Description
Summarize the related theory, methods, findings, and implications of the article and create a
maximum 10-minute PowerPoint presentation from your summary. I am uploading the article and instructions.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 30 March 2023
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
OPEN ACCESS
Classroom observations: How do
teachers teach learning strategies?
EDITED BY
Michael Wolyniak,
Hampden–Sydney College,
United States
REVIEWED BY
Carlos C. Goller,
North Carolina State University,
United States
Jeremy Hsu,
Chapman University,
United States
*CORRESPONDENCE
Mikk Granström
[email protected]
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Teacher Education,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Education
RECEIVED 08 December 2022
ACCEPTED 07 March 2023
PUBLISHED 30 March 2023
CITATION
Granström M, Kikas E and
Eisenschmidt E (2023) Classroom observations:
How do teachers teach learning strategies?
Front. Educ. 8:1119519.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
Mikk Granström 1*, Eve Kikas 2 and Eve Eisenschmidt 1
1
School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia, 2 School of Natural Sciences and
Health, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia
The aim of this study was to find out which learning strategies teachers teach,
either directly or indirectly, and how classroom observations are related to
teachers’ knowledge of learning strategies. Seven different learning strategies
were used. The Learning Strategy Teaching Observation Instrument (LSTOI) was
developed for this study. Forty-five video-based classroom observations were
conducted. Teachers showed strong knowledge of learning strategies, but they
did not directly teach about strategies in the classroom. In order to find out how
teachers support learning strategies in the classroom, we conducted a detailed
analysis of two teachers who provided the greatest amount of direct strategy
instruction. Results showed that, although these teachers gave more direct
strategy instruction than others, they justified the usefulness of strategies by saying
that students will achieve better results in an upcoming test or examination. A
better approach would be to explain the long-term impact of learning strategies
and develop students’ skills in independently applying strategies in the future.
KEYWORDS
classroom observation, learning strategies, direct strategy, indirect strategies, teacher
knowledge
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Granström, Kikas and Eisenschmidt.
This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Frontiers in Education
Introduction
The need to support the development of self-regulated learners starting from primary school
is widely acknowledged (e.g., Schunk and Greene, 2018). A critical dimension of self-regulated
learning is knowledge and adequate application of learning strategies (i.e., activities carried out
during learning that directly affect the process and outcomes of learning; Fiorella and Mayer,
2015a; Dinsmore and Hattan, 2020; Van Meter and Campbell, 2020). Researchers differentiate
between deep-level learning strategies (e.g., composing drawings) and surface-level learning
strategies (e.g., rereading), emphasizing that deep-level strategies tend to support comprehension
of new material such that learned knowledge can be later recalled and flexibly used for solving
novel learning tasks (Fiorella and Mayer, 2015a; Hattie and Donoghue, 2016; Dinsmore and
Hattan, 2020). It is important to learn which strategies support deep-level or surface-level
learning and how this support varies depending on the learning situation and task (Frey et al.,
2017; Dirkx et al., 2019). Knowing different learning strategies and adequately applying them in
learning is important for students in order to independently learn new material, plan their
studies, and establish objectives (Dignath and Veenman, 2020).
Since relatively high working-memory capacity and reasoning abilities are needed to
appropriately use deep-level learning strategies, young children often use surface-level learning
strategies instead (Schleepen and Jonkman, 2012; Seufert, 2020). Research across different
countries has indicated that knowledge of deep-level learning strategies and the ability to apply
them is poor, even among middle- and high-school students whose cognitive abilities are more
developed (Bjork et al., 2013; Kikas et al., 2020). To understand the efficacy of complex,
01
frontiersin.org
Granström et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
into a coherent cognitive structure, and (3) integrating or linking
cognitive structures and relevant information in long-term memory
(Fiorella and Mayer, 2015b). Students learn more deeply if they can
comprehend, organize, and restate the main ideas of the learned
material. There are several ways to integrate new information; i.e.,
there are several different learning strategies that support deep
learning. For instance, using visuals (visualizing) helps integrate
information from verbal and visual channels (Rau et al., 2015;
Roessger et al., 2018). Creating associations with existing knowledge,
grouping, and summarizing learn-to-be material supports verbal
integration of material (Bjork et al., 2013; Weinstein et al., 2019).
Predicting outcomes before learning activates prior knowledge and
improves further integration of information (Brod, 2020). Self-testing
(e.g., answering questions) learned material consolidates what has
been learned and helps integrate learned information in different ways
(Adesope et al., 2017; Brod, 2020; Agarwal et al., 2021). Distributing
learning over longer periods has a similar effect: learners repeatedly
activate learn-to-be information and make new associations
(Carpenter et al., 2012; Kang, 2016; Weinstein et al., 2018; Agarwal
et al., 2021).
During surface learning, students perceive new information, tend
to mechanically repeat and memorize it, but do not attempt to
integrate the new information with what is already known (Dinsmore
and Alexander, 2012; Hattie and Donoghue, 2016; Alexander et al.,
2018). Three frequently used surface-level learning strategies include
rereading, rehearsing, and checking learned material (Dunlosky et al.,
2013). When combined with deep-level strategies (e.g., self-testing,
searching for associations), these strategies can be made more effective
(Chi and Wylie, 2014). Practicing new skills may be related to surface
learning when students have to repeatedly solve similar problems, but
it can lead to deep learning when students are given different,
challenging problems (cf. Chi and Wylie, 2014).
In self-regulated learning, it is important to establish learning
goals and analyze the whole learning process, both of which are
important learning strategies that relate to superior metacognitive
knowledge and skills (Veenman, 2017; Dignath and Büttner, 2018;
Dinsmore and Hattan, 2020). The application of self-regulated
learning and metacognitive knowledge and skills characterizes deep
learning. Moreover, there is no single most-effective learning strategy
or collection of strategies, as the usefulness of each strategy depends
on a student’s current knowledge and abilities as well as the specific
learning task and learning context (Weinstein et al., 2011; Dinsmore
and Alexander, 2012). All aforementioned learning strategies are
described in more detail in Appendix A.
deep-level learning strategies, (1) students need to explicitly discuss
the learning process and different learning strategies that support
students’ metacognitive knowledge, and (2) students need to have the
opportunity to practice different learning strategies’ application
(Dignath et al., 2008; Clerc et al., 2014). Teachers play an important
role in this process (Kramarski and Kohen, 2017). However, classroom
observations have shown that teachers primarily give indirect rather
than direct (i.e., explicit) instruction regarding learning processes and
strategy use (Hamman et al., 2000; Dignath and Büttner, 2018). So far,
classroom observations have only been used in a few countries and
mainly in middle school (Hamman et al., 2000; Kistner et al., 2015;
Zepeda et al., 2018). To better understand how teachers support
students’ knowledge of and skills in applying learning strategies,
observation studies are needed in different countries and age groups.
Moreover, no specific attention has been paid to which specific
strategies teachers teach.
The main aim of this study was to develop and use an observation
tool to examine how much time teachers dedicate to teaching different
learning strategies, either directly or indirectly. Our secondary aim
was to analyze links between classroom observations and teachers’
knowledge of learning strategies to see how teachers’ knowledge of
learning processes and strategies manifests in classroom teaching. This
study was carried out in Estonia, which, according to PISA (Program
for International Student Assessment) results, ranks highly in Europe
and among the best countries in the world in terms of ensuring the
effectiveness and equality of basic education (Schleicher, 2019). Prior
studies have shown that Estonian teachers have a high knowledge of
current learning approaches, a good understanding of learning
strategies, and strong skills in promoting individualized learning
strategies (Uibu and Kikas, 2012; Tang et al., 2017; OECD, 2019). In
contrast, student knowledge of learning strategies has been shown to
be generally poor, even at the end of middle school (Kikas and Jõgi,
2016; Hennok et al., 2022). To better understand this gap, it is
important to study how teachers teach different learning strategies in
the classroom.
Learning strategies
We conceptualize learning strategies as goal-oriented activities for
acquiring, organizing, and transforming new information (Weinstein
et al., 2011; Dinsmore and Hattan, 2020). As mental or cognitive
processes that a student carries out during learning, learning strategies
are related to what is learned (i.e., memorized and understood;
Alexander et al., 2018; Van Meter and Campbell, 2020). Learning
strategies are generally divided into two groups: strategies that tend to
support deep learning and strategies that tend to support surface
learning (Frey et al., 2017; Weinstein et al., 2019). While surface
learning generally results in the memorization of isolated facts that are
not easily recalled and cannot be used flexibly later on, deep learning
occurs when students are mentally engaged and construct new
knowledge and thus involves the creation of memory content that can
be recalled and flexibly applied long after learning takes place (Beattie
et al., 1997; Chi, 2009; Carpenter et al., 2020; Dinsmore and
Hattan, 2020).
When using strategies that facilitate deep learning, the learner
must complete three cognitive processes: (1) selecting or reviewing the
important material, (2) organizing or arranging incoming information
Frontiers in Education
How to teach learning strategies
In order to help students become self-regulated learners who are
capable of independently applying learning strategies adaptively
according to a given task, teachers must explicitly teach about learning
strategies and how to use them (Dignath and Büttner, 2018). It is
important that students learn to reflect upon and analyze their own
learning, and in order to develop metacognitive awareness, students
need to be explicitly guided (Zepeda et al., 2018). Strategies can
be taught either indirectly or directly.
During indirect strategy instruction, teachers model the
application of a learning strategy–i.e., they use the learning strategy
02
frontiersin.org
Granström et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
themselves, without explicitly referring to it, drawing attention to it,
or providing explanations about its effectiveness (Dignath and
Veenman, 2020). When teaching by modeling, students are expected
to observe the application of a strategy and start using it later on by
themselves. For instance, teachers may model visualization by showing
drawings, models, or videos that support comprehension of the
learned material. Moreover, teachers may ask students to use or even
create visual materials like drawings, but teachers do not explicitly
refer to these visual materials as methods that support learning (i.e.,
as learning strategies).
During direct (explicit) strategy instruction, a teacher
demonstrates a strategy, specifically refers to the activity as a strategy,
shows students how to apply it, and explains its usefulness. A teacher
may also describe a strategy and explain why and how to use it but not
demonstrate its application (Silver et al., 2007; Dignath and Veenman,
2020). Alternatively, a teacher may assign a task which requires the use
of a strategy and provide instructions about how and why to use it
(Veenman, 2011; Dignath and Büttner, 2018). For instance, when
asking to draw a schema, teachers can explicitly state that schemas
enable better comprehension of the learning material by integrating
verbal knowledge with visual knowledge. In addition, teachers may
refer to the practice of teaching and asking about learned material
several times as a deep-level learning strategy (i.e., distributing) which
enhances later recall and flexible use of learned knowledge. Teacher
practices that are related to supporting specific learning strategies are
given in Appendix A.
Both younger and older learners need support in learning about
and applying learning strategies (Dignath and Büttner, 2018).
Without direct instruction, learners do not get explicit knowledge
about learning strategies, their strengths and weaknesses, or how
and when to apply them (Brevik, 2019). Thus, indirect teaching
does not enhance metacognitive knowledge of learning strategies,
and as a result, students may not be able to use them independently
and may revert to using simpler and less-effective strategies (Ewijk
et al., 2013; Schuster et al., 2018). If students are encouraged to use
a certain strategy and given clear information about the importance
of that strategy, their performance should improve, and they should
gain the ability to apply that strategy again when facing a
similar problem.
Subsequent studies have confirmed that relatively few teachers
give concrete and direct instructions on strategy use. For instance,
Hamman et al. (2000) found that, among 11 middle school teachers
and 235 students, only 2% of teachers recommended specific learning
strategies in the classroom. The same study showed that student
knowledge about learning strategies was directly related to the
activities of teachers in the classroom. Kistner et al. (2015) confirmed
that teachers typically taught cognitive strategies (elaboration,
organization, problem solving) rather than metacognitive strategies
(planning, monitoring). They also found great variability among
teachers’ instructions on strategy use and that elaboration was the
strategy taught most often. In line with these findings, Zepeda et al.
(2018) found that teachers only talk about strategies 7% of the time of
each classroom lesson.
Results have been contradictory in the context of different
subjects. Some studies have indicated that math teachers provide more
instruction on strategy use than other subject teachers (Moely et al.,
1992), but other studies have found no significant differences between
subjects (Hamman et al., 2000). Student age is also important; older
students can use complex learning strategies more effectively on their
own than younger students (Brod, 2020), while younger learners need
more direct instruction about how and when to use learning strategies
(Schleepen and Jonkman, 2012).
It has also been found that observation results do not correspond
with teachers’ own opinions about how they teach strategy use in the
classroom (Ewijk et al., 2013). Despite teachers having strong
knowledge of learning strategies themselves (Halamish, 2018), this
typically does not manifest into concrete classroom activities or direct
instruction (Zepeda et al., 2018).
Aims and hypotheses
The main aim of this study was to observe how much time
teachers dedicate to teaching different learning strategies, both directly
and indirectly, and to analyze the relationship between teachers’
knowledge of strategies’ effectiveness and actual classroom teaching.
The study was conducted in Estonia, where various studies show that
students have good subject knowledge (OECD, 2019) and that
teachers’ knowledge of learning approaches is also good (Uibu and
Kikas, 2012; Tang et al., 2017; OECD, 2019). However, little is known
about how teachers teach different learning strategies in the classroom.
Students in Grades 4 and 6 were chosen as target populations because,
at this age, due to the development of working memory capacity and
executive functions, students become capable of using strategies that
support deep learning (Schleepen and Jonkman, 2012; Brod, 2020).
Starting from Grade 4 in Estonia, the content of study material
becomes more complex, learning requires more independent work,
and, thus, good learning skills become more important. As complex
strategy use presumes conceptual change around Grade 4, explicit
teaching of strategies is especially important to overcome utilization
deficiency (Clerc et al., 2014).
The following research questions and hypotheses were established:
First, how much time do teachers devote to teaching different
learning strategies directly and indirectly according to classroom
observations? We expected that (H1) teachers would rarely teach
strategies indirectly and even less directly (Kistner et al., 2010; Ewijk
et al., 2013; Dignath and Büttner, 2018).
Classroom observations and previous
studies
Classroom observations are effective for assessing teachers’
activities directly in their natural environment (Dignath and
Veenman, 2020). Several studies have used observations to study
teachers’ support of self-regulated learning (Hamman et al., 2000;
Kistner et al., 2010; Ewijk et al., 2013) as well as their support for
cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation strategies (Dignath and
Büttner, 2018; Zepeda et al., 2018; Brevik, 2019). In one of the earliest
known studies, Moely et al. (1992) examined 69 primary school
teachers’ direct strategy instruction and the ways in which this varied
according to subject and grade level. Results showed that teachers gave
more instructions on using cognitive strategies in Grade 4 than in
Grades 2 or 3. Moreover, teachers only provided rationales for how
they used strategies in less than 2% of the observable time, and 10%
of teachers gave no strategy suggestions at all.
Frontiers in Education
03
frontiersin.org
Granström et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
Second, how do teachers justify the effectiveness of different
learning strategies in certain learning situations? And how is teachers’
knowledge of learning strategies (as expressed via justifications)
related to their classroom practices? We expected that (H2a) teachers
would mainly provide scientifically correct justifications for their
preference toward different strategies (Granström et al., 2022), but that
(H2b) the relationship between justifications and direct and indirect
teaching practices would be low (Kistner et al., 2010; Dignath and
Büttner, 2018). Prior studies have shown that, although teachers’
knowledge of learning strategies tends to be good (Halamish, 2018),
this knowledge often does not manifest in the form of concrete
activities in the classroom (Zepeda et al., 2018).
Third, how do teachers’ direct teaching of learning strategies
manifest in classroom practices? Two teachers qualitatively described
which direct instructions about strategy use they gave to students in
the classroom. This analysis focused on the two teachers who, based
on observations, gave the largest amount of direct instruction about
strategy use.
installed tablets in all classrooms for the purposes of recording. All
participating teachers were trained on how to independently use the
application and how to record classes without disruptions. Teachers
independently recorded three consecutive lessons of the same subject
and class.
We used a 3-min interval method to register which strategies were
used and on which level (Ewijk et al., 2013). In order to record the
observation results, a 33 (strategies) x 45 (15 intervals with 3
subcategories for 45-min lessons; or 25 for 75-min lessons) table was
created. In total, 45 lessons were recorded, 29 of which were 45 min
long and 16 of which were 75 min long. We transformed all 75-min
lessons into 45-min lessons (score/75 × 45) (Dignath and Büttner,
2018), which is the length of a typical classroom lesson at the majority
of Estonian schools.
Materials and methods
Developing the observation protocol. The development of the
Learning Strategy Teaching Observation Instrument (LSTOI) started
with discussions among a group of teachers and university researchers.
First, based on literature (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Fiorella and Mayer,
2015b; Weinstein et al., 2018), several different versions of the
observation instruments were developed and discussed. The most
prominent learning strategies highlighted by previous research were
chosen to be the focus of this observation instrument. The observation
instrument of the pilot study was comprised of seven categories of
learning strategies: (1) using visual materials to create associations
during learning (pictures, drawings, models, etc.); (2) creating
associations between everyday life and previously learned material; (3)
using grouping/categorizing material while learning; (4) summarizing/
rereading/reviewing the materials (practicing); (5) testing; (6)
explaining the study material to others; and (7) other. For each
category of general learning strategy, direct and indirect teaching
practices were differentiated (Dignath and Veenman, 2020).
Pilot study. The LSTOI was validated using four different
observations which took place during third-grade mathematics and
Estonian language lessons. During each observation, two observers
observed the same lesson, and later, those conducting the study
compared the results of the two observers and made changes to the
observation protocol. One of the observers was the researcher who
developed the instrument and the first author of the paper; the second
observer was a practicing teacher with no connection to the current
research. No additional instructions were given to the second observer
at any point. This allowed us to gauge how easy it would be to
understand the learning strategies included in the observation report.
In order to reduce ambiguity and improve intelligibility of the
observation instrument, the differences between the results of these
two observers were compared, then the second observer (the teacher)
was asked how they understood the categories in the observation
instrument. Based on their feedback, the researchers made changes to
the observation instrument.
The observers checked the coincidence of observing different
teaching strategies. An interrater reliability analysis using the Kappa
statistic was performed to determine consistency among raters.
During the first observation, coincidence was k = 0.053 (p > 0.05),
Measures
Learning strategy teaching observation
instrument
Participants
Participants included 15 teachers from five schools [13 women
(86.7%) and two men (13.3%)]. The average age was 39.67 years
(SD = 10.78, range 26–56). At the time of the study, nine teachers had
completed university teacher education, while six were currently
undergoing initial teacher education while actively working at a
school. Five teachers taught in Grade 4, and 10 teachers taught in
Grade 6. Five teachers taught Estonian language, three history, two
biology, two English, two math, and one Russian language (see
Appendix B).
Procedure
The study took place from September–October 2021. First,
partner schools of the Tallinn University were invited to participate.
Letters describing the study’s aims and procedures were sent to
schools, and the participants of educational program “Teach for
Estonia” were introduced to the present study in a meeting. Five
schools and 15 teachers from Grades 4 and 6 agreed to participate.
Participation was voluntary. Participating teachers were introduced to
the general objectives of the study and the methods for observation.
Parents were informed about the study and the fact that the classrooms
would be recorded. If a parent did not agree to have their child filmed,
they were given the opportunity skip class that day.
Before observation, teachers filled out a questionnaire pertaining
to different learning strategies (Appendix C). It took somewhere
between 15 and 20 min. The questionnaire was conducted in a
Qualtrics environment.
We used a video-based observation method, which means that the
observed lessons were recorded, and the results were later viewed and
coded. Iris Connect software was used for recording via tablet
computer. This program makes it possible to save classroom
recordings without breaking any privacy laws. Recording were only
available to the members of the research group. The researchers
Frontiers in Education
04
frontiersin.org
Granström et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
which means that the reliability between the two observers was very
poor (Cohen, 1988), and, statistically speaking, these results were not
reliable. Valid cases in Table 1 indicate the maximum number of notes
the observers made during the observation protocol (i.e., number of
learning strategies observed). Using this, it was possible to calculate
the percentage of the results of the two observers coincided. Before
each subsequent observation, the observation protocol was updated.
By the fourth observation, after the observation protocol had been
updated three times, interrater reliability between the two observers
became acceptable (k = 0.754, p < 0.05).
any additional questions, does not provide a deeper understanding of
the content of the sentences, but instead only provides a general
impression of the topic). Second, scientifically incorrect justifications
included: (1) misconceptions (e.g., there are visual and verbal learners);
(2) general and descriptive answers which failed to justify the advantages
of one strategy over another (e.g., it is easier to learn from pictures); and
(3) no justification. Scientifically correct justifications were responses
based on theoretical knowledge that related to the psychology of
learning (McCabe, 2011; Granström et al., 2022).
Main study
The pilot study clearly indicated the need to change the categories
of the observation instrument (i.e., seven general categories eventually
became 12 categories). The final LSTOI assessed teaching of 12 general
learning categories: (1) visualizing; (2) creating verbal associations; (3)
grouping; (4) summarizing; (5) predicting; (6) testing/self-testing; (7)
distributing; (8) rereading the material; (9) reviewing study material;
(10) practicing new skills; (11) establishing learning goals; and (12)
self-analysis. A detailed descriptions of learning strategies and
teaching practices are given in Appendix A.
Data analysis
To answer the first research question, observation data were coded
by two observers, both of whom had a background in teacher
education. The first observer was the first author of this study, and the
second observer had been previously given a five-hour instruction
course. Interrater reliability between the two coders was good, overall
Kappa = 0.839 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.794, 0.885). Both observers
encoded 45 lessons. Kappa for direct strategy instruction was 0.836
(p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.788, 0.883), and Kappa for indirect strategy
instruction was 0.844 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.799, 0.890).
The observers coded teacher approaches into two different
categories: (1) indirect instruction, and (2) direct instruction (Dignath
and Büttner, 2018). Every 3 min, the observer stopped the videotape
and marked all strategies a teacher taught during the previous threeminute interval, either indirectly or directly.
Descriptive statistics were used to provide information on how
many different strategies teachers indirectly or directly taught in the
classroom as well as how many direct and indirect strategy instructions
were given in total. Observation results were analyzed separately for
each individual teacher and for the aggregate total.
To answer the second research question, questionnaire results
were coded by two coders. One coder was one of the authors of this
article, and the other coder was an educational researcher.
Interrater reliability between the two coders was very high,
Kappa = 0.925 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.822, 1.027). The sum of
scientifically correct justifications was used. Spearman’s correlation
and Mann–Whitney U-test were performed to compare
observational and questionnaire data.
To answer the third research question, a separate observation and
results analysis was carried out using the two teachers who gave the
greatest amount of direct strategy instructions. The two teachers’
direct instructions regarding strategy use were transcribed.
Teaching levels
Teaching about learning strategies was evaluated on two levels: (1)
indirect instruction (i.e., the teacher does not discuss learning
strategies directly, but uses strategies either alone or together with
students); and (2) direct instruction (i.e., the teacher explains how and
why a learning strategy could be used; the teacher discusses the use
and necessity of a teaching strategy with students) (Dignath and
Büttner, 2018).
Questionnaire of different learning strategies
The questionnaire asked teachers to evaluate the efficacy of different
learning strategies in seven learning scenarios and to justify their
answers (McCabe, 2011; Granström et al., 2022). Each learning scenario
described a learning task that was solved by two students: one using a
deep-level learning strategy, and another using a surface-level learning
strategy (see Appendix C). Teachers had to justify their answers using
their own words (the prompt was: “Please justify your choice”).
Justifications were coded into two categories. First, scientifically correct
justifications were responses based on theoretical knowledge related to
the psychology of learning (McCabe, 2011; Granström et al., 2022).
Teachers mostly justified their answers in two ways: (1) why one strategy
is more effective (e.g., distributing learning material supports long-term
learning and is therefore more effective than massing), and (2) why
another strategy is less effective (e.g., reading by itself, without asking
Results
Direct and indirect teaching of learning
strategies in the classroom
TABLE 1 Preliminary observations for validating the observation
instrument.
%
k
p
Valid
cases
1st Observation
15.40
0.05
0.52
13
2nd Observation
30
0.09
0.57
10
3rd Observation
55
0.51
0.01
8
4th Observation
83.30
0.75
0.01
16
Descriptive statistics for direct and indirect teaching practices are
shown in Appendix A, and descriptive statistics for supporting 12
learning strategies are shown in Table 2. Scores show how many times
within three lessons teachers either directly or indirectly taught
specific learning strategies. Teachers used indirect teaching more
(834.2 times) than direct teaching (32.60 times). The most frequently
used direct instructions supported reviewing previously learned
% = Percentage of coincidence of the two observers; k = Cohen’s kappa.
Frontiers in Education
05
frontiersin.org
Granström et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1119519
TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics of direct and indirect instruction of learning strategies.
Learning strategy
Teacher practices: direct instruction
Teacher practices: indirect instruction
Min
Max
Sum
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Sum
Mean
SD
1. Visualizing
0
1
1.60
0.11
0.29
0
23
118.60
7.90
7.30
2. Creating verbal associations
0
1
1
0.07
0.26
0
17
114.20
7.61
5.26
3. Grouping
0
1
1.60
0.11
0.29
0
10
52.80
3.52
3.60
4. Summarizing
0
0.60
0.60
0.04
0.15
0
6.60
30.20
2.01
1.99
5. Predicting:
0
.
.
.
.
0
1
1
0.20
0.149
6. Testing/self-testing
0
1
2.20
0.15
0.32
0
12
85.80
5.72
3.68
7. Distributing
0
1
1
0.20
0.149
0
1
1
0.20
0.149
8. Rereading the material
0
.
.
.
.
0
13
67.80
4.52
4.30
9. Reviewing study material
0
6
12.40
0.96
1.92
2.40
17
134.40
9.22
3.62
10. Practicing new skills:
0
2.40
6
0.40
0.69
7
24
211.80
14.12
4.73
11. Establishing learning goals
0
1
1
0.20
0.149
0
3
10.80
0.29
0.58
12. Self-analysis
0
2
5.20
0.11
0.33
0
2
5.80
0.12
0.35
Total
0
1.73
32.60
0.23
0.053
0.94
12.80
834
