and
assessment tasks.

Formal teaching Forrnality or informality of teaching and learning (e. g. lecture v. individual

methods study).

Vocational Perceived relevance of courses to students’ careers.

relevance

Social climate Frequency and quality of academic and social relationships between students.

Clear goals and Extent to which standards expected of students are clear and unambiguous.

standards

Freedom in Amount of discretion possessed by students in choosing and organizing

learning academic work.

 

Source: Ramsden, 1979, p. 416.

Table 2.2

Scales of the Course Experience Questionnaire

 

 

Scales Example of Items

Good Teaching Teaching staff normally gives helpful feedback on how you are doing.

Clear goals You usually have a clear idea of where you are going and what is expected of
you in this course.

Appropriate The sheer volume of work required in this course means you can’t comprehend

workload it all thoroughly (negatively scored).

Formal Fonnality or informality of teaching and learning (e. g. lecture v. individual

teaching study).

methods

Appropriate Staﬂ' seems more interested in testing what you have memorized than what you

assessment have understood (negatively scored).

Emphasis on Students are given a lot of choice in the work they have to do.

independence

 

Source: Ramsden, 1991, p. 134.

 

 

01

pt

€\.

 

Outcomes of the Interaction

Many scholars share the view that experience is an outcome of the interaction
between the subject and the object. Albert Wight’s (1972) discussion of the affective
objectives of education is interesting, particularly in addressing the nature of experience
in terms of the subject’s perception of the outcomes of interaction. Wight argued that a
person has experiences that result in and are inﬂuenced by three mental structures:
dispositions to actions, personal guiding systems, and action orientation. This leads to the
person’s next action and in turn, form another experience. Wight claimed that an
experience is both cognitive and affective.

The cognitive aspect of experiences is the degree of meaningfulness (or how
central the experience is to the self); the affective dimension is the person’s felt reaction
to the experience. Weigh presented a U shape (Figure 2.1) to illustrate the relationship
between the two dimensions of experience:

If something has no meaning or importance for a person, his reaction is likely to

be one of complete indifference, neither positive nor negative. Ifan experience is

either positive or negative, it becomes meaningful. As something takes on
meaning for a person, his reaction will move up the vertical scale, following the
curve to the left or right, depending on whether the experience is positive

(unpleasant, enjoyable, rewarding, exciting, challenging, etc.) or negative

(unpleasant, punishing, threatening, anxiety-producing, etc.) (p. 4)

To Wight, experience is a person’s mental status with both of the dimensions of
affect and cognition. The affective dimension is the person’s feelings toward something.
The cognitive dimension is the distance between the object and the person’s self or the

degree of perceived meaningfulness. Experience, accordingly, seems to reside in the

person’s perceptions and feelings about the “something”.

24

Positive/ Neutral/ Negative/
Attraction Indifference Aversion

Strong Weak Weak Strong

 

 

MeanTgful

Central to Self/

Unimportant/
Meaningless

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.1. Two dimensions of experience.

Source: Wight 19 72. p. 3.

Like Wight, The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (1985) also captures the
aspect of outcomes of interaction in explaining experience. It emphasizes the dimension

of cognition in terms of knowledge, however:

Basically, the term [experience] is used in ways commensurate with lay language,
that is: 1. Any event through which one has lived. 2. The knowledge gained from
such participation in that event. 3. The sum total of knowledge accumulated.

(Reber, 1985, p. 257)

25

Viewing experience as gained knowledge does not merely refer to the individual’s
reactions to the consequence of an event. It refers to the individual’s growth as a result of
the process.

Recently, some researchers, while acknowledging the importance of the
interaction between objects and subjects, have emphasized the social and historical nature
of experience. They have added the notion that experience involves a process of
interpretation and evaluation of learning outcomes. That is, experience is not merely a
fact, but a value that includes the learning processes and the learning outcomes. For
example, Usher (1997) argued that:

Experience is being placed in a social reality which is always perceived

and comprehended as subjective, i.e., personal or “inside”. Experience,

then becomes the effect of an interaction between the world (social reality)

and the ongoing construction of subjectivity. The subjective engagement

with discourses, practices and institutions lends signiﬁcance, i.e., value,

meaning and affect, to the event of the world. (p. 104)

It is difﬁcult to see how selves could isolate their experience from its

implication in hi storicality, sociality and discursivity. Here, the metaphor

of experience as a ‘text’ has its use. To see experience in this way implies

that experience is something to be ‘read’ or interpreted, possibly with

great effort, and certainly with no final, deﬁnitive meaning. This must

itself presuppose an interpretive, meaning-conferring structure of which

selves (subject) are part. (p. 104)

Summary

All learning experiences include two facets: (a) processes of interaction between
the self and learning situations; and (b) the outcomes of this interaction. Learning
experiences can differ from each other in terms of the processes of the interaction

between the self and situations. Learning experiences can also differ in terms of learning

outcomes. The next section explores a selection of characteristics of meaningful learning

26

6)

CC

(.3
r

 

 

that researchers have already recognized regarding the two aspects of learning
experiences.
Characteristics of Meaningful Learning

Helping learners to take on meaningful learning has been a central goal of many
educational efforts and a challenging topic in research on learning and teaching. When
educational researchers discuss characteristics of meaningful learning, some state features
in terms of both desired learning outcomes and learning processes; others focus only on
the aspects of desired outcomes; some others just state the characteristics of learning
processes. Of particular note is the tendency of most researchers to focus on desired
outcomes of learning more than on describing the features of learning processes.

The issue of meaningful learning can be traced in Gestalt psychologists’ work in
contrast with the views of associationist theories of learning in the 1930’s. Wertheimer
(in Katona, 1940) deﬁned the essentials of learning in terms of understanding whereas the
associationists’- deﬁned learning in terms of repeated associations between conditioned
responses and stimuli. Wertheimer described the characteristics of sensible Ieaming from
the aspect of learning outcomes:

Every good teacher enjoys teaching and learning when really sensible

learning takes place: when eyes are opened, when real grasping, real

understanding occurs, when the transition takes place from blindness or

ineptness to orientation, understanding, mastery; and when, in the course

of such happenings, mind develops. (p. v)

All of these characteristics (i.e., eyes are opened, real grasping, real understanding

occurs, transition from blindness or ineptness to orientation, understanding, mastery, and

mind develops) are adjectives of learning outcomes. They are forms of learning outcomes

27

that Wertheimer desired and valued. They also can be interpreted as characteristics
representing the aspect of learning processes, for example “real grasping.”

Following Wertheimer, Katona (1940) conducted experiments to make a
qualitative distinction between what he called “senseless learning,” the kind of learning
studied by the associationists, and “meaningful learning” the type of learning of interest
to the Gestalt psychologists. Katona (1940) contrasted the two kinds of learning
processes:

Let us say: there are two kinds of learning. Connections established by the

conditioned-reﬂex techniques or by repeating the same contents or responses over

and over again, as in all forms of drill, are characteristic of one kind of learning.

Then we draw a thick dividing line. On the other side of the barrier we ﬁnd

processes of learning that are described by expressions such as “apprehension of

relations,” “understanding of a procedure,” “insight into a situation.”

”Senseless” may be written on one side of the line where there is the depository of

connections, and “meaningful” on the other side, where the achievement brought

about by learning may be called understanding. (pp. 5-6)

When Katona described senseless learning, he pictured the learner’s action in the
processes of learning, that is, drilling the same contents or responses. When describing
the characteristics of meaningful learning, however, he described both the aspect of
learning processes and the desired learning outcomes. The characteristics-- apprehension
of relations, understanding of a procedure, and insight into a situation--represent
learners’ actions (i.e. apprehend, understand, and gain insight) and the experienced
objects (i.e., relations, a procedure, a situation) in the processes of learning. However,
these characteristics also refer to some achievement aﬁer leaming--the desired outcomes
of learning. In addition, Katona concluded that the achievement brought about by

[meaningful] learning may be called understanding, which is a characteristic representing

the outcomes of learning.

Therefore, meaningful learning, according to both Wertheimer and Katona, is
learning through which learners achieve understanding and their minds develop as a
result. Meaningful learning is a process in which the learner understands relations,
procedures, or situations rather than repeatedly drilling contents.

Like Gestalt psychologists, psychologists taking cognitive perspectives on
learning disagree with associationists’ perspectives on learning and deﬁne the
characteristics of meaningful learning for school learning. David Ausubel (1968), for
instance, argued that meaningful learning should replace rote learning in classrooms. In
terms of both learning outcome and process, Ausubel (1968) deﬁned meaningful learning
as a process that “involves the acquisition of new meanings, and new meanings,
conversely, are the products of meaningful learning” (p. 37). The learner’s acquisition of
new meanings is the characteristic of outcome of meaningful learning; acquiring new
meanings is the characteristic of the process of meaningful learning. Unlike Wertheimer
and Katona who use “understanding” to characterize meaningful learning, Ausubel
(1968) illustrated that the acquisition of new meanings requires two elements: (a)
potential meaningful learning task or material; and (b) meaningful learning set. Potential
meaningful learning task refers to the symbolically expressed ideas that can be related in
nonarbitrary and substantive fashion to the learner’s current knowledge structure.
Meaningful learning set refers to the learner’s current disposition to relate the new
learning material nonarbitrarily and substantively. Ausubel (1968) therefore, deﬁnes
meaningful learning as a process in which:

symbolically expressed ideas are related in a nonarbitrary and substantive

(nonverbatim) fashion to what the learner already knows, namely, to some

existing relevant aspect of his structure of knowledge (for example, an image, an
already meaningful symbol, a concept, or a proposition). (pp. 37-38)

29

On the other hand, rote learning takes place:

if the learning task consists of purely arbitrary associations, as in paired-associate,

puzzle-box, maze, or serial learning; if the learner lacks the relevant prior

knowledge necessary for making the learning task potentially meaningful; and
also (regardless of how much potential meaning the task has), if the learner adopts

a set merely to internalize it in an arbitrary, verbatim fashion (that is, as an

arbitrary series of words). (p. 24)

The contrast of the two kinds of learning shows that the relationship between the learning
task and the learner’s current status of knowledge is the major criterion to distinguish a
meaningful learning experience ﬁ'om rote learning.

In sum, the characteristics of meaningful learning described by Ausubel include
acquisition of new meanings (the aspect of learning outcome) and the connections
between learning tasks and the learner’s current structure of knowledge in the process of
acquiring meanings.

Following Ausubel’s analysis of the nature of meaningful and rote learning,
educational psychologists have continued to explore the nature of learning that is
meaningful to learners. More recent education efforts and research have focused on the
concept of understanding. Jere Brophy (1989), for example, synthesized the notion of
meaningﬁtl understanding:

Schooling should be designed not merely to cause students to memorize

factual information and reproduce it on cue in response to test or

assignment questions, but should expose the students to coherent bodies of

information organized around key concepts and generalizations that are

related to one another and to the students' prior knowledge and experience,

so that the students ﬁnd the learning meaningful and are able to apply it in

relevant situations in and out of school. (p. x)

The notion of students who “memorize factual information and reproduce it on cue in

response to test or assignment questions” is similar to the rote learning, described by

30

Ausubel, in which the learner acquires learning material in an arbitrary, verbatim fashion.
The characteristics of meaningful understanding described by Brophy, on the other hand,
extend Ausubel’s concep. In terms of process, Brophy emphasized: (a) exposing students
to key concepts connected and coherent to each other; and (b) helping students relate
learned concepts to their prior knowledge and experience. In terms of outcomes of
learning for meaningful understanding, Brophy focused on students ﬁnding learning
meaningful and being able to apply it in new situations.

Dewey (193 8) also discussed the issue of the school learning experiences that can
extend an individual’s lifelong development. Dewy argued that the quality of any
schooling experiences has two aspects: an immediate aspect of agreeableness or
disagreeableness and its inﬂuence upon later experiences. He claimed that many learning
experiences are mis-educative because they limit the individual’s further growth even
though those experiences seem to be currently agreeable or joyful:

An experience may be such as to engender callousness; it may produce
lack of sensitivity and responsiveness. Then the possibilities of having
richer experience in the future are restricted. Again, a given experience
may increase a person’s automatic skill in a particular direction and yet
tend to land him in a groove or rut; the effect again is to narrow the ﬁeld
of further experience. An experience may be immediately enjoyable and
yet promote the formation of a slack and careless attitude; this attitude
then operates to modify the quality of subsequent experiences so as to
prevent a person from getting out of them what they have to give. Again,
experiences may be so disconnected from one another that, while each is
agreeable or even exciting in itself, they are not linked cumulatively to one
another. Energy is then dissipated and a person becomes scatter-brained.
Each experience may be lively, vivid, and “interesting,” and yet their
disconnectedness may artiﬁcially generate dispersive, disintegrated,
centrifugal habits. The consequence of formation of such habits is inability
to control future experiences. (pp. 25-26)

31

In Dewey’s opinion, immediate enjoyment of a learning experience is not enough to
decide whether or not that experience is worthwhile in education. It is the increase of
ability and desire for continuous grth out of subsequent experiences that determine the
quality of school learning experiences.

Continuity of growth is one characteristic of educative experience pointed out by
Dewey (1938) in his two-criteria (i.e. continuity and interaction) model of experience for
discriminating educative experiences from mis-educative ones. As Dewey explained:

[E]very experience both takes up something from those which have gone before
and modiﬁes in some way the quality of those which come after. (p. 35)

The difference between an educative experience and a mi s-educative one is dependent on
whether the forms and direction of growth promote or retard growth in general:

Does this form of growth create conditions for ﬁirther growth, or does it set up

conditions that that shut oﬁ’ the person who has grown in this particular direction

from the occasions, stimuli, and opportunities for continuing growth in new

directions? (p. 36)

Dewey (1938) listed the characteristics of educative experience in terms of the criterion
of continuity:

An experience arouses curiosity, strengthens initiative, and sets up desires and

purposes that are sufﬁciently intense to carry a person over dead places in the

future, continuity work in a very different way. . .. (p. 38)

The three characteri sti cs- arousing curiosity, strengthening initiative, setting up
desires and purposes to carry a person over dead places in the ﬁiture- can be observed
from the aspects of both learning outcomes and processes.

“All human experience is ultimately social; that it involves contact and

communication”(p. 38), Dewey (1938) claimed, and accordingly, he pointed out the

interaction between subjective and objective conditions as the second criterion to

32

discriminate an educative experience from a mis-educative one. The subjective
conditions consist of an individual’s personal needs, desires, purposes, and capacities in a
particular situation and time. The objective conditions are the parts of situations that
interact with the individual’s personal conditions, including:

persons with whom he is talking about some topic or event, the subject talked

about being also a part of the situation; or the toys with which he is playing; the

book he is reading. . .; or the materials of an experiment he is performing. The
environment, in other words, is whatever conditions interact with personal needs,
desires, purposes, and capacities to create the experience which is had. (Dewey,

1938, pp. 43-44)

Considering the quality of interaction between an individual’s internal and
objective conditions, Dewey (1938) deﬁned educative experiences as involving issues of
social control, self-control, and an individual’s freedom of thought, desire, and purpose.
An educative experience is one from which an individual can achieve self control in
terms of possessing the freedom of intelligence (that is, freedom of observation, freedom
of judgement excised on behalf of purposes) in a learning environment well controlled by
the educator.

Humanists such as Carl Rogers (1961) also criticized the problems of rote
learning in school arguing that helping students to experience signiﬁcant learning should
be the educator’s goal. Rogers deﬁned signiﬁcant learning in psychotherapy but thought
it could be applied to education:

By signiﬁcant learning I mean learning which is more than an

accumulation of facts. It is learning which makes a difference — in the

individual's behavior, in the course of action he chooses in the future, in

his attitudes and in his personality. It is a pervasive learning which is not

just an accretion of knowledge, but which interpenetrates with every
portion of his existence. (Rogers, 1961, p. 280)

33

 

r-O

 

 

 

Rather than emphasizing the quality of cognition, Rogers' concept of signiﬁcant
learning highlights the change of the whole person through learning. A particular leaming
experience is meaningful to the extent that it changes the way a person perceives or
behaves. In sum, Rogers’ concept of signiﬁcant learning provides a characteristic of
meaningful learning from the aspect of learning outcomes: change of action, thoughts,
and personality of a person.

Rogers (1961) then described the characteristics of conditions necessary for
signiﬁcant learning. First, the learner is aware of a problem that he or she is facing and
perceives it as a serious and meaningful problem. Second, the instructors are honest and
engaged in the teaching-learning relationship. The instructors mean what they say and
express what they deeply feel. Third, the instructors express warm caring, acceptance,
and unconditional positive regards toward the learners. The instructors, therefore, provide
the learners a safe climate for learning. A fourth condition for signiﬁcant learning is the
instructors’ empathic understanding of the leamers’ world and experiences. The more the
instructors understand the learners, the more clearly they can communicate with each
other. The ﬁfth condition is that the learners perceive the instructors’ congruence,
acceptance, and empathy. Unlike Dewey who merely pointed out the elements of the
learning condition, Rogers captured characteristics of the processes of meaningful
learning. Of particular note is his emphasis on the instructors’ characteristics and their
relationship with the learners during the processes of interaction between the instructors
and the learners.

Beginning with Rogers’ concept of signiﬁcant learning, Broolcﬁeld (1987) has

studied adult learning, identifying four characteristics of signiﬁcant personal learning:

34

(a) the learners recognize their lives being re-shaped signiﬁcantly by the learning
experiences; (b) the learners used self-reﬂection when facing a major life crisis; (c) the
learners have re-deﬁned some aspects of the self; and (d) the learners question their
previous values or beliefs. Unlike Roger’s emphasis on the role of instructors in the
processes of learning, Brookﬁeld instead focuses on the outcomes of learning in terms of
self-changes.

Research focusing on meaningful learning is not limited to research using the
exact term, meaningful learning. Relevance and meaningfulness are two major constructs
used in researchers’ discussion of meaningful learning. In their conceptions of these two
terms, researchers also describe characteristics of meaningﬁrl learning that will motivate
learners to seek further learning opportunities.

Keller (1984) deﬁned relevance as one of the conditions of learning that have to
be met for learners to become and remain motivated to learn. He claimed that the
learners’ perceived relevance of instruction can come from either the learning content or
from the way it is taught. If course instruction provides an individual learner
opportunities to satisfy his or her needs, the learner has a feeling that “this course is for
me,” and perceives the learning as relevant. Relevance refers to those things (i.e., taught
content or the learning processes) which the learners “perceive as instrumental in meeting
needs and satisfying personal desires, including the accomplishment of personal goals”
(Keller, 1987, p. 379). If learners’ needs were not satisﬁed or their goals were not
achieved through a particular learning activity, that learning would not be considered
relevant. Keller’s conception of reference represents those people who carry the

pragmatic perspective as a premise to learning: they would only consider learning

35

meaningful when it is consistent with their previous needs or goals which are already in
mind.

Within the ﬁeld of instructional design, scholars have used the principle of
meaningfulness as a guide to motivate learners to promote transfer (Reigeluth, 1983;
Yelon, 1996). Reigeth considered learning to be meaningful if it involved learners
relating new knowledge to their prior knowledge. Later, Yelon (1996) in a deﬁnition
broader than Keller’s, deﬁned meaningful instruction as:

helping students make a connection between a topic to be learned and the

students' past experiences, present situations (needs, interests, values), and future

goals to motivate the students to learn, as well as to use their newly acquired

knowledge. (p. 7)

Similarly, researchers in the ﬁeld of curriculum development have considered the
problems of boredom (Rowles, 1981) and decontextualization (Darlington & Dake,
1994). They tried to increase meaningfulness of course instruction by integrating
disciplines into related curriculum and by situating course instruction in the contexts of
everyday living.

These educational psychologists’ conceptualization of relevance and
meaningfulness cluster around two major characteristics: intentionality of human
behavior and subjectivity of individual 3' cognition in learning situations. From those
researchers' perspectives, learners were not only learning to get needs satisﬁed, but were
setting goals for their learning and evaluating the importance of engaging in that learning.

Some scholars have considered meaningfulness as a much broader context--the
meaningfulness of a serious life. Meaningfulness of learning is related to how a person

views the meanings of life. Klinger (1977), for example, who investigated people's sense

of life meaning, viewed meaningfulness as an individual's incentives:

36

When it comes right down to specifying what makes their lives
meaningful, people turn to the incentives in their lives- the personal
relationships, job goals, recreational activities, inner experiences, and
simple daily pleasure that people spend most of their time pursuing and
enjoying. The more of these that occupy them, the more meaningful their
lives feel and happier their mood. Meaningfulness seems to arise out of
people's relationships to their incentives; these, therefore, would seem to
be the place to look for its sources and effects. (pp. 9-10)

Klinger’s view on meaningfulness implies that a person feels his or her life
meaningful when the person possesses goals to achieve. Klinger’s interpretation of
meaningfulness as incentive is similar to the instructional design researchers’ emphasis
on goal concept when they deﬁned meaningfulness. However, he claimed that to have
goals be achieved is not enough to make a person feel his or her life meaningful. The

achievement of the goal should bring about affective involvement and excitement, as

Klinger (1977) explained:
they derive their sense of meaningfulness from involvements with
signiﬁcant incentives, incentives that are still fresh and powerful enough
to command affective responses. In contrast, people become unhappy in
various ways when their life situations fail to provide them with these
sources of meaning, either because people lack the necessary personal
relationships, goods, abilities, or freedoms, or because the incentives
available to them have lost their power to command affect. Thus, when

someone repeats a satisfying activity to the point of satisfaction and it
leads to no ﬁirther goals beyond itself, it comes to feel futile. (p. 314)

Summary

Through reﬂecting on this varied literature on meaningful learning, I noticed
several characteristics of meaningful learning either in terms of learning outcomes that
are desired by the learners or in terms of learning processes that are valued by them.
Grth of intelligence and change of personality are the crucial features of learning

outcomes that make the learning experience meaningful and valuable. The kind of grth

37

n 6‘

or change is explained broadly as “eyes opened, mind developed,” “achievement of
understanding,” or “acquisition of new meanings.” Growth can also be observed when
the learner has related new knowledge to their prior knowledge, met current incentives,
achieved personal goals, and been able to apply learned knowledge to a new situation.
Meaningful learning is also described as a process in which the learner is helped to
become curious, to understand, to ﬁnd new meanings, and to make connections between
topics. Instructors’ personality and their relationship to learners have been emphasized by
researchers characteristics of learning situations in which there are meaningful learning
processes.
Meaningful Learning for Practicing Teachers

Although issues of meaningfulness of learning have not been the main focus of
research on teachers’ learning, there has been literature documenting teachers’
perceptions of their inservice learning and those learning experiences, which they ﬁnd
valuable.
Growth on Teaching Professional and on Self: The Outcomes of Meaningful Learning

Lange and Burroughs-Lange (1994) interviewed 12 experienced elementary
school teachers in Australia. They asked the teachers to talk about the memorable
experiences in their professional lives. They found four characteristics of signiﬁcant
experiences that experienced teachers considered salient and memorable in professional
development:

a. Individual perception of the professional challenge;

b. Gaining an understanding of the nature of the professional challenge;

c. Having access to sources for resolving the challenge and for extending

professional learning;

(1. Adopting strategies for resolving uncertainty which in many cases lead to
professional growth. (p. 622)

38

The issue of professional growth is central. It contains having an awareness and
understanding of the professional challenges, and adopting strategies for eliminating
uncertainty and solving the challenge.

Teachers often raise the issue of practicality when explaining why some in-
service learning experiences are worthwhile and others are meaningless. For example,
Day (1993) interviewed a group of practicing teachers about their experiences
participating in several types of professional development programs. Teachers’ learning
activities included: sharing a day's course with other schools; visiting other schools to
look at aspects of good practice; taking time out with a colleague to put together a
syllabus; visiting colleagues in other classrooms in their own schools; exchanging
materials between schools; in-school training days; and out-of-school training programs.

Day (1993) reported on the negative sides of teachers' responses to course
learning:

Some of the courses that are run are not as practically relevant to us as

we'd like them to be. There's a lot of theory, whereas what we're mainly

concerned about is getting in there and doing it at ground level. (p. 128)

Some of the courses tend to be overbalanced by the theory of it and not

heavily committed enough to the practical application in school, which for

the classroom teacher is the priority. (p. 128)

On the positive side, some teachers valued the course leaming, for example:

The course I went to was most worthwhile. It was over ﬁve Mondays...

We had two days looking at the National Curriculum, and coming up with

ideas that he gave us, instead of trying to pick our brains to see what we

did. . .I've tried a lot of the ideas out with the class. . .and that course

renewed my thinking... (p. 128)

For me it's been a great self development to be able to participate in the

science course. It broadened my horizons... and opened up vistas for me

as an infant teacher that I would never have thought possible. . .You're
learning different things by meeting other colleagues, by observing what

39

other people are doing. . .Whilst you're learning anything, what ever it is, if

it's contributing towards school, you're developing your skills as a teacher,

you're learning different things. (p. 129)
Davies (1993) reported in-service teachers' reﬂections on their learning about action
research:

There was a lot of value. It widened my experience and gave me deeper

insights- a greater knowledge of my colleagues and what makes things

tick. It was psychologically useful. . .It made me reassess myself-I had to

come to terms with myself. I had to go from being a qualiﬁed teacher who

knew it all to someone plunged into a new situation in an environment I

usually thought of as safe. I had to reorganize myself and change my

thinking. And sometimes with a longing for a return to the familiar old

ways. It was all very difﬁcult but very challenging. . .It widened and

deepened my understanding of the parameters of education-- it was about

introducing experience that would be educational for pupils and teachers

alike. . .The project was heartening in that it seemed something was getting

done. It was not static; it was a process evolving. (p. 148)
These teachers’ words remind me that some experienced teachers ﬁnd learning
meaningful because it entails deep reﬂection on and discovery of the self. Their focus
seems to be on something more than practicality for teaching, and particularly on new
ideas. The statements from Day’s teachers give the impression that practicing teachers
value learning that is closely related to their school teaching. Some teachers emphasized
the practical “action,” whereas others were satisﬁed with the experience of renewing their
thinking and ideas about learning, teaching, or schooling.

Doyle and Ponder (1977) analyzed evidence from several studies of in-service
education to understand why teachers did or did not adopt teaching practices
recommended by the in-service training. They concluded that teachers’ perceptions of

practicality might inﬂuence their decision regarding adoption of the recommendations.

Teachers’ perceived practicality refers to “an expression of teacher perceptions of the

potential consequences of attempting to implement a change proposal in the classroom”
(p.6). The concept of perceived practicality, seems to be close to Keller’s (1984) concept
of relevance which was deﬁned as instrumental for accomplishing personal goals.

This concept helps to understand what teachers mean by practical. Ifteachers
foresee the potential consequences of the use of learned skills or knowledge, they will be
more likely to try it and will be more likely to view the learning as meaningful. This
utilitarian perspective on learning is reminiscent of Whitehead's (1929) concept of inert
ideas or so—called inert knowledge. Whitehead deﬁned inert ideas as "ideas that are
merely received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh
combinations" (pp. 1-2). He claimed that ideas or knowledge are positively harmful if not
utilized: "By utilizing an idea, I mean relating it to that stream, compounded of sense
perceptions, feelings, hopes, desires, and mental activities adjusting thought to thought,
which forms our life" (p.4). Both concepts of perceived practicality and inert ideas imply
that learning can become a meaningful experience only when it performs functions in
everyday life.

The following concepts--perceived professional needs, teachers' concerns, and
teaching priority--are not directly related to the deﬁnition of meaningfulness of learning.
Those concepts, however, might play roles in teachers' explanation of why a particular
learning experience is meaningful. For example, a teacher may perceive a particular
learning experience as meaningful because it satisﬁed his or her current professional
needs. Another teacher may ﬁnd a learning experience meaningful because that learning
provide opportunities allowing the teacher to work on his or her lasting concern of

teaching.

41,

 

 

14 u

Perceived professional needs. Researchers tried to understand what teachers
perceive as their needs for learning to teach better. For example, Abu Bakar et al. (1995)
used The Science Teacher Inventory of Need (STIN; Abu Bakar et al., 1988), which they
developed to investigate science teachers' perceived professional needs. They deﬁned
this concept as the “felt discrepancy between what a person wants and what he or she
has" (Abu Baker ET al., 1995, p2). Thus, the perceived professional needs of science
teachers are the things the science teachers feel they need to successfully fulﬁll their
professional roles. The inventory includes teachers' perceived needs in the following
domains:

a. specifying objectives for science instruction

b. diagnosing and evaluating learners in science instruction

c. planning science instruction

d. delivering science instruction

e. managing science instruction

f. administering science instructional facilities and equipment

g. self-improvement as a science teacher.

Teachers ’ concerns. Fuller (1969; Fuller & Bown, 1975) investigated teachers'
concerns. He found that, compared with pre-service or beginning teachers, most
experienced teachers were more concerned with pupils than with the teaching situation
or with self. This research supports the view that experienced teachers might view
learning about pupils (for example, learning about pupils’ mathematical drinking in the

CGI program) as meaningful because it ﬁts their current concerns.

42

Compared with the concept of professional needs, the concept of teachers’
concerns emphasizes developmental stages or the long-lasting needs of teachers.
Professional needs, in contrast, focus more on teachers’ immediate needs in their current
teaching situations. Some teachers may ﬁnd learning meaningful when their current
needs are satisﬁed. Some other teachers may ﬁnd learning meaningful when they ﬁnd
solution to their long-lasting concerns.

Teaching priority. Pino (1991) had teachers rank their priorities for instruction.
Teachers participating in his study ranked the following elements of teaching (from most
important to least important): methods; curricula; materials; advocacy; teacher
preparation; travel opportunity; testing; articulation; requirement; research; career
application; and professional organization. This research sheds additional light on what
knowledge teacher’s value. If teachers learn knowledge to which they give a high
priority, they may find learning meaningful.

Little research in the field of teacher learning and teacher education focuses
directly on meaningfulness of learning. Rather, the emphasis has been on teachers’
knowledge, teachers’ characteristics as learners, the nature of teachers’ learning
processes, and teachers’ roles in learning and professional development. Teacher
educators and researchers have examined the knowledge inﬂuencing teachers' practices
and how teachers put learned knowledge into practice. Although this body of research is
not aimed at finding teachers’ perspectives on meaningful learning, it reﬂects the kinds of
learning teacher educators and researchers (some of whom are teachers themselves) view

as meaningful learning to teachers.

43

For example, Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) derived
knowledge from research on children’s learning and taught the body of knowledge to
inservice teachers. This group believed teachers need knowledge about children’s
learning to teach effectively. They assumed that teachers would draw on this knowledge
in ways that would transform their teaching and improve students’ learning. Results of
the study supported their hypothesis.

Other researchers (Ball & McDiamid, 1990; McDiarmid, 1995) have argued that
teachers need to have strong knowledge about the subject matter or curriculum to teach
all students appropriately. Another group of researchers (Shulman, 1987) proposed that a
signiﬁcant amount of teachers’ knowledge is pedagogical content knowledge, which is
knowledge about how to teach a group of students speciﬁc subject matter.

Other teacher educators have argued that not teachers need to learn not only about
children’s learning psychology, content knowledge, and general pedagogy, but they also
need to learn about educational policy and ecology (Dean, 1991).

No matter what kinds of knowledge these teacher educators and researchers
promoted, they explicitly expressed their opinions on which knowledge is good for
teachers to learn. The researchers’ implicit assumption is that teachers would ﬁnd
learning the recommended knowledge meaningful.

Situated Learning Processes

Another group of researchers has tried to understand the nature of teachers'
learning processes and to understand how to support teachers’ learning. An important
debate among researchers about appropriate professional development models arises

from different perspectives on teachers’ learning. Some researchers have criticized the

decontextualization of traditional in-service teacher training, which they argued, has not
satisﬁed the needs of teachers and schools. Others, however, have argued that the
learning setting is not the issue (Shower, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987) and that teachers can
learn successfully in well-designed instructional conditions regardless of the setting.
According to this argument, even the traditional training model could play a successful
role in teachers' learning if teachers' prior knowledge is appropriately taken into account
(Tillema & Irnants, 1995). In all of these cases, researchers and teacher educators have
tried to ﬁnd what learning models best-ﬁt teachers’ characteristics as learners.

Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1990) identiﬁed ﬁve types of professional
development models based upon different assumptions about leamers' characteristics and
the nature of learning. The guided stajf development model assumes that teachers are
capable of self-directed learning and the teachers' learning should be initiated and
designed by teachers themselves. The observation/assessment model provides teachers'
opportunities to learn to teach through feedback from other's observation of their
teaching. This model assumes that teachers learn through reﬂection on information about
their own teaching. In the development/improvement process model, teachers develop
curriculum or engage in school improvement, on the assumption that teachers learn best
when they know the needs of their schools and participate in the planning of school
improvement. The inquiry model is based on an assumption that teachers have the ability
to formulate questions about their professional development and to conduct independent
inquiries about school teaching and learning. All four models of teachers' professional
development are grounded in a fundamental assumption that teachers' learning should be

situated in their work. Similarly, a number of scholars have argued that a situated

45

perspective on cognition can provide a useful framework for considering teachers'
learning processes and teachers as learners (F eiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996). They
argued that teachers' learning should be situated in the contexts of teachers' teaching. It is
worth noticing that some researchers (Putnam & Borko, 2000) argued that teachers’
learning can be thought of as situated in a number of different contexts, not just their own
classrooms.

This body of research reveals researchers’ underlying premise that the
meaningfulness of teachers’ learning grows out of appropriate learning models. If the
setting and process of teachers’ learning experiences ﬁt teachers’ unique characteristics
as learners, for example, self-directed or practice-oriented, teachers may perceive their
learning as a meaningful endeavor.

Summary

Practicing teachers and researchers have both emphasized that teachers’ growth in
various domains of knowledge for professional practice is the major criterion for the
meaningfulness of teachers’ learning. Some teachers also recognized the value of self-

growth in their learning. The aspect of process is rarely mentioned.

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

What kinds of in-service learning do practicing teachers appreciate, believe to be
worthwhile, want to experience again, and ﬁnd supportive in becoming willing to
seriously commit to learning? How do teachers who share instructional events differ in
what they consider to be meaningful learning? I pursued these two research questions
through a descriptive case study focusing on nine experienced teachers who as a group
took ﬁve courses during their 6-week residence at the same Taiwanese summer
certiﬁcation program at which I visited my friends Tai-Ang and Wei-Yi, and at which I
interviewed a group of experienced teachers for my practicum research.

Design

I chose a case study approach to pursue these questions because the teachers’
learning experiences and their perceptions of those experiences are situated in the
interaction between the teachers’ selves and the learning environment. A case study
would be more appropriate than a single large sample survey study to have access to the
learning environment and to the teachers’ thoughts on and reactions to particular kinds of
learning experiences.

No researcher would be surprised to ﬁnd that teachers would not become bored
when asked to talk about the learning experiences they found meaningful in their lives.
Many teachers can tell their stories for hours. If a researcher listens carefully, he can
learn from the stories what teachers remembered most and how they interpreted the

shining moments in the individual’s learning career. A researcher can rely only on each

47

teacher’s memory however to know what happened in those learning events, the teacher
recount, which will lead to a problem, for a researcher has only the teachers’, not the
researcher’s perspective on the learning events recounted. Besides, without having shared
the experiences of the particular learning events, the researcher may ﬁnd it difﬁcult to
develop meaningful conversations with the teachers about the precise nature of the
meaningful learning experiences that particularly impressed the teacher responding. I
therefore chose to do my case study by sitting side-by-side a group of teachers in their
classes as they learned, so that I could experience with them the instructors, the course
content, and the instructional activities, thus enabling me to develop more knowledgeable
conversations with my group of teachers, and to better understand the kinds of learning
they experienced and found meaningful.

Using Yin’s (1994) suggestions for the design of case studies I focussed on three
issues: (a) types of research questions, (b) control of investigators over observed
phenomena, and (c) focus on observed phenomena. Yin (1994) suggested that case study
is chosen “when 'how' or 'why' questions are being posed, when the investigator has little
control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some
real-life context"(p. 1).

The ﬁrst research question of this study accordingly became: “What kinds of
learning do experienced teachers ﬁnd meaningful?” Theoretically, a large-sample-sized
survey study should be more appropriate than a case study to pursue a “what” question,
since the former approach would allow researchers to collect a comprehensive list of
those kinds of learning teachers ﬁnd meaningful. A narrow case study would not help a

researcher to obtain a wide range of teachers' perspectives on meaningful learning

especially when there are no research ﬁndings on the issue available from previous
systematic investigations. One major concern I had with the design of the survey study
was that a single large- sample survey might not allow participant teachers to report their
experiences and perspectives in adequate depth. In addition to this concern, I mentioned
earlier in this section that the researcher would not be able to develop signiﬁcant
conversations with each teacher to learn about what he or she found meaningful. In sum,
I was concerned with the validity of data collected through a survey study. In contrast, I
was more conﬁdent with the validity of data collected by means of a case study because it
would allow me, as a researcher, to observe the situations in which the teachers' learning
took place and would create a situation for the teachers and the researcher to converse
knowledgeably about shared.

The case study is particularly appropriate for pursuing the second research
question of this study, i.e., How do teachers who share instructional and learning events
differ in which respects to what they ﬁnd meaningful? because it will allow me to
analyze teachers' responses, all of whom, including the researcher, all are learning
simultaneously common materials in a common classroom, being taught by the identical
instructors or instructional staffs.

Considering the issue of investigators' control over the observed phenomena of
teachers’ experiences on meaningful learning, I had, in fact, almost no control over the
participants’ learning since I played no instructional role in this speciﬁc learning
experience. However, my research is aimed at identifying meaningful learning
experiences through the teachers’ eyes, rather than on changing teachers’ perspectives on

learning through intervention. Although there might be minor effects on teachers'

49

reformulating of their perspectives by inviting them to reﬂect on this particular learning
experiences, reformulation of the perspectives was not the intent of the research. In
summary, a case study approach is appropriate for exploring the phenomena of teachers’
learning experiences and their views on those experiences.

Finally, the focus of this particular research is the teachers’ perceptions of their
learning experiences, not some imaginary or theoretical ideas of what constitutes
meaningful learning. Although the term “meaningful” learning itself seems to imply an
ideal image of learning, its signiﬁcance, in fact, is based on the teachers’ current
perceptions of a single shared experience that took place in a learning environment.
When teachers identify a learning experience as a meaningful endeavor, they are actually
reporting the perceived values of some facts that had, at some level, already occurred to
them, as Abraham Maslow (1966) has claimed of his subjects, who were reporting both
values and facts of the world when they were asked to describe how the world looked
different to them when they had, as he labeled them “peak experiences.” In my study,
teachers were not asked merely to comment on “good learning,” which each teacher
identiﬁes his own percepts what learning should be like, but each is asked to describe the
shared of their particular learning experience. Thus, the case study is the appropriate
vehicle for the focus of this particular study, a diagrammatic overview of which is

presented in Figure 3.1.

Survey
Before
Course Instruction

1

 

Observation &/or Videotaping
of
Course Instruction

l

Focus Group Interviews
After
Unit Instruction

 

 

 

 

l

Individual Interviews
In the Last Two Weeks
of Course Instruction

l

Course Value Inventory

In the End
of Course Instruction

l

Individual Interviews
In the Last Two Weeks
of Course Instruction

Figure 3.1. Overview of the research design.

51

The survey served the purpose of obtaining an overall understanding of teachers’
perspectives; participating observation of the understandings of instruction; focus group
interviews for deeper understandings of teachers’ perceptions of learning
meaningfulness; and individual interviews for understanding individual teachers’
perspectives. The major data were from the focus group interviews. The reason for
choosing focus group interview was that participant teachers might have opportunities to
explain their perspectives on learning meaningfulness to others in a group, in which a
variety of different perspectives could be brought into the discussion (Vaughn, Schumm,
& Sinagub, 1996).

Subjects and Contexts

Nine experienced teachers voluntarily participated in the study at the time they
were all taking ﬁve courses in common in the summer program in Taiwan in which my
friends, Tai-Ang and Wei-Yi, had earlier completed.

Participant Teachers

I visited a group of 41 experienced middle school teachers who were taking
courses in educational research methodology, educational statistics, instructional
measurement, computer application to education, and counseling techniques, as required
by the curriculum for their third year in the summer program. All teachers were
experienced, having taught in middle schools for more than a ﬁve-year minimum. Nine
of the teachers volunteered to participate in this research. The participant teachers’
demographic backgrounds are listed in Table 3.1. They taught a variety of subjects in
their schools, except for one participating teacher who worked exclusively as a school

counselor who was not teaching any subjects in his school.

52

Table 3.1

Participant Teaﬁhers’ Demographic Backgrounds (N=9)

 

 

 

 

1. Gender Frguency 2. Highest dggree earned Freguency
Male 2 BA.
Female 7 Summer MA. 1
3. Age Frguengy 4. Major Frguency
33-34 3 Biology 1
44-45 2 Chinese 1
48-49 2 Educational Administration 1
51-52 2 Edu. Psy. & School Guid. 3
Political Science 1
Public Administration ' 1
Transportation Management 1
5. Teaching Length Frguency 6. Teaching Positions Frequency
7 years 1 Subject Matter Teacher/Adviser 3
9-10 years 2 Subject Matter Teacher 1
20-21 years 2 Subject Matter Teacher/ Scout Dir. 1
25-26 years 3 School Counselor 2
28 years 1 Chief of Department 2
7. Teaching Subject Frgggncy 8. Size of Class Frguency
Accounting 1 30 students 1
Chinese 1 39—41 students 3
Civil Education 2 45-48 students 2
Geography 1 50-52 students 2
Guidance Activity 3 None 1
None 1
9. Teaching School Freguengy 10. School Location Frequency
Junior High School 5 Urban 4
Senior High School 1 Suburban 2
Junior/Senior High School 1 Small Town 2
3-year Vocational High School 2 Country 1

 

53

The Summer Program

The summer program was a four-summer program that was sponsored by the
Taiwan government and offered by a university to enhance secondary school teachers'
competencies in school guidance. Any secondary school in-service teachers were eligible
to apply for this program, regardless of whether their major areas or teaching subjects
were related to school guidance. Teachers applied one year in advance to attend the
program, with 35 to 40 teachers admitted each summer. All attending teachers in the
program were required to take at least 40 credits (about 20 courses) and to write an
educational research report covering the four summers. After completing the
requirements, teachers were awarded a certiﬁcate of mastery study in the area of school
guidance and would receive promotions and salary increases as holders of that certiﬁcate.

After reﬂecting on my practicum research, I saw a need to revisit the summer
program to investigate teachers' perspectives on meaningful learning. Some members of
my dissertation committee questioned why I chose this site to study teachers' perspectives
instead of other learning situations, such as professional development programs, in which
teachers are actually doing the teaching, as are many programs that are currently highly
valued by some researchers, teacher educators, and teachers (Hargreaves, 1994). In my
understanding, each type of professional development program has its unique function
and limitation and teachers may experience meaningful learning in any of several
different types of teacher education programs. Therefore, I did not choose a program to
study for that program was particularly successful or problematic.

I chose this summer program to investigate teachers' learning for two reasons.

First, the type of teacher education program involved teachers in long-terrn learning (four

summers) rather than in one-day workshops or one-week’s training. Teachers especially
need to experience meaningful learning to support them to continue the long journey of
learning and teachers would have more chances for contact with instructors and subject
matter in a more extended program over a period of four years and teachers would be
more likely to reﬂect on their learning and its meanings to them than in courses lasting
from a single day or even a single week. Second, Taiwanese view the university as a
place for their students’ exposure to new ideas, knowledge, or techniques, where they
learn diverse perspectives or opinions on education. When in-service teachers are invited
to the university to learn from experienced educators, it is expected that students listen
open-mindedly, think critically, and explore ideas creatively. Many experienced teachers
in Taiwan view the university as a good place to refresh their minds and explore new
concepts in a climate which promotes attitudes and a disposition favorable to lifelong
learning. If teacher educators can learn more about the kind of teachers' learning taking
place in the sort of educational climate which will be more likely to help teachers
encounter more meaningﬁrl learning experiences which will encourage them in becoming
lifelong learners. It was because of my interest in teachers’ ﬁnding the motivation to
become lifelong learners that I chose to do my research at this four-summer university-
based professional development program.

The program offered ﬁve courses for the third-year teachers, courses which were
to be completed by the group of teachers within six weeks. None of the ﬁve courses was
required, but most of the teachers took all ﬁve course during that summer since teachers
needed to take 20 courses during the four summers and the program usually offered ﬁve

courses each summer. Some of the participant teachers took four courses that summer

55

because they had taken more than 10 courses in the ﬁrst two years. Teachers took courses
with their cohorts. Because of the structure of the curriculum and scheduling issues, no
teachers took courses that were offered for those students at another level of the 4-year
program of students. For example, the third-year teachers did not take courses offered for
only the fourth-year teachers/students.

Instructors who taught in this summer program were full-time (l2-month) faculty
employed by the university. They all had Ph.D. or were full professors, receiving
additional payment for teaching in the summer program.

Limitations

Generalization of this research ﬁnding is limited to in-service teachers because of
the limited cases of participant teachers in this study. This group of teachers’ perspectives
cannot represent the views of all experienced teachers’ views on learning nor be
considered to be typical of all learning situations. Nevertheless, the ecological validity of
these research ﬁndings is high because of the density of the collected data within its
parameters of daily research over a six-week period of the learning experience of a stable
group of participants.

Variables

This study explored three groups of variables: (a) teachers’ perspectives on
meaningful learning; (b) teachers' disposition; and (c) course-insuuction-interaction.
Teachers ’ Perspectives on Meaningful Learning

It seemed that the most direct way ﬁnd an answer to the question about the
teachers’ perspectives on meaningful learning would be to ask each teacher his deﬁnition

of the term, “meaningful learning,” a task that sounded simple but in reality was not easy

at all. A simple deﬁnition could not possibly explained any person’s understanding of the
philosophical and practical information of the term “meaningful learning,” nor could I
obtain a better understanding of the teachers’ thoughts about their learning solely by
means of their deﬁnitions of “learning.” Therefore, I chose to ask teachers to identify ﬁrst
those learning experiences they had found meaningful and then explain to me why those
experiences were meaningful to them.

Another problem of understanding teachers’ perspectives on meaningful learning
is how teachers interpret the semantic meanings of the word "meaningful ". When
working on my practicum study, I asked thirty-two elementary and secondary teachers
questions: "Among the courses which you have taken in the program, which courses do
you think most helpﬁrl or meaningful for your personal development? Why?" and
"Among the courses which you have taken in the program, which courses do you think
most helpful or meaningful for your vocational development? Why?" All participant
teachers could name and describe meaningful courses and could explain to me why those
courses were meaningful to them. Most reported that which courses helped them to get
new understanding and to be useful in personal living or teaching were judged to be
meaningful. Few teachers reported that they found learning itself to be meaningful,
regarding that aspects of the experiences simply the acquisition of a practical skill.
Teachers' common responses to my questions about “meaningful” course learning
experiences were generally that they appreciated those experiences which led to a deeper
understanding or to a new and different views from their own. It appeared that
meaningful learning to these teachers was primarily the gaining of fuller understanding of

a subject. However, when I was doing my practicum research I came across an event that

57

I called "restroom shock" and which led me to be aware the problem of asking teachers
question with the term “meaningful.”

When I was doing my practicum research several years ago, I observed
participant teachers' learning in a course about computer application in education on the
last day. The instructor was teaching the second unit of that course: how to use statistical
computer software in analyzing educational research data. Instead of teaching that
software, the instructor ﬁrst gave an introductory lesson about how to pursue an
educational problem by conceptualizing problems, formulating research questions, and
considering research approaches and analysis methods. I found that lecture was very well
organized and was really helpful for learners to know the function of the statistical
computer software in the processes of doing research. I, as a researcher-learner,
personally appreciated that lecture very much. In the break, I went to rest room and heard
three participant teachers complaining that the instructor was wasting time in talking
nonsense and not teaching how to use that software immediately. I was shocked that the
three teachers were not enjoying the lesson which I had thought enlightening and helpful
when I later checked those three teachers' interview records, I was more surprised. One
teacher reported that meaningful courses those that were practical and which helped to
reﬂect her own thinking. The other teacher reported that meaningﬁrl courses helped her to
observe and to reﬂect on her own habits, to regain self-esteem and her learning ability.
The third teacher reported that meaningful courses helped her to review learned
knowledge and to gain new understanding of it.

I wondered why the teachers seemed bot to appreciate that lesson if they were

truly enjoying the courses which helped them to gain new understanding. My sense was

that any lesson, if taught well, should help teachers to understand the goals of research
work. They might perceive their effectiveness differently from one another, certainly, but
I did not now know what teachers really meant by “meaningful” learning, apparently
regarding it with “useﬁrl” or “understandable.” “Meaningful” is a word commonly used
in Chinese society. Teachers and I took it for granted that we shared the meanings of the
word and used it to categorize past experiences and to analyze them. However, the results
of my practicum research were that I found I did not know now what teachers really
meant when they used the word “meaningful.”

Considering the linguistic and media issues, I asked participant teachers of these
study questions situated in both general and speciﬁc contexts by means of both paper-
pencil surveys and face-to-face interviews. Every participant teacher was asked to write
in a pencil-paper survey to describe and explain meaningful learning experiences in
different contexts, e. g., in general, in in-service teacher education, in a university setting
and in a particular teacher education program (See Appendix A, Part IV). Asking
teachers to recall their learning experiences taking place in different situations and stages
is a strategy used to learn what kinds of learning they found meaningful. In the
instruction included with the assignment, I used the term “meaningful” in contrast to two

types of learning experiences.

 

In your life, you have experienced learning in many different settings, for example,
at home, in school, in museum, in your work, etc. You might ﬁnd yourself bored,
confused, or frustrated in some learning experience, while in other situations, you
appreciated your learning and found it meaningful. Think of some learning
experiences you found meaningful and respond to the next two questions.

14. Describe that learning experience(s) brieﬂy.
15. Why was that learning meaningful for you?

 

(Appendix A, Part IV)

 

 

59

Although I still left the meanings of “meaningful” open in the survey, I tried to lead
teachers to identify those learning experiences they appreciated.
In the focus group interviews, I gave teachers my deﬁnition of “meaningful”

learning:

 

Meaningful learning is learning that teachers appreciate, believe to be worthwhile,
want to experience again, and find supportive in becoming willing to commit to
learning seriously.

 

 

 

I asked teachers, according to the deﬁnition, to identify those kinds of learning which
they were experiencing currently in the ﬁve courses in the summer program and to
explain to me why that learning was meaningful to them. With this information, I
understood that the kinds of learning related more to teachers' attitudes toward lifelong
learning and I understood better what teachers meant by “meaningful” learning
experiences. In addition to the data collected by survey and interview, I used Course
Valuing Inventory (Nehari & Bender, 1978) to measure teachers’ ﬁnal overall
perceptions of each course.
Teachers ' Disposition

Two groups of variables of teachers’ disposition to learning were measured by the
survey in this study.

Demographic background This group of variables includes teachers’ gender,
age, education and teaching experiences. All of these variables were treated as nominal
variables and were measured by survey (see Appendix A, Part II, III, and I: Item 1 to

Item 11).

Teachers ’ prior knowledge of subject matter. This variable was measured by the
survey. The subject matter knowledge refers particularly to those courses which
participant teachers in the summer program when I did the ﬁeldwork for this study (see
Appendix A, Part IV, item 28). Teachers responded to 5 point Likert scales in the survey.
Course-Instruction Interaction

This is a description of the course interaction and reactions to the classroom
instructions, in the classes which all participant teachers attended that summer. The
description is based upon my observation of the classroom instruction in each of the ﬁve
courses.

Instrumentation
Experienced Teachers ’ Learning Survey

I developed the survey (See Appendix A), ﬁrst, I writing it in English. Then, I
modiﬁed it by discussing it with my dissertation director, Dr. Ralph Putnam.
Subsequently, I translated the survey into Chinese and did a pilot study, using the
services of two teachers whose native language was Chinese. I, ﬁnally, changed some of
words of the survey based upon the two teachers’ recommendations.

Classroom Observation Guide

I developed an observation guide (See Appendix B) for taking notes in classroom

observation. I changed the observation guide during the process of instruction.
Focus Group Interview Guiding Questions
I developed a focus group interview guiding questions (See Appendix C) for the

purpose of leading focus group interviews. The two major guiding questions were:

61

“According the deﬁnition of meaningful learning, which learning events did teachers ﬁnd
meaningful among the ﬁve courses?” and “What reasons did teachers gave for their
perceptions of those meaningful learning experiences?”
Focus Group Interview Room

The summer institute assigned a group counseling room for me to run the ﬁve
focus group interviews during that summer. The room was located in the same building
as the classrooms but on different ﬂoor. It was not an open area, but it was used only by
researchers or counselors for private activity and conversations. I set two big tables
together and arranged 9 chairs and 2 tables for the participant teachers, facing to the
blackboard. One video camera was set behind the group of teachers; one audio recorder
was put at the center of the tables. I used the blackboard to write down teachers’
comments, which they made in the group interviews. The arrangement of the room for
the focus group interview is shown in Figure 3.2. Participant teachers knew the video
camera and audio tape recorder were being used to keep records of the interviews for

later analysis.

 

Blackboard

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Windows

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video Camera My Moving Zone

Chairs for the 9 participant teachers

:

Figure 3.2. Furniture arrangement of the room for focus group interviews.

62

Course Valuing Inventory

Nehari and Bender (1978) developed the Course Valuing Inventory to measure
leamers’ perceived values of a course learning experience. I translated this inventory
from English to Chinese to understand participant teachers’ perceptions of the learning
each course that took place in that summer. I tested the Chinese versions of the inventory
with the feedback from two graduate students who were taking courses in the university
and whose native language was Chinese.

Nehari and Bender’s inventory was used to measure undergraduates’ judgment of
the meaningfulness of a university course. It is reliable. The original inventory consists of
36 items on 4 scales, which 9 items in each scale (See Appendix D). Each scale
represents a dimension of perceived meaningfulness and value of course learning. The
four scales are course valuing, cognitive-content learning, affective-personal learning,
and behavioral learning. Contents of each scale are shown in Table 3.2.

Scales with correspondent items are listed in Table 3.3. Fourteen out of the 36
items are reversed items. I translated all the 36 items from English to Chinese. The
original inventory asked to respond to 4-point Likert scales indicating whether the
statement is (1) positively true, (2) probably true (3) probably untrue and (4) positively
untrue in each case. No neutral choice is given. Because of the change from English to
Chinese, I considered it less confusing for participants for me to change to the more
familiar S-point likert scales (I) totally disagree, (2) partly disagree (3) not sure (4) partly
agree (5) totally agree. The choice ‘not sure’ is a neutral choice. The survey was used at
the end of instruction of observed courses for understanding variance of participant

teachers' perception of meaningfulness of learning in the various courses.

63

Table 3.2.
Content of the Four Sagas of the Course Valuing Inventory

 

Scales Contents

 

Course Valuing Refers to the extent to which a learning experience is judged to
be valuable, meaningful, signiﬁcant and positive.

Cognitive-Content Refers to the extent to which the learner feels he gained

Learning information and knowledge and an integrated comprehension of
the subject matter.

Affective-Personal Refers to the extent to which the learner feels the course to have

Learning been a personal experience and in which he feels he gained
awareness, sensitivity and understanding of self and others.

Behavioral Learning Refers to the extent to which the learner judges the course to
have had an impact on his behavior inside or outside the
classroom, in his relations with others or with the content of the
course.

(The table was modiﬁed from Nehari & Bender, 1978, p. 3)

Individual Interview Guide

I developed a guide (See Appendix E) for the use of individual interviews for
better understanding of teachers’ responses on the Experienced Teachers’ Learning
Survey and in their comments in focus group interviews.
Notebook for Summer Program Learning

I made one notebook (See Appendix F) for each participant teacher to keep notes
relevant those learning experiences in the summer program which they found meaningful.
Teachers could share their notes in the focus group interviews.

Procedures of Data Collection

I used to believe that I would collect data step by step with my planning. When I

entered the ﬁeld, I did some and I did not do the others. I realized that I had to change

some of my plans. Looking back to what I had done in ﬁeldwork, I knew I had made

some decisions appropriately and some poorly. Most importantly, after having completed
all the ﬁeldwork and reﬂected on the collected data, I realized that the ways I worked in
the ﬁeld had made me drink differently of this research. In this section, I described
exactly what I did in the ﬁeldwork, and what changes I had made subsequent to the ﬁeld
work. A diagrammatic overview of this research procedure is presented in Figure 3.3.
Contacted Course Instructors

Before I began my ﬁeldwork in the summer program, I contacted the instructor
who was going to teach the computer course. He agreed to let me observe and videotape
in his class, so I was sure that I would at least have one course to observe and knew
which group of teachers would be candidates for my study. After I went back Taiwan that
summer, I met all ﬁve instructors who were going to teach courses to the group of
teachers in that summer program. All asked me details of my research and why I needed
to observe in class. I explained to them that the purpose of my research was to understand
teachers’ perspectives on learning and I wanted to understand their perspectives with
references to learning contexts. That is, I planned to ask participant teachers to talk about
their current learning in the summer program in order to understand their perspectives.

I needed to be in the classes so that I could understand what learning facets were
being introduced to them and could rose more appropriate questions when I interviewed
them. I convinced them. However, I did not ask them to videotape or audiotape any
portions of their instruction. I was satisﬁed to be allowed to observe all ﬁve courses and
did not ask more! In addition, the counseling course was not appropriate for videotaping
or audiotaping because teachers might share personal stories they did not care to have

recorded because of their personal nature.

65

Table 3.3
Description of Scalis and Items of Courstﬂﬂuing Inventory

 

Course Valuing Scale
This course was a very valuable learning experience for me

I consider this learning experience as time and effort very well spent
This was (not) a meaningful learning experience

This course was a rewarding learning experience

This was (not) an inspiring course

This was a constructive and deﬁnitely helpful learning experience

I would like to take another course like this one

I would (not) recommend this course to a friend

Taking the course made (little) difference for me

Content Learning Scale
The course helped me to acquire important basic knowledge

I can now relate to the subject matter of the course from a wider perspective
I did (not) gain much information in this course

I am now better able to conceptualize problems presented in the course

My understanding of the subject matter has (not) increased much

The course helped me achieve a deeper understanding of the ﬁeld

The course did (not) help me gain through knowledge of the ﬁeld

I have now a much clearer integrated notion of the subject matter of the course
I have (not) been able to tie things together and make much sense of the content presented

Personal Learning Scale

This learning experience helped me to become more aware of my own feelings and reactions
This course had (no) impact on my personal growth

This experience helped me to realize this importance of my own feelings

I feel more perceptive of others now, and more sensitive to their needs

I understand better how others perceive me

In some ways I feel good about myself due to this course

This course had (no) impact on my understanding of my self

Some of my values have been clariﬁed due to this learning experience

I think I have learned to be more tolerant

Behavioral Learning Scale
This course had (no) impact on the ways in which I communicate

In this course I had (not) achieved my own learning goals

Somehow I worked harder in this course than I usually do

This course was useful in helping me develop new ways of learning
Somehow I was more open and sharing

I participated in this course (less) than was actually expected

Somehow I have taken more risks in this course, and I feel good about it

I did (no) more reading or thinking than was actually expected

In this course I have taken more responsibility for my own learning than I usually do

In short, I was allowed to observe all ﬁve courses, with only the computer course
being videotaped. The statistics instructor asked me to participate in all class activities,
including answering questions in class, writing assignments, and taking tests. The
counseling instructor asked me to do non-participant observation and give her feedback at
the end of course.

Recruited Participant Teachers

In the ﬁrst day of the summer program, the 2 co-instructors of the Research
Method course introduced me to the group of teachers to recruit voluntary participants in
this study. I had 20 minutes in which to introduce my research and myself. I used the
“overt approach” (Biklen, 1992), telling the teachers my current role, my interests, and
my research planning to seek teachers’ cooperation in this study. Two of that group of
teachers asked me questions about my research during these periods. After I explained
my research to them, I gave each teacher a Letter of Invitation (See Appendix G) and the
Assurance Form (See Appendix H). I read the letter and form to the teachers and asked
them to retum the forms to me whether or not they decided to participate in the study.
That afternoon, I collected all the teachers’ returned forms. Eight teachers agreed to
participate in the study and formed a focus group. One more teacher asked to join the
group on the day I had the ﬁrst focus group interview. Since I had not prepared extra
materials, I initially rejected that teacher, after the ﬁrst group interview, I changed my
mind and asked her to join.

Administered Experienced Teachers ’ Learning Survey
Eight of the nine participant teachers were given copies of the Experienced Teacher’s

Learning Survey (See Appendix A) when they returned the assurance forms to me.

67

 

 

 

1N CLASSROOM

Started Participating Classroom <
Observation, &
Recruited Participant Teachers

Continued Classroom Observation

Continued Classroom Observation
Continued Classroom Observation
Continued Classroom Observation
Continued Classroom Observation
Continued Classroom Observation

Continued Classroom Observation

A A/‘t AAA/K

Continued Classroom Observation

Finished Classroom Observation <

I!

/

\

/

\
/

 

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

OUT OF CLASSROOM

V Contacted Course Instructors

Formed One Focus Group, &
Gave Participants the “Experienced
Teachers’ Leaming Survey”

> Collected Retumed Assurance Letters,

> Ran Focus Group Interview #1 &
Collected Returned Survey

> Ran Focus Group Interview #2
> Ran One Informal Individual Interview
> Ran Focus Group Interview #3

> Ran Focus Group Interview #4 &
Gave Course Value Inventory

Ran Five Formal Individual Interviews
> Ran Focus Group Interview #5
> Ran One Formal Individual Interview
\1 Collected Returned Inventory

Ran Four Formal Individual Interviews

 

 

Figure 3.3. Overview of research procedures of ﬁeldwork.

 

They were asked to bring the completed in surveys with when the focus group
met a week later. The teacher who joined the study after the first focus group meeting
was given the survey and asked to being it in also when the group met in the second
group interview. I photocopied all teachers’ returned surveys and returned the original
surveys to the teachers.
aassroom Observations

I participated in all classroom instruction in the 5 courses and took ﬁeld notes of
the courses in class. Field notes included, among a variety of information, comments on
the course instructional activities, instructors’ behavior, and the teachers’ general
behavior, especially that of the nine participant teachers. The summer institute assigned
one classroom to this class. All courses were taught in this classroom except the
computer course, which sometimes used the computer labs. I sat in the back of the

classroom and shared a table with two teachers (see Figure 3.4).

 

 

 

Blackboard

 

Door

 
  

   

“-‘-:~‘-:-:-.‘-:-.' x ~'-:\ -'~.'-:~:s.\ '-:-; '-c-:-c<‘~. we \

q‘p'u‘u' 'u‘ ' '.\‘.'.'.\\'l. \N‘n\\‘h ‘ '-\‘n‘- \‘p' S '1 ' 'p‘. ' ‘- ' \NKNN't “ "I I ' '8 ' 'h'u" ‘\
=x*‘§t‘%e>eo’arﬁﬁ°€‘aﬁ$x§°<i~ waft-e nmﬁﬁﬂ‘ﬁe‘e‘t‘fh‘ﬁfrt

 

armammmxr easement. 3 emes
0 O O

 

   

 

 

 

 

Table 0 Teachers’ ’ My Q7 Instructor
Seats Seat

Figure 3.4. Overview of the classroom arrangement

69

I decided to follow every lesson presented to that the group of teachers for two
reasons. One was that both the instructors and teachers asked me to participate in all
activities. The instructors repeatedly expressed that I would in this way better know the
whole essence of the instructions. Some of the teachers were suspicious about what I
intended to know about their learning if I only observed some lessons. I read from their
faces the message: “Another superﬁcial graduate student’s study!” After I told them I
planned to stay with them every minute that summer, most of teachers smiled at me but
warned me that it would be a challenging journey. I was glad that I had insisted on
attending each lesson with the teachers. Actually, I participated in all activities and
shared the duties of arranging the furniture, for example, in class and after class. Some of
the teachers asked me questions about their assigned English reading; some discussed
with me their research proposals; some asked me to give a tutorial lesson in statistics to
prepare them to teach their peers in class; some teachers chatted with me about their
school work. The more days I attended classes with the teachers, the more they showed
their friendships to me. Some teachers shared soft drinks and food with me; some asked
me to join their chat during lunch break. Some teachers voluntarily told me their feelings
about the summer program, even though they did not participate in my study. Some
teachers explained that they were too busy to participate in my study but they would like
to help me if I needed some help. If they participated in my study or not, the group of
teachers were very supportive of me and my work. During the second week of my
observation, I was sick, but I still attended every lesson. Two teachers gave me a box of
vitamins, and asked that I should take them for health. Other teachers came to cheer me

up. Although I was exhausted and sick, I attended all lessons with the group of teachers,

70

and I knew that I had made the right decision, because I could feel that teachers, as well
as the ﬁve instructors, accepted me and became willing to share their feelings and
thoughts about their learning with me in the summer program. This was the key to the
completion of my ﬁeldwork and, it led to a very happy research experience.

The other reason for my persisting in participating in all activities that summer
was that I found that the instructions and learning activities were intensive and varied
during the 6 weeks. I didn’t think that I could have understood the participant teachers’
comments in focus group interviews if I had missed classes.

Five Focus Group Interviews

The nine participant teachers formed one focus group and met one hour in each of
the ﬁrst ﬁve weeks that summer. The teachers were asked primarily to focus on
memorable experiences in their professional lives.

I originally planned to have four to ﬁve teachers in each group so that each
teacher might have sufﬁcient chances to talk the in group meetings, as other researchers
had suggested (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). Nine teachers are too many for a
focus group. However, I found the schedule of summer program was very intensive and
the participant teachers could only meet during the lunch break from noon to two o’clock,
when they reserved classes. Some of the teachers needed to go back their own schools if
there were no classes in the program. Some teachers needed to travel back home when
there were no classes or when course schedule changed. All teachers needed as well to
work after class on their individual projects and group projects, such as research
proposals. Moreover, I found myself too exhausted to run two groups, besides

participating in all ﬁve courses.

71

The focus group met ﬁve times during the six weeks of summer study. Each
meeting lasted about 50 minutes, starting from 12:40 pm. and ﬁnishing at about 1:40
pm. There were about 40 minutes between morning classes (ending at 12:00 noon) and
the focus group interviews, for teachers to have lunch. The class began at 2:00 pm. in the
afternoon. I ordered lunch boxes and soft drinks for the teachers whenever the group met
so that they did not need to walk out for lunch.

In the ﬁrst group meeting, I introduced the purposes of the group meetings,
interview questions to be directed to them, the deﬁnition of meaningful learning, the
kinds of information I wanted from the teachers in the group interviews, and the ground
rules for the focus group. I explained all the details orally and also gave each participant
teacher a written note of these factors (see Table 3.4). Three courses (Research Methods,
Statistics, and Assessment) had began before the focus group met ﬁrst time. The
classroom instruction of the three courses was introducing course goals, agenda,
activities, and assignments. Therefore, I did not ask the group to talk to the courses that
they were currently taking in the summer program. Instead, I asked them to talk about the
one meaningful learning experience that they had written about on the Experienced
Teachers’ Learning Survey. I used this as a warm-up activity for later focus group
interviews. From the second group interview to the last group interview, I encouraged
participant teachers, according to the given deﬁnition of meaningful learning, to identify
meaningful learning experiences and to report their experiences, feeling, opinions, and
reasoning as part of the group discussion, focusing on the ﬁve courses they were
currently taking in the summer program. I posted on the blackboard each point teachers

made in commenting on the ﬁve courses.

72

During the last minute of each focus group meeting, I checked with teachers the
time for the next meeting, and one day before the focus group meeting, I gave each
teacher a memo to remind them about the time for the next meeting.

I initially planned to run one group interview each week of the summer term.
However, the class changed schedules and there were only two days of classes in the last
week. The participant teachers could not ﬁnd time to meet that week, so the group
actually met only ﬁve times.

Individual Interviews

Each teacher was interviewed individually once during the last two weeks of the
summer school. I used the individual interview sessions to get a better understanding of
each teacher’s perspectives based on the survey data and focus group interviews. The
interviews ranged from 50 minutes to 2 hours. All individual interviews were audiotaped.
Course Valuing Inventory

I gave each participant teacher ﬁve copies of Course Valuing Inventory in the
ﬁfth focus group interview. There were two courses, Counseling and Statistics, that had
not ﬁnished. Teachers brought the inventories home over a weekend. Six of the teachers
retumed the completed inventories to me during the last day of course instruction. Three
of them mailed the inventories to me before I left Taiwan.

All group interviews were videotaped, audiotaped, and transcribed in Chinese.
Observational and ﬁeld notes relating to the school and to the interview context were also
completed. Interview transcripts were returned to the teachers for checking and comment.

These notes, dialogues, and transcripts formed the raw data for analysis.

73

Table 3.4

Teachers’ LearninLFocus Group Interview Guide.

 

Theme of the focus group interview:
Meaningful Learning.

Purposes of the group:

1. to help the researcher understand experienced teachers’ perspectives on “meaningful
learning”;

2. to help researcher understand experienced teachers’ value systems for evaluating
learning experiences.

Interview Questions:
1. As an experienced teacher, what learning experiences did you ﬁnd meaningful?
2. Why do you ﬁnd those learning experiences meaningful?

Definition of the theme:
Meaningiil learning is learning that teachers
appreciate,
believe to be worthwhile,
want to experience again, and
ﬁnd supportive in becoming willing to commit to learning seriously.

Contents of Interviews

Do Want to Know:

Learning experiences and feeling occurring in response to current 5 courses of this
summer program

Do Not Want to Know:
Learning experiences and feeling NOT occurring in current 5 courses of this summer

program

Ground Rules:

1. Silence is acceptable.

2. Interruptions are policed, one may raise hands to let the moderator know.

3. Evaluation is deferred.

4. Disagreement is acceptable, but personal attacks are not.

5. Interviews are to begin and end on time.

6. All discussion within the group between members of the group is to be considered
private.

 

74

Analysis

I analyzed data during and after ﬁeld work (Lincoln and Guba, 1988; Strauss,
1987). Survey responses and transcript were coded for categories. The textual data were
analyzed through the processes of open, axial and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin,
1990)

I used the grounded theory approach (Strauss, 1987) with the data: Experienced
teachers’ learning survey: responses, focus group interview transcripts, individual
interview transcripts and classroom observation ﬁeld notes and used two procedures to
identify the characteristics of meaningful learning. One procedure was constant
comparison to assign text units to the same categories; the other procedure was searching
negative examples that challenged the emerging categories (Glaser & Stauss, 1967).

I used within-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to build a categorization
scheme of the kinds of learning teachers ﬁnd meaningful and to identify individual
teacher’s patterns. Analyzed data included survey responses, focus group interview
transcripts and individual interview transcripts.

I used cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to explore the issue of
teachers’ differences in perception of shared instructional and learning events. Analyzed
data included scores of Course Valuing Inventory, focus group interview transcripts,
individual interview transcripts, and classroom observation ﬁeld notes.

Within-Case Analysis

When I was in the ﬁeld, I read the survey responses, watched and listened to the

focus group interview videotapes, and wrote memos about the nine teachers’ perspectives

on meaningful learning. After I ﬁnished the ﬁeldwork, I typed the survey responses in

75

Chinese. I transcribed all the ﬁve focus group interviews in Chinese and typed them in
Chinese. I viewed the nine teachers as a case and developed a coding scheme (See Table
3.5) by sorting the survey responses and focus group interview transcripts. I also counted
the coded data and calculated the proportion of each category to the total responses. I
wrote the coding scheme in English and translated selected abstracts from the survey and
also translated the focus group interviews from Chinese to English. I also discussed the
coding scheme with my dissertation director, Dr. Putnam. One graduate student whose
native language was Chinese and whose second language was English coded the original
survey responses and focus group interview transcripts according to the developed coding
scheme. I then used the scheme to describe each teacher’s patterns of perspectives on
meaningful learning, using the individual interview transcripts to conﬁrm individual
teacher’s perspectives. I also coded teachers’ perceptions of learning in the ﬁve courses
learning to explore the structures of the teachers’ perspectives as reﬂected in various
learning situations.
Cross-Case Analysis

In order to answer the second research question of this study: How do teachers
who share instructional and learning events differ in determining what is meaningful, I
computed the nine teachers’ responses to the Course Valuing Inventory in. I also
compared and contrasted the educational proclivities of the nine teachers in each course.
Although I created a group of teachers who participated in the focus group interviews, I
did not analyze data by choosing the group as a unit of analysis. Instead, I focused in this
dissertation on each individual teachers’ reports as units to capture each teacher’s distinct

characteristics.

76

Table 3.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coﬂmg Scheme.
Meaningful Definitions
Learning
1. Growth Teachers found a meaningful learning experience as one contributing to their
growth on taught discipline knowledge, on disciplines other than taught
disciplines, especially on instruction, or on self.
Type of Conceptual Knowledge (CK) Procedural Knowledge (PK)
Knowledge
Desiredness Desired No Emphasis on Desired No Emphasis on
Domains of Contents (D) Desiredness Contents (D) Desiredness
Growth
1. Teachers merely Teachers merely Teachers acted Teachers acted
Taught gained new gained new differently or had differently or had
Disciplinary understanding but understanding but thought about thought on how
Knowledge had not thought had not thought how to apply to apply learning
(G-TDK) how to act how to act learning to their to their lives.
differently based differently based lives.
on the new on the new
The major understanding. understanding.
discipline
taught by the Teachers learned Teachers did not Teachers learned Teachers did not
instructors the knowledge emphasize the new to change their emphasize the
that they were understanding that behavior to new ways of
seeking. was desired. which they were action that were
J seeking. desired.
Instruction as Teachers explained how the quality of instruction, e. g., instructional delivery,
Explanation scaffolding, contributing to their growth on taught disciplines.
(G-TDK-I)
2. Reﬂect on or gain new understanding Be able to act differently with new
serendipitous of knowledge other than taught understanding or, plan to apply to
Knowledge disciplines. teaching practices or personal life.
.19er .........................................................................................................
* Discipline of Teachers reﬂected on the discipline of Teachers knew what to change in their
Instruction Instruction or on their own teaching. teaching after reﬂecting on the
(G-SK-I) discijﬂne of instruction.
3. Teachers became aware of or Teachers became to be able to act
Self understood WHO they were or gained differently with new self-concept.
(G-Self) new self-concepts.
II. Instructor Teachers were just impressed by the high quality of instruction. Their comments
(INST): on instruction were not directly related to their growth.
III. Peer Teachers learned from peer’s experience or support.
(PEER):

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In this chapter, I ﬁrst present a detailed description of the characteristics of
meaningful learning experiences that the nine participant teachers appreciated, wanted to
experience again, believed to be worthwhile, and found supportive of being willing to
commit seriously to learning. The identiﬁed characteristics were categorized into two
aspects of the learning experience: learning outcomes and the processes of interaction
between leamers’ selves and the learning situations. Experienced teachers appreciated
learning when they found themselves gaining intellectual growth as a result of the
learning endeavor. Teachers also appreciated learning processes in which the instructors
were impressive or their peers were supportive. These three identiﬁed characteristics
were grouped into several combinations to represent each teacher’s unique perspectives
on the meaningfulness of learning. Since teachers have multiple perspectives on
meaningful learning, the identiﬁed characteristics were examined across learning
situations to understand which characteristic is salient to each teachers in a particular
learning situation. Finally, I determined the variation in the nine teachers’ perceptions of
their learning of the same courses in the summer program.

The results that I discuss in this chapter were based mainly on my analysis of nine
volunteer teachers’ written and verbal responses to their learning in the summer program.
Following is a brief description of the nine participant teachers’ backgrounds:

Of the nine participant teachers, three female teachers were subject matter

teachers. None of these three teachers were graduated from colleges of education and all

78

they had little formal training in the disciplines of counseling, educational psychology

and school guidance.

 

Chin was in her early ﬁfties, taught history and has been as an advisor of a class in a
suburban junior high school for 28 years. She was currently teaching 13 to 14 year old
students in her school, with class sizes of about 30 students. Her highest degree was a

BA. in political science.

 

 

 

 

Hong was in her late forties, taught accounting and business management in an urban
vocational high school for 25 years. She was currently teaching 17 year old students in
her school, with class sizes of about 50 students. Her highest degree was a BA. in

transportation management.

 

 

 

 

Tong was in her mid forties, taught Chinese in a junior high school in a small town for

20 years. She was teaching 13 to 15 year old students in her school with class sizes of

 

about 40. Her highest degree was a BA. in Chinese.

 

 

Three other female teachers were involved in school administration as well as in
teaching. Two of these three teachers were graduates of teacher colleges and had

inservice training of school guidance before they attended this summer program.

 

Fang was in her early ﬁfties, currently directing a girl scout program, and having
previously taught civil education in a small town junior high school for about 25
years. She was teaching 14 and 15 year old students in her school, with class sizes of

about 45 students. Her highest degree was a BA. in public administration.

 

 

 

79

 

Rai was in her late forties, a new chief of a guidance department, taught civil
education as well in an urban senior high school for about 25 years. She was
teaching 16 and 17 year old students in her school, with class sizes of about 50

students. Her highest degree was a BA. in educational administration.

 

 

 

 

Yang was in her mid forties, a chief of guidance department, taught biology and
conducted guidance activities as well in a suburban junior high school for about 25
years. She was teaching 13 to 15 year old students in her school, with class sizes of
about 40 students. She had a BA. in biology. Before she came to the school
guidance summer program, she had ﬁnished her study in a biology summer program
for inservice teachers. Therefore, she could not get promotion nor a salary increase
after she ﬁnished the program for school guidance. Besides, she had to the expenses

pay for the summer program herself, because her school had paid the biology

 

 

summer program expenses for her several years ago.

 

The other three teachers were graduates of school guidance departments in
teacher colleges. Two of them were currently working as school counselors, and the other

Was becoming a school subject teacher.

 

[\Ding was in his mid thirties, a male school counselor, not teaching any subjects but
being responsible for school research, group counseling, and the school publication
in an urban vocational high school for 10 years. His students were 16 to 18 years old.

Iiis highest degree was a BA. in school guidance.

L

 

 

 

Wing was in his mid thirties, taught geography and physical education as an advisor
to a class in an urban junior high school for 7 years. He was teaching 14 year old
students in his school, with class sizes of about 40 students. His highest degree was a

B .A. in school guidance.

 

 

 

 

Pong was in her early thirties, a female school counselor, taught guidance activity
and ethics in a country high school for 10 years. She was teaching 13 to 18 year old
students in her school, with class sizes of about 50 students. Her highest degree was

a BA. in school guidance.

 

 

 

Growth, Model Instructors, and Supportive Peers:

Three Main Characteristics of Meaningful Learning to the Experienced Teachers

In the survey responses and the focus group interviews, the nine participant
teachers made comments on those learning experiences that they found meaningful. I saw
three broad characteristics of meaningful learning — growth, model instructors, and
Supportive peers — emerge from the teachers’ comments that reﬂected their thoughts on
1he meaningfulness of teachers’ learning. By growth, I mean the teachers who have
perceived intellectual growth as a result of a learning endeavor. Both model instructors
and supportive peers refers to teachers who have found learning meaningful because of
the interaction with instructors or peers in the processes of learning.
Growth: Perceived Values of Teachers’ Learning Outcomes

The participant teachers reported some learning as meaningful experiences

because they found the outcomes of learning valuable. Some teachers, for instance,

81

claimed that they learned new concepts or skills in a particular discipline because of
meaningful learning experiences. The following excerpt from the Survey represents this

kind of thought about meaningful learning:

 

The Instructional Psychology course [was meaningful because] I learned new
concepts and new teaching techniques from each lesson of the course
instruction.

Although the goal of the Science Management, Administration Management,
and Interpersonal Relationship course was to teach theories about
management, the contents of this course were substantive and applicable to
personal living and working. I learned new skills in this course and improved
working relationships with my colleagues in school.

 

 

— Fang

 

Some teachers claimed that they gained a new understanding of disciplinary
knowledge that they had heard about but did not understand well before. The following
excerpt from the second focus group interview indicates how a male teacher found

learning meaningful when he took the Educational Research course in the summer
program:

Ming: I want to comment on the Educational Research course. I appreciated the
ways in which the instructor taught us principles of reading research reports
critically... . He [the instructor] always explained by giving examples that
clariﬁed for me[the taught principles]. I found the experience of learning those
principles from this instructor to be very meaningful. In addition, I found this
course helped me to clarify many concepts that I had previously heard about
doing research. I also learned many new concepts about doing research in this

course. I found this course meaningful because it made me better equipped to
evaluate research ﬁndings.

Ming viewed becoming capable of criticizing research reports as a meaningful experience
because he now understood some concepts that he had heard of (or remembered) but had
not previously understood well before. It was learning that made the vague become clear

that Ming found meaningful. He also appreciated learning new concepts and higher

82

thinking skills. As he explained in the individual interview, being able to evaluate the
validity and reliability of research reports on his own was valuable because he had
viewed all research reports as truth before.

Some other teachers found learning meaningful because they gained insights into
areas of learning not actually intended by the course instruction. For example, teachers
reﬂected on their own teaching or on their culture by taking a course on educational
research. Tong’s comments on her learning in the Educational Research course represent
this kind of thought. Following Ming’s comments on the Research Method course, Tong

claimed in the second focus group interview:

Tong: I also found it meaningful taking the Research Method course so far. I had
no idea of research methodology before I took this course. Everything the
instructor of the course has taught in this course is new to me. I agree with Ming
that the instructor taught well and helped me to learn this disciplinary knowledge.
In addition, I found that the instructor shared some of his own fruitﬁrl life
experiences, and some of his lectures inspired me greatly even though the words
sounded ordinary. For example, I took notes in his class on the 14th of June about
qualitative research. When he concluded his remarks on the research tradition, he
asked the class, “Is it correct [to use the qualitative research to study all topics?”
Then he commented, “Don’t just believe what people say or accept opinions
simply because they are popular.’ (The focus group members laughed.) I intended
to write these words in my notebooks because I had a lot of thoughts to evaluate. I
talked to my classmates about our traditional culture and educational systems that
encourage us to obey authority older people say so, too, especially some elders or
scholars say so, too. Or because something is currently popular, and we follow
and simply just believe in it because others say it is good. We can not think
differently from them. What I want to say is that I found my learning in this
course interesting. The professor’s lectures should serve to remind me as a teacher
to think for myself, especially as the role of authority to students. We are
accustomed to authority. I hope I can criticize myself, not to force students to
follow me without careful consideration. I would try my best to guide students not
to step in the frame of authority. I want to encourage them to thin bravely. Their
mind will become freer. In sum, I found the professor’s talks led to a pretty huge
inspiration.

Like Ming, Tong appreciated the learning in this course because she learned the

discipline of research methods, a subject that was completely new to her. Furthermore,

she claimed that the instructor’s comments on the choices of a research method inspired
her to reﬂect on the problem of authoritarianism in Chinese culture as well as to consider
her role as a teacher. She, therefore, expected herself to teach by helping students to
become independent thinkers (the mind will then only become free, she claimed).

Pong joined the conversation after Tong. She found this course meaningful
because she could easily understand the disciplinary knowledge as it was taught. Similar
to Tong’s comments, Pong also found the learning of research methods meaningful
because she was “reminded” by the course instructor’s effective teaching about the

importance of using examples appropriately in teaching students and young children.

Pong: Research methodology, I also want to add some comments on it. I
appreciated the instructor’s teaching very much. He always gave examples when
he explained [new concepts]. The way he used examples [made the concepts]
easy to understand. . .and let us enter the core of [new ideas] very quickly. This is
what I found meaningful about this course. And, I appreciate his doing this
because he really reminded me that I should teach my own students in this way to
help students to learn abstract concepts more easily. I should even teach my own
children this way, using analogy to help children understand [abstract concepts].
Therefore, the instructor was a good model for me.

I viewed both teachers’ learning of the disciplinary knowledge, and their reﬂections on
areas other than the taught disciplines as forms of teachers’ grth in disciplines. In
addition, some teachers recognized meaningful learning experiences when they found
that they had acquired a better understanding of their own selves. Others found learning
meaningful because it led them to reﬂect on their lives. Following are some

I'epresentative excerpts from the survey representing aspects of the students’ thoughts:

7'“

My major in college was Chinese. I was not graduated from the college of
education. When I became a teacher, I took some courses in education in a
program designed for inservice teachers. After taking those courses, I found
myself interested in interacting with people. In particular, I found that I
enjoyed in developing curricula and liked to work with children.

L — Tong

 

 

 

I found that my learning counseling was very meaningful because that
experience provided me opportunities to clarify the directions and duties of
my life. They also help me to cope with my family, especially on the matters
of teaching and taking care of children. The greatest contribution of the
learning experience to me is the personal growth. I discovered I had the
ability to solve problems. I also gained a better understanding of myself and

developed positive feelings of myself.

 

— Pong

 

 

Pong’s ﬁnal comment (above) is especially signiﬁcant because growth in the self is an
essential characteristic of meaningful learning.
Model Instructors: Making the Learning Process Joyful
Some teachers reported learning as meaningful when they were impressed by the
instructors’ overall performance in classrooms. Teachers enjoyed instructors’ humor and
admired their responsible teaching attitudes, or had a chance to look up to a scholar.
Ding wrote on the survey that his learning of geography in the university was a

meaningful experience because of this instructor’s personality, which. made complex

ideas easier to comprehend.

 

The instructor was humorous and responsible.
I — Ding

g

 

 

Like Ding, Fang wrote that many of her learning experiences were meaningful because of

the instructor’ personality and knowledge of subject matter.

K

The instructor of the Civil Education course was humorous and
entertaining. The instructor of the Personality Psychology course was very
energetic, easy-going, and responsible. He helped us to learn; he was gentle
and kindly. The instructor of the Instructional Psychology course was open-
hearted and cheerful, refreshing both my body and mind. The learning
climate was positive.

 

 

- Fang

85

Teachers enjoyed taking courses taught by instructors who were both cheerful and
knowledgeable. The following extract from the second focus group interview sums up
how teachers found learning of research methods meaningful because of the instructor’s

personal attraction.

Yang: I enjoyed the Research Methods course. Although the instructor is older, he
teaches with a good attitude and it moved me. He commits to teaching seriously.
In addition, his body language is expressive. He gave examples, even though a
little bit exaggerated, implying deep meanings and making his teaching so
effective.

Researcher: Could you name a particular learning event that was taking place in
classroom that made you feel this way?

Yang: He played an actor in the classroom. He imitated [teenagers’] behavior
vividly and expressively.

Researcher: Why do you ﬁnd this kind of learning meaningﬁrl when the instructor
with a serious teaching attitude, uses expressively body language?

Yang: I felt he was a paragon among educators because he could change his role
appropriately as a teacher, sometimes being a serious scholar, sometimes being an
actor to illustrate a particularly concept.

Yang emphasized that the instructor’s attitude and commitment to teaching made her ﬁnd
the learning of research methods meaningful. In the focus group interview, she explained
that the instructor was good at playing different roles, as a teacher, a serious scholar, or
an actor, as the content of his lecture required. I was puzzled by this comment. In the

individual interview, I asked her to explain further:

Yang: He was such a wonderful teacher. I liked being in his class.

Researcher: I don’t understand how his performing as a paragon of educators is
related to your ﬁnding his class a meaningful learning experience.

Yang: Oh! Now I see your question. I really think he is good. He was always
serious about academics. He also took this course very seriously. I could feel that.
I was touched by his attitude. In the whole process of learning in his class, I did

not see him change this attitude. It’s not easy. You just need a teacher to be like

him to teach you. He makes you want to learn. He can play any roles to help you

to learn.

Researcher: That is why you mentioned in the focus group that “he can change his

role appropriately as a teacher, sometimes playing as a serious scholar, sometimes

playing as an actor.” You think that he has a good attitude, trying anything to help
you to learn in class.

Yang: Right. I also want to emphasize that he is serious on academics. I

appreciate listening to a person who is serious about his or her own specialization.

All in all, Yang seemed to view the instructor’s attitude toward his disciplines and toward
teaching as key factors in motivating her to learn. Later in the second focus group
interview, Ming echoed this point:

Ming: I enjoyed the Research Methods course, probably because of the

instructor’s charming personality. As Yang mentioned, he is a paragon of a

scholar.

The teachers identiﬁed an instructor’s attitude as a signiﬁcant factor in
meaningful learning, because for it made the learning process enjoyable and motivated
teachers to learn.

Supportive Peers: Making the Learning Go Smoothly
Only one of the nine participant teachers reported that she found learning

meaningful because of the supportive climate of peers. Fang wrote on the Survey about

her learning experience in the summer program:

The interactions between classmates were very good in the Instructional
Psychology course. . .. Our peers in the class helped each other in working on
the course projects and learned much from each other’s projects.

- Fang

 

 

Fang also talked in the ﬁfth focus group interview about a ﬁeld trip to the

museum in the Assessment course:

Fang: I was very familiar with the contents of the exhibitions in that museum. The
exhibitions were not new to me at all.

Researcher: You did not learn any new knowledge in that trip?

Fang: No.

Researcher: What made you think that trip a was meaningful experience?

Fang: The experience was rewarding for me because I observed many classmates

having ﬁrn in the museum.
Fang found the ﬁeld trip meaningful because she had a good time with peers in the
museum even though she did not learn anything on the trip. Hers, too, the instructor’s
attitude, the learning climate established by peers became a characteristic of meaningful
learning because of a positive learning atmosphere.
Growth: The Prime Value of Learning

I coded each participant teacher’s survey responses and their comments on the
ﬁve courses in focus group interviews and individual interviews. Most of the teachers
found more than two types of learning were meaningful. Among the nine participant
teachers, three of them found learning meaningful because it contributed to their personal
and professional growth. Five found learning meaningful because they grew intellectually
and were expressed by the capability and knowledge ability of their instructors. One
found the learning meaningful because of gaining growth, the instructors’ personal
attraction, or supportive peer relationships. (See Figure 4.1)

I counted each teacher’s statements about meaningful learning experiences (from
both surveys and interviews) and computed the proportion of statements that were about
each kind of meaningful learning. As can be seen in Figure 4.2, the most frequently

reported items was learning that contributed to a teachers' academic growth.

v

Figure 4.1 Three characteristics of meaningful learning from the nine participant

teachers’ perspectives. In the ﬁgure, each capital letter represents the initial of a teacher.

 

Peers
Instructor 1 96
1 296

    

Growth
87%

 

 

 

P(Growth) = [PTl(growth) + PT2(growth) + PTn(growth) ]/n

PTi(Growth) = Total(Growth statement)/ Total (Meaningful Statement)

Figgre 4.2 Proportions of teachers’ comments on the meaningfulness of experienced

learning.

89

A Three-Layer Model of Growth out of Meaningful Learning

Having opportunities for various kinds of intellectual/professional growth was the
most prevalent criterion for meaningful learning. Within this broad criterion of growth,
however, was a rich variation both in the broad spectrum of their observations as well as
on a personal level. When teachers referred to grth in explaining the meaningfulness
of their experienced learning, they raised various points. Some claimed that they learned
the disciplinary knowledge taught in classes, some reported that they discovered
disciplinary knowledge unintentionally taught by instructors, and some said that they
gained better understanding of themselves. Among these three domains of knowledge,
some is conceptual and some is procedural. In addition to pointing out what it was they
learned, some teachers emphasized that the learning experiences were meaningful
because students learned what they wanted to learn. Other teachers, in contrast, did not
emphasize their desire to learn particular things to determine what learning was
meaningful.

I developed a model to represent this complexity in three layers: (a) domains of
knowledge in which teachers grow or learn; (b) types of knowledge which teachers learn;
and (c) degree of emphasis on desire to obtain learned knowledge (See Figure 4.3). When
describing meaningful learning experiences, teachers claimed they grew (learned) in
three domains: (a) taught disciplinary knowledge that was the explicit focus of the course,
(b) serendipitous knowledge that resulted from the course experience but was not
intended by course design, or (c) knowledge of self or personal growth. Within these

domains, teachers varied in their evaluation of conceptual knowledge and procedural

knowledge. Some teachers emphasized that learning experiences were strongly

meaningful when they resulted in the knowledge they desired to obtain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1: . g Taught Disciplinary Serendipitous Self
a (g [:> Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
,3 8 ,5 (TDK) (SK) (Sell)
0
.. H-l 00
‘9 ° 3 El) Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge
:3 E (CK) (PK)
5 a

 

 

‘:> Emphasis on Desiredness of
Learned Contents

 

 

No Emphasis on Desiredness
of Learned Contents

 

Layer 3:
Emphasis of
Desireness

Figure 4.3. A three-layer model of growth out of meaningful learning.

In the following sections, I describe brieﬂy each layer of this model with

corresponding excerpts from the surveys or from the focus group interviews.

Taught disciplinary knowledge: (Layer 1). Teachers talked about their growth in

terms of the disciplinary knowledge that was the objective of the course instruction.

Some teachers, for example, delighted in learning new concepts or new skills of

instructional psychology. In the survey, Fang wrote that her learning in the Instructional

Psychology course was meaningful because she learned new content and new teaching

methods from each lesson. Some teachers found the course meaningful because it

clariﬁed previously confusing concepts. For instance, Ming found his learning of

research methodology meaningful because he was able to clarify many concepts about

this discipline.

91

 

 

 

Teachers also mentioned that the learning of taught disciplinary knowledge was
meaningful because they learned things they did not know. The following excerpts are

from the second focus group interview:

Yang: The contents [of the Research Method course] were explained clearly by
the instructor.

Researcher: Could you give me a concrete instance where you found his
explanation to be clear.

Yang: When he introduced methodology, he explained the contents very clearly,
which make a lot of sense to me.

Researcher: Could you tell me more in detail, such as, which lesson?

Yang: Within the introduction of the research methodology, he introduced [the
approaches of] quantitative and qualitative research analysis. Because we
understood qualitative research less than the quantitative approaches, he spent
much time in introducing the qualitative research which help us to understand it.
Although we are not very familiar with the quantitative research, we at least have
some basic concepts about it. Compared to the understanding of the quantitative
approach, we had no prior knowledge on the qualitative research method. He
knew what we knew and what we did not know at all.

Researcher: Is the reason why you found the learning meaningful that the
instructor knew students’ current knowledge about a discipline?

Yang: Yes. He knew which parts of knowledge we lacked and from what basic
knowledge we need to begin to learn.

Another female teacher, Chin also made comments on the course in the second focus
group interview, claiming her learning of the research methods was a meaningful
experience because of learning new skills.
Chin: I wanted to make some comments on the Research Method course. I was
impressed by the course instruction. I did not know how to write a research

proposal before I took this course. Now I have some ideas about research and how
to write a research proposal.

Teachers also commented on the importance of becoming ﬂuent with the taught

disciplinary knowledge, as in the following excerpt from the ﬁfth focus group interview.

92

Hong: I’d like to talk [about my learning in the Counseling course]. I had a
negative feeling about the other four courses that were taught earlier this summer.
As far as the Counseling course, it is the course that I expected to learn the most
from in the summer program. I wanted to learn counseling skills to help students
in my own school. The contents of this course instruction are consistent with my
learning goals. By taking this course, I realized that being a counselor is not an
easy job. The class had raised the issue about the difﬁculties of continuing the
conversation [in the processes of counseling]. When I practiced the counseling
skills taught in this course, I found myself often talking around and around, and
didn’t know what to say to continue the conversation with my clients. I agree with
the instructor’s opinions that experiences [of practicing counseling skills] are very
important to become a competent counselor. I agree that learning should be
connected with experience. Ifthere are related courses offered in the ﬁrture, I am
willing to come again. Although I can not handle the taught counseling skills very
well yet, I found I am more capable of talking than I was last year. We learned
something like this information last year. (The group members laughed.)

Researcher: Information?

Hong: That’s right. When we did role playing in that class last year, we did it on
the surface. Last year’s course [about counseling] was not as intensive as this
year’s. This year’s is better than last year’s. In addition, we also have a textbook
this year. You have an on-hand aid. Last year, [that instructor] gave us some
handouts to read in class but that instructor took those handouts back
immediately. So we could not use those aids to practice. (The group members
laughed.) This year is different. The textbook itself is an on-hand learning aid. We
could read it while we were practicing in and out of class. I even could try some
skills that the instructor had not taught yet. (I-Iong laughed) I think the Counseling
course was very meaningful. I would like to attend more courses like this course.
It provided me opportunities to practice and to go through each step of conducting
a counseling interview. I liked this course because it helped me to step out a little
and I am satisﬁed with this little accomplishment already.

I created the term growth in taught disciplinary know ledge to represent the group of
teachers’ perspectives on meaningful learning in terms of their learning of the
disciplinary knowledge that was the objective of the course instruction. Perspectives of
this group include learning new concepts or new skills, clarifying previously confusing

concepts, or mastering skills.

Serendipitous knowledge: (Layer 1). In contrast to teachers’ learning of taught
disciplinary knowledge, teachers claimed learning experiences to be meaningful because
they discovered unexpectedly interesting or valuable disciplinary knowledge that were
not planned or intended by the instructors. Some teachers gained new understanding of
cultural inﬂuences on individuals’ behavior in courses that were not about sociology or
cultural issues. For example, Tong analyzed how traditional culture might constrain

people’s thinking when she reﬂected on her learning of research methods.

Tong: ...In addition, I found that the instructor shared some of his own fruitful
life experiences, and some of his lectures inspired me greatly even though the
words sounded ordinary. For example, I took notes in his class on the 14'h of June
about qualitative research. When he concluded his remarks on the research
tradition, he asked the class, “Is it correct [to use the qualitative research to study
all topics?” Then he commented, “Don’t just believe what people say or accept
opinions simply because they are popular.’ (The focus group members laughed.) I
intended to write these words in my notebooks because I had a lot of thoughts to
evaluate. I talked to my classmates about our traditional culture and educational
systems that encourage us to obey authority older people say so, too, especially
some elders or scholars say so, too. Or because something is currently popular,
and we follow and simply just believe in it because others say it is good. We can
not think differently from them. What I want to say is that I found my learning in
this course interesting. The professor’s lectures should serve to remind me as a
teacher to think for myself, especially as the role of authority to students. We are
accustomed to authority. I hope I can criticize myself, not to force students to
follow me without careful consideration. I would try my best to guide students not
to step in the frame of authority. I want to encourage them to thin bravely. Their
mind will become freer. In sum, I found the professor’s talks led to a pretty huge
inspiration.

According to my ﬁeldnotes from that course, the instructor reminded teachers to think
carefully when choosing research approaches for pursuing research questions after he
introduced quantitative research and qualitative research methods. I think the instructor
intended to remind teachers not to choose qualitative methods just because they are
popular; he did not intend for teachers to reﬂect more broadly on the role of culture nor

on the issue of authoritarianism in the teacher-student relationship. This unintended

94

reﬂection on culture and on a teacher’s role, however, made Tong’s learning experience
meaningful.

Of particular note were many teachers who learned knowledge related to
pedagogy or learning psychology when they took courses not directly related to these
topics, such as research methodology or statistics. For example, Tong reﬂected on her
role as a teacher after attending the Research methods course. The following excerpt from
the second focus group interview also illustrates this kind of serendipitous learning. Chin

commented on her learning in the Research method course:

Chin: ...Another example of meaningful learning experience is that the instructor
mentioned that boys are more aggressive than girls. The ways he imitated boys’
aggressive behaviors and girls’ verbal behaviors are very cute. I was very
impressed by that class episode. Of course, it also led me to reﬂect on my
perspectives on boys and girls. In addition, I learned from him how to teach
inductive and deductive methods. I needed to teach my own students these two
types of reasoning but I did not know how to help students to understand them
before I took this course. Now I learned from this instructor how to teach these
two methods. I am happy at learning a lot from this course.

Researcher: Could you say more about why you chose these learning events as
examples of meaningful learning experiences? For example, why did you choose
to talk about the instructor’s expression on the gender differences between boys
and girls? Or, why did you talk about the learning of teaching deductive and
inductive methods?

Chin: Because the instructor’s body language about boy and girl is impressive.
Another example [of learning to teach inductive and deductive methods] is what I
need so I found it meaningful.

Researcher: They were consistent with your. . ..

Chin: Right, [they are consistent with] my current needs.

Researcher: Teaching needs. The instructor’s teaching modeled a method to teach
the subjects that you are currently teaching your own students.

Chin: Yes.

95

Methods for teaching inductive/deductive research methods and views on gender
differences were not the disciplinary knowledge that the instructor intended to teach.
Chin simply actively paid attention to these issues and found them meaningful.

Another example of serendipitous knowledge is Kai’s learning about students’
struggles in mathematics when she took the statistics course in the summer program. Kai
was a female teacher in her late 405 who had taught civil education in a senior high
school for about 25 years. The following excepts are from the ﬁfth focus group interview.

Kai: I found the Statistics course pretty frustrating. However, the learning

experience helped me understand my own students’ learning problems. My

students always told me that learning mathematics was a tough task and I had
difﬁculty understanding their feelings because I did not have problems in
studying mathematics myself. I eventually experienced the feelings of
helplessness and hopelessness after I took the Statistics course this summer.

Researcher: Learning statistics is meaningful to you because you. ...

Kai: I realized what my students’ were feeling when they did not learn

mathematics well. I felt helpless and hopeless when I learned statistics. However,

I am learning statistics in this summer with peer’s support and help. Even though

I feel it is 1 hard now, I am still willing to continue to learn this discipline.

Learning from this experience, I know how to empathize with my students after I

go back to teaching.

Researcher: Will you use the same instructional methods to teach your students?

Kai: No, I will not teach my students by the same ways the instructor used in the

Statistics course. I will gradually teach my students from basic to advanced

subjects. I will use my learning experience in the Statistic course to understand

my students’ learning, however. Then, I believe that I will better know what to do

to help my students.

Researcher: Kai, did you ﬁnd your learning of statistics in the summer
meaningful?

Kai: Pretty meaningful.
Researcher: Pretty meaningful?

Kai: Not just meaningful.

Researcher: Strongly meaningful?

Kai: Right. I don’t drink that I have learned [statistics] well so far. Actually, I feel
very frustrated in this course. However, I understand better why students did not
learn well, and about their feelings when they did not learn well. I know how to
empathize and accept their feelings and complaints. Or, to put it this way, I know
what to do to motivate frustrated students to try to learn again.

Researcher: Let me summarize. You found the course meaningful for two
reasons. First, you understood students’ feelings when they had difﬁculty in
learning subjects and you know how it happened.

Kai: Yes.

Researcher: Second, you learned how to help those students. Do you ﬁnd the
course very meaningful for these two reasons?

Kai: Yes.

The statistics instructor clearly did not intend to create a frustrating leaning
situation to help teachers to understand their own students’ struggling and frustration in
learning. Rather, Kai constructed knowledge about learning psychology from what she
was experiencing in the course.

Chin’s learning about teaching inductive/deductive research medrods in the
Research Method course and Kai’s gaining understanding of her own students’ learning
by taking the Statistics course were not the disciplinary knowledge that the instructors
intended to teach. I call this kind of learning growth in serendipitous knowledge and
distinguish it from teachers’ growth in taught disciplinary knowledge. Many educational
researchers (Barker & Hapkiewicz, 1979; Duchastel & Brown, 1974; Klauer 1984) used
the term incidental learning referring to an individual’s learning of material irrelevant to
the goals of instructions. Some other researchers (Gennaro, Picciarelli, Schilinze, &
Bilancia, 1992) made a term, incident scientiﬁc knowledge, for a learner’s

“understanding of science aspects which have not yet been speciﬁcally taught in the

school environment” (p. 118). I drink that both terms catch the characteristic drat an
individual has learned somedring drat is not intended to be taught in classroom. They,
however, do not highlight the values of learned knowledge drat the individual learners
have found. I made the term, growth in serendipitous knowledge, to represent the kind of
meaningful learning that teachers gain serendipitously in a formal learning setting and to
emphasize the values they place on the learning.

Self: (Layer 1). Some teachers found learning meaningful experience that led to
new understandings about themselves. For example, Tong found her interest in learning
and interpersonal interaction through taking education courses. This discovery of new
interests — a new way of viewing herself — made those courses meaningful learning

experiences.

 

My major in college was Chinese. I was not graduated from the college of
education. When I became a teacher, I took some courses in education in a
program designed for inservice teachers. After taking those courses, I found
myself interested in interacting with people. In particular, I found that I
enjoyed in developing curricula and liked to work with children.

— Tong

 

 

 

Another aspect of teachers’ self-grth is that they use learning opportunities to examine
their current inner worlds and become more sure about whom they want to be. Pong’s
survey responses, for example, reveal that she found learning experiences meaningful

because they provided opportunities to clarify her life directions and duties.

 

I found that my learning counseling was very meaningful because that
experience provided me opportunities to clarify the directions and duties of my
life. They also help me to cope with my family, especially on the matters of
teaching and taking care of children. The greatest contribution of the learning
experience to me is the personal growth. I discovered I had the ability to solve
problems. I also gained a better understanding of myself and developed
positive feelings of myself.

 

— Pong

 

 

98

Like grth in serendipitous knowledge, teachers’ self-growth sometimes takes
place in frustrating learning situations. The following excepts from the third focus group

interview represent this kind of self-growth.

Tong: I want to talk about my learning in the Computer course. I should say this
course stimulated me to think. I always like to learn new drings. However, I used
to keep my distance from the computer although I did not intend to refuse to learn
to operate it. In fact, I even had already attended four in-service workshops to
learn the computer. Unfortunately, I still did not know how to use the computer
after attending those workshops.

Researcher: Computer workshops?

Tong: Right. [I didn’t even know how to use computers] because I didn’t touch
computers after the workshop and because I didn’t need to use them in my daily
life. I remember that in the ﬁrst Computer course lesson, the instructor asked if
there was anyone who did not even know how to turn on a computer. I raised my
hand. I thought I was that kind of person, aldrough I have had drree or four
certiﬁcates given by computer workshops.

After the ﬁrst Computer course lesson, it was a Friday. I usually planned not to go
home. However, I found myself quite nervous after I reviewed my learning of [the
software--Microsoft Excel]. 1, therefore, decided to go home because I had a
computer at home and my family could help me to learn the computer software.
Unfortunately, my hometown was attacked by typhoons on drat weekend so I did
not go home.

I was indeed nervous about not learning the computer well during that weekend. It
was the ﬁrst time I found myself nervous about my learning. After for a while I
told myself that I could not just be nervous. I should do some practice. So, I called
my friend that lives in this area. I told her I needed to go to her place to practice
on the computer. I needed her help teaching me how to use the computer for I was
not familiar with the whole procedure. In my friend’s place, I reviewed the whole
procedure that the instructor demonstrated in class. I could usually follow the
instructor’s demonstration in class, but I could not do the same procedure when I
faced a computer alone. This time, I immediately went to review the taught
procedure in that lesson. I practiced the whole procedure at my friend’s place on
Saturday. I was not familiar with the procedure of word processing. For example,
I even didn’t know how to save a computer ﬁle on a ﬂoppy disk. My ﬁiend
helped me to practice the needed procedure on Saturday. I practiced drem again
on Sunday by myself. I found it was not very difﬁcult to use a computer.

What I have tried to say is that such a learning experience creates an opportunity
for me to face my inner nervousness. When I faced something of which I had fear,

99

I used to get nervous immediately. [This learning is meaningful to me] because I
experienced how to conquer my nervousness and told my self very deterrninedly
that you have to face it. You have to face the fact that you came to take this
course. You have to do it and to face it. And, I made it. The result made me
realize that a person can do many drings if he or she learns to do them step by
step. Be not afraid of the new drings. Don’t reject learning them. If the person
does it step by step, perhaps he or she can make it, perhaps not. No matter what
the results are, it is meaningful to a person if that person have tried hard to
achieve. Now, I have courage to face a thing that I used to be afraid of. I don’t
think there is any thing that can not be learned. Speaking of the learning contents,
I do not ﬁnd anydring new. However, I learned from this experience that I can
learn well.

Researcher: The Computer course itself merely caused your nervousness. This is a
starting point. It is not the feelings of nervousness that are meaningful, right?

Tong: It depends on how you view nervousness. [fit is just a feeling of
nervousness, it is not meaningful. If it makes you think and to try to handle it,

nervousness becomes a motive to take action.

Researcher: Do you drink the nervousness coming from the Computer course was
meaningful?

Tong: I think so.

Researcher: Will you be willing to come to learn even if a course makes you feel
nervous?

Tong: Yes, I will. I have courage to deal with it. Owing to this learning
experience, I found that I have the ability to face nervousness although I may not
face it immediately.

Researcher: You know your self, your ability because of the experience in this
Computer course, right?

Tong: Right. I know how to face it.

Tong seemed overwhelmed with the happiness of the discovery of self and with her

potential capacity to deal with challenges. It was her self-growth — not the learning of

particular computer skills - that made this course a meaningful learning experience for

100

The coding of the teachers’ survey responses and the comments in interviews
revealed that all the participant teachers found learning meaningful in the domains of
taught disciplinary knowledge and self. Some of them also found meaningful the
discovery of serendipitous knowledge. (See Figure 4.4)

Conceptual versus procedural knowledge: (Layer 2). Across the three domains
of growth, some teachers found learning meaningful when drey learned new concepts or
clariﬁed concepts about which they were confused. That is, they knew “what X is.” Or,
they found they understood some theories or concepts better than before. I coded this
type of growth as knowing conceptual knowledge. For example, Fang found drat learning
theories about management was meaningful because those dreories can be applied to

everyday life.

 

Although the goal of the Science Management, Administration Management,
and Interpersonal Relationship course was to teach theories about
management, the contents of this course were substantive and applicable to
personal living and working. I learned new skills in this course and improved
working relationships with my colleagues in school.

— Fang

 

 

 

In the second focus group interview, both Ming and Yang learned concepts of
research methodology.

Ming: ...In addition, I found this course helped me to clarify many concepts drat I
had previously heard about doing research. I also learned many new concepts
about doing research in this course. I found this course meaningful because it
made me better equipped to evaluate research ﬁndings.

Yang: Widrin the introduction of the research methodology, he introduced [the
approaches of] quantitative and qualitative research analysis. Because we
understood qualitative research less than the quantitative approaches, he spent
much time in introducing the qualitative research which help us to understand it.
Although we are not very familiar with the quantitative research, we at least have
some basic concepts about it. Compared to the understanding of the quantitative

101

approach, we had no prior knowledge on the qualitative research method. He
knew what we knew and what we did not know at all.

Teachers also found learning of procedural knowledge meaningful. Some teachers
commented on learning as meaningful because they learned how to do something. For
example, teachers claimed that — as a result of a learning experience -- they knew how to
write a research proposal or how to do a brief counseling technique. I coded this type of
growth as knowing procedural knowledge. In the survey, Fang wrote that she found

learning of new teaching methods meaningful.

 

The Instructional Psychology course [was meaningful because] I learned new
concepts and new teaching techniques from each lesson of the course
instruction.

— Fang

 

 

 

Chin, for example, viewed her learning of teaching deductive/inductive methods as useful
knowledge for her own teaching.

Chin: ...In addition, I learned from him how to teach inductive and deductive
methods. I needed to teach my own students these two types of reasoning but I did
not know how to help students to understand them before I took this course. Now
I learned from this instructor how to teach these two methods. I am happy at
learning a lot from this course.

Finally, Hong found it meaningful to practice counseling skills in class.
Hong: ...I wanted to learn counseling skills to help students in my own school.
The contents of this course instruction are consistent with my learning goals. . ..
Although I can not handle the taught counseling skills very well yet, I found I am
more capable of talking than I was last year. We learned something like this
information last year.

The coding of survey responses and interviews revealed that all the teachers valued bodr

conceptual and procedural knowledge. (See Figure 4.4)

102

 

Serendipitous
Knowledge
(SK)

 

 

 

Taught
Disciplinary
Knowledge k

(TDK)

 

 

 

Shap_es:

A - Conceptual Knowledge (CK)

D - Procedural Knowledge (PK)

   

 

 

Self
Knowledge
I” (Sell)

 

 

Color:

. - Emphasis on desire to obtain a
particular body of knowledge

0 - No emphasize on desire to
obtain a particular body of
knowledge

Figure 4.4 Distribution of teachers’ perspectives on the 3-layer model of growth.

103

Emphasis on desire to obtain a particular body of knowledge versus no
emphasis on desiring (Layer 3). Within the domain of taught disciplinary knowledge,
teachers weighted the meaningfulness of learning experiences with the criterion of desire
to obtain a particular body of knowledge. Some teachers conﬁrmed that learning was
strongly meaningful when the taught disciplinary knowledge was exactly what they
desired to learn from this summer program. In contrast, other teachers did not emphasize
the issue of desire when they talked about the meaningfulness of learning. The teachers
who emphasized the desire issue viewed learning as not strongly meaningful when the
taught disciplinary knowledge was not what they hoped to learn. For example, Chin
criticized her learning in the ﬁfth focus group meeting:

Chin: I still learned some research concepts and statistics. But, those were not
what I wanted to learn in this summer program.

Researcher: Did you ﬁnd this learning meaningful at all?

Chin: No, not meaningful at all because I don’t need those learned skills and
knowledge, except the counseling skills. My learning in the Counseling course is
meaningful because it is what I expected to learn in the summer program. I
wanted to learn guidance skills. And, I learned them from the course. It’s really
meaningful to me.

In contrast, she valued her learning about teaching inductive/deductive methods because
it ﬁt her needs for improving her own teaching.
Chin: ...In addition, I learned from him how to teach inductive and deductive
methods. I needed to teach my own students these two types of reasoning but I did
not know how to help students to understand them before I took this course. Now
I learned from this instructor how to teach these two methods. I am happy at
learning a lot from this course.

Like Chin, Hong was satisﬁed with her learning of counseling techniques because it was

consistent with her goals. She commented in the frﬁh group interview:

104

Hong: I’d like to talk [about my learning in the Counseling course]. I had a

negative feeling about the other four courses that were taught earlier this summer.

As far as the Counseling course, it is the course that I expected to learn the most

from in the summer program. I wanted to learn counseling skills to help students

in my own school. The contents of this course instruction are consistent with my

learning goals.
Both Chin and Hong emphasized what they wanted to learn from the summer program.
They were excited at learning the desired knowledge and skills from the counseling
course. They were either uninterested in or unhappy with learning knowledge that they
did not intend to learn. Even though they did learn something new, they did not value this
learned knowledge. Teachers viewed this learning as a meaningless route viewed learning
because the learned knowledge was not relevant to the teachers’ desires.

Some teachers, however, did not emphasize that what they learned was the same
as what they desired to learn. Rather, they simply claimed as meaningﬁil the learning of
some new knowledge, such as Yang’s learning of qualitative research methods. Or, they
valued learning experience that helped them clarify their prior knowledge, such as
Ming’s getting clariﬁcation of concepts about research methods.

The coding of survey responses and the interviews showed that all the teachers
appreciated learning knowledge that was not the same as their major learning goals.
However, most of teachers conﬁrmed their learning meaningful when the learned
knowledge was exactly what they wanted to learn. (See Figure 4.4)

Thus within their valuing of growth, individual teachers possessed multiple
perspectives on what was meaningful, with different teachers giving different reasons for
what made learning experiences meaningful. There is, however, no simple one-to—one

correspondence between individual teachers and the given reasons. Rather, most of the

teachers gave multiple reasons for meaningfulness. For example, Pong, Tong, and Yang

105

all viewed learning as meaningful in the three domains of growth, and valued both
conceptual and procedural knowledge, but had no preference for knowledge which was
desired or not. (See Figure 4.4) In contrast to these three female teachers, two male
teachers found learning meaningful only in the domains of taught disciplinary knowledge
and self.

Although teachers varied in their perspectives, a common perspective on
meaningful learning is that the teachers wanted to continue to learn when they found that
taught disciplinary knowledge was learned well. (See Figure 4.4)

Summary

Teachers found learning meaningful in three areas: growth, instructor, and peer.
Teachers vary on the ways ﬁnding learning meaningful. Some teachers found learning
meaningful only when that learning experience contributed to their growth. Other
teachers found learning meaningful either when that learning led to growth or when they
found the course instructors impressive during the processes of learning. Still other
teachers found all the three kinds of learning meaningful: growth, instructors, and peers.

Grth was the major issue within which teachers discussed what made learning
meaningful. Within growth, teachers’ perspectives on meaningfulness were complex;
teachers possessed multiple perspectives on what makes learning meaningful. Teachers
held in common, however, the view that they would like to continue to learn when they
found that the taught disciplinary knowledge was learned well.

I used sailing as a metaphor for teachers’ learning, and I pictured the variance of
teachers’ perspectives on the meaningfulness of learning. Some teachers appreciated the

sailing because they saw beautiful corals which they did not have a chance to look at

106

closely before. Some teachers were interested in watching the captain and his fancy
equipment on the ship. Some were happy in making fun with friends. Some teachers
enjoyed diving practice of diving. Some teachers felt excited at ﬁnding a new self. Some
teachers felt dizzy on the ship and jumped into the water. They swam very hard to ﬁnd a
place to stay. Some landed on a treasure island full of surprise; some landed on a barren
island. Some teachers were so satisﬁed when they ﬁnally caught that big ﬁsh they were

looking for. Some caught crabs but they did not have the teeth to eat them.

107

This captain is
extraordinarily

Captain 0 Captain,
I saw the beauty of

I have no
teeth for
this crab.

 

Figu_re 4.5 The ways teachers found learning meaningful.

108

Meaningful to Whom

My analysis thus far has focused on the ﬁrst research question of this study —
what kinds of learning do experienced teachers ﬁnd meaningful? I have argued that there
are three major characteristics of learning experience that make them meaningful for
teachers: contribution to intellectual growth, instructor’s personal attraction, and
supportive peers. This claim focused on the teachers as a group of learners. It is
misleading, however, when viewed from the perspectives of individual teachers. Not all
of the participant teachers perceived meaningfulness of learning from all three areas.
Some teachers (Hong, Kai, and Tong) found learning meaningful only when learning
contributed to their intellectual growth. Another group of teachers (Chin, Ding, Ming,
Pong, and Yang) found learning meaningful either when learning led to grth or when
the course instructors were impressive during the process of classroom instruction. Some
teachers (such as Fang) found learning meaningful from all three aspects: growth,
instructors, and peer learning climates. For Fang, it is true to say that all the three areas
are characteristics of meaningful learning. To Hong, Kai, and Tong, however, it is not
true to say that all the three are characteristics of meaningful learning. To whom is a
particular kind of learning meaningful? In the following section, the identiﬁed
characteristics were grouped into several combinations to represent each teacher’s unique

perspectives on the meaningfulness of learning. (See Table 4.1)

109

Table 4.1

Individrgl Teachers’ Perspectives on Meaningful Learning

 

GROWTH ONLY
Hong
Kai
Tong

GROWTH & INSTRUCTOR
Ding
Ming
Chin
Pong
Yang

GROWTH. INSTRUCTOR & PEER
Fang

TDK(CK;PK-D)
SK(CK) + TDK(CK-D;PK-D)
Self(CK;PK) + TDK(CK;PK-D) + SK(CK)

TDK(CK;PK) + Self(PK)

SelﬂCK;PK) + TDK(CK;PK)
Self(PK)+TDK(CK;PK-D)+SK(PK)
Self(CK) + TDK(CK;PK-D)+SK(PK)
Self(CK;PK) + TDK(CK;PK)+SK(CK)

Sclf(CK;PK) + SK(CK;PK) + TDK(CK;PK)

 

Note. TDK = Taught Disciplinary Knowledge; SK = Serendipitous Knowledge
CK = Conceptual Knowledge; PK = Conceptual Knowledge; D = Desired content.

Considering the distribution of three major characteristics — growth, instructors,

and peers —that were identiﬁed by the participant teachers, I found that growth could

stand alone for making teachers ﬁnd their learning experiences meaningful. In contrast,

neither the instructors nor peers can stand alone as a characteristic of meaningful

learning. That is, teachers could ﬁnd learning meaningful when they experienced

intellectual growth without noting model instructors or supportive peers. They did not,

however, ﬁnd learning meaningful solely because of the instructors’ personal attraction

or because of meeting a group of supportive peers. All of the teachers who mentioned the

characteristics of instructors or peers emphasized the issue of grth as the prime value

of learning.

110

For example, Ding, Ming, Chin, Pong, and Yang all recognized the characteristic
of meaningful learning in terms of instructor, but also valued those learning experiences
that contributed their growth. Another example is Fang, who was the only teacher who
considered learning experience signiﬁcant with the three characteristics. Since only one
teacher mentioned supportive peers as a characteristic of meaningful learning, no
participant teachers found meaningful learning based on both instructors and peers. The
results showed that there seems to be a pattern representing teachers’ perspectives on
meaningful learning. The combinations of the three identiﬁed characteristics of
meaningful learning were not random. Growth existed alone; instructors and peers did
not. Growth was grouped with instructors or with peers, however, instructors and peers
did not chain together.

Accordingly, I can now answer the question (To whom are the kinds of learning
experiences meaningful?) in more detail. To some practicing teachers, the only
characteristic of meaningful learning was their intellectual grth as a learning outcome.
To other teachers, the meaningfulness of learning was found the learning contributing to
overall their grth or when they found themselves appreciating the instructors’ teaching
methods Finally, one teacher found learning meaningful in both the learning outcomes
and in the learning process of studying with the instructors and peers.

Hong, Kai, and Tong found learning meaningful only when those learning
experiences contributed to their intellectual growth. They did not explain the
meaningfulness of learning experiences in terms of the instructor’ personal attraction or
their interaction with peers. Although the three teachers shared an emphasis on growth,

they varied in the kinds of growth they valued.

111

Hong valued a learning experience only when she learned the taught discipline
knowledge well. Writing in the Experienced Teachers’ Learning Survey, Hong explained
that her learning about computers, business practices, civil law, and the psychology of
personality was meaningful because of her grth in those disciplines. This knowledge
was new to her and helped her to adapt in her surroundings. In the ﬁrst focus group
interview, Hong explained more about why her learning about computers in a workshop
was a meaningful learning experience:

Hong: I am teaching in a private school. The principal always tells teachers that
the private school is not easy to survive, and teachers need to do more in-service
learning. If some curricula are gone in our school, teachers can teach new
disciplines which they learned from in-service programs. Therefore, I attended
computer workshops several years ago. . .. I found the requirements for
schoolwork are changing through the years. So I always participate in in-service
programs, depending on the needs of the school. Now I can easily use computers
to make school tests, which my school required teachers to do after I attended the
computer workshops.

Researcher: Did you ﬁnd it meaningful when you were attending those computer
workshops?

Hong: Yes, I did.
Researcher: Could you describe some of those experiences?

Hong: Because I was older, I forgot every computer command that I had learned
in class after I went home. I was very unhappy about that, so I practiced
repeatedly. I remember that I practiced computer procedures from 8 am. to 10
pm. I practiced until the computer lab closed. I did not want to stop until the
computer lab closed.

Researcher: You found a learning experience meaningful when you persisted on
completing a task and you did it, right?

Hong: Right. It is very interesting. In addition, my friends were always talking
about computers when we were together. I did not know what they were talking
about. Now, after that learning, I know. I am happy that I learned about
computers. I think that people need to learn more even though they may not see
the relevance of the learning in their daily lives immediately. However, they will
eventually ﬁnd the usefulness of the learning.

112

Hong did not mention other aspects of the learning experience, such as being
impressed by the instructors, or peer learning climates, as being meaningful. She talked
only about her grth in the taught disciplinary knowledge. Nor did she explain her
learning as meaningful in terms of self-- growth or growth in serendipitous knowledge. I
coded her values on learning as GROWTH (Taught Disciplinary Knowledge) based upon
her survey responses and the ﬁrst focus group interviews.

Hong did not say anything about her learning in the four courses (Research
Methods, Statistics, Assessment, and Computers) in the second, third, and fourth focus
group interviews. After the fourth group interview, I interviewed her individually and
asked her why she did not speak in the three group interviews. She told me that she did
not know what to say in the group interviews because she found all of the four courses
meaningless. She told me that she wanted to learn guidance skills from this summer
program so that she could help students and new teachers to solve problems. However,
the four courses were not related to guidance at all. In the last focus group interview,
Hong made comments on the Counseling course. She claimed that her learning in this
course was a meaningful experience and she was looking for other learning opportunities
like this course.

Hong: I’d like to talk [about my learning in the Counseling course]. . .. If there are

related courses offered in the future, I am willing to come again. Although I can

not handle the taught counseling skills very well yet, I found I am more capable of
talking than I was last year. We learned something like this information last year.

(The group members laughed.)

Researcher: Information?

Hong: That’s right. When we did role playing in that class last year, we did it on

the surface. Last year’s course [about counseling] was not as intensive as this

year’s. This year’s is better than last year’s. In addition, we also have a textbook
this year. You have an on-hand aid. Last year, [that instructor] gave us some

113

handouts to read in class but that instructor took those handouts back
immediately. So we could not use those aids to practice. (The group members
laughed.) This year is different. The textbook itself is an on-hand learning aid. We
could read it while we were practicing in and out of class. I even could try some
skills that the instructor had not taught yet. (I-Iong laughed) I think the Counseling
course was very meaningful. I would like to attend more courses like this course.
It provided me opportunities to practice and to go through each step of conducting
a counseling interview. I liked this course because it helped me to step out a little
and I am satisﬁed with this little accomplishment already.

Researcher: Let me summarize your comments. First, I heard that you said that
you found the Counseling course more meaningful than the other four courses
because it is consistent with your learning goals. May I share your learning goals
with this group?

Hong: You may.

Researcher: In the individual interview, Hong mentioned that she is planning to
begin a new career after retiring. She told me that she was inﬂuenced by her
senior high school teachers and always wanted to help others. Since she needs to
work intensively, however, she does not have many chances to do it. She hoped
she could do something really helpful to others when she retired. She thought she
could do voluntary social work related to guidance after retiring so she brought a
goal to the summer program—learning guidance. Since the Counseling course is
consistent with her goal, she found her learning of this course meaningful.

Hong: No, I was not saying that. I said that at ﬁrst I was facing some students’
problems in school. I asked my colleagues for advice about how to deal with
students’ problems. Sometimes, my colleagues’ suggestions did not work. Then,
there were new teachers coming to ask me how to handle students’ problems. I
did not know how to give them advice. So, I thought that I could come to the
summer program to learn about guidance. As far as the career planning which I
mentioned to you in the individual interview, it was a new goal which I recently
had in mind after I was granted a 25-year—service award [by the Taiwan
government]. I am stepping into another stage of my career.

Researcher: The career planning is a new goal that you just recently set. So, the
original reason you came to the summer program was to learn guidance skills to
help your students solve problems, and to help new teachers in your school?

Hong: Right.

Researcher: Which goal was consistent with your learning of the counseling
skills?

Hong: Both.

114

Researcher: The new goal and the original goal?

Hong: Right.

As in her survey responses, Hong explained meaningful learning only in terms of
her growth in the taught disciplinary knowledge. From the individual interview and the
ﬁfth focus group interview, I learned that the desired disciplinary knowledge was the
dominant criterion that she held to evaluate learning experiences. What she desired to
learn was embedded in her learning goals. It is worth noting that Hong kept the same goal
to learn guidance, but she saw the meanings of learning in different roles in different
stages of her life (ﬁrst as an in-service business teacher, and aﬁer retiring as a volunteer
social worker). Using the coding scheme of this study, I coded Hong’s perspectives on
meaningful learning as valuing learning which contributes to her Growth on the Desired
Taught Disciplinary Procedural Knowledge — G-TDK (CK; PK-D). In my mind, she was
like the “Got Ya!” teacher who was always looking for tuna in the sea and was happy
with ﬁnally getting a big tuna (see Figure 4.5).

Kai found learning meaningful when she obtained either serendipitous knowledge
or taught discipline knowledge. She was like the teacher who swam hard to an island and
found surprising treasures on it. In addition, she also carried a ﬁsh net to ﬁnd the tuna she
wanted badly. (See Figure 4.5).

Kai always found learning meaningful when those learning experiences (such as
her learning of theories) helped her to improve her teaching practices. For example, Kai
wrote in the survey about her undergraduate study in a teacher college after she taught in
an elementary school for 10 years. She explained why she found that learning experience

most meaningful:

115

 

When I was studying in college and learning theories about psychology and
education, I found myself already have practical experiences. I taught my
own children and students by the methods similar to the theoretical
recommendations.

 

 

-Kai

 

 

It was very happy when I took the Early Childhood Education course in
college because I found that I had raised my children in the ways consistent
with the early children learning theories. I was happy that I had my prior
experiences to testify those theories. 1 found that the ways I taught my
children and my students similar to the educational principles.

-Kai

 

 

 

Kai elaborated on this in the third focus group interview. Kai was asked to read a
research proposal about learning motivation in class and she practiced doing a critique of
that proposal with peers. The purpose of that learning activity was to learn to write
critiques rather than to learn about motivation theory. Kai, however, paid attentions to the
contents of the motivation theory and found it meaningful because it conﬁrmed her
teaching practices.

Kai: I’d like to make comments on the Research Methods course. This morning,
the class was studying a research proposal about attribution theory. I didn’t have
knowledge enough to criticize that proposal. However, I was very happy to read
the literature review because I found that I did not malpractice when I was
guiding my students in school. I was assured by the attribution theory that my
methods are correct.

Researcher: You found it meaningful when you read the attribution theory?

Kai: Yes. I had not heard about the attribution theory before. After I read this
theory today, I found that I was already practiced teaching appropriately even
though I could not verbally explain why I did it. I found that my practice of
including the directions and details was not wrong. In fact, I found that the theory
helped me verify every thing that I had done with my students.

Researcher: You found the learning meaningful because this theory helped you
proove. ..

116

Kai: Clarify.
Researcher: Clarify your previous teaching?
Kai: Right, Right. Clarify what I was doing as being correct.

Researcher: You found the learning meaningful because it helped you to clarify
your existing teaching methods?

Kai: Right, right, right.

Apparently, Kai appreciated the reading of the research proposal. She did not,
however, grow in the taught disciplinary knowledge, that is, how to criticize a research
proposal. Instead, she was happy with her learning about attribution theory from this
reading. Most importantly, she had a chance to clarify and justify her teaching practice by
means of the academic theory. The value of the learning was that it helped Kai, a
practitioner, justify and theorize her practice crafted through experti se—to connect her
practice to “the Theory.” I coded this kind of meaningful learning Grth on
Serendipitous Knowledge, especially on the discipline of pedagogy and student guidance.

Kai made comments on her learning about statistics that were similar to her
comments on the Research Methods course, although she was frustrated with her learning
of statistics in the summer program. She explained to me in the ﬁfth focus group
interview why she found her learning of statistics meaningful because of her frustration:

Kai: I found the Statistics course pretty frustrating. However, the learning

experience helped me understand my own students’ learning problems. My

students always told me that learning mathematics was a tough task and I had
. difﬁculty understanding their feelings because I did not have problems in
studying mathematics myself. I eventually experienced the feelings of

helplessness and hopelessness after I took the Statistics course this summer.

Researcher: Learning statistics is meaningful to you because you. . ..

117

Kai: I realized what my students’ were feeling when they did not learn
mathematics well. I felt helpless and hopeless when I learned statistics. However,
I am learning statistics in this summer with peer’s support and help. Even though
I feel it is 1 hard now, I am still willing to continue to learn this discipline.
Learning from this experience, I know how to empathize with my students after I
go back to teaching.

Researcher: Will you use the same instructional methods to teach your students?
Kai: No, I will not teach my students by the same ways the instructor used in the
Statistics course. I will gradually teach my students from basic to advanced
subjects. I will use my learning experience in the Statistic course to understand
my students’ learning, however. Then, I believe that I will better know what to do
to help my students.

Researcher: Kai, did you ﬁnd your learning of statistics in the summer
meaningful?

Kai: Pretty meaningful.
Researcher: Pretty meaningful?

Kai: Not just meaningﬁrl.
Researcher: Strongly meaningful?

Kai: Right. I don’t think that I have learned [statistics] well so far. Actually, I feel
very frustrated in this course. However, I understand better why students did not
learn well, and about their feelings when they did not learn well. I know how to
empathize and accept their feelings and complaints. Or, to put it this way, I know
what to do to motivate frustrated students to try to learn again.

In the Statistics course, Kai was not learning much of the taught disciplinary
knowledge, but she found the experience very meaningﬁrl. She valued the understanding
of others — her students and how they learn — she gained. To Kai, this understanding was
new and became a guide for her to help students in the future. For a teacher, learning can
become meaningful when it increases understanding of students’ learning difﬁculties and

know to change teaching, even though learning experience itself is frustrating. I coded

Kai’s learning of statistics as an example of Growth on Serendipitous Knowledge.

118

IfI did not know what she thought about the Counseling course, I would think
Kai was a teacher who always found learning meaningful by gaining grth in
serendipitous knowledge. Like Hong, Kai found the counseling course meaningful
because of the taught disciplinary knowledge she learned. Furthermore, counseling is
what she wanted to learn from this summer program. Before the ﬁfth focus group
interview, Kai and I had an individual interview for one hour. She told me that the
Counseling course was very meaningful because it provided her opportunities to see a
new counseling model and made her aware of a “blind spot” in her counseling practice.
Kai still used her learning of counseling to verify her existing counseling practice.
However, she paid attentions to the taught disciplinary knowledge rather than discovering
serendipitous knowledge. Her learning in the Counseling course weakened rather than
assured her previous practices. I coded this experience as gaining Grth in the taught
disciplinary knowledge, which the teacher desired to learn.

Tong found learning meaningful when she gained self-growth, taught disciplinary
knowledge, or serendipitous knowledge. Tong found learning meaningful when it led to
better understanding of her self as a “human.” In the survey, Tong described her learning
in a reading group, and how she better understood her own self through this very
meaningful learning experience. Self-growth is the reason why Tong found the group
learning meaningful. She gained the competencies to handle her emotions, and most

important, she deﬁned her life direction.

119

 

 

Six years ago, I formed a study group with some friends. We discussed in the
group to obtain a better understanding of our behaviors, feelings, thoughts and
motivations. We wrote journals everyday and shared in the group. We helped
each other to solve problems in everyday life. In the past six years, some
members joined the group; some others left. There are always seven or eight
members in the group. We became best friends. We encouraged each other on
the road of life. This is the most meaningful learning that I have had so far in
my life. It helps me think of many things.

I learned to think many things of human life from this study group. I become
assured where I want to go in my life. I become capable of dealing with my
emotion problems. With this competency, I realize where I am in the
instructional situations and how to interact with students.

— Tong

 

 

 

 

My major in college was Chinese. I was not graduated from the college of
education. When I became a teacher, I took some courses in education in a
program designed for inservice teachers. After taking those courses, I found
myself interested in interacting with people. In particular, I found that I
enjoyed in developing curricula and liked to work with children.

 

— T ong

 

Tong also talked in the focus group interview about ﬁnding of her potential
through learning about computers. She was happy with gaining computer skills. She,
however, was most excited at conquering her anxiety about machine and ﬁnding ways to

approach new domains.

Tong: ...What I have tried to say is that such a learning experience creates an
opportunity for me to face my inner nervousness. When I faced something of
which I had fear, I used to get nervous immediately. [This learning is meaningful
to me] because I experienced how to conquer my nervousness and told my self
very determinedly that you have to face it. You have to face the fact that you
came to take this course. You have to do it and to face it. And, I made it. The
result made me realize that a person can do many things if he or she learns to do
them step by step. Be not afraid of the new things. Don’t reject learning them. If
the person does it step by step, perhaps he or she can make it, perhaps not. No
matter what the results are, it is meaningful to a person if that person have tried
hard to achieve. Now, I have courage to face a thing that I used to be afraid of. I

120

don’t think there is any thing that can not be learned. Speaking of the learning
contents, I do not ﬁnd anything new. However, I learned from this experience that
I can learn well.

Researcher: The Computer course itself merely caused your nervousness. This is a
starting point. It is not the feelings of nervousness that are meaningful, right?

Tong: It depends on how you view nervousness. If it is just a feeling of
nervousness, it is not meaningful. Ifit makes you think and to try to handle it,
nervousness becomes a motive to take action.

Researcher: Do you think the nervousness coming from the Computer course was
meaningful?

Tong: I think so.

Researcher: Will you be willing to come to learn even if a course makes you feel
nervous?

Tong: Yes, I will. I have courage to deal with it. Owing to this learning
experience, I found that I have the ability to face nervousness although I may not
face it immediately.

Researcher: You know your self, your ability because of the experience in this
Computer course, right?

Tong: Right. I know how to face it.
Tong also actively reﬂected on her own teaching methods and her society during her
learning in the Research Methods course.

Tong: ...In addition, I found that the instructor shared some of his own fruitful
life experiences, and some of his lectures inspired me greatly even though the
words sounded ordinary. For example, I took notes in his class on the 14th of June
about qualitative research. When he concluded his remarks on the research
tradition, he asked the class, “Is it correct [to use the qualitative research to study
all topics?” Then he commented, “Don’t just believe what people say or accept
opinions simply because they are popular.’ (The focus group members laughed.) I
intended to write these words in my notebooks because I had a lot of thoughts to
evaluate. I talked to my classmates about our traditional culture and educational
systems that encourage us to obey authority older people say so, too, especially
some elders or scholars say so, too. Or because something is currently popular,
and we follow and simply just believe in it because others say it is good. We can
not think differently from them. What I want to say is that I found my learning in
this course interesting. The professor’s lectures should serve to remind me as a

121

teacher to think for myself, especially as the role of authority to students. We are

accustomed to authority. I hope I can criticize myself, not to force students to

follow me without careﬁrl consideration. I would try my best to guide students not
to step in the frame of authority. I want to encourage them to thin bravely. Their
mind will become freer. In sum, I found the professor’s talks led to a pretty huge
inspiration.

Tong was very serious about the research proposal writing project. She asked me
to read her group’s proposal — a survey research. She and I discussed the draft proposal
for almost 2 hours without her team’s presence. In the individual interview, I asked her
whether she found her learning about writing a research proposal meaningful. She said
yes but did not mention any disciplinary knowledge about research. Instead, she talked
about how she learned to work with a group of colleagues who were careless in their
learning — another growth in serendipitous knowledge.

Tong was not completely satisﬁed with a learning endeavor merely leading to her
growth in serendipitous knowledge, however. In the third focus group interview, she
argued:

Tong: You wanted me to comment on the four summer courses. My opinion is

that everyone attending the classes will ﬁnd something meaningful from learning.

The problem is that, according to my personal opinion, some growth is “micro.” I

brought big learning goals to the summer program. Considering the big goals, I

felt very disappointed with my learning in the summer courses. Of course, some

instructors’ words often inspired me to reﬂect on something. I usually found
difﬁculty in choosing what to talk about the group. Do you want me to report
feelings to you according to my big goals or to talk about tiny inspirations?
Differing from commenting in the growth on serendipitous knowledge, Tong was
assured about the values of the growth in disciplinary knowledge that she was eager to

learn from the summer courses. And, she focused her comments on the taught

disciplinary knowledge, not wandering into other domains:

122

Tong: The counseling skills are what I wanted to learn and expected to learn. I
had the same expectation the past three years. I felt this summer’s instruction was
more consistent with my needs. The instructional objectives, the counseling
strategies, the ways the instructor presented the strategies, and her teaching
attitudes, I liked all of that pretty much. To me, it is a very meaningful learning
experience. I had touched on some counseling models, but (laugh) I did not learn
them very well I just got a very broad concept. I found this strategy very succinct.
It is a very rational approach. This is the model of counseling which I imagined
and I wanted eagerly. The instructor mentioned in class that you have to deal with
the person’s thought if you want to change that person’s behavior. I agree. That is,
that person has a way of thinking, and you need to read from that thinking to
know why that person could not do something. Then, you change his thinking and
help him change his behavior. I watched the instructor’s role—playing in class,
and that she always used this principle to do counseling. I found she did it so well
and always asked questions that were to the point. I felt every question she asked
was meaningful. However, I could not ask questions like she did when I did role-
playing. (Laugh) I found that instructor is very skillful at picking points about
which to client. Actually, I found that she always tried to ﬁnd the client’s thoughts
from his talk and to ﬁnd his problem. She then asked the client more questions
until they ﬁgured out the problems causing his misbehavior. I feel that this skill is
the one that I want to learn. To me, this course is really very meaningful.

Researcher: I heard many points. Let me rephrase. First, this course is consistent
with your expectations of the summer program. You wanted to learn counseling
from this program.

Tong: Correct.

Researcher: The reasons you ﬁnd the course meaningful is the content, right?
Tong: Correct.

Researcher: The second point is still about the issue of content. You said this
counseling strategy is a kind of rational approach. You prefer this approach.
Considering this approach to counseling, you found this course meaningful.

Tong: Yes.

Researcher: The second point I heard is about the instructional methods which the
instructor used in the Counseling course.

Tong: Teaching attitudes and methods.
Researcher: Did her teaching attitudes and methods help you learn in this course?

Tong: Yes.

123

Researcher: Did she become a teaching model to you?

Tong: I did not think about the issue of a model before you asked me.
Researcher: It is her teaching methods that helped you learn.

Tong: Right. Helped me.

Researcher: The third point I heard is that you said that you did not learn
counseling well. However, you witnessed in the class that the instructor modeled
the techniques, and that it is not just a theory written in textbooks. She really did it
in action. You had chances to observe an experienced counselor performing the
counseling skills in front of you. Is that what you tried to tell me?

Tong: Yes.

Researcher: Let me try this: a meaningful learning situation is one that lets you
see an action performed out of a theory. If a learning situation provides you this
kind of experience, you will ﬁnd it meaningful, right?

Tong: Yes. In addition, because this is what I lack.

Researcher: You lack?

Tong: Because I did not have this kind of knowledge before. I did not have this
kind of counseling skill before. I should go back to the point that I had mentioned

at ﬁrst. This is consistent with my expectation, with what I wanted.

Researcher: It is the content that you wanted. So, the content is the major reason
for your ﬁnding the learning meaningful?

Tong: The major reason is the content. Yes.

Tong was a teacher actively exploring her self and was able to land on a treasure
island. She was, however, a teacher looking deeply into the water for the dreaming ﬁsh.
Summary

There seems to be a pattern representing teachers’ perspectives on meaningful
learning. The combinations of the three identiﬁed characteristics of meaningful learning

were not random. Growth existed alone; instructors and peers did not. Grth was

124

grouped with instructors or with peers; however, instructors and peers did not chain
together. To some teachers, the only characteristic of meaningful learning was their
intellectual grth as a learning outcome. To other teachers, the meaningfulness of
learning was perceived when they found themselves appreciating both the learning
outcomes and the learning process of studying with instructors and peers.

In what situations are the characteristics salient to teachers?

Since teachers had multiple perspectives on meaningful learning, I examined the
identiﬁed characteristics across learning situations to understand which characteristics
were salient in particular learning situations. This section is another way to examine the
identiﬁed characteristics by considering the issue of situations. In what situations does a
teacher consider the values of learning based upon the criterion of growth? In what
situations is the same teacher inclined to notice the signiﬁcance of learning processes in
terms of instructors or peer’s learning climate?

To address this issue, I ﬁrst examined the teachers’ written responses to the
Survey and their discussion in the ﬁrst focus group interview. In those settings I had
asked them to describe and explain those learning experiences they had found meaningful
so far in their lives, in the university, in inservice programs, and in the summer program.
The identiﬁed characteristics of those recalled experiences across the four situations were
shown in Table 4.2.

In those descriptions, some teachers focused on only one kind of meaningful
learning, regardless of the conditions or settings of learning. For example, Hong found
learning meaningful in all settings because of her growth (G) on the taught disciplinary

knowledge (TDK). Pong found learning meaningfulness of learning in all situations

125

because of her self-growth (G-Selt). Other teachers, Tong and Ming for example, both
found learning meaningful so far and in university courses because those learning
experiences contributed their self-growth (G-Self). When they talked about meaningful
learning experiences in in-service programs and in this summer program, however, they
focused on their growth in taught disciplinary knowledge (G-TDK). Pong also added the
characteristic of growth on taught disciplinary knowledge (G-TDK) when describing her
experienced in in-service programs and this summer program. Some other teachers
valued growth in taught disciplinary knowledge, but they changed to talk about other
characteristics in different learning situations. From this analysis of teachers’ responses to
the Survey and the ﬁrst focus group interview, no clear patterns of meaningfulness
depending on the learning situations emerged. One point worth noticing, however, is that
the growth of taught disciplinary knowledge was particularly salient for teachers when
they recalled their learning in the continuing education settings.

The teachers’ discussions in the last four focus group interviews served as an
additional site for examining how teachers’ perspectives on meaningfulness varied across
settings. In these group sessions, I asked teachers to focus on their current learning in the
ﬁve summer courses that were taught by different instructors. I coded the teachers’
comments on the ﬁve courses - Research Methods, Statistics, Computer, Assessment,
and Counseling — for characteristics of meaningful learning (Table 4.3). I looked into
each teacher’s comments across the ﬁve courses. I found that the characteristic of grth
in taught disciplinary knowledge (G-TDK) was identiﬁed by some teachers in their
perceptions of every course. For example, Pong and Yang talked about the issue of G-

TDK when commenting about each of the ﬁve courses (see Table 4.3). For them, G-TDK

126

was a salient criterion regardless of the learning situation. Other teachers, Kai and Tong
for example tended to vary their perceptions of meaningfulness in different courses. Kai
talked about the issue of grth in serendipitous knowledge (G-SK) and on self-grth
(G-Self) in the Research Method course; growth in serendipitous knowledge (G-SK) and
in taught disciplinary knowledge (G-TDK) in the course of statistics; and in G-TDK in
the Counseling course.
Summary
What kinds of in-service learning do experienced teachers ﬁnd meaningful?
What do they appreciate, believe to be worthwhile, want to experience again, and
ﬁnd supportive in becoming willing to commit to learning seriously?

The results showed that teachers view meaningful learning as having three
characteristics: intellectual growth, model instructors, and supportive peers. The growth
issue seems to be the major area through which the teachers found learning meaningful.
Within the grth aspect, there was variation across and within teachers because teachers
possess multiple perspectives on ﬁnding leaning meaningful. Common among the
teachers was the perspective that they would like to continue to learn when they found

that the taught disciplinary knowledge was learned well.

127

Table 4.2

Perceived Meaningﬂrl Learning_across Learning Situations: Survey Responses and the 1St

 

 

Focus Group Interview

 

 

 

Teachers So far University In-service Summer
Courses Programs Program
Hong G-TDK(CK) G-TDK(CK) G-TDK(PK) G-TDK (CK)
"1251 """""""""" GIT-Dikk'ék’) """"" GJSK-(CK) """""" drama; """"" Glfﬁkiﬁk') """"
“r551; """"""""" darker; """"" creamer; """"" olfﬁﬂriki """"" difﬁﬂék') """"
"ﬁi'h’g' """"""""" agar-@125 """"" INST """"""""" olfﬁriék) """"" l """""""""""
G-TDK(PK)
"Miii'g """"""""" drama """"" GISEIR’ISIZ)’ """"" Glfﬁxﬁiié) """"" olfﬁﬁiﬁk) """"
"('frl'i'n' """"""""" Gise'l'fiﬁé)" """""" i """"""""""" GSSEIR'ISK)’ """"" élfﬁkiﬁk') """"
G-TDK(CK)
"riah'g' """"""""" élsa'ri'c'ié) """"" Glsa'f'itfié)’ """"" 6313K (15125 """" élfﬁr'ék'ék') """"
G-Self (CK) G-Self (CK)
"viii'g """"""""" GSsEIR'C'ki """""" 636K636 """"" éﬁﬁﬂék’) """"" arranger) """"
G-TDK(CK) G-Self(PK) G-TDK(PK)
G-Self(PK) G-Self(CK)
"Fiﬁg' """"""""" cigar """""""" é-‘fﬁrit’rik'i """"" INST """"""""" olfﬁk’iﬁk') """"
G-SK INST G-TDK Peer
Peer Peer INST
G-SK(PK)

 

Note. G-TDK= Growth - Taught Disciplinary Knowledge; G-SK= Growth -Serendipitous
Knowledge; G-Self: Growth-Self; CK = Conceptual Knowledge; PK= Procedural Knowledge

128

Table 4.3

Perceived Meaningful Learning across Leming Situations:

All the 2nd. 3'“. 412;“ 5th Focus Group Interviews

 

 

 

Teacher Research Statistics Computers Assessment Counseling
Methods
H0118 (-) (*) (-) (-) G-TDKCPK-D)
G-TDK(PK)-I
"Kali """"" i} Elk-(CK) """"""" G-S-K(.CK) """"""""""""""""""" N/A -G:TDK-(D.)- """
G-Self(CK) G-TDK-I
”rang ''''' G '-§I'('(Ei{§13i('):1 """ if [A """"""""" GSelf(CK) "GED-Kb). """
G-Self(CK) G-TDK(PK) G-TDK-I
G-SK(CK) G-Self(PK)
.............. ( )GSK(CKD).
Ding (-)G-TDK(CK)-I
Mtg """" I N's-T """""""""" (bdﬁ‘bkkéﬁi """ 63151266163136 """ til-A """"""""""" “'G'lse'l'fiﬁié) """
G-TDK(CK)-I : G-Self(CK)
”Chi-n """"" G Rink-(I51?)- """"" ('-')'G'-'T'I')’I{'(EI'<')'-'I '''' Gifﬁﬁiéiiilf """" (bﬁSﬁktﬁéjII """""""""""""
G-TDK-I (-)G-TDK(D) G-TDK(PK)
G-SK(CK',PK-D) (-)G-TDK(PK)-I
INST (-)G-TDK(D)
”bait """" G '-"TI')'I'('('C'i<')-'I """" (.-.)G:TI-)K.(PK)-I """" G-.TDK(-CK):I """" Gliﬁﬁfékliiﬁ')" 'Gl'Tbkil-D’KZBS"
G-SK(PK)-I
G-TDK(CK)
G-SK(PK)
"mg """" 1 NET """""""""" INST """""""" {j-G-.TDK(CK):IWWG-‘TDK(CK.)H-m first """""""
G-TDK(CK)-I G-SK(CK) (-)G-TDK(D)-I G-TDK-I
G-TDK (-)G-TDK(CK)-I
”1353,; """"" é RISK-(2316 """" Gis'ﬁiéiiiﬁié) """" éi-Tﬁﬂékiif """" GISiééékiimm "GlTD-K """"""
INST (-)INST PEER G-TDK(PK)—I
(-)G-TDK-I
(-)G-TDK(CK)-I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not; G-TDK= Growth -Taught Disciplinary Knowledge; G-SK= Growth - Serendipitous
Knowledge; G-Self: Growth-Self; CK = Conceptual Knowledge; PK= Procedural Knowledge;
D= Desired content; IN ST= Instructor; G-TDK-I= Growth-Taught Disciplinary Knowledge- good
Instruction; G-SK-I= Growth-Serendipitous Knowledge-Instruction discipline; (-) negative
comments or feeling.

129

Same Boat, Drﬂ'erent Journey

As I mentioned in the introductory chapter, I was also aware of the issue of
individual differences involving in teachers’ perceptions of their learning while I was
doing my practicum research experience. Teachers shared the same instructional
activities and resources, but teachers in the same classroom varied in their perceptions of
the meaningfulness of learning. This research, therefore, took the issue of individual
differences into account for the purpose of describing the variance of practicing teachers’
perceptions of the learning experiences that they ﬁnd meaningful and supportive in
developing an attitude toward lifelong learning. It seeks to understand how teachers who
share instructional events differ in what learning they ﬁnd meaningful.

The nine teachers did vary in ﬁnding meaningful learning in the same courses.
The difference of teachers’ perceptions of meaningfulness in the same instructional
situations was shown on the teachers’ responses on the Course Valuing Inventory (N ehari
and Bender, 1978). Teachers, however, varied less in their perceptions in the courses
they highly valued than they did in the courses they did not highly value. In focus group
interviews, teachers often agreed their peers’ comments about their learning in the ﬁve
courses. In fact, there was only one debate, between teachers about whether one
particular learning event was meaningful or meaningless.

Course Valuing Inventory was used in this research to understand the participant
teachers’ perceptions of meaningfulness in the ﬁve courses. The four scales are course
valuing, cognitive-content learning, affective-personal learning, and behavioral learning.

The contents of each scale were shown in Table 3.2 in Chapter 3.

130

The results of the Course Value Inventory showed that the variance of teachers’
perceptions of the Course Value (CV) in the Counseling course is very low, SD = 0.03,
compared to the variance of teachers’ in the Statistics course, SD = 1.06 (Table 4.4). The
Counseling course is highly valued by the teachers, mean of CV = 4.74 (highest score of
this scale is 5). On the other hand, the Statistics course was not appreciated by teachers,
mean of CV = 2.43. In short, the ﬁve courses can be divided into three groups by
considering the variance of perceived values between teachers. The variance of
perceptions among teachers increases in those courses were not perceived as meaningful,
as in the case of the Statistics course (SD = 1.06, mean = 2.43) and the Assessment
course (SD = 1.14, mean = 3.19). The second group of courses were more highly valued
by the teachers, and the variance of perceptions between teachers increases, as in the
Research Method course (CD = 0.72, mean = 4.09) and the Assessment course (SD =
0.72, mean = 3.30). The ﬁnal group is the Counseling course (SD = 0.30, mean = 4.74)
that was extremely valued by the teachers, and the degree of the variance between
teachers is lowest compared to the other four courses.

Teachers’ responses on the Content Learning (CL) scale, were identical to their
responses on the CV scale. Teachers tended to vary less in their perceptions in the
courses they highly valued than they did in the course they did not highly value. For
example, the variance of teachers’ perceptions of the content learning in the Counseling
course is very low (SD = 0.03, mean = 4.49) compared to the variance of teachers’ in the
Statistics course (SD = 1.02, mean = 2.76) (Table 4.4).

Teachers’ responses on the Personal Learning (PL) scale do not show the same

pattern, however. For example, the Counseling course was most highly valued by

131

teachers because of their increased understanding of selves (mean = 4.24) compared to
the Research Methods course (mean = 3.75) and the Computer course (mean = 2.9)
(Table 4.4). The variance between teachers’ perceptions in the Counseling course (SD =
0.52), however, is not lower than the variance for the Research Methods course (SD =
0.36); and not much different from the variance shown in the Computer course (SD =
0.55).

Teachers’ responses on the Behavioral Learning (BL) scale were similar to theirs
to those for the Course Value and Content Learning scales, in the Counseling course. It
was the most highly valued by teachers (mean = 3.96) compared to the other courses and
the variance between teachers’ perception of this course was the lowest (SD = 0.55)
among all the ﬁve courses (Table 4.4). The variances of teachers’ perceptions on the less
valued courses, Statistics (SD = 0.76, mean = 2.65) and Computer (SD = 0.64, mean =
2.74), were not higher than the Assessment course (SD = 1.14, mean = 2.94) (Table 4.4).

The results seemed to imply that teachers’ perceptions of learning on the four
scales are not identical. I checked the correlation between the scales and found that the
Content Learning is highly related to the overall Course Valuing scale in all ﬁve courses:
r (Research Method) = .8497, r (Statistics)=. 9731, r (Computer)=. 8204, r
(Assessment)=. 8987, r (Counseling)=. 9117 (Table 4.5). On the other hand, teachers’
responses on the Personal Learning scale and the Behavioral Learning scale are not

highly related to their responses on the Course Valuing scale.

132

Table 4.4

Perceived Values of the 5 Summer Courses

 

 

Teacher Scale Research Statistics Computers Assessment Counseling
Methods
Hong CV 2.67 1.78 3.11 2.89 4.67
CL 3.00 2.11 3.67 2.67 4.44
PL 3.67 3.22 3.44 3.56 4.78
..................... B 1.211222244239433
Kai CV 411 3.00 3 56 - 5 00
CL 4.22 3.11 3 ll - 4.44
PL 4.22 3.11 3 ll - 4.78
BL 3 89 3.00 3.00 - 3 78
Tong CV 4 78 - 3.22 2 78 5 00
CL 4 56 - 3.44 2 89 5 00
PL 3 78 - 2.89 3 ll 3 78
..................... B L467356200489
Chm CV 3 22 1.00 2.44 2 78 4 22
CL 4 33 l 56 3.22 4 00 4 22
PL 344 300 1.67 278 456
..................... BL344211178278400
Drng CV 4 67 4.00 4.78 1 33 4 78
CL 4 56 4.44 4.56 2 00 444
PL 3 00 2.33 3 11 l 78 3 44
..................... BL267278189111367
Ming CV 3.89 3.67 3 67 - 4 33
CL 4.00 3.78 3 78 - 411
PL 3.89 3.56 3 00 - 456
..................... BL344367300289
Pong CV 4 56 2.11 3.33 4 78 5 00
CL 4 56 2.89 3.56 4 89 4 78
PL 4 00 3 89 3.44 3 89 4 00
..................... B. L367356344456400
Yang CV 4 67 1.44 2.44 4 33 4 67
CL 4 56 1.56 2.56 4 22 4 22
PL 4 00 l 56 2.44 3 78 3 67
..................... B L400144244356378
Fang CV 422 2.44 3.11 3 44 5 00
CL 4 22 2.67 2.78 3 67 4 78
PL 3 78 2.78 3 11 3 56 4 56
..................... B L378244311367433
MEAN(SD) CV 4.09(0.72) 2.43(l.06) 3.30(0.70) 3.19(1.14) 4.74(O.30)
CL 4.22(O.50) 2.76(l.02) 3.41(O.59) 3.48(l.00) 4.49(0.30)
PL 3.75(O.36) 2.93(0.73) 2.91(0.55) 3.21(O.74) 4.24(0.52)
BL 3.52(0.75) 2.65(0.76) 2.74(0.64) 2.94(1.14) 3.96(0.55)

 

133

Accordingly, teachers’ perceptions on the values of the contents that they have
learned from a course seem to play an important role in determining their general
impressions of that course. The variances of teachers’ general judgements on the
meaningfulness of learning seem to be related to the perceived values of the learned
contents of a course. On the contrary, the achievement of self-awareness and the concrete
behavior change do not seem to be the major source of teachers’ general perceptions of
the meaningfulness of learning.

The results of the quantitative data show that teachers varied in ﬁnding

meaningfulness in the Assessment course and Statistics course more than in the other

three courses.

Table 4.5

Correlation between Scﬁs of the Course Valuingirventory

 

Content Learning Personal Learning Behavioral Learning
Course Valuing
Research .8497 (9) P = .004 .1042 (9) P = .790 .6388 (9) P = .064
Statistics .9731 (8) P = .000 .1298 (8) P = .759 .6463 (8) P = .083
Computers .8204 (9) P = .007 .5563 (9) P = .120 -.0191 (9) P = .961
Assessment .8987 (7) P = .006 .9101 (7) P = .004 .9417 (7) P = .002
Counseling .8117 (9) P = .008 -.2311 (9) P = .550 .5244 (9) P = .147
Content Learning
Research -.0293 (9) P = .940 .6796 (9) P = .044
Statistics .2321 (8) P = .580 .7214 (8) P = .043
Computers .3551 (9) P = .348 .2330 (9) P = .546
Assessment .7010 (7) P = .079 .8891 (7) P = .007
Counseling -.2250 (9) P = .561 .7840 (9) P = .012
Personal Learning
Research .5277 (9) P = .144
Statistics .7879 (8) P = .020
Computers .5333 (9) P = .139
Assessment .8852 (7) P = .008
Counseling -.O929 (9) P = .812

 

134

The focus group interviews also showed that teachers differed in ﬁnding
meaningfulness in the same courses. The differences of teachers’ perceptions were shown
in two ways. One is that different teachers all found learning meaningful but from
different criteria. For, example, in the second focus interview, Pong claimed that the
Assessment course was meaningful because she found the assigned textbook very
informative, organized, and useful for her teaching. In other words, she found the
learning in the Assessment course meaningful because of her growth on the taught
disciplinary knowledge (G-TDK) and attributed it to a well-chosen textbook. In the ﬁfth
focus group interview, Fang claimed that the Assessment course was meaningful to her
because she enjoyed learning with peers in a ﬁeld trip to a museum. Another example is
teachers’ perceptions of the Counseling course. In the ﬁfth focus group interview, the
only group interview after the Counseling course been taught, many teachers reported
that they appreciated the course very much. For example, Hong, Kai, Tong, and Pong all
found this course meaningful and would like to experience such learning again because
they learned the taught disciplinary knowledge that they desired (G-TDK-D). Yang also
valued the taught disciplinary knowledge, although she did not emphasize the issue of
desired content. She also found the Counseling course meaningﬁrl because of the
instructor’s good teaching attitudes and professional modeling of counseling skills.
Ming’s comments on the Counseling course were, however, related to his awareness and
reﬂection on himself.

The other type of variance between teachers’ perceptions of the same course is
that some teachers found the course meaningful but the others found it not worthwhile.

For example, Chin claimed that she did not ﬁnd her learning in the Statistics course

135

meaningful because she did not have any chance to use that kind of knowledge in her life,
even though she indeed learned some concepts (G-TDK-D). Kai disagreed with Chin and
continued to comment on the Statistic course:

Kai: I found the Statistics course pretty ﬁustrating. However, the learning
experience helped me understand my own students’ learning problems. My
students always told me that learning mathematics was a tough task and I had
difﬁculty understanding their feelings because I did not have problems in
studying mathematics myself. I eventually experienced the feelings of
helplessness and hopelessness after I took the Statistics course this summer.

Researcher: Learning statistics is meaningful to you because you. . ..

Kai: I realized what my students’ were feeling when they did not learn
mathematics well. I felt helpless and hopeless when I learned statistics. However,
I am learning statistics in this summer with peer’s support and help. Even though
I feel it is 1 hard now, I am still willing to continue to learn this discipline.
Learning from this experience, I know how to empathize with my students after I
go back to teaching.

Researcher: Will you use the same instructional methods to teach your students?

Kai: No, I will not teach my students by the same ways the instructor used in the
Statistics course. I will gradually teach my students from basic to advanced
subjects. I will use my learning experience in the Statistic course to understand
my students’ learning, however. Then, I believe that I will better know what to do
to help my students.

Researcher: Kai, did you ﬁnd your learning of statistics in the summer
meaningful?

Kai: Pretty meaningful.
Researcher: Pretty meaningful?

Kai: Not just meaningful.
Researcher: Strongly meaningful?

Kai: Right. I don’t think that I have learned [statistics] well so far. Actually, I feel
very frustrated in this course. However, I understand better why students did not
learn well, and about their feelings when they did not learn well. I know how to
empathize and accept their feelings and complaints. Or, to put it this way, I know
what to do to motivate frustrated students to try to learn again.

136

I coded this kind of meaningful learning as growth in serendipitous knowledge
(G-SK) that was discovered by the teachers themselves and was not planned or intended
by the instructors. Chin and Kai were taking the same course but perceived the
meaningfulness of the course differently.

Teachers ’ Perceptions of Learning in Designing Education Research in Three Courses

This group of teachers spent most of their time that summer learning to write an
educational research proposal. The nine participant teachers made a lot of comments on
their experiences of learning to write a proposal in the focus groups and individual
interviews. Many of them perceived all three courses (Research Methods, Statistics, and
Computers) as connected courses to teach the teachers the discipline of “doing scientiﬁc
research.” Among of the nine participant teachers, only two teachers had experiences in
writing a research proposal in their undergraduate work. One of the two teachers was
responsible for research for his own school. The other eight teachers did not currently
have any research duties in their schools. Yet some of the teachers still appreciated
learning this knowledge. Some of them viewed these three courses as opportunities to
learn the meanings of signs used in research reports. What does “valid sampling size”
mean? Or, what does “estimate of standardized error” mean? Some of them were not
focusing on the disciplinary knowledge, but shiﬁed to reﬂect on areas other than the
taught discipline. In the following section, I brieﬂy describe how the three courses were
taught and I present the differences of the nine teachers’ perceptions of learning in these
three courses.

Research Method course. The Research Methods course was the ﬁrst course to

be taught that summer. It was co-taught by two male instructors. The total hours of

137

classroom instruction were 32 hours over 4 weeks. The class usually met from 8 o’clock
to 12 o’clock in the morning. The major task required was for teachers to write an
educational research proposal for their own teaching practice. Every four teachers formed
a research group to write a research proposal. In addition to the task of research
proposals, each group of teachers needed to write a critique responding one of other
groups’ written proposal. Both the research proposals and critiques needed to be written
in texts and to be presented orally during the last two meetings of the class. All the
courses objectives, agenda, and required assignments were introduced by the instructors
in the ﬁrst meeting of the class. Then, one instructor gave structured lectures about how
to write a research proposal. These issues included major concepts of research
methodology, such as validity, assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research, and
uses of statistical analysis in educational data. The instructor also taught the group of
teachers how to learn to write a good research proposal by reading published research
papers or unpublished research proposals. The other instructor led discussion sections to
help the teachers learn to read and criticize examples of published papers and
unpublished proposals. The topics of the given examples were mainly about innovation
of educational techniques or school counseling treatments. Most of them were
experimental or quasi-experimental research, taking quantitative approaches to analyze
collected data and to represent results. The instructors also taught the formats of writing a
research proposal with APA (American Psychology Association) formats. The instructors
suggested the teachers read three textbooks about social science research methods but
they did not use any book in the classroom instruction. All of their lectures were based on

the instructors’ notebooks. The instructors wrote points on the chalkboard during every

138

class and the teachers took notes. The instructors told the teachers that they could discuss
their proposals with the two instructors after class. Teachers worked on their proposals
for about two and half weeks and then submitted draft proposals to the instructors and to
their peers who were responsible for making a critique. In the fourth week of class, group
representatives gave oral reports to the class. A group of peers gave an oral critique after
every presentation. The two instructors followed, giving suggestions for revisions to the
proposals. The teachers then had about one week to revise their proposals and submit
them to the instructors. The teachers were graded based on the two written documents:
the research proposal and their critique of one of other groups’ proposals. The instructors
encouraged the teachers to collect data for their proposals after they returned to their
schools, and to bring their collected data next summer (the teachers’ fourth summer in the
program) to use in writing their research report.

Statistics course. The Statistics course was the second course to be taught in that
summer. One male instructor taught it. Like the Research Methods course, the Statistics
course had 32 hours of total of classroom instruction. The class met every week for 6
weeks. The class met from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock in the afternoon. There was one mid
term and one ﬁnal exam. Both were take-home exams. The instructor also gave practice
questions every week. The teachers needed to answer those questions and submit them to
the instructor at the beginning of the next class meeting. All the exams and practice
questions contributed to the ﬁnal grade. The instructor sometimes asked the teachers to
answer questions in class. He explained all the requirements during the ﬁrst meeting. He
assigned a statistics textbook written in Chinese. Each teacher chose a topic listed in that

book. Teachers who chose the same topic formed a group to study together, and one of

139

the group members needed to teach the class in the ﬁrst half of each meeting (about two
hours). The instructor gave a lecture in the second half of the meeting by either reviewing
materials or adding new materials. The instructor told the class that he used to teach
statistics by giving structured lectures. He said he would like to try new teaching and
learning methods this summer because some of his colleagues suggested to him that
teachers, as mature adult learners, could learn better from peers. There were three
students who were preparing to take entrance exams for a masters program who sat in on
this course because they learned from graduate students that the instructor was very
knowledgeable in statistics. Two of the three students decided in the third not to stay,
however, since they felt they were not learning from the teachers’ reports.

The teachers started giving oral reports in the second week, and ended at the sixth
week. The statistics topics covered in this course included basic concepts of descriptive
statistics, such as categories of measures, sampling, central measures, variances, normal
distributions, and some statistical testing, like Z test, t test, Chi square test, proportional
variable testing, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and linear regression.

Computers course. The Computers course was the fourth course to be taught. One
male instructor taught the course. There were 32 total course hours. The class met in the
ﬁrst 5 weeks of that summer from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock in the afternoon. The teachers
were required to complete one take-home assignment and one take-home ﬁnal exam. The
course goals were to use Excel and SPSS/PC in statistical analysis. The instructor ﬁrst
demonstrated the use of the computer programs in front of the class. Then he gave time to

the teachers to practice in the computer labs. He assigned two computer user books: one

140

was for Excel, and the other for SPSS. He used examples of the books for demonstration
and for the teachers’ practice.

The instructor intended to teach the software to the group of teachers to prepare
them for doing statistical analysis after they collected research data. He reviewed some
statistical concepts before he taught them how to use the computer software. Some
teachers talked to him during the break of the second class meeting and told him that they
found it difﬁcult to learn of statistics from peers’ reports. The instructor of the computer
course taught some related statistical concepts before he demonstrated the Excel
procedures. Issues of statistics covered in this course included descriptive statistics and
inferential statistics. Statistics testing included t test, one-way analysis of variance, two-
way analysis of variance, correlation, regression, and Chi square test. Because of
licensing problems, the instructor did not teach the SPSS/PC program for windows.
Instead, he taught the DOS version. He spent most of the time teaching teachers how to
write commands in the DOS version of SPSS.

Ding was the only one of the nine participant teachers, in charge of doing research
in school. He had experience doing research in psychological experiments in
undergraduate work. He also was the only teacher who highly valued all three courses in
the Course Valuing Inventory, CV(Research methods)= 4.67, CV(Statistics)= 4.00,
CV(Computer)= 4.78 (see Table 4.4). He told me in the individual interview that he
appreciated learning any new things. Although he used to do research in college, he was
not sure whether he was doing it correctly when he was responsible for doing research at
his school. The Research Methods, Statistics, and Computer courses helped him learn key

criteria for good research. He was satisﬁed with the learned contents of the three courses.

141

Ding found the learning in the three courses meaningful because of the new contents that
were related to his work at school.

Like Ding, Ming found his learning experience in the three courses meaningful:
CV(Research methods)= 4.67, CV(Statistics)= 4.00, CV(Computer)=v4.78 (see Table
4.4). Ming’s comments were, however, not only about his grth on the taught
disciplinary knowledge. He was concerned about his self-grth when he was learning.
He was looking for alternative ways of drinking and he found some in these courses,
although he was struggling with the statistics course.

Hong’s perceptions of the three courses were the complete opposite of Ding’s and
Ming’s. She did not value her experience in the three courses: CV(Research methods)=
2.67, CV(Statistics)= 1.78, CV(Computer)= 3.11 (see Table 4.4). She explained in both
the individual interview and the ﬁfth focus group interview, her negative feelings to the
three courses. She did not ﬁnd them relevant to her current work. She was not in the
summer program to learn knowledge for its own sake.

Like Hong, Chin did not ﬁnd the three courses meaningful in general. She also
emphasized that she did not need to do research in school, so the taught knowledge and
skills about research were of low value to her. Differing from Hong, Chin had strongly
negative feelings about the Statistics course because she complained that she was
completely lost in the course. She talked in the ﬁfth group interview that she was willing
to learn statistics at the beginning even though she did not have research duties in school.
She still would like to learn because she never had the chance to learn statistics in
college. She wanted to take this opportunity to learn the concept of statistics.

Unfortunately, she did not understand the peers’ reports or the instructor’s. Chin,

142

however, pointed out some learning events that she found meaningful in the Research
Methods course. For example, she was inspired to reﬂect on the issue of gender
differences by listening to that instructor’s lecture. She was also happy at learning ways
to teach inductive/deductive methods to her own students after watching that instructor’s
modeling on that issue. Of particular note were both comments referring to her growth on
serendipitous knowledge that was not intended by the instructor of the Research Methods
course.

Like Hong and Chin, Yang did not ﬁnd statistics meaningful: CV(Statistics)=
1.44. In the third group interview, she commented on the instructional methods of the
course. She argued that learners should not teach the discipline of statistics because the
learners themselves did not really grasp the meanings of the statistical concepts and
theories. They could only read aloud from the textbooks when they were asked to teach
the whole class. She thought that the instructor should give an organized introductory
lecture at the beginning. Yang also told me that she did not learn anything in that course.
She just copied peers’ answers for the course weekly assignments and exams. Unlike
Hong and Chin, Yang found the Research Methods course very meaningful:
CV(Research Methods)= 4.67. She valued the course learning because she gained
knowledge about how to read research reports critically. She also found the learning
process meaningful because the instructor was a paragon of education with a wonderful
attitude and terriﬁc teaching skills.

F ang’s perceptions of the three courses were similar to Yang’s in the Course
Valuing Inventory: CV(Research Method)= 4.22, CL(statistics)= 2.44, CL(Computers)=

3.11 (see Table 4.4). Fang appreciated learning about the discipline of research methods.

143

She also appreciated the learning process in the Research Methods course because of the
instructor’s personality and peers’ learning climates. She enjoyed the Statistics course
because of that instructor’s humor and knowledge, but she hesitated to answer me when I
asked her whether or not she wanted to experience that kind of learning again.

Kai’s perceptions of the three courses were similar to Fang’s in the Course
Valuing Inventory: CV(Research Method)= 4.11, CL(Statistics)= 3.00, CL(Computers)=
3.56 (see Table 4.4). Of particular note were her comments on meaningful learning about
her growth in serendipitous knowledge. For example, she reﬂected on her teaching when
she read a research report on leamers’ motivation in the Research Methods course. The
instructors of that course used that report to teach the teachers how to read research
reports critically and to learn to design a good research project. Motivational theories
were not the focus of that course. Kai was the only participant teacher who insisted on the
value of the Statistics course in the ﬁfth group interview. She argued that she found the
Statistics course “strongly” meaningful because she gained an understanding of her
students’ frustration in learning some school subjects after she struggled in the course
herself.

Tong only took the Research Methods course and the Computers course. She
found the Research Methods course very meaningful: CV(Research Methods)= 4.78. And
she had moderate positive feelings about the Computers course: CV(Computers)= 3.22
(see Table 4.4). Tong found both courses meaningful because she gained grth in the
taught disciplinary knowledge and gained new understanding of her self. She struggled
with the computer software, however. In the ﬁfth focus group interview, she emphasized

that she was satisﬁed with knowing her own self better after striving to learn Excel on a

144

weekend at a friend’s home and she conquered her computer phobia. From that point of
view, she thought that was a meaningful learning experience because she knew better
about her self and she also learned computer skills. It was not a meaningful experience
for her, however, if she considered that the course instruction failed to support her
learning in class (so that she needed to ask help of a ﬁiend and to learn Excel in her
friend’s home).

Like Ding, Pong was one of the two participant teachers who had prior experience
doing research in college. She valued her learning in the Research Methods course:
CV(Research Methods)= 4.56. And she valued her learning in the computer course:
CV(Computers)= 3.33 (see Table 4.4). This was because of her grth in the taught
disciplinary knowledge. She was satisﬁed with completing a research proposal and
gaining better knowledge of each step of designing an educational research project. She
also claimed that the experience of writing a research proposal changed her thinking
habits, training her to think in a careful manner. She was not frustrated at her learning in
the Statistics course: CV(Statistics)= 2.11 (see Table 4.4). In the third group interview,
she talked about her frustrations in learning to use hand held calculators to compute
statistics. She emphasized that she admired the instructor’s knowledge. She was not
disappointed at the instructor’s attitude. He did not try to help her when she asked about
how to use different types of calculators to compute the same statistics.

The nine teachers shared the same instructional resources and learning activities
in the three courses. They differed in ﬁnding learning meaningful or meaningless.
Differences of teachers’ perceptions were shown on the areas of growth (taught

disciplinary knowledge, serendipitous knowledge, and self-knowledge). Differences in

145

the teachers’ perceptions were also shown in the teachers’ emphasis on the content that
they desired to learn.
Summary of Findings of this Research

Experienced teachers found three kinds of learning meaningful: (a) learning that
resulted in teachers’ intellectual growth; (b) learning in which instructors were
impressive and made the process joyﬁrl; and (c) learning in which peers were supportive
of each other in the process of learning. Teachers varied in the ways they found learning
meaningful. Some teachers found learning meaningful only when the learning experience
contributed to their growth. Other teachers found learning meaningful either when that
learning led to grth or when they found the course instructors impressive during the
process of learning. Still other teachers found all the three kinds of learning meaningful:
growth, instructors, and peers.

Grth was the major issue within which teachers discussed what made learning
meaningful. Within growth, perspectives on meaningfulness were complex across and
within teachers; teachers possessed multiple perspectives on what makes learning
meaningful.

A three-layer model can illustrate the complexity of the growth issue. Layer one
refers to teachers’ grth in disciplinary knowledge that was taught by instructors,
serendipitous knowledge that was not intended in class instruction, and knowledge about
the teachers’ self. Teachers held in common, however, the view that they would like to
continue to learn when they found that the taught disciplinary knowledge was learned
well. Layer two refers to teachers’ preference of types of knowledge. The results showed

that teachers had no preference of procedural knowledge over conceptual knowledge.

146

g /_.

Layer three refers to the teachers’ emphasis on the desire to obtain a particular body of
knowledge.

There seem to be patterns representing teachers’ perspectives on meaningful
learning. The combinations of the three identiﬁed characteristics of meaningful learning
were not random. Growth existed alone; instructors and peers did not. Growth grouped
with instructor or with peers; instructors and peers did not chain together. To some
teachers, the only characteristic of meaningful learning was their intellectual growth as a
learning outcome. To other teachers, the meaningfulness of learning can be perceived
when they ﬁnd themselves appreciating both the learning outcomes and the learning
processes of studying with the instructors and peers.

No clear patterns of meaningfulness depending on the learning situations
emerged. One point worth noting, however, is that the growth of taught disciplinary
knowledge was particularly salient for teachers when they recalled their learning in the
continuing education settings. The characteristic of growth on taught disciplinary
knowledge (G-TDK) was identiﬁed by some of teachers in their perceptions of every
course.

The nine teachers did vary in ﬁnding meaningfulness in the same courses. The
differences of teachers’ perception of meaningfulness in the same instructional situations
were shown on the teachers’ responses on the Course Valuing Inventory. Teachers,
however, varied in their perceptions less in the courses that they highly valued than in
those that they did not. In focus group interviews, teachers often seconded their peers’
comments on the ﬁve courses. That is, there was only one debate between teachers about

whether one particular learning event was meaningful or meaningless. Teachers,

147

however, differed in ﬁnding learning meaningfulness in the same courses. The
differences of their perceptions were shown on the areas of growth (taught disciplinary
knowledge, serendipitous knowledge, and self-knowledge). Differences in teachers’
perceptions were also shown in the teachers’ emphasis on the content that they desired to

learn.

148

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

In this chapter, I conclude with a discussion of what has been learned about the
characteristics of meaningful learning from the experienced teachers, suggestions for
further research on teachers’ development of attitudes toward lifelong learning, and a
discussion of the implications for the continuing education of teachers.

Characteristics of Meaningful Learning

What kinds of learning do experienced teachers ﬁnd meaningful—appreciate,
believe to be worthwhile, want to experience again, and ﬁnd supportive in becoming
willing to commit to learning seriously? The nine experienced teachers taught me that
they valued inservice learning experiences that lad to their growth in taught disciplinary
knowledge, self, or serendipitous knowledge as a result of the learning endeavor.
Growth on Well Taught Disciplinary Knowledge: The Prime Value of Learning

Teachers highlighted their appreciation of learning new disciplinary knowledge or
clarifying their prior confusion about ideas within the discipline. This perspective is
similar to Gestalt psychologists’ and cognitive psychologists’ deﬁnitions of meaningful
learning in terms 0 “eyes are opened” (W ertheimer in Katona, 1940), “understanding of
a procedure” (Katona, 1940), or “acquisition of new meanings” (Ausubel, 1968). This
perspective has also been claimed by other practicing teachers, for example, “renewing
thinking” (Day, 1993), “broadening horizons” (Day, 1993), and “having deeper insights”
(Davies, 1993). Growth on the taught disciplinary knowledge is a salient criterion that is

used by teachers and researchers to determine the degree of meaningfulness of learning.

149

 

 

“Gaining new understanding” seems to be a more important value of inservice learning
from experienced teachers’ perspectives compared to acquisition of practical information.

Of particular note were teachers who claimed to experience meaningful learning
when instructors helped them learn taught disciplinary knowledge well. Teachers
responded dramatically to the instructors who taught well. They pointed out the strengths
of instruction, such as giving good examples, having organized lectures, modeling
thoughts and skills in front of students, and knowing students’ current knowledge.
Teachers attributed their growth in taught disciplinary knowledge primarily to the
instructors’ teaching. In contrast, teachers felt that some instructors did not understand
their current knowledge and failed to help them to learn the disciplinary knowledge.

Teachers seemed to watch the instructors and were even skillful in evaluating
their own learning experiences by analyzing instructors’ teaching. This ﬁnding led me to
understand that teachers’ primary concern in learning is not merely what they have
learned about the taught disciplinary knowledge but whether or not that knowledge is
well taught by the instructors. It implies that learning which teachers value is determined
not merely by what they have learned about the taught disciplines, but also by the quality
of the instruction.

That teachers frequently commented on instructors’ teaching strategies also
implies that experienced teachers had formed quite rigid “scripts” about good teaching to
support successful learning.

Serendipitous Knowledge and Self Growth
In addition to the grth on the taught disciplinary knowledge, the participant

teachers also claimed that some learning experiences were meaningful because they

150

resulted in self-growth. The teachers appreciated that owing to this learning they had
chances to explore their inner worlds or to ﬁnd new ways to direct their own living. This
is similar to the humanist psychologists’ emphasis on the issue of change of personality
in deﬁning signiﬁcant learning (Rogers, 1960) and on the issue of re-deﬁning aspects of
self (Brookﬁeld, 1987). Other practicing teachers also reported that they reassessed self
and found that learning experience meaningful (Davies, 1993). Compared to the growth
on taught disciplinary knowledge, the value of grth on self is less addressed by
researchers but it seems to be an important criterion for practicing teachers to determine
the meaningfulness of learning. This ﬁnding led me to be aware of the issue about the
ultimate ends of teachers’ learning. Is the ﬁnal goal of continuing teacher education to
help the teacher to enter the academic discourses of the disciplines on education and
psychology? Or is it to get close to the teacher’s self? Which can better help practicing
teachers to become lifelong learners?

Comparing teachers’ comments on their self-grth knowledge or on
serendipitous knowledge with their comments on the growth in taught disciplinary
knowledge, I found that teachers afﬁrmed the values of self knowledge or serendipitous
knowledge less than the taught disciplinary knowledge. Many teachers doubted the value
of those learning experiences leading to their grth in self knowledge or serendipitous
knowledge when those learning experiences did not contribute to their growth on the
taught disciplinary knowledge. When teachers valued their grth in the taught
disciplinary knowledge, they did not bring the issue of growth in self or serendipitous

knowledge to evaluate the value of that learning experience, however.

151

Expectations, Practicality, and Usefulness

Teachers found learning meaningful by growing on taught disciplinary
knowledge, self, or serendipitous knowledge. But the value of grth in these domains
was not assured when considered with the goals teachers brought to inservice education
programs. The value of growth, even on taught disciplinary knowledge, was re-evaluated
by some of the teachers when the issue of desire was considered. “But this is not what I
want to learn,” was the most frequent complaint I heard from the participant teachers
when they added notes to those learning experiences they found “meaningful” but not
“very meaningful.” Teachers’ desire was often expressed in their statements of goals for
returning to school. Tong argued in the third focus group interview that any learning can
have meaning to learners. For example, an instructor’s words inspired her to reﬂect on
her teaching and the entire Chinese culture. These kinds of growth were tiny to her,
however, when she considered the goals that she brought to the summer program. She
expected to learn about school guidance. She wanted to know how the academic groups
with expertise on guidance had different views from her as a practitioner without formal
training in counseling and educational psychology. Her insights on Chinese culture and
teaching were, unfortunately, not meeting her major learning goals at all.

That the criterion “desiring to obtain a body of knowledge” played an important
role was evidenced by teacher’s criticizing some learning as meaningless by saying, “I
don’t need this kind of knowledge,” or “I have no opportunity to use these skills." When I
looked into the interview transcripts, however, I found that the teachers who brought up
these concerns seldom talked about the particular taught disciplinary knowledge that they

claimed to have learned. For example, Chin claimed that the knowledge about research

152

methods was not useful and she did not talk about the particular content knowledge in
both focus group interviews and individual interview. This raises the questions: Are
teachers basing their judgment of the usefulness of taught content on their understanding?
How well did these teachers get an understanding of the taught disciplinary knowledge?
Are teachers’ complaints about their learning of something that they did not desire to
learn (or something not relevant to their current life) merely covers for their failure in
getting an understanding of knowledge? Are teachers in fact having problems making
sense of the taught disciplinary knowledge that they believe they already know?
Practical knowledge is Not Equal to Procedural Knowledge

The fact that teachers emphasized practicality or usefulness also raises issues
about what teachers mean by “practical” or “useﬁrl.” I learned from this research that by
practical knowledge, teachers did not mean only techniques or procedural knowledge.
Practicing teachers have often been pictured as a group of learners wanting to learn
techniques, not valuing theories. I found this statement to be partially true. I agree that
teachers may be in favor of learning practical knowledge they can use in their current
lives. However, I would like to argue that practical knowledge can not be interpreted
simply as techniques or as procedural knowledge. In my data, I found the teachers
valuing both conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge as practical. What they
emphasize is whether or not they have oportunities to use learned knowledge. Teachers
ﬁnd learning of some procedural knowledge, such as conducting a research proposal, not
meaningful because they don’t need to conduct research in school. This ﬁnding makes us
reﬂect on the language issue. When we hear a teacher complain the taught disciplinary

knowledge is not “useful” or not “practical,” do we jump to an interpretation that the

153

teacher is asking for procedural knowledge? Maybe some teachers really believe that they
need procedural knowledge and only want to learn procedural knowledge. However, aﬁer
working with this group of teachers, I think teachers may view not only procedural
knowledge as being practical. The issue is whether they ﬁnd taught disciplinary
knowledge connected to problems they intend to solve. To teachers, gaining new
understanding of concepts is as meaningful as acquiring procedural knowledge. The key
issue is how the knowledge helps teachers open their eyes and ﬁnd alternatives to the
problems that they have.
Individual Teachers ’ Attitude Toward Knowledge and Continuing Learning

It is worth noting that not all of the teachers emphasized the issue of immediate
usefulness of learned knowledge in their current teaching or living. Some teachers
claimed that they appreciated understanding of any kinds of knowledge even though they
had not seen any opportunities to use that knowledge. “Any knowledge is useful if I
understand it. I can wait for a while although I do not know how to use it currently,”
Pong commented in the individual interview. This can be viewed as an issue about
individual differences between teachers. It also leads me to think of the issue about
teachers’ attitudes toward knowledge and continuing teacher education. Is knowledge
worthwhile because of its immediate useﬁrlness? Or, is knowledge valuable because of
its potential to further understanding? For those teachers who emphasize the issue of
desired contents, the true value of knowledge resides in the immediate usefulness in their
teaching. In contrast, teachers who welcome any kind of knowledge seem to value the
possibility of achieving ﬁrrther understanding or the “freedom of thoughts” described by

John Dewey. Does it really matter that inservice learning should be closely related to

154

teachers’ classroom work? A short answer for this question is yes and no. It depends on
the teachers’ attitude toward knowledge.
Liberal Professional Education or Technical Professional Education

This difference also reminds me of the enduring debate in teacher education
between liberal education and technical education. Teacher educators like Borrowman
(1965) have stated that teacher education should develop teachers to learn based on “a
commitment to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and not on an undue concern
for immediate practical results” (p. 11). He argued that the function of teacher education
is to develop the inquiring mind and habits, not to impart technical knowledge to
teachers. Although Borrowman’s argument was mainly about pre-service teacher
education, comments of the experienced teachers in this study also indirectly revealed the
issue. Some teachers seemed to view continuing teacher education as a place to help them
value all kinds of growth in intelligence, and not concern themselves with its immediate
usefulness. The other group of teachers seemed to view teacher education as a place to
“recharge” the demands of teaching practice.

The differences among teachers in their conceptions of knowledge and teacher
education also emerged in the ways that teachers commented on the meaningﬁrlness of
learning tasks and assessments. Some teachers criticized the research proposal writing
assignment for being neither a meaningful task nor a fair assessment. They complained
that they did not have enough knowledge and time to conduct a research proposal
meeting the criteria given by the instructors. They also brought up the difﬁculty of
working with a group of peers on such a complicated task. Again, some teachers argued

that they did not need to conduct any empirical research in school, so that kind of

155

learning task is not meaningful to them. They were not happy with the given reason to
learn to write a research proposal (it will become a policy to ask teachers to do research
in the future). On the other hand, other teachers appreciated the learning task even though
they did not need to conduct research in school. They used this opportunity to become
literate in so called scientiﬁc research and its language. Another group of teachers was
motivated to work on the task because they were responsible for conducting educational
research for their schools. Again, the issue of practicality arises. To those teachers who
are responsible for doing research in school, the value of the learning task -- writing a
well designed research proposal--is there if the needed knowledge and skills are well
taught. For those teachers who are not currently in charge of the research work in school,
policy seems to be not sufﬁcient to motivate teachers to learn to do research seriously.
Recently, researchers (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) have suggested
building community-centered environments for teachers’ learning by encouraging
teachers to do classroom-based research projects (or so called action research). The group
of participant teachers had learned to design and write a research proposal for their own
teaching in the summer program. To some degree, the summer program tried to prepare
teachers for the future demands of teaching. However, teacher educators and the
participant teachers did not communicate deeply why current teachers need to learn to do
research. The argument that skills will be needed in the future is not really convincing to
teachers, and sometimes this makes them think it is just another superﬁcial command that
does not have any relevance to their practice. The participant teachers who kept saying
that they did not need to do research in schools were actually expressing that they did not

agree with the justiﬁcation that they might need these competencies in the future. Based

156

on my observation, the instructors spent little time helping teachers to think of the
purposes of doing action research in schools. I wondered how teachers might change their
view of the function of the learning task if they had more opportunities to consider the
values of doing research. Bransford, Brown, and Cooking (1999), who promote the idea
of action research in teachers’ learning and education, have pointed out several purposes
of teachers’ doing action research:

[I]t is an important way for teachers to improve their teaching and their curricula,

and there is also an assumption that what teachers learn through this process can

be shared with others. Action research contributes to sustained teacher learning
and becomes a way for teachers to teach other teachers. It encourages teachers to
support each other’s intellectual and pedagogical growth, and it increases the
professional standing of teachers by recognizing their ability to add knowledge
about teaching. Ideally, active engagement in research on teaching and learning
also helps set the stage for understanding the implications of new theories of how

people learn. (p. 187)

For researchers, doing action research is a route for teachers to become more
autonomous in the teaching profession, to solve the problem of isolation in teachers’
work, and to develop a liberal mind with a reﬂective and critical mentality. I am not sure
how teachers will change their thinking about learning to conduct research if they are
oriented to these goals of doing research. I think, however, that helping teachers to
connect the research activities with their teaching self would create opportunities for
teachers to re-examine the values of the learning task. And more importantly, teachers
may feel that the teacher educators care about them and consider them as humans, not
just as workers.

Model Instructors Make the Learning Process Joyful

By working with the group of experienced teachers, I learned that teachers

appreciated watching an instructor with high professional knowledge, responsible

157

 

 

teaching attitudes, and a charming character. They admired the instructor’s commitment
to scholarly work and to teaching. This characteristic was not documented in previous
literature. I used to struggle with this characteristic. I did not know why teachers talked
about the instructor’s personality when they pointed to some learning experiences as
meaningful. After I considered this as a characteristic of learning processes that teachers
appreciate, I realized why it is a criterion for teachers to evaluate learning experiences.
Teachers, like other groups of learners, want to have a joyﬁrl learning process, and the
instructors contribute the most to that joy. It is worth noting that the joy is not merely
from humor but also from the instructor’s commitment to his or her work. The instructor
is seen as seriously building expertise in disciplines and responsibly teaching teachers.
Teachers seem to develop a more positive attitude toward learning and serious inquiry by
learning from these kinds of instructors and would like to continue to learn. There is a
Chinese saying that, “Modeling in person is better than lecturing in words.” I am not
completely sure whether this is a unique characteristic of meaningful learning common to
Taiwanese practicing teachers or merely my personal projections. However, I found this
issue worthy of ﬁrrther examination.
Implications for Future Research

Doing this research, I learned that teachers were capable of ﬁnding
meaningfulness in learning in terms of the values of learning outcomes or learning
processes. Teachers actively construct the meanings of learning when they are engaged in
learning activities. Among those meanings, however, teachers value some more than
others. When I consider the issue of meaningfulness with teachers’ lifelong learning

attitudes, I realized that not every “meaningful learning experience” encourages teachers’

158

 

 

 

desire to learn more of the disciplinary knowledge, makes them become more willing to
continue learning, more willing to take challenging learning tasks, and willing to commit
to learning seriously. This research sought to understand the kinds of learning teachers
found meaningful and I learned that we need to ﬁnd out what kinds of meaningful
learning foster teachers’ willingness to continue to take challenging learning tasks and to
be capable of conquering those challenges.

When I re-read the deﬁnition of meaningful learning that I presented to the
participant teachers, I understood why teachers selected unexpected features of learning
events such as, instructors who are humorous or instructors who are responsible. Those
learning events did not make sense when related to my deﬁnition of meaningful as
“believe to be worthwhile”. However, they made sense when I thought this way: “I
appreciate Professor Wang’s humor.” Or, “I appreciate Professor Jone’s responsibility.”
I realized that my deﬁnition was the cause of problem. “Believe to be worthwhile,”
seemed to be related to any type of competency growth and self-growth. “Want to
experience again” is related to desired contents and instructional quality. “Find
supportive in becoming willing to commit to learning seriously” is not clear. Sometimes I
checked, for example, by asking teachers “Did you want to experience this again?” Most
of time I just used the term “meaningﬁrl,” I did not check which parts teachers selected to
recognize as a meaningful learning experience. In order to make sure what kinds of
learning experiences might lead teachers to continue to participate in teacher education, I
suggest further research on this aspect of meaningful learning.

I also found that it is important to establish a long-term relationship with the

participant teachers to better understand their feelings and perspectives on inservice

159

learning. I found that teachers became more open to me and willing to share their
thoughts with me. However, I felt overloaded by doing the ﬁeldwork alone. I did not
have time and energy enough to carefully analyze teachers’ words and my ﬁeldnotes. If I
have the chance to work with teachers again, I would ﬁnd a team of at least two more
researchers, to work together on the ﬁeldwork.

The technique of focus group interviews helped me to develop conversations with
the group of teachers. I found that teachers became easier to talk within the group. I
found the group size is crucial, however. My group had nine participant teachers—too
many. Some of the teachers had little much chance to talk. in-group. I would try to make
six members a group as Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996) suggested if I have
another chance to run focus group interviews.

I also learned that individual interviews are needed no matter how many focus
group interviews had been done. Teachers talked more deeply in individual interview
than in the group interviews. They either clariﬁed the comments that they had made in-
group interviews or extended their points with more complete references to their personal
beliefs, concerns, and experiences. And again, I think individual interviews would be
better run by a team, not a single researcher.

This research began with a focus on understanding teachers’ perceptions of
learning experiences and resulted in a description of teachers’ values toward inservice
learning. In order to understand the impact of learning experiences on teachers’ learning
attitude, researchers next need to establish a system for measuring teachers’ attitudes
toward learning. With the instruments, researchers can further to investigate the role of

teachers’ learning experiences in the formation of teachers’ attitude toward lifelong

160

 

 

 

 

learning. Researchers also can start to compare teacher educational programs that are
consistent with practicing teachers’ perspectives on meaningful learning to those
programs that are not consistent with teachers’ values to see how teachers differ in their
attitudes toward future learning.
Implications for Teacher Education

Reﬂecting on the research ﬁndings, 1 found that teacher educators can design and
deliver continuing teacher education consistent with teachers’ perspectives on
meaningfulness of learning. I also found that teacher educators can create opportunities
for teachers to rethink their existing ideas about knowledge and learning within the
context of meaningfulness in an age that requires teachers to be lifelong learners.
Being Consistent with Teachers ’ Perspectives

The results showed that experienced teachers’ emphasis on their growth in the
taught disciplinary knowledge was the prime value of continuing professional learning in
the formal learning setting. With this ﬁnding, teacher educators need to show that thy are
prepared to explain themselves clearly to the teachers about the taught disciplines.
Teacher educators need to show teachers that they have organized perspectives on the
disciplines that they are teaching. The instructors should say what they mean and commit
to their jobs. Otherwise, teachers may direct themselves away the taught disciplinary
knowledge.

The challenge to the teacher educators is how to demonstrate their expertise in
disciplinary knowledge as well as be able to help teachers learn the disciplines. Teachers

appreciated a good example of concepts or theories. Teacher educators, however, need to

161

 

 

be careful choosing and presenting examples to teachers. Many teachers began thinking
of areas other than the taught discipline knowledge because of the examples.

Teachers admired the instructors who were committed to disciplinary knowledge.
Teacher educators were expected by the teachers to show how to get a better
understanding of the problem. A surface introduction to knowledge can not encourage
teachers. Teacher educators have to throw themselves into the problem that teachers are
concerned about and strive to get a better understanding and a solution. Saying that this is
a new technique, or the principle is so and so, is not enough. Teachers wanted to witness
the educator’s expertise in disciplines. I found that teachers’ attitude toward lifelong
learning may be inﬂuenced by meeting instructors who love knowledge and love to work
with their colleagues.

Creating Opportunities for Teachers to Re-consider their Current Beliefs on Learning

Growth in serendipitous knowledge is the only characteristic that did not appear
in the literature about meaningful learning. Doing this research, I found that teachers
could actively develop serendipitous knowledge, especially knowledge about teaching,
when they do not learn taught disciplines well. This is a dilemma. From the views of
teacher educators, I was happy that teachers gained a new understanding of teaching
when they were learning in continuing teacher education programs. However, teachers
seemed to stop learning the taught disciplines more deeply. The worst situation would be
that teachers would not try to learn those disciplines. I am concerned that when teachers’
shift to the knowledge other than the taught disciplinary knowledge it may hinder their

lifelong learning attitude. One important issue is how teacher educators can help teachers

162

come back to learning the taught disciplinary knowledge from the serendipitous
knowledge.

Continuous communication with teachers about the nature of knowledge and
educational practice is needed. Teachers valued the learning experiences in which they
were understood and helped by the instructors. Teachers are very skillful in examining
learning and teaching situations. They are able to provide good suggestions for better
learning and teaching but many of them chose not to talk to instructors directly. It many
be part of the Chinese culture. But, it is worthwhile for teacher educators to try to
establish a more explicit form of communication with teachers about inservice education.
I found that the focus group interviews created an environment for both teachers and
researcher to focus on the teachers’ current learning. Teacher educators and teachers may
use it for mutual understanding.

More importantly, it can create opportunities for teachers and teacher educators to
rethink their conceptions of learning within the contexts of becoming lifelong learners.

In the research, teachers did not view doing research as a possible way to develop their
professional competencies, or as a way to become autonomous in teaching and some of
them were not able to take advantages of the learning opportunities. Teacher educators

can help teachers to re-deﬁne the value of action research to a practicing teacher in a

constantly changing society.

163

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

EXPERIENCED TEACHERS’ LEARNING SURVEY

EXPERIENCED TEACHER'S LEARNING SURVEY
Cheng-hui Chen
Michigan State University

Please try to write the responses, which are most like your own feelings, experiences, and
opinions. All your responses to questions of this survey are very important in helping me

to understand experienced teachers' learning.

I appreciate the time you spend answering questions asked in this survey and I value the

answers you give. All the responses you give are strictly conﬁdential.

Please complete and return this survey to the researcher. Thanks.

164

Please answer each question. ID:

 

 

Part I. About you:

1. Gender: Male__ ; F emale_ .

2. Age: years old.

3. Highest degree earned: 3-year Vocational school_;
5-year Vocational school_;
5-year Teacher training school_ ;
University___ ;

Master__ ; Doctorate_ ; Other

4. Maj or:

5. Years of experience as a teacher: years.

 

Part I]. About your school:

6. Type of School teaching now: Elementary school __; Middle school__;
High school_; 3-year Vocational school_;
5-year Vocational school_; University__;
Other

 

7. School location: Urban ; Suburban ; Small town ; Rural

 

Fishing village ; Mountain ; Other

 

Part III. About your teaching:

 

 

 

8. Current teaching position: Subject teacher—(Subject );
(Can choose more than one) School counselor__; Special education teacher __;
Director of Program—(Program );
Chief of Department—(Department );
Principle_; Others

 

9. Subjects of teaching now:

 

10. Size of class:

 

11. Students’ ages: years old.

 

165

12. This checklist is designed to explore what teachers are concerned about their
teachingThere are no right or wrong answers. Please choose appropriate responses
according to your own concerns.

We would consider you to be “concerned” about a thing if you think tabout it
frequently and would like to do something about it personal_lv. You are not concerned
about a thing simply because you believe it is important—if it seldom crosses your mind,
or you are satisﬁed with the current state of affairs, do not say you are concerned about it.
You may be concerned about problems, but you may also be concerned about
opportunities which could be realized. You may be concerned about things you are not
currently dealing with, but only if you anticipate dealing with them, frequently think
about them from this point of view and would like to do something about it.

Read each statement, then ask yourself;
WHEN 1 WORK IN MY SCHOOL, HOW MUCH AM I CONCERNED ABOUT THIS?
1 Not concerned
2 A little concerned
3 Moderately concerned
4 Very concerned
5 Extremely Concerned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of instructional materials 1 2 3 4 5
Feeling under gessure too much of the time 1 2 3 4 5
Doing well when a supervisor is present 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting the needs of different kinds of students 1 2 3 4 5
Too many non-instructional duties 1 2 3 4 5
Diagnosing student learning problems 1 2 3 4 5
Feeling whether more adequate as a teacher 1 2 3 4 5
Understanding current educational policies 1 2 3 4 5
Becoming too personal involved with students’ learning

and problems 1 2 3 4 5
Challenging unmotivated students 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

166

 

Read each statement, then ask yourself;

WHEN I WORK IN MY SCHOOL, HOW MUCH AM I CONCERNED ABOUT THIS?

1 Not concerned

2 A little concerned

3 Moderately concerned
4 Very concerned

5 Extremely Concerned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being accepted and respected by professional persons 2 3 4 5
Working with too many students each day 2 3 4 5
Guiding students toward intellectual and emotional growth 2 3 4 5
Whether each student is getting what he needs 2 3 4 5
Getting a favorable evaluation of my teaching 2 3 4 5
The routine and inﬂexibility of the teaching situation 2 3 4 5
Maintaining the appropriate degree of class control 2 3 4 5
Whether students respect me 2 3 4 5
Increasing students' feelings of accomglishment 2 3 4 5
Recognizing the social and emotional needs of students 2 3 4 5
Too many standards and regulations set for teachers 2 3 4 5
Helping students to value learning 2 3 4 5
Adapting myself to the needs of different students 2 3 4 5
Understanding ways in which student health and nutrition

inﬂuence their learning 2 3 4 5
Understanding the psychological and cultural differences that

underlying students who come from different background 2 3 4 5
Insuring that students ggagp sub'Lect matter fundamentals 2 3 4 5
Rapid rate of curriculum and instructional change 2 3 4 5
Lack of public support for schools resulting in inadequate

instructional resources 2 3 4 5
Understanding why certain students make slow progress 2 3 4 5
Working productively with other teachers 2 3 4 5

 

167

 

Read each statement, then ask yourself;

WHEN 1 WORK IN MY SCHOOL, HOW MUCH AM I CONCERNED ABOUT THIS?

1 Not concerned

2 A little concerned

3 Moderately concerned
4 Very concerned

5 Extremely Concerned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students who disrupt class 2 3 4 5
Teaching required content to students of varied background 2 3 4 5
Selecting and teaching contents well 2 3 4 5
Improving testing and grading procedures 2 3 4 5
Whether I wish to remain in teaching 2 3 4 5
Increasing my proﬁciency in content 2 3 4 5
Whether students can applehat they learn 2 3 4 5
Whether each student is reaching his or her maximum

potential 2 3 4 5
Whether students are learning what they should 2 3 4 5
Seeking alternative ways to ensure students learn subject 2 3 4 5
Instilling worthwhile concepts and values 2 3 4 5
The nature and quality of instructional materials 2 3 4 5
Understanding what factors motivate students to study 2 3 4 5
Having too many students in a class 2 3 4 5
The mandated curriculum is not appropriate for all students 2 3 4 5
Not being able to cope with troublemakers 2 3 4 5
Lack of opportunity for professional guidance and growth 2 3 4 5
Not having sufﬁcient time to think and plan 2 3 4 5
Clarifying the limits of my authority and responsibility 2 3 4 5

 

13. What do you ﬁnd recently that you need most for your current teaching?

168

Part IV. About your learning experience:

In your life, you have experienced learning in many different settings, for example, at
home, in school, in museum, in your work, etc. You might ﬁnd yourself bored, conﬁrsed,
or frustrated in some learning experience, while in other situations, you appreciated your
learning and found it meaningful. Think of some learning experiences you found
meaningful and respond to the next two questions.

14. Describe that learning experience(s) brieﬂy.
15. Why was that learning meaningful for you?

As an experienced teacher, you have probably participate in a variety of in-service
learning activities, for example, attending a workshop in a teacher training institute,
taking courses in a university, attending a speech in conference, or observing colleagues’
teaching in your own school.

16. In what condition will you participate in in-service training or educational programs
voluntarily?

17. Are you currently participating in in-service learning activities? Yes_; No—

18. Ifyes, please describe what kind of activities you are participating in?

Whether or not you are currently participating in in-service learning activities, think of
some in-service learning that you found particularly meaningful and respond to the next
two questions.

19. Describe that in-service learning experience(s) brieﬂy.
20. Why was that learning meaningful to you?

Becoming an experienced teacher, you have had many experiences of taking courses in
university, for example, your undergraduate program, teacher preparation program or in-
service programs. Think of some of that learning that you found particularly meaningful
and respond to the next two questions.

21. Describe that learning experience(s) brieﬂy.
22. Why was that learning meaningful to you?

169

23. Here is a list of courses. Mark those courses which you have taken in the summer
program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seminar in Educational Seminar in Social

Psychology Psychology

Seminar in Theories of Seminar in Instructional

Personality Psychology

Application of Classroom Management

Psychological Testing

Seminar in Theories of Seminar in Psychology

Counseling of Motivation

Seminar in School Seminar in Cognitive

Guidance Development and
Guidance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think of some of your experiences in taking those courses which you found meaningful
and respond to the next two questions.

24. Describe that course(s) learning experience(s) brieﬂy.
25. Why was that course learning meaningful to you?

170

 

26. Read each subject, then ask yourself:

HOW MUCH DO I KNOW ABOUT THIS SUBJECT?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 None

2 Very Little

3 Some

4 Quite A Lot

5 Very Much
Technique and Practice of Counseling 1 2 3 4
Cognitive Development and Guidance l 2 3 4
Instructional Measurement 1 2 3 4
Methodology of Behavior Science 1 2 3 4
Computer Use in Education 1 2 3 4
Stress Management 1 2 3 4
Theories of Counseling 1 2 3 4
School Guidance 1 2 3 4
Social Psychology 1 2 3 4
Instructional Psychology 1 2 3 4
Statistics of Education 1 2 3 4
Classroom Management 1 2 3 4
Psychology of Motivation 1 2 3 4
Career Planning and Guidance 1 2 3 4

 

 

27. Please use this page to write down your comments on this survey. Thanks.

171

 

APPENDIX B

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE

Course :

INTRODUCTION
Motivation

Objectives
Advance organizer
Review Prerequisites

Agenda

Date:

 

 

INSTRUCTION
Explanation

Demonstration
Practice

Feedback

 

CONCLUSION

Summary of main ideas
Integration with other segments
Revisit Objectives

Motivation

Tests

 

DELIVERY

Environment
Structure environment
Arrange materials
Greet audience

Delivers Verbally
Speaks understandably
Paces speech
Express self

Delivers Nonverbally
Relates to audience
Shows expression
Use materials

 

172

 

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE (Continued)

Course: Date:

 

 

FORMS OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
In-class expository lesson activities

1. Pairs 2. Response cards 3. Jigsaw technique 4. Tutorial in a lecture

5. Puzzles 6. Games 7. Practice of skill or knowledge 8. Role play

9. Constructive problem solving 10. Whips 11. Free writing

Discussion activities used for in-class expository lesson by content

1. Debrieﬁng 2. Creative problem solving 3. Problem based learning 4. Case studies

By scope

1. Whole group major discussion 2. Whole group short discussion
3. Small group discussion 4. Fishbowl 5. Panel 6. Survey

Out-Class Activities

1. Homework assignment 2. Projects 3. Field trips 4. Guests 5. Shadowing

 

LEARNING RESOURCE AVAILABLE

 

SIGNIFICANT LEARNING EVENTS

173

 

APPENDIX C

FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDING QUESTIONS

 

FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. In general, do you think your learning in this summer program meaningful?
-appreci ate?
-believe to be worthwhile?
-want to experience again?
-ﬁnd supportive in becoming willing to commit to learning seriously?
Why? Or Why Not?
2. What course(s) do you ﬁnd meaningful?
Why?
3. Which parts of instruction of this course made you feel your learning meaningful?
Why?
4. What particular learning events (Signiﬁcant Learning events) did you ﬁnd meaningful?

Why?

5. Any person having different perceptions on the mentioned events?

174

 

 

APPENDIX D

COURSE VALUING INVENTORY

COURSE VALUING MENTORY

You have just taken the course in the summer

 

program.

Please choose appropriate responses according to your experiences of learning in this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

course.

1 Totally Disagree

2 Partly Disagree

3 Not Sure

4 Partly Agree

5 Totally Agree
This course was a very valuable learning experience for me 1 2 3 4 5
This learning experience helped me to become more aware of my 1 2 3 4 5
own feelings and reactions
I consider this learning experience as time and effort very well spent 1 2 3 4 5
This course had no impact on my personal growth 1 2 3 4 5
The course helped me to acquire important basic knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
This course had no impact on the ways in which I communicate 1 2 3 4 5
Increasing my proﬁcierE in content 1 2 3 4 5
I can now relate to the subject matter of the course from a wider l 2 3 4 5
perspective
In this course I had not developed my own learning goals 1 2 3 4 5
Somehow I worked harder in this course than I usually do 1 2 3 4 5
This was not a meaningful learning experience 1 2 3 4 5
I did not gain much information in this course 1 2 3 4 5
This experience helped me to realize this importance of my own 1 2 3 4 5
feelings
I did not gain much information in this course 1 2 3 4 5
This course was useful in helping me develop new ways of learning 1 4
I feel more perceptive of others now, and more sensitive to their 1 2 4
needs
I am now better able to conceptualize problems presented in the 1 2 3 4 5
course
Somehow I was more open and sharing 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

175

 

 

COURSE VALUING INVENTORY (Continued)

You have just taken the course in the summer
program.

 

Please choose appropriate responses according to your experiences of learning in this
course.
1 Totally Disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Partly Disagree

3 Not Sure

4 Partly Agree

5 Totally Agree
I understand better how others perceive me 1 2 3 4 5
This was a constructive and deﬁnitely helpful learning experience 1 2 3 4 5
I participated in this course less than I usually 1 2 3 4 5
In some ways I feel good about myself due to this course 1 2 3 4 5
My understanding of the subject matter has not increased much 1 2 3 4 5
Somehow I have taken more risks in this course, and I feel good about 1 2 3 4 5

it

 

N
w
A
kit

I would like to take another course like this one 1

 

b.)
kl!

This course had no impact on my understanding of who I am or what 1
I want

 

The course helped me achieve a deeper understanding of the ﬁeld

 

I did no more reading or thinking than was actually expected

 

The course did not helped me gain through knowledge of the ﬁeld

 

Some of my values have been clariﬁed due to this learning experience

 

I would not recommend this course to a friend

 

r—ar—nr—Ir—rr—au—o
NNNNNN
wwwwww
A-bAA-lﬁ-b
MMU’IU‘IMM

I have now a much clearer integrated notion of the subject matter of
the course

 

I think I have learned to be more tolerant 1

 

N
WU)
A
2!!

Taking the course made little difference for me 1

 

I have not been able to tie things together and make much sense of the 1 2 3 4
content

 

 

In this course I have taken more responsibility for my own learning 1 2 3 4 5
than I

 

 

 

176

APPENDIX E

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. Check with the individual teacher about the information that he or she provided in

survey or focus group interviews.

2. Ask the teacher if there are points he or she would like to add about his or her
perceptions Of meaningfulness of learning.

3. Ask the teacher’s overall feelings to the participation of this research.

177

APPENDIX F

NOTEBOOK FOR SUMNIER PROGRAM LEARNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4:35:38 3:38me
9.3.82 05 3:8 :0» 33 :3me

 

.958 05 E Ewan—RE 258 so»
«an» wouEuon 8 3:96 wan—.82 05 2:689

 

a5 co 05:.

 

was a can

 

 

02mg 2:00am gm mon— MOOmmHOZ

 

6950

178

APPENDIX G

LETTER OF INVITATION

Letters of Invitation
[Letter was translated into Mandarin, the native language of participants]

Cheng-hui Chen

1308 Haslett Rd., Apt #2
East Lansing, MI 48823
USA.

Dear teacher:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University, doing research on teachers’
learning. As part of the research, I will be observing lessons in all courses you will attend
in the summer program over this summer period and talking to you about your experience
with in-service learning. I plan to interview you at least one time and to be in the
classroom everyday when the courses are taught. I will videotape classroom activities and
tape record interviews to provide a record for my research. I will be careful that
observations and interviews do not interfere with your school work and will interview
you only if you are willing to talk to me and you consent to your participation in this
research.

To insure conﬁdentiality, I will not use your name in anything written from this research.
Videotapes of lessons and audiotapes of interviews will be viewed or listened to only by
me and my dissertation committee members.

I hope that you will agree to participate in this research. If, however, you choose not to
grant permission, I will not interview you, make notes of your activities, or use segments
of tapes in which you can be identiﬁed.

If you have questions, please call me, Cheng-hui Chen, at (02) 2-764-1089 (Taiwan),
(517) 333-0528 (USA), or Dr. Ralph Putnam at (517)-353-9285 (U .S.A.), who is the
director of this project. I will be happy to share with you the general results of this
research when it is completed.

Sincerely,

 

Cheng-hui Chen

179

APPENDIX H

ASSURANCE FORM

Assurance Form

Consent to Participation in this Research

I have read the above statement and consent to participate in this research. I understand
that I am free to withdraw my consent and to discontinue my participation at any time.

Participant Teacher’s Name:

 

Signature: Date:

 

 

Permission to use data for other research and educational purposes

In addition to the above consent, I ask your permission to use interview audiotapes and
videotapes from your classroom for educational and other research purposes. These uses
include having other researchers and teacher educators listen to audiotapes or view
videotapes to examine teaching and learning. Having these kinds of concrete examples of
classroom teaching and learning is important in the research process and in helping
teachers improve their teaching. In no case will the teachers, students, or schools be
identiﬁed by names to persons listening to tapes or viewing videotapes. Ifyou do not
grant this permission, audiotapes and videotapes in which you can be identiﬁed will be
viewed or listened to only by committee members working on this project.

I have read above statement and grant permission for videotapes and audiotapes in which

I can be identiﬁed to be used for the research and other educational purposes described. I
understand that I am free to withdraw this consent at any time without penalty.

Signature: Date:

 

 

180

 

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Abu Baker, K., Tarmizi, Ahmad, R., (1995). Teacher preparation concerns: Professional
needs of Malaysian secondary school science teachers. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the association for the Education of Teacher in Science,
Charleston, WV.

Abu Baker, K., Rubba, P. A., Tomera, A. N., Zurub, A. R (1988). Jordanian and
Malaysian science teachers' prominent perceived professional needs: A
comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 7, 573-587.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: HOLT,
RINEHART AND WINSTON, Inc.

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject-matter preparation of teachers. In
W.R. Houston (Ed), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.423-43 6).
New York: Macmillan.

Barker, D., & Hapkiewicz, W.G. (1979). The effects of behavioral objectives on relevant
and incidental learning at two levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of
Educational Research, 72, 334-339.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (2"d ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Blackburn, S. (1994). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Borko, H., Mayﬁeld, V., Marion, 8., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers'
development ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment:

Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 13, 3, 259-278.

Borrowman, M. L. (1965). Liberal education and the professional preparation of teachers.
In M.L.Borrowman (Ed), Teacher education in America: A documentary history
(pp. 1-53). New York: Teacher College Press.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Introduction: Understanding learning from
experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & D. Walker (Eds), Using experience for
learning (pp. 1-17). The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
University Press.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cooking, R. R. (Eds) (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

181

Brookﬁeld, S. (1987). Signiﬁcant Personal Learning. In D. Boud, & V. Grifﬁn (Eds),
Appreciating adults learning: From the learners perspective (pp.65-75). London:
Kogan Page.

Brophy, J. (1989). Introduction to Volume i. In J. Brophy (Ed), Advances in research on
teaching: A research annual (pp. xi-xix). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education:
Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 2, 7 5-85.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using

knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An
experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 4, 499-531.

Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987). London: Collins Publishers.

Cropley, A. J ., & Dave, R. H. (1978). Lifelong education and the training of teachers.
Unesco Institute for Education: Hamburg and Pergamon Press.

Darlington, 8., & Dake, D. (1994). Interdisciplinary curriculum possibilities for middle
school visual and language arts education. Middle School Journal, 25, 5, 46-51.

Davies, R. (1993). Chronicles: Doing action research: The stories of three teachers. In J.
Elliott (Ed), Reconstructing teacher education: Teacher development (pp. 145-
153). The F almer Press.

Day, C. (1993). The development of teachers' thinking and practice: Does choice lead to
empowerment? In J. Elliott (Ed), Reconstructing teacher education: Teacher
development (pp. 125-144). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Dean, J. (1991). Professional development in school. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.
Dewey, J. (193 8). Experience and education. New York: Collier books.

Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic and teacher decision-making.
Interchange, 8, 3, 1-12.

Duchastel, P.C., & Brown, BR. (1974). Incidental and relevant learning with
instructional obj ectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 481-485.

182

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. S. Shulman, and G. Sykes (Eds),
Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longrnan.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed), The
teacher educators ’ handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of
teachers (pp.630-89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fullan, M. G. (1990). Staff development, innovation and institutional development. In B.
Joyce (Ed), Changing school culture through staff development. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 2, 207-226.

Fuller, F. F., & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed), Teacher
Education (pp.25-52). The Seventy-fourth yearbook of the National society for
the study of education.

Gennaro, M. D., Picciarelli, V, Schirinze, D., & Bilancia, L. (1992). Incidental science
knowledge in ﬁfth grade children: a study of its relationship with cognitive
development and cognitive style. Research in Science & Technological
Education, 10, 1, 117-126.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of ground theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Hargreaves, DH. (1994). The new professionalism: The synthesis of professional and
institutional development. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 4, 423-438.

Hawkins, D. (1973). What it means to teach. Teachers College Record 75, 1, 7-16.

Heaton, R. M. (1992). Who is minding the mathematics content? A case study of a ﬁfth-
grade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 2, 153-162.

Houle, C. (1982). The three kinds of lifelong learners. In R. Gross (Ed), Invitation to
lifelong learning. Chicago, Illinois: Follett Publishing Company.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N.
K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 428-
444). Newbury, CA: SAGE.

James, W. (1904). Does ‘Consciousness’ exist? Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and
Scientiﬁc Method, 1, 18, 477-491.

Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing: Studies in the psychology of learning
and teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.

183

Keller, J. M. (1984) Use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. In K.E.
Shaw (Ed), Aspects of Educational technology XVTI: Staﬂ development and
career updating. New York: Nichols Publishing Company.

Keller, J. M. (1987) Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance &
Instruction, OCTOBER 1-7.

Klauer, KJ. (1984). Intentional and incidental learning with instructional texts: A meta-
analysis for 1970-1980. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 2, 323-339.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning & void: Inner experience and the incentives in people 's
lives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Lange, J. D., Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1994). Professional uncertainty and professional

growth: A case study of experienced teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education,
10, 6, 617-631.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The lives of teachers. In L. S. Shulman, and G. Sykes (Eds),
Handbook of teaching and policy (pp.241-260). New York: Longrnan.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports Quality
Studies in Education, 3, 53-59.

Maslow, A. H. (1966). Fusions of facts and values. The Ethical Forum, No.5.

McClusky, H. Y. (1974). The coming of age of lifelong learning. Journal of Research
and Development and Development in Education, 7, 97-106.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1995). Realizing new learning for all students: A ﬁarnework for the
professional development of Kentucky teachers. Special Report. National Center
for Research on Teacher Learning. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Nehari, M., & Bender, H. (1978). Meaningfulness of a learning experience: A measure
for educational outcomes in higher education. Higher Education, 7, p.1-11.

Oakeshott, M. (1933). Experience and its codes. The Syndics of the Cambridge
University Press.

Pino, B. G. (1991). Priorities in foreign language education for the 1900s: A report from
the Southwest. Paper presented in Southwest Conference on Language Teaching.

Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of learning physics. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513-528.

184

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, l.

Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment.
Higher Education, 8, 411-428.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education:
The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-150.

Remillard, J. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: A ﬁfth-grade teacher’s
interpretation of policy. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 2, 179-193.

Reber, A. S. (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Psycholog. London: Penguin Books.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned
to what a student knows. Instructional Science, 12, 197-218.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula,
T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds), Hancﬂrook of research on teacher education
(2"(1 ed.) (pp. 102-1 19). New York: Macmillan.

Rowles, J. P. (1981). Toward balancing the goals of legal education. Journal of Legal
Education, 31, 3-5, 375-98.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: a Therapist's View of Psychotherapy.
Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin.

Shower, 1., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development:
A framework for future study and a state-of-art analysis. Educational Leadership,
45, 3, 77-87.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1, 1-22.

Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1990). Models of staff development. In W.R. Houston
(Ed), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.234-250). New York:
Macmillan.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: A
training study. Learning and Instruction, 5, 291-318.

185

Tough, A. T. (1971). The adult ’s learning projects. Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, Toronto.

Usher, R., Bryant, 1., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern
challenge. New York: ROUTLEDGE.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education
and psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aimes of education. New York: Macmillian.

Wight, A. R. (1972). Toward a deﬁnition of aﬂect in education. (Interstate Educational
Resource Service Center, ERIC, No. ED 069 734). Salt Lake City, Utah: Office of
Education.

Yelon, S L. (1996). Powerﬁrl principles of instruction. Longrnan.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.

186

 

 

HICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRGRIES
l l l llllll lll llll ll llllll Ill l|lll Ill ll Ill Ill llllll ll llll l l
31293020488643