Page 147 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 147
has also discovered the major role played by other background factors, such 147
as motivation, learning habits etc. (cf. Chang, 2011).
An important indicator of individuals’ learning outcomes is also their be-
haviour in the classroom, where analyses have shown significant links be-
tween student achievement and negative forms of behaviour in the classroom
(Vršnik Perše, Kozina and Rutar Leban, 2011), whereupon a teacher’s preference
for certain students can act as a mediator between classroom behaviour and
student achievement (Pečjak and Košir, 2002).
Regardless of the above – or supplementary to it – an important role is also
played by the divergence between the perceptions of teachers and students.
Evaluating learning outcomes, regardless of the criteria which was used to de-
fine them, inevitably involves one’s own conceptions of the outcome for all in-
volved. Regardless of the clarity of the set criteria, there always appears to be
a tendency for individuals to understand and interpret them in different ways.
Numerous studies, which compared the opinions of teachers and their
students regarding teachers’ behaviour while teaching, have also been carried
out in Slovenia (Javornik Krečič, 2004, 2008; Ivanuš Grmek et al., 2006; Vršnik
Perše et al., 2013). These studies contain interesting conclusions which can,
however, be summed up in the finding that immense differences appear be-
tween the two sides in their views on the discussion of learning content as well
as on the process of learning and teaching.
Since this paper focuses on underachieving students, it is prudent to point
mainly to those segments of education where students with such achieve-
ment4 can be found in the greatest number – i.e. vocational education and
training programmes. Studies have delved into the process-orientation5 of
teachers in vocational education and training institutions (Vršnik Perše et al.,
2013). The results were based on teachers’ conceptions of learning and student
work as well as their own teaching. They have shown that teachers consistently
stated their process-oriented conceptions about student learning and work,
about their own teaching, and also saw their methods of passing on knowl-
edge as process-oriented.
Analyses of differences between the answers by teachers and (their) stu-
dents (ibid.) have also been carried out and have shown statistically significant
differences for all (five) factors,6 which determine the views on the treatment
4 In this case, low outcomes are understood as learning achievement of students within compulsory
primary/lower-secondary education.
5 Bolhuis and Voeten (2004) define process-oriented teaching as a teacher’s orientation towards trig-
gering students’ sensibility for their internal regulation processes (self-regulated learning) through
students’ active shaping of knowledge in contrast with acquisition of knowledge as a mere repro-
ducible unit, through a teacher’s seeking of, allowing for and creating various ways to learn and
through a teacher’s tolerance for conflicts and uncertainty. The issue of the context in which an in-
dividual exists is, of course, also relevant here.
6 The evaluation study Professional Development of Teachers in Vocational Education and Training
(Vršnik Perše et al., 2013) allowed teachers and students to assess the frequency of various teaching
contextualising teaching (in)effectiveness and student (under)achievement
as motivation, learning habits etc. (cf. Chang, 2011).
An important indicator of individuals’ learning outcomes is also their be-
haviour in the classroom, where analyses have shown significant links be-
tween student achievement and negative forms of behaviour in the classroom
(Vršnik Perše, Kozina and Rutar Leban, 2011), whereupon a teacher’s preference
for certain students can act as a mediator between classroom behaviour and
student achievement (Pečjak and Košir, 2002).
Regardless of the above – or supplementary to it – an important role is also
played by the divergence between the perceptions of teachers and students.
Evaluating learning outcomes, regardless of the criteria which was used to de-
fine them, inevitably involves one’s own conceptions of the outcome for all in-
volved. Regardless of the clarity of the set criteria, there always appears to be
a tendency for individuals to understand and interpret them in different ways.
Numerous studies, which compared the opinions of teachers and their
students regarding teachers’ behaviour while teaching, have also been carried
out in Slovenia (Javornik Krečič, 2004, 2008; Ivanuš Grmek et al., 2006; Vršnik
Perše et al., 2013). These studies contain interesting conclusions which can,
however, be summed up in the finding that immense differences appear be-
tween the two sides in their views on the discussion of learning content as well
as on the process of learning and teaching.
Since this paper focuses on underachieving students, it is prudent to point
mainly to those segments of education where students with such achieve-
ment4 can be found in the greatest number – i.e. vocational education and
training programmes. Studies have delved into the process-orientation5 of
teachers in vocational education and training institutions (Vršnik Perše et al.,
2013). The results were based on teachers’ conceptions of learning and student
work as well as their own teaching. They have shown that teachers consistently
stated their process-oriented conceptions about student learning and work,
about their own teaching, and also saw their methods of passing on knowl-
edge as process-oriented.
Analyses of differences between the answers by teachers and (their) stu-
dents (ibid.) have also been carried out and have shown statistically significant
differences for all (five) factors,6 which determine the views on the treatment
4 In this case, low outcomes are understood as learning achievement of students within compulsory
primary/lower-secondary education.
5 Bolhuis and Voeten (2004) define process-oriented teaching as a teacher’s orientation towards trig-
gering students’ sensibility for their internal regulation processes (self-regulated learning) through
students’ active shaping of knowledge in contrast with acquisition of knowledge as a mere repro-
ducible unit, through a teacher’s seeking of, allowing for and creating various ways to learn and
through a teacher’s tolerance for conflicts and uncertainty. The issue of the context in which an in-
dividual exists is, of course, also relevant here.
6 The evaluation study Professional Development of Teachers in Vocational Education and Training
(Vršnik Perše et al., 2013) allowed teachers and students to assess the frequency of various teaching
contextualising teaching (in)effectiveness and student (under)achievement
