Page 148 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 148
of new learning content. Similarly to what has already been discovered in pre-
vious studies and on different samples (for a sample of teachers in general up-
per secondary schools see Ivanuš Grmek et al., 2006), teachers in vocational
education and training strongly believe that they use process-oriented teach-
ing methods, while their students believe that the same teachers use pro-
cess-oriented methods somewhat less frequently. Teachers on average stated
that their usage of process-oriented methods lies somewhere between“some-
times” and “often” (M = 3.55),7 while the students on average said that these
methods were used “sometimes” (M = 3.18). Statistically significant differences
were detected in 9 out of 13 questions. When these questions were joined into
factors, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between teachers and stu-
dents appeared in all factors (more in Vršnik Perše et al., 2013).
In general it is thus possible to say that students see the teaching meth-
ods by teachers as quite traditional, whereas teachers see them as more pro-
cess-oriented. A significant statistical difference is present between these
views. In relation to this, it is not clear what the reasons for these differences
are nor, which population assesses what happens within the teaching process
148 more realistically. However, it is clear that teachers, due to their expert and pro-
fessional disposition, should be the ones to alter their conceptions and actions
and thus decrease the divergence between their own and students’ views on
teaching practice.
The particular focus was on analysing data by various groups of students
– those who reported that they had a high learning achievement (i.e. grade-
point average) in the past education year (excellent or good) and those who
reported that their achievement was low (failing, below average, average).
All the factors regarding the treatment of learning content have shown sta-
tistically significant (p < 0.01) differences between teachers and low-achiev-
ing students (MD = 0.766) compared to the difference between teachers and
high-achieving students (0.616). However, the differences between the teach-
ers and students were statistically significant for all cases (p < 0.01).
Studies (cf. Goddard, 2001) have shown that a more process-oriented treat-
ment of the subject matter taught is connected to the fact that teachers ex-
pect a more process-like knowledge from their students, which allows for
greater flexibility and resilience. Additional research is needed in order to be
methods on 33 claims. Both groups assessed the frequency (on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always)
of the same ways of treating the contents (teacher and student behaviours during class) and
thus allowed for a comparison between them. An exploratory factor analysis discovered that the
methods of treated subject matter are classified into five sets: active encouragement of students
by the teacher, focus on practical usefulness, use of audio-visual aids, passive role of students and a
motivational approach towards the treatment of subject matter.
7 Teachers and students assessed how often they detected the described teacher’s behaviour during
the lessons for each question (questions were the same for both groups). The frequency of use was
assessed on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
vious studies and on different samples (for a sample of teachers in general up-
per secondary schools see Ivanuš Grmek et al., 2006), teachers in vocational
education and training strongly believe that they use process-oriented teach-
ing methods, while their students believe that the same teachers use pro-
cess-oriented methods somewhat less frequently. Teachers on average stated
that their usage of process-oriented methods lies somewhere between“some-
times” and “often” (M = 3.55),7 while the students on average said that these
methods were used “sometimes” (M = 3.18). Statistically significant differences
were detected in 9 out of 13 questions. When these questions were joined into
factors, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between teachers and stu-
dents appeared in all factors (more in Vršnik Perše et al., 2013).
In general it is thus possible to say that students see the teaching meth-
ods by teachers as quite traditional, whereas teachers see them as more pro-
cess-oriented. A significant statistical difference is present between these
views. In relation to this, it is not clear what the reasons for these differences
are nor, which population assesses what happens within the teaching process
148 more realistically. However, it is clear that teachers, due to their expert and pro-
fessional disposition, should be the ones to alter their conceptions and actions
and thus decrease the divergence between their own and students’ views on
teaching practice.
The particular focus was on analysing data by various groups of students
– those who reported that they had a high learning achievement (i.e. grade-
point average) in the past education year (excellent or good) and those who
reported that their achievement was low (failing, below average, average).
All the factors regarding the treatment of learning content have shown sta-
tistically significant (p < 0.01) differences between teachers and low-achiev-
ing students (MD = 0.766) compared to the difference between teachers and
high-achieving students (0.616). However, the differences between the teach-
ers and students were statistically significant for all cases (p < 0.01).
Studies (cf. Goddard, 2001) have shown that a more process-oriented treat-
ment of the subject matter taught is connected to the fact that teachers ex-
pect a more process-like knowledge from their students, which allows for
greater flexibility and resilience. Additional research is needed in order to be
methods on 33 claims. Both groups assessed the frequency (on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always)
of the same ways of treating the contents (teacher and student behaviours during class) and
thus allowed for a comparison between them. An exploratory factor analysis discovered that the
methods of treated subject matter are classified into five sets: active encouragement of students
by the teacher, focus on practical usefulness, use of audio-visual aids, passive role of students and a
motivational approach towards the treatment of subject matter.
7 Teachers and students assessed how often they detected the described teacher’s behaviour during
the lessons for each question (questions were the same for both groups). The frequency of use was
assessed on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = always.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
