University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF MARZANO’S INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES IN
TRADITIONAL AND VIRTUAL CLASSROOMS

by

Joslin de Diego

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Joslin de Diego
ii

DEDICATION
For my husband, Andrew Morres, our baby, Baby Morres and my mother, Jeanne
Hewson.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with true appreciation that I would like to thank the people who supported me
throughout this process. Thank you to my family, who always encouraged me to succeed
while understanding for the last three years, I was at many events only in spirit. Thank
you to my mother and biggest cheerleader. You read my drafts, discussed my ideas and
pushed me to the finish line. Husband, you helped me prioritize. Thank you for urging
me to relax when I needed to, cry when I needed a shoulder and sit my buns in a chair
when writing needed to take place.
I would like to especially thank my committee members Dr. Guilbert Hentschke,
Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Gabriella Mafi. My Chair, Dr. Hentschke. Thank you from
the bottom of my heart. You were always willing to take the time and spin your wheels
with me. I truly appreciate your thoughtful insight and attention to detail. Thank you, Dr.
Hocevar for always having an open door and helping me understand statistical analysis.
You spent countless hours with me and you truly went above and beyond. Thank you, Dr.
Mafi, for taking me on and sharing your knowledge and expertise. I truly believe your
advice served to make my study a much better one.
Last, but certainly not least, my partners through this process: Richard Dinh,
Farah Meadows and Wendy Marshall. Richard, thank you for being an amazing writing
partner. Farah and Wendy, thank goodness for you two. From the OC to TEMS we were
there for each other. I am so proud to call you friends and now, doctor. We did it!
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction to the Study 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Research Questions 4
Theoretical Framework 4
Importance of the Study 5
Definition of Terms 6
Organization of the Study 7

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review 9
Learning and the Teacher’s Role 9
Learning 10
Contextual Approach of Instruction 11
Traditional Classrooms 14
Instructional Strategies 15
Problems with Traditional Schools 19
Virtual Classrooms 20
Instructional Strategies 23
Problems with Technology in Education 24
Teacher Perceptions and Instructional Strategies 25
Sources and Influences on Instruction 25
Current Research Gaps 29

CHAPTER THREE: Research Design and Methodology 31
Participants and Sample 33
Instrumentation 36
Teacher Surveys 36
Data Collection 37
Research Questions 38
Data Analysis 40
Research Questions and Statistical Methods 40
Limitations of the Study 42
v

CHAPTER FOUR: Analysis of the Findings 44
Organization of the Data 44
Participants 45
Research Questions and Analysis of Data 46
Additional Findings 52
Summary of Findings 54

CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions and Recommendations 56
Summary of Findings 57
Finding # 1: There was a significant difference between virtual and traditional
teacher’s perceptions of Marzano’s nine effective instructional strategies. 57
Finding #2: There was no significant difference between teachers of various
levels of experience. 59
Finding # 3: There was a significant difference between teachers who taught
in different subject matter areas. 61
Limitations 62
Recommendations 64
Recommendations for Practice: Research Question 1 64
Practitioner Recommendations for Research Question 1 65
Policy Recommendations for Research Question 1 66
Future Research 67
Conclusion 69

REFERENCES 71

APPENDICES 77
Appendix A: Contextual Approach (Mayer, 2008) 77
Appendix B: Recruitment Letter 78
Appendix C: Effective Instructional Strategies Questionnaire 79

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Components of the Effective Instructional Strategies Survey

37
Table 2: Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s Instructional Strategies and
Instructional Activities Chart

39
Table 3: Frequency Counts for Selected Variables (N = 87)

45
Table 4: Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores (N = 87)

46
Table 5: Comparison of Selected Satisfaction Ratings Based on Whether the
Respondent was a Traditional or Virtual Teacher (N = 87)

47
Table 6: Comparison of Selected Satisfaction Ratings Based on Years of
Teaching Experience (N = 87)

49
Table 7: Comparison of Selected Satisfaction Ratings Based on Subject Matter
Taught (N = 87)

51
Table 8: Three-Way ANOVA Examining the Total Score Based on Type of
Classroom, Subject Matter and Level of Experience (N = 87)

53

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Independent and Dependent Variables of the Study 32
Figure 2: 2 x 3 x 3 Factorial ANOVA Used For the Additional Findings 41

viii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine whether teachers’ perceptions of
effective instructional strategies, as defined by Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001)
differ in the traditional and virtual classroom environments. The Effective Instructional
Strategies Questionnaire was used to gather data on teachers’ knowledge and expertise
about classroom instructional strategies. The questionnaire was designed using the nine
effective teaching strategies identified by Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001). Data
was gathered from the participating schools. Aliso Niguel High School is a traditional
school. Four virtual schools also participated: Capistrano Connections Academy,
Riverside Virtual School, Mercury Online Academy and Pacific Coast High School
during the Spring and Fall semesters of 2011. Data was generated utilizing t-tests, one-
way ANOVAs and a three-way ANOVA. Data analysis consisted of determining
relationships between classroom type, years of experience, and subject matter taught and
the nine instructional strategy subscales.
The results revealed that there were significant differences between virtual and
traditional classroom teacher’s perceptions of Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001)
nine effective instructional strategies. There were no significant differences between
teachers within three years of service groupings. Additionally, only one subscale had
notable differences among teachers of different subject matter groupings. The findings
from this study suggest that traditional classroom teachers value Marzano, Pickering and
Pollack’s nine effective instructional strategies more than virtual classroom teachers do.
The Marzano framework is not completely compatible to virtual classroom learning
because all strategies are not adaptable to this learning platform.
1
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction to the Study
Technology and the influence of virtual learning platforms have changed the way
we educate our students in the United States (Archambault, 2010; Ash, 2010; Desai et al.,
2008; Watson & Gemin, 2008). A teacher’s perception of an instructional strategy and its
effectiveness on student learning determines the frequency of its usage in the classroom
(Wozney et al., 2006); therefore, it is necessary to identify teacher perceptions of
effective instructional strategies in the online and traditional classroom environments.
Instructional strategies are the classroom practices teachers use to guide students during
the learning, or cognitive, process (Wiggins & McTighe, 2008). Teachers make use of
the instructional strategies they perceive as effective classroom practices for student
learning (Dexter et al., 1999; Wozney et al., 2006). Much of the effective instructional
strategy research literature was based on the traditional classroom setting. These
researchers have made the assumption that effective instructional practices work as well
in the virtual classroom. However, there has not been a study to validate or negate this
assumption (Ferdig et al., 2009).
Background of the Problem
International financial difficulties and a national recession have had far reaching
ramifications in California’s state-wide education funding (Robelen, 2009). Diminished
funding has caused school leaders to closely guard all financial resources available to
their school sites, while still working to improve instruction and student achievement
(Robelen, 2009). California’s education funding hit an all time high in 2008, at over fifty-
four billion dollars, while, in 2009, spending decreased by ten billion dollars (RAND
California, 2011). The state’s student population remained relatively stable, losing only a
2
quarter of a percent of all students. Overall, education lost nearly 19% of its operating
budget (RAND California, 2011). However, accountability measures remained in place,
and school districts were still expected to reach mandated benchmarks and see increased
student achievement (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003).
In today’s economy, a district’s instructional dollars are scarce (Robelen, 2009)
and increasing school accountability measures serve as a driving force behind identifying
and providing effective professional development. Professional development programs
come at a monetary cost. Although teachers attend trainings, that does not mean they
will utilize the training or change their instructional practice (Dexter, 1999). When
teachers believe the strategy will be valuable to their instruction or to their students’
success, they are more likely to utilize it (Dexter et al., 1999; Shulman, 1987; Wozney et
al., 2006). Therefore, it is important to understand what teachers perceive as effective
instructional strategies, so school leaders are able to determine the most efficient way to
allocate scarce school resources and provide trainings based on what teachers will
actually use in both traditional and virtual classrooms.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study was to determine whether authors of the current research
literature have correctly assumed that instructional strategies work as well in traditional
and virtual classrooms by conducting a survey of open and close ended questions of
teacher practitioners. Both traditional and virtual classrooms utilize similar instructional
practices, such as group and individual instruction, various verbal and written
communication forms, feedback, polling, illustrating examples and discussion (Tremblay,
2006). However, there are differences as well. The knowledge gap in the research has
3
the potential to negatively affect student achievement because there is not sufficient data
to support the decision making process. The purpose of education research is to provide
policy makers with information to make well-educated decisions. It is important to obtain
data to inform the process when those decisions affect students’ lives (Patton, 2002).
The literature review provided a framework for the study. The three focus areas
were traditional classrooms, virtual classrooms and teacher perceptions of instructional
strategies. The literature analysis was designed to focus on the learning environment,
instructional strategies and problem areas of traditional and virtual environments. The
purpose of studying similar topics within traditional and virtual schools was to identify
similarities and differences as defined by research literature. The final section of the
review focuses on teacher perceptions and their influence on instructional practice.
Teacher effectiveness is the greatest indicator of student success (Darling-
Hammond, 2000) and teachers are the link between students and content knowledge.
Teachers make instructional decisions based on perception, content and pedagogical
knowledge (Izrik, 2005; Shulman, 1987). Perceptions of instructional strategies are
shaped by an individual teacher’s belief of effectiveness, which is developed over time
by classroom experience (Izrik, 2005; Russell et al., 1988; Schunk, 2003). This study
focuses on teacher perceptions of effective instructional strategies and their potential
influence on student success.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to determine teacher’s perceptions of the most effective
instructional strategies in virtual and traditional classrooms. It is not sufficient to assume
what works in traditional classrooms will work as well in the virtual classroom, although
4
researchers have made the assumption that instructional strategies will work equally well
in both learning platforms (Ferdig et al., 2009). It is in an administrator’s best interest to
understand teachers’ perceptions of practices, so they will not waste monetary resources.
If the teacher uses the newly acquired training, he/she may not use it with fidelity unless
it can be integrated into content and instruction easily (Dexter et al., 1999).
Research Questions
Research that directly analyzes teacher perceptions of instructional strategies
offers concrete values, assigned by teachers, based on belief and efficacy. When teachers
use a strategy, it is because they believe it is effective (Izrik, 2005); for that reason, it is
important for school districts to implement research-based instructional programs that
support strategies teachers perceive as effective. The following research questions guided
this study:
1. To what extent do perceptions of classroom strategies differ between
traditional classroom teachers and virtual classroom teachers?
2. To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional strategies differ
based on years of service (Beginning, Experienced and Advanced years)?
3. To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional strategies differ
based on subject matter taught (English, Social Studies and Mathematics/
Science)?
Theoretical Framework
Instructional research framed in the contextual approach focuses on how
instruction shapes student learning (Mayer, 2008) and is directly related to teacher belief
and self-efficacy. The contextual approach of instruction provides a framework of how
5
teaching influences student learning (Mayer, 2008). This approach relies on the idea that
a teacher’s practice is grounded in the relationship between teaching methods, or
instructional strategies, and the learning environment. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is
an individual’s belief in his/her own ability to accomplish a goal or task (Bandura, 1977).
Teachers who believe in their practice have high efficacy and, likely, will be more
motivated to use those strategies in the classroom (Schunk, 2003). The contextual
approach of learning is the relationship between teaching and learning. Instructional
strategies and teacher effectiveness have a direct impact on student learning and
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2002).
Importance of the Study
Legislation and a decreasing education budget have changed the way school
districts conduct the business of educating students. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001, which was reauthorized in 2010, holds school districts accountable for
consistent student achievement gains (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). These
gains, or benchmarks, are measured by standardized test scores. Performance
benchmarking, the most common assessment system in education, is a low-cost bottom-
up approach, which provides a simplistic snapshot of productivity and performance
(Baker, 2005). School districts must show yearly improvement in test scores or face
sanctions, which have led to increased implementation of professional development
programs. School districts are in a difficult position to find research-based instructional
programs teachers will implement in their classrooms. Teachers use instructional
strategies they perceive to be effective (Dexter et al., 1999; Shulman, 1987; Wozney et
al., 2006), and districts can no longer afford to implement programs that will go unused
6
by the faculty. Now, more than ever, districts must find instructional strategies teachers
will use to increase student achievement.
The increasing utilization of virtual schooling has created an increased need for
virtual schooling professional development (Abrego & Pankake, 2008). Much of the
research literature makes the assumption that effective instructional strategies in
traditional classrooms will also work in the online environment. This study is designed to
determine whether teachers perceive similar instructional strategies to be effective in
both classroom environments, as well as which practices are perceived to be most
effective in their individual classroom environments.
Definition of Terms
• Asynchronous means not synchronized; in online education, the course content
and communication is often intermittent, instead of constant (Tremblay, 2006).
• Content knowledge (CK) is subject matter knowledge (Shulman, 1986).
• The contextual approach of instruction is a framework that relates teaching and its
influence on student learning, which does not separate instructional methods from
environmental context (Mayer, 2008).
• E-education is electronic education (Abrego & Pankake, 2010).
• Instructional manipulations are external factors designed by the classroom teacher
to instruct students (Mayer, 2008).
• Instructional strategies are the classroom practices teachers use to guide students
in the acquisition of subject matter knowledge and skill (Marzano et al., Wiggins
& McTighe, 2008).
7
• Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is the knowledge of how to teach and make it
comprehensible for others (Shulman, 1986).
• Performance benchmarking is the most common assessment system in education,
and is a low-cost bottom-up approach, which provides a simplistic snapshot of
productivity and performance (Baker, 2005).
• Self-efficacy is a social cognitive theory in which an individual’s belief of self is
a causal factor in motivation (Bandura, 1977).
• Synchronous means communication is constant and most typically used in the
traditional schooling format (Tremblay, 2006).
• Teachers are the curriculum gatekeepers and provide the bridge between subject
matter and meaningful student learning (Tyler, 1949; Mayer, 2008).
• Traditional schools are schools that follow the traditional public school
institutional make-up (Tremblay, 2006).
• Virtual schooling is an online learning platform that can be taught fully online or
any combination of face-to-face and online instruction (Archambault, 2010).
Organization of the Study
This study was organized into five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction
to the study, which provides a general overview, purpose, rationale and operational terms
for clarity. This chapter creates the general big picture of the study and a context for the
literature review. The literature review is the second chapter, which serves to ground the
study in research literature. This chapter’s discussion is focused on notable research
theories, findings and results and their overall relationship to the study. The literature
review guides the development of chapter three, the research methodology. The third
8
chapter states the research questions and outlines the research methodology utilized for
gathering data, such as a description of the sample population, instrumentation, data
collection, data analysis and limitations of the study. The first three chapters are the
study’s foundation, while chapters four and five report and make conclusions based on
data collected from the study.
The final two chapters are the results and conclusions of the study. The purpose
of chapter four is to report the study’s findings and results. Results were organized by the
original research questions. The fourth chapter reports and discusses the findings. Once
the findings have been reported, the remaining chapter presents final conclusions and
recommendations for future research. Chapter five serves to package the entire study by
making connections from the hypothesis of the study and literature foundations to the
conclusions. The goal of the final chapter was to answer questions that were raised in the
beginning of the study and provide conclusions made from the data and suggestions for
future research. Literature references and supplemental appendices, such as surveys and
tables follow the final chapter and end the study.
9
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
This dissertation sought to determine teachers’ perceptions of effective
instructional strategies for student learning in virtual and traditional classroom formats.
The learning structures in these classrooms are wide ranging, yet the intention in both
traditional and virtual classrooms is to provide a learning environment in which students
are able to learn skills and acquire knowledge. Both learning platforms utilize teaching
staff to serve as the mediator between the student and the curriculum. Teachers, in any
environment, are the greatest in-class contributor to student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Marzano, 2003) and provide the link between students and subject
matter knowledge.
This literature review was designed to accomplish four main objectives. The first
objective was to define the teacher’s role as a classroom instructor. The second was to
review traditional classroom environments, the instructional strategies used to teach
students and common problems found within traditional schools. The third objective was
to review virtual classroom environments, the instructional strategies used to teach
students and common problems in virtual schools. The final objective was to examine the
ways in which teachers generate their beliefs and perceptions of effective instructional
strategies.
Learning and the Teacher’s Role
Teaching is a complicated act in which a teacher utilizes instructional strategies to
promote student learning (Mayer, 2008). Learning is a lasting cognitive change caused by
a single, or multiple, experiences (Mayer, 2008). Newly acquired information builds
upon previous knowledge, while learning is long-term, reflected by a change in an
10
individual’s behavior and leads to generalization (Mayer, 2008; Tyler, 1949).
Generalization is the learner’s ability to make use of acquired knowledge and apply that
knowledge in unrelated contexts. As curriculum gatekeepers, teachers provide the path
between subject matter and meaningful student learning. Teachers construct, and
manage, the learning environment students experience during the learning process
(Erickson, 1986; Marzano et al., 2001; Mayer, 2008; Tyler, 1949). Classroom teachers
are responsible for teaching standards-based curriculum and encouraging student
achievement (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004).
Education, as an institution, has experienced a positivist shift to standards-based
teaching and high stakes testing. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) requires
all schools to achieve one hundred percent proficiency by 2014 (Linn, 2005) and has
served to increase the importance of accountability measures such as the standardized test
scores that measure student learning. As the institution of education experiences a
paradigm shift to a positivist mode of thinking, the role of research-based strategies has
also increased (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). In the world of NCLB, all children,
regardless of their race, socio-economic status, language background, and emotional and
cognitive abilities are able to learn and achieve (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Learning
Researchers are divided about the learning process and there are many conflicting
learning theories (Mayer, 2008). Researchers agree instructional strategies encourage and
facilitate the learning process; however, the research is inconsistent regarding the most
effective learning strategies (Marzano, 2003; Mayer, 2008). Teachers utilize their own
content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge to make instructional decisions
11
(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Shulman, 1986). The goal of instruction is long term
learning and for students to gain a deeper understanding of subject matter (Mayer, 2008).
Instructional strategies are designed to facilitate students’ procedural learning and
subject matter acquisition (Marzano et al., 2001). Anderson’s (2005) cognitive skill
learning theory is a series of three stages in the learning process. The learner passes
through three stages of learning: cognitive, associative and autonomous stages. The
cognitive stage represents the stage in which the learner needs instruction to guide the
practice s/he is learning, also known as declarative knowledge. The second stage is the
associative stage, in which the learner does not need verbal guidance for each step in the
process. The autonomous stage is the final stage, when a student is able to carry out the
desired task automatically (Anderson, 2005).
Contextual Approach of Instruction
Teachers apply specific instructional practices to guide the student’s cognitive
process (Mayer, 2008). The contextual approach of instruction does not separate
instructional methods from the environmental context. There are six components to the
contextual approach of instruction: 1) instructional manipulations as intended, 2)
instructional manipulations as implemented 3) learner characteristics, 4) learning process,
5) learning outcome and 6) outcome performance (Mayer, 2008). Instructional
manipulations as intended are external and include a teachers’ organization of content,
environment and instructional behaviors. The meaning of instructional manipulations as
implemented is how the manipulations are utilized during the learning experience.
Learner characteristics are a learner’s existing procedural and factual knowledge base.
The learning environment within the school and classroom’s social environment is the
12
learning context. The learning process is how a learner organizes, selects and integrates
new and existing knowledge. Learning outcomes are the cognitive changes in the
learner’s memory and system of procedures. Finally, the outcome performance is the
learner’s behavior on a performance measure (Mayer, 2008).
Instructional manipulations are external factors designed by the classroom teacher
to instruct students (Mayer, 2008). For example, all non-internal learning factors, such as
lesson design and learning experiences that facilitate student learning. Instructional
manipulations are introduced by the teachers and utilized by the students. Teachers
employ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK) as tools to guide
student learning at an appropriate level for students (Shulman, 1986). Teachers design the
learning experience and scaffold the cognitive process for the learner (Tyler, 1949) when
students are unable to complete tasks unassisted (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;
Mayer, 2008).
The contextual approach adheres to the principle that a teacher constantly tests
and diagnoses the learner (Mayer, 2008). The purpose of the diagnosis is to determine
learner characteristics along with the applied instructional manipulations (Mayer, 2008).
Teachers use formative assessment throughout the learning process to increase student
learning through the development of self-monitoring skills and self-management (Mayer,
2008; Yorke, 2003). Formative assessments function as a quick check for student
understanding and shape instruction. These diagnosis techniques are intended to be
immediate. For example, questioning provides teachers with the knowledge needed to
immediately adjust instruction based on the learner’s ability and cognitive level (Mayer,
13
2008), which, in turn, assist the teacher in creating appropriate learning objectives for
students (Tyler, 1949).
The learning context of instructional strategies includes factors such as awareness
of the student’s social and cultural context (Mayer, 2008). A students’ learning context is
both in and out of the classroom; therefore, context becomes another element to promote
learning. Real life situations are more significant to students because they are able to put
them into a more tangible and understandable context. Instructional strategies and
learning experiences serve to create the learning context, which makes the experience
more meaningful for the learner. The classroom environment, or instructional situation,
creates the learning context in which the learner internally processes information (Mayer,
2008).
A students’ learning process is an internal factor, within the student, and relates to
the student’s process of learning to select, organize, generalize and integrate new and old
information (Mayer, 2008). A teacher’s instructional strategies are designed to guide
their students through the steps of learning. However, that process is unique to each
individual student and takes place from within. Teachers are responsible for organizing,
and creating, the learning processes to meet the conditions for meaningful learning
(Erickson, 1986). The instructional practices are the scaffolding, or the supports, between
what is known and what is not known by the learner (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).
The learning process is measured by a students’ change in behavior (Mayer, 2008; Tyler,
1949).
Learning outcomes are the changes in behavior patterns of people (Tyler, 1949),
and students’ ability to apply previous knowledge to a new task (Mayer, 2008).
14
Meaningful learning is a result of effective instruction and promotes transfer. Learning
outcomes are the transfer process in which a student is able to make use of existing
knowledge to complete an unrelated task. Students who are able to retain and utilize the
newly acquired knowledge have experienced successful transfer. Learning outcomes are
best reflected in a student’s ability to execute specific tasks (Mayer, 2008).
Outcome performance is the learner’s ability to utilize the newly acquired
knowledge towards task completion (Mayer, 2008). The performance measurement often
takes the form of assessment. Teachers utilize two types of assessment, formative and
summative, to monitor student learning (Volante, 2010). Formative assessment is often
real-time interaction between the teacher and the student, which takes the form of
continual interaction and dialogue (Tremblay, 2006). Formative assessment is constant
and provides teachers with a quick estimation of student learning to guide instructional
practice (Erickson, 1986; Mayer, 2008). Summative assessment is a competency
evaluation that is utilized as a final measurement of student learning (Patton, 2002).
Teachers frequently utilize summative assessment to measure learning as a culminating
activity in a unit of study (Tremblay, 2006).
Traditional Classrooms
The primary function of a teacher in the traditional classroom is to facilitate
student learning through classroom management, instructional strategies and curriculum
design (Marzano, 2003). Classroom management is the instructional procedure used to
create and maintain a learning environment. Instructional strategies are instructional
behaviors teachers employ to support student learning. Curriculum design relates to the
planning, sequencing, pacing of learning activities within a unit of study. School-wide
15
decisions directly affect the classroom. However, the largest influence on student
achievement is teacher effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Marzano, 2003).
Instructional Strategies
Instructional strategies are the classroom strategies teachers use to guide students
in the acquisition of content knowledge and skill (Marzano, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe,
2008). The purpose of an instructional strategy is to introduce students to subject matter
and the opportunity to practice declarative and procedural knowledge (Marzano, 2003;
Mayer, 2008; Tyler, 1949). Content and learning experiences can be delivered in a
variety of ways. However, the ultimate goal of learning is for students to effectively
transfer general knowledge to specific cognitive tasks (Mayer, 2008).
Instructional strategy researchers consistently note there is no one specific
strategy, or practice, that can be used to effectively teach all students (Marzano, 2003;
Mayer, 2008). Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001) identified nine effective
instructional strategies used by teachers; 1) identifying similarities and differences, 2)
summarizing and note taking, 3) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, 4)
homework and practice, 5) nonlinguistic representations, 6) cooperative learning, 7)
setting objectives and providing feedback, 8) generating and testing hypotheses, and 9)
cues, questions and advance organizers (Marzano et al., 2001). Researchers have
identified these instructional strategies as effective approaches to increase student
achievement when applied to subject matter and student learning experiences (Marzano,
2003).
Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001) noted that identifying similarities and
differences serves to provide students with the tools to gain new knowledge by utilizing
16
concepts with which they are already familiar. The main instructional categories for
identifying similarities and differences are comparing, classifying and creating meaning.
Teachers scaffold the learning process by explicitly identifying similarities and
differences for the students, then allow the students to work individually and, finally, the
students have the skills necessary to generate their own meaning about the similarities
and differences of the content. Identifying similarities and differences encourages higher
level thinking skills and creates a platform for rich class discussion and conversations.
Specific instructional activities would include Venn diagrams, comparison matrices,
graphic organizers, creating metaphors and creating analogies (Marzano, et al., 2001).
Summarizing and note taking are instructional practices that promote systematic
learning through the synthesis of information (Marzano, et al., 2001). Summarizing is the
act of processing subject matter by deleting, substituting and keeping the most important
information; while putting it into a structure that is understandable. The act of
summarization requires an analysis of subject matter and the ability to discern the
important information from the nonessential. Note-taking is associated with summarizing
because students extract the most important facts from the subject matter. Teachers train
students to become effective note-takers by teaching them to revise their notes and utilize
them as study aides. Exemplars of summarizing and note taking instructional activities
are teacher-prepared notes, note revision, outlines and subject matter webs (Marzano et
al, 2001).
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition are motivational tools that apply to
student attitudes and beliefs about learning and achievement (Marzano et al., 2001). The
purpose of reinforcing effort is to teach students to make a connection between effort and
17
achievement. Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001) stated that students can be taught to
change their beliefs about effort. Prompt praise, rewards and recognition serve to
encourage student effort and have a great influence on student attitudes (Mayer, 2008).
Rewards are most effective when they are connected to goal attainment. Specific
examples of reinforcing effort and recognition are personalized recognition in the form of
charts and rubrics, verbal praise, written praise, concrete symbols and tangible rewards
(Marzano et. al, 2001).
The purpose of homework is to continue the learning process beyond the
classroom environment (Marzano et al., 2001). When homework is applied properly, it
reinforces classroom learning and serves to prepare students for new subject matter.
Specific examples of teacher practices regarding homework are establishing and
communicating the homework policy, articulating purpose, providing varied feedback
and focused practice to increase conceptual understanding (Marzano et al., 2001).
Nonlinguistic representation adheres to the dual coding theory that knowledge is
stored in two ways, either linguistic or nonlinguistic forms (Marzano et al., 2001).
Imagery is a nonlinguistic representation that can be representative, in picture and
sensory forms. This form of representation is most powerful when utilized in conjunction
with written or verbal language learning activities. Nonlinguistic representation increases
brain activity and the likelihood that students will be able to recall new knowledge.
Nonlinguistic instructional strategies consist of creating graphic representations, making
physical models, drawing pictures and engaging in a kinesthetic activity (Marzano et al.,
2001).
18
Cooperative learning is an organized combination of students assigned to
complete a specific learning task (Marzano et al, 2001). Hallmarks of effective
cooperative learning group structures are small groups, teacher designed tasks and
heterogeneous groupings. Cooperative learning activities encourage positive
interdependence, group processing, appropriate use of social skills, face-to-face
interaction, individual and group accountability. Cooperative learning is considered a
flexible instructional strategy because it can be used in a variety of subjects and
classroom contexts. This instructional strategy is most effective when groupings are
purposeful, consistent and systematically utilized during instruction (Marzano et al.,
2001).
Setting objectives and providing feedback encourage students to think
metacognitively (Marzano et al., 2001). Metacognition is an understanding and
awareness of an individual’s own learning process (Mayer, 2008). Objectives are
guidelines that narrow students focus throughout the learning activity, lesson and unit of
study. For example, contracts are teacher and student designed learning objectives.
Feedback is an instructional strategy teachers make use of to communicate student
progress towards specific learning goals and objectives. Feedback serves as a signal for
correct and incorrect learning. Therefore, feedback is most effective when it is timely
and specific (Mayer, 2008). Feedback is an instructional strategy that can take several
different formats: criterion referenced feedback, knowledge/skills rubrics and student led
feedback (Marzano et al., 2001).
Generating and testing hypotheses is when a student applies knowledge to solve a
problem (Marzano et al., 2001). This instructional strategy encourages students to
19
cognitively analyze information through inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive
reasoning takes place when students draw conclusions based on their own prior and new
knowledge. Deductive reasoning is when students use existing constructs to make
predictions. Hypothesis generating and testing is a generalizable activity that can be used
across all subject matter areas. Instructional activities would include system analysis,
problem solving, historical investigations, invention, decision-making templates, and
optional presentation formats (Marzano et al., 2001).
Cues, questions and advance organizers serve to assist students with organizing
new information (Marzano et al., 2001). Cues and questions are informal tools teachers
employ to make a quick diagnosis of students’ subject matter knowledge. Explicit cues
activate prior knowledge and provide clues with which students can organize
information. Analytic questioning elicits higher level thinking by requiring students to
analyze errors, construct support and analyze perspectives. Students use advance
organizers to structure and organize new knowledge. Advance organizers take four
primary formats; expository organizers are descriptive, while narrative is in a story
format, skimming is brief overview of the subject matter and graphic advance organizers
are nonlinguistic representations (Marzano et al., 2001).
Problems with Traditional Schools
The traditional school model is an education model that has changed very little
over the last century (Abrego & Pankake, 2008). This school structure is not in alignment
with nature of fast growing technology and has become a less effective model due to its
lack of change over time. Therefore, effective school leaders must create a learning, and
working, environment to encourage professional growth in technology. As technology
20
evolves, teachers must continue their learning or they will become stagnant. In traditional
schools is that students are often far more technologically savvy than their instructors,
parents and school site administrators. Adults are non-natives who are similar to second
language learners in technology (Kennedy et al., 2010). Increasing faculty’s technology
capacity is an expensive undertaking that would include ongoing staff development and
faculty collaboration as well as establishing supportive conditions in the learning and
working environment (Abrego & Pankake, 2008).
Traditional schools are not always able to provide effective supports for at-risk
students (Archambault et al., 2010) who are least likely to complete high school (Cassidy
& Bates, 2005). These students are often characterized by indicators such as low socio-
economic status, single parent families, family members who are school drop-outs,
multiple school changes, teen pregnancy, minimal parental involvement, incarceration
and a history of drug use (Watson & Gemin, 2008). At-risk students typically do not
perform well in the traditional environment, which contributes to higher dropout rates
(Archambault et al., 2010; Watson & Gemin, 2008). Virtual schools provide services for
students that traditional schools typically are unable to provide; for example, credit
recovery or accelerated study programs are designed to serve these students (Roblyer,
2006). Individualized learning and coursework is more easily obtained for at-risk
students through technology in the virtual learning environment (Archambault et al.,
2010).
Virtual Classrooms
Virtual schools operate under various structural formats, from completely online
to hybrid models. Ash (2010) noted there are currently many definitions for, and
21
variations being utilized in academia, the virtual schooling genre. The hybrid-learning
model combines existing education models (Watson & Gemin, 2008) which include both
online instruction and a range of face-to-face interactions. Both online and hybrid-
learning platforms are utilized with the intention of providing greater student access
through the use of the Internet (Archambault et al., 2010). Roblyer (2006) noted the most
effective strategies in the online learning environment were to prepare students for
success, prepare teachers for success, use interactive and flexible course designs, monitor
and support teachers, as well as to monitor and support students.
Virtual schools are able to provide low cost alternatives for school districts
(Desai, 2008). For example, many districts have begun to exclusively utilize online credit
recovery programs, as opposed to traditional face-to-face programs (Watson & Gemin,
2008; Desai et al., 2008). Many of the online credit recovery programs feature a
prescribed curriculum in which the teacher acts as the facilitator and record keeper, rather
than the curriculum designer and provider (Archambault et al., 2010). Teachers and
students can interact in both synchronous and asynchronous environments to best suit the
needs of the learner, which creates increased flexibility for instructors and students
(Tremblay, 2006).
Archambault, Diamond, Brown, Cavanaugh, Coffey, Foures-Aalbu, Richarson,
and Zygouris-Coe (2010) noted the flexibility and increased curriculum accessibility of
virtual learning have caused an increased popularity for students and districts alike.
Traditional academic environments are not always designed to be as personalized as
virtual institutions. The virtual schooling model provides greater educational flexibility
and an alternative to traditional schools (Archambault et al., 2010; Tremblay, 2006;
22
Watson & Gemin, 2009). Research has shown that part-time and full-time online students
performed better, academically, than their traditional schooling counter parts (Angiello,
2010). Virtual school models create a more personalized student experience and
encourage achievement due to the more adaptive structure. Online learning programs
provide a more accommodating learning environment, in which the institution can tailor
the education program to individual students’ needs (Angiello, 2010).
Virtual, hybrid, and online institutions are being utilized more and more to
address the needs of diverse student populations (Angiello, 2010; Archambault, 2010).
Nearly seventy-five percent of all school districts in the United States are using a version
of online coursework (Archambault, 2010). Researchers noted there are differences in
student learning when evaluating teacher involvement and the commitment of the
learning institution to the learning program (Diaz & Entonado, 2009). Students become
motivated by technology usage in the classroom. Student learning was equal in virtual
and face-to-face programs when online courses addressed students’ specific needs, such
as individual schedules, familial and financial requirements (Pape, 2010).
Virtual instruction provides a platform for teachers where they may utilize online
resources to enhance instruction (Pape, 2010). The combination of online and face-to-
face learning facilitates a more engaging learning environment because students are
empowered to communicate, research, and continue their learning on their own. This
blended learning environment allows students to demonstrate their learning in a variety
of platforms (Pape, 2010), which further serves to motivate and encourage students to
garner greater academic success (Watson & Gemin, 2009). A final advantage of online
23
coursework is that students spend more time on task in virtual schooling than students in
traditional classes (Watson & Gemin, 2009).
Instructional Strategies
Virtual schooling utilizes forms of asynchronous and synchronous instruction and
communication (Tremblay, 2006). Traditionally, online learning programs were
conducted asynchronously; the course content and communication was intermittent
instead of constant. In this environment, teachers and students have the ability to
communicate at the time of their choosing. Synchronous communication, the most
common traditional classroom format, is continual with more real-time interaction.
Synchronous communication software has begun to be used more as technology
improves and grows. Synchronous communication in the virtual classroom serves to
emulate the traditional, real-time, classroom teacher-student interactions (Tremblay,
2006).
A variety of learning approaches, curriculum and learner types are utilized in
online courses (Watson & Gemin, 2009). Rosenthal (2010) noted that virtual
instructional time can be both asynchronous and synchronous. Lecture, discussion and
group work can take place asynchronously. For example, lectures can be recorded and
uploaded online for students to access on their own time. Web-based discussion has
multiple formats in the virtual platform, which take place as asynchronous discussion
boards or during synchronous class time. When instructing asynchronously, the teacher
acts more as a facilitator of subject matter and the students are self-directed (Pape, 2010;
Rosenthal, 2010).
24
Virtual instruction utilizes online resources to enhance daily instruction and
supports active learning (Dexter et al., 1999). The virtual classroom is different from the
traditional classroom. Traditional classrooms are characterized by teacher-student and
student-student interactions, while the virtual classroom includes the additional student-
technology interaction (Desai et al., 2008). The online component creates a different
structure and aspect to communication, which requires the student to become an advocate
for his/her own learning through active communication (Pape, 2010). The virtual learning
environment creates the opportunity for students to demonstrate their learning in a variety
of platforms, such as power point, storybook, web pages, and pod casts (Pape, 2010).
Problems with Technology in Education
Technology rapidly changes, which causes the need for instructional strategies to
change in order to remain relevant to the classroom (Ertmer et al., 2001). Much of the
research demonstrates that teachers and administrators perceive technology as an
important and useful tool in the classroom; however, technology rapidly changes,
becomes outdated, and is expensive to update. Virtual classroom teachers found that
matching curricular expectations to the available resources was not always possible.
Additionally, practitioners and researchers are unable to agree and truly define the most
effective instructional strategies in the virtual format (Ertmer et al., 2001).
Sharma and Maleyeff (2003) asserted that virtual education has three main
problems which can best be categorized as problems with judgment, psychological
distance and ethics. Students who learn from the Internet must learn to navigate the
multitude of resources at their disposal. Judgment problems may arise when students
incorrectly utilize information, or, perhaps, gather faulty information because it is
25
presented in a factual manner. The Internet allows students to communicate easily;
however, students can become emotionally detached and lose the personalization of face-
to-face communication. They may feel less involved or attached to the school, or learning
institution. Additionally, students may become unable to effectively communicate, and
socialize, in the face-to-face environment because they do not understand the intricacies
of social interaction. Finally, students have information easily accessible through the
Internet, which can inadvertently cause unethical behaviors such as plagiarism. The use
of the Internet in virtual education programs encourages innovation and is an obstacle to
meaningful student learning (Sharma & Maleyeff, 2003).
Teacher Perceptions and Instructional Strategies
An individual teacher’s perception of instructional strategies directly impacts the
frequency of usage in the classroom environment (Dexter et al., 1999; Russell et al.,
1988; Wozney et al., 2006). Experienced teachers tend to have stronger beliefs due to
their extensive experience in the classroom, which influences the instructional strategies
they choose to employ (Russell et al., 1988). Teacher beliefs are developed over time
(Rokeach, 1968) and influence the decisions made regarding lesson delivery, content and
instruction in the classroom environment (Russell et al., 1988).
Sources and Influences on Instruction
A belief is a concept an individual holds to be true and is built and developed over
time (Irzik, 2005; Rokeach, 1968). Rokeach (1968) stated the different types of beliefs
are primitive, authority and derived beliefs. Primitive beliefs are developed through
personal experience and are often commonly shared beliefs amongst an individual’s
support structure. Authority and derived beliefs originate from the beliefs of an authority
26
figure and influential groups. A person’s primitive beliefs can rarely be changed, while
authority and derived beliefs can be changed when proven to be false (Irzik, 2005;
Rokeach, 1968). Izrik (2005) posited that beliefs are learned, causal-outcomes from
logical relationships, such as inductive reasoning, implication and contradiction.
However, it is important to note that beliefs are not knowledge; they are learned
perceptions. Beliefs act as an anchor for thoughts and perceptions as well as a guide for
an individual’s actions (Irzik, 2005).
A teacher’s pedagogical and content knowledge, along with his/her beliefs, shape
his/her perception of students and learning (Irzik, 2005). Teachers make use of their
pedagogical knowledge to make instructional decisions (Shulman, 1987). Teachers’
perceptions of student success strengthen their belief in instructional strategies (Shulman,
1987). Specific instructional strategies are utilized when teachers believe they will
benefit themselves and student learning (Dexter et al., 1999; Wozney et al., 2006).
Teacher perceptions about teaching and learning determine how a teacher chooses to
instruct students (Dexter et al., 1999).
Experience. In social cognitive theory, Bandura (1977) stated that an individual’s
belief of self, or self-efficacy, provides the drive for motivation. Schunk (2003) asserted
that self-efficacy can be a predictor in motivation and achievement. An individual
becomes motivated when he/she perceives success, which drives effort, or motivation, to
devote to a task. Classroom practices are reflected by the teacher’s efficacy of practice
and his/her belief in his/her competence as an educator (Guskey & Passaro, 1994).
Teachers utilize pedagogical and content knowledge to instruct students and facilitate
27
their learning. Teacher anxiety can reduce efficacy, while perceived success can increase
efficacy.
Russell, Munby, Spafford and Johnson’s (1988) study supported the idea that
experience was a main factor in teacher beliefs and perception. Teachers with more
experience have more efficacy of practice than teachers who have less experience.
Teachers who are new to teaching, or recent graduates of a teacher preparation program,
are more likely to use theory to guide their instructional practice. Experienced teachers
are more likely to become entrenched in their beliefs and less likely to change. More
experienced teachers are more likely to make instructional decisions, beliefs and theories,
based on their classroom experiences (Russell et al., 1988).
Subject Matter. The subject matter a teacher specializes in, and teaches,
influences the instructional strategies that will be used in the classroom (Ball, 2000). A
teacher’s understanding of content, and its relationship to instruction, ultimately
determines a student’s understanding of the subject matter. Teachers analyze and prepare
the content in a way most effectively structures the students’ learning experience.
Appropriate learning activities for the subject matter topics are chosen by the teacher
using pedagogical knowledge (Ball, 2000). In other words, teachers choose the learning
task to match the content (Tyler, 1949). Teachers are subject matter specialists who
understand the content and know how to make meaning of the content for students
through learning activities (Ball, 2000).
English Language Arts instruction is literacy instruction, which includes reading,
writing and speaking skills (Schoenback et al., 2010). English instruction strategies go
beyond summarizing and answering questions. Researchers commonly assert that all
28
teachers are responsible for teaching literacy (Schoenbach et al., 2010) using strategies
such as vocabulary strategies, think alouds, problem solving, word identification
strategies and multisensory reading strategies to increase comprehension and learning
(Tierney et al., 1985; Yang, 2006). By using such strategies, students learn to monitor
their own learning, problem solve and increase comprehension (Yang, 2006).
Social Studies instruction is a literacy based instruction. Researchers agree that
the Social Studies discipline is heavily laden with factual information (Russell, 2010).
Passive learning techniques are pervasive in Social Studies instruction, although research
routinely states the importance of engaged and active learning. Much of the research
states the significance of teaching students how to access the literature through text by
pre-reading, during reading and post-reading activities (Key et al., 2010, Shriner et al.
2010, Russell, 2010). Pre-reading strategies hint at the important topics students will
need to hone in on the make the instruction more meaningful (Key et al., 2010). During
reading strategies encourage students to actively participate in the learning process. Post
reading activities, such as virtual field trips, hands-on activities and simulations and
provide the opportunity for further comprehension (Key et al., 2010, Shriner et al., 2010,
Russell, 2010). Social studies teachers select specific strategies to encourage student
understanding and engagement.
Mathematics and Science instruction focuses on problem solving skills (Rohrer &
Paschler, 2010). The Mathematics and Science students are required to be able to choose
the appropriate method and solution to solve problems. Students have better recall of
information when class presentations are followed by review (Rohrer & Paschler, 2010).
Methods that prepare students for problem solving include increasing discipline
29
vocabulary, hands-on activities practice, self-testing and review (Ball, 2000; Ibe, 2009;
Rohrer & Paschler, 2010; Slough & Rupley, 2010). Another method utilized in
Mathematics and Science is metacognitive questioning. This strategy serves to help
students determine how problems are solved, what has been learned and has not been
learned (Ibe, 2009). Ultimately, the goal of Mathematics and Science instruction is to
allow students to become independent and generalize their investigation to skills to other
areas of study (Ibe, 2009).
Current Research Gaps
The number of K-12 students taking online courses is growing each year;
however, relatively few teacher education programs address the needs of this growing
field in education (Ferdig et al., 2009). Ferdig, Cavanaugh, Dipietro, Black, and Dawson
(2009) noted that research is minimal on current best teaching practices, instructional
strategies and professional e-teaching standards for K-12 education. This gap in the
research has caused the absence of research-based strategies designed to guide the
teaching practices of teachers in the online environment. Another outcome of this lack of
research is that teacher education programs and professional development programs do
not have a research-based pedagogy with which to base effective practices for virtual
teachers (Ferdig et al., 2009).
Ferdig, Cavanaugh, Dipietro, Black, and Dawson (2009 asserted that there is a
gap in the research regarding pedagogical online general practice and content-based
practices. The platform in which students learn is changing and what worked in one
model may not necessarily work in another (Munro, 2005). Researchers have been unable
to prove face-to-face practices are as effective in the online environment; therefore, much
30
of the research has made an assumption that instructional practices translate well from
face-to-face to online environments (Ferdig et al., 2009).

31
CHAPTER THREE: Research Design and Methodology
This chapter provides an overview of the research methodology used to conduct
this study, a brief overview of the relationship of this study to previous studies, and the
purpose and research questions for the study. This chapter includes an explanation of
participants and sample population, data collection, data analysis, research
instrumentation and study limitations.
As shown in Figure 1, the study methodology was designed to answer the
following research questions:
1. To what extent do teachers’ perceptions of classroom strategies differ between
traditional classroom teachers and virtual classroom teachers?
2. To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional strategies differ
based on years of service (Beginning, Experienced and Advanced years)?
3. To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional strategies differ
based on subject matter taught (English, Social Studies and Mathematics/
Science)?
32
Figure 1: Independent and Dependent Variables of the Study

ANOVA analyses were utilized to determine the relationship of dependent
variables, which are Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) effective instructional
strategies, to the independent variables. Survey items were scored against the average set
of items, which were based on the nine Marzano subscales. A quantitative methodology
was used to gather data for this study through the use of teacher perception surveys.
Teacher practitioners from Capistrano Connections Academy, Riverside Virtual School,
Mercury Online Academy, Pacific Coast High School and Aliso Niguel High School
were identified as participants for this study. Classroom practitioner surveys were
administered to online and traditional classroom teachers through email utilizing
Qualtrics software.
Independent Variable
Virtual Classroom versus
Traditional Classroom
Dependent Variables
1) identifying similarities and
differences, 2) Reinforcing
effort and providing
recognition, 3) Homework and
practice, 4) Nonlinguistic
representations, 5) Cooperative
learning, 6) Setting objectives
and providing feedback, 7)
Generating and testing
hypotheses, 8) Summarizing
and note taking, and 9) Cues,
questions and advance
organizers
Independent Variable
Subject Matter: English, Social
Studies and Mathematics/
Science
Independent Variable
Years of Service: Beginner,
experienced and advanced years
33
Research literature and studies regarding teacher’s perception of instructional
strategies in the online and traditional school settings are scarce. Moreover, there is very
little current research on effective instructional strategies, as the research has shifted to
focus on learning outcomes rather than instructional strategies (Ferdig et al., 2009; Pape,
2010; Watson & Gemin 2009). Ferdig, Cavanaugh, Dipietro, Black, and Dawson (2009)
noted that researchers have made the assumption that effective instructional strategies in
traditional classrooms will work equally as effectively in the virtual classroom setting. In
addition, there is relatively little research regarding effective practices in the virtual
classroom (Ferdig et al., 2009).
Participants and Sample
The participants for the study were educators in the Capistrano Unified School
District (CUSD) and Capistrano Connections Academy (CCA) both in southern Orange
County, California; Riverside Virtual School (RVS), a charter school in the Riverside
Unified School District; Mercury Online Academy (MOA), a charter school functioning
out of Nuview Union; and Pacific Coast High School (PCH), a southern California
charter school. CUSD is the second largest school district in Orange County, educating
over 52,000 students and employing nearly 2,200 teachers (Ed-Data, 2011). The study
participants, at the time of this study, taught at Capistrano Connections Academy,
Riverside Virtual School, Mercury Online Academy, Pacific Coast High School or Aliso
Niguel High School (ANHS). CCA and MOA are fully online charter schools that serve
students in Arizona and Southern California (MOA, 2011) and ANHS is a traditional
brick and mortar high school. RVS and PCH operate as online and traditional schools;
however, all four schools provide tuition-free online education programs. PCH serves
34
students in Orange County. CCA, RVS and MOA serve students in San Bernardino,
Riverside, San Diego and Orange counties in Southern California. ANHS is located in
Orange County. Coursework for all learning institutions is aligned with the California
State Content Standards and high school graduation requirements.
Aliso Niguel High School is a traditional high school with broad educational
programs that include sports, clubs and student government (Ed-Data, 2011). The
average ANHS class size is 31.4 students to one teacher and the school’s total student
population is 3,123. The school wide API score was 851 during the 2009-2010 school
year and is ranked ninth in the similar schools index. Aliso Niguel High School
employed 117 faculty and administrators (Ed-Data, 2011). There are 112 teachers who
instruct students in subject matter, vocation, special education and alternative education
programs. The faculty’s average years of service was 16 years. Of the 117 teachers, there
were 118 credentials held amongst the faculty, as some teachers have earned multiple
credentials. ANHS has 4 site administrators, 3 Guidance Counselors, 2 School
Psychologists, 25 paraprofessionals, 12 office staff, and 15 custodians, bus drivers and
cafeteria workers.
Capistrano Connections Academy is a K-12 learning institution, which
implements a completely online learning platform (CAA, 2011). The average class size
ratio, at the time of this study, was twenty-four students to one teacher (Ed-Data, 2011).
The school’s student population consisted of approximately 762 students, of which 248
were high school students. The school’s API score for 2009-2010 was 793. CCA
employed 30 certificated faculty members (CCA, 2011). The school’s administration
team was made up of 1 principal, 1 resource specialist, 1 academic counselor, and 1
35
school psychologist who is contracted as needed. Teachers and academic counselors have
the most student interaction.
Riverside Virtual School is a 9-12 learning institution which implements a
completely online learning platform (Ed-Data, 2011). The average class size ratio was
twenty-four students to one teacher (Ed-Data, 2011). The school’s student population
consisted of 68 high school students. The school’s API score for 2009-2010 was 814.
RVS employed 1 full-time and 5 certificated part-time faculty members (Ed-Data, 2011).
The school’s administration team was made up of 1 principal. Teachers have the most
student interaction.
Mercury Online Academy is a K-11 learning institution which implements an
online learning platform as well as a hybrid model through which students have the
option to attend classes facilitated by teacher’s assistants (MOA, 2011). At the time of
this study, there were five learning centers located in Southern California. The average
class size ratio was 13.3 students to one teacher and the school’s total student population
is 198 (CDE, 2011). MOA’s school wide API score was 767. Mercury Online Academy
employed 9 certificated secondary faculty members, with some teachers holding multiple
single subject credentials (MOA, 2011). The faculty’s average service period was 8.1
years. The school’s administration team was made up of 1 Administrator and 1 pupil
services staff. Teachers and teacher’s assistants have the most student interaction.
Pacific Coast High School is a K-12 learning institution which utilizes a hybrid
schooling model (PCH, 2011). Students are able to take classes online, as well as receive
face-to-face instruction and support at the school’s learning center. Students who enroll
at PCH have the option of earning a high school diploma through independent study or
36
by taking classes in a traditional school environment. At the time of this study, the school
wide API score was 902 and PCH was ranked eighth amongst similar schools. The
average class size was 34.1 students to one teacher, with a high school student population
of 442. Pacific Coast High School employed 13 secondary virtual classroom teachers
(CDE, 2011).
Instrumentation
Data collection was broken up into two phases: the initial survey administration
and follow up administrations. The first step was to administer surveys to traditional and
virtual classroom practitioners. The second phase consisted of emailing teacher-
respondents reminders with the intention of including faculty who may have missed the
initial data gathering stage.
Practitioner surveys were administered online through Qualtrics software.
Teachers from the five institutions completed the anonymous survey during the Spring
semester of the 2010-2011 school year and Fall semester of 2011-2012. Teachers were
assured of their anonymity to encourage honesty. The Effective Instructional Strategies
Questionnaire (Appendix B) survey was designed based on Marzano, Pickering and
Pollack’s (2001) research and utilized to furnish teachers with a tool to share their
feedback and knowledge. In addition, teacher demographics were collected in the areas
of years of service and subject matter taught in the areas of English, Social Studies,
Mathematics and Science. The following is a description of the survey instrument.
Teacher Surveys
The Effective Instructional Strategies Questionnaire is a 42 item instrument
designed to measure teachers’ perception of researcher-identified effective instructional
37
strategies. The survey instrument consisted of 9 instructional strategy subscales, which
are further defined in Table 1. The survey question items were designed utilizing the
effective instructional strategies identified by Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001).
The research was divided into 9 categories, within which there were instructional
activities subcategories. Teacher respondents assigned a value to each instructional
strategy using a four point Likert Scale. The values range from 1 to 4: 1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree.
Table 1: Components of the Effective Instructional Strategies Survey
Teacher Perception of Instructional Practices Effectiveness
Category # of Items

1. Identifying similarities and differences 4
2. Summarizing and note taking 5
3. Homework and practice 4
4. Nonlinguistic representations 4
5. Cooperative learning 4
6. Setting objectives and providing feedback 6
7. Generating and testing hypotheses 5
8. Reinforcing effort and providing recognition 4
9. Cues, questions and advance organizers 4
Total # of Items 40

Data Collection
The researcher presented a detailed research proposal to site administrators to
obtain authorization for study participation, followed by clearance from the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC) before collecting
survey responses. One hundred fifty-six surveys were distributed by email. Follow-up
emails were sent as participation reminders for the study.
The Effective Instructional Strategies Questionnaire was used to gather data. The
instrument was designed to collect teacher demographics information and perception of
38
instructional strategies. The Qualtrics survey instrument was designed to organize
respondent data into 2 groupings: virtual classroom practitioner responses and traditional
classroom practitioner responses. The same survey was given to both traditional and
virtual teacher populations. ANHS teachers were identified as traditional classroom
teachers, while CCA, RVS, MOA and PCH teachers were identified as virtual classroom
teachers. The intent was to limit respondent errors when choosing traditional versus
virtual teaching platforms. Additionally, survey software was designed to allow
respondents to skip over questions they did not want to answer or did not understand.
Each survey item was designed to answer a specific research question.
Study Pilot
The study was piloted in advance of emailing the survey to the study population
to determine misunderstandings in terminology or survey errors. Surveys were emailed to
25 teachers with specific instructions to 1) complete the survey, 2) highlight any survey
questions, in blue, that were unclear or difficult to understand, 3) highlight specific
terminology in yellow that was unclear or difficult to understand and 4) explain why the
term or question was difficult to understand. Twenty-one surveys were returned to the
researcher with highlighted questions or terminology. Survey items, or questions, and
terminology with two or more highlighted notations were adjusted for better respondent
understanding.
Research Questions
The independent variables were correlated with the nine effective instructional
strategies. There are three independent variables: first, the learning platform the
respondent teaches in, virtual or traditional classroom; second, the years of service in the
39
classroom, which were grouped into 3 categories, beginning, experienced and advanced
years; and, third, the subject matter taught, English, Social Studies or Mathematics/
Science. The study used nine dependent variables: 1) identifying similarities and
differences, 2) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, 3) homework and practice, 4)
nonlinguistic representations, 5) cooperative learning, 6) setting objectives and providing
feedback, 7) generating and testing hypotheses, 8) summarizing and note taking, and 9)
Cues, questions and advance organizers (Marzano et al., 2001).
The dependent variables were organized into the 40 survey items on the Effective
Instructional Strategies Questionnaire. The relationship between the dependent variables
and survey items is demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 2: Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s Instructional Strategies and Instructional
Activities Chart
Instruction Strategy Instructional Activity Survey Item
Identifying Differences and
Similarities
classification, comparison matrix,
creating metaphors and creating
analogies
3, 12, 22, 39
Summarizing and Note
Taking
Outline, written summaries, revision,
teacher prepared notes, and subject
matter webs
10, 18, 20, 28,
41
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition
Personalized recognition by charts and
rubrics, praise, concrete symbols and
tangible rewards
4, 17, 25, 34
Homework and Practice Establishing and communicating a
homework policy, articulate purpose,
various forms of feedback, and
focused practice to increase
conceptual understanding
9, 14, 29, 31
Nonlinguistic
Representations
Constructing graphic representations,
making physical models, drawing
pictures and engaging in a kinesthetic
activity
5, 15, 21, 36
40
Table 2, Continued
Cooperative Learning Homogeneous groupings,
heterogeneous groupings, informal
groups and formal groups
8, 19, 26, 32
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback
Setting specific learning goals,
contracts, criterion referenced
feedback, specific feedback,
knowledge/skills rubrics, and student
led, feedback
6, 13, 30, 33,
38, 42
Generating and Testing a
Hypothesis
System analysis, problem solving,
invention investigations, and decision-
making templates
7, 24, 27, 35,
40
Cues, Questions and
Advanced Organizers
Explicit cues, questions that elicit
inferences, analytic questions that
analyze errors, construct support and
analyze perspectives, and advance
organizers
16, 23, 37, 11

Data Analysis
Once the survey response data was entered into Qualtrics, responses were
uploaded into SPSS software and results were analyzed. To determine whether there was
a difference in perception of instructional practices between traditional and virtual
classroom teachers, One-way ANOVA’s were used. The independent variables were the
teachers’ characteristics and the dependent variables were the effective instructional
strategies, as identified by Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001). This served to create
an understanding of classroom teachers’ perceptions of instructional strategies and
determine whether there were similarities and differences amongst practitioners.
Research Questions and Statistical Methods
All research questions were answered by testing the dependent variables, which
are the same amongst all teachers, regardless of the classroom environment, years of
41
service and subject matter in which they were teaching at the time of the survey. One-
way AVOVA’s were used to analyze whether teachers’ perceptions of effective
instructional strategies were the same amongst teachers. A 2 x 3 x 3 factorial ANOVA
was utilized to determine any additional findings for this study. A factorial detects the
effect between levels of independent variables (Salkind, 2008).The factorial ANOVA
used for the study is further described in Table 3. The standard of significance was
designated as .05 because, in education, this is considered statistically significant.
Figure 2: 2 x 3 x 3 Factorial ANOVA Used For the Additional Findings

2 (Type of Classroom) x 3 (Years of Service) x 3 (Subject Matter Taught)

X X

The following three steps were taken to measure the difference between teachers.
First, survey items were placed into prearranged subscales, as defined by Marzano,
Pickering and Pollack (2001), to more effectively manage the survey items. Second,
reliability diagnostics were run to determine adequate levels of reliability within the nine
Marzano subscales. Third, an individual analysis of the effect of three independent
variables: traditional verses online, years of service and subject matter taught, on each of
Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine subscales.
Research Question 1. Research question 1 was answered by running a T-test for
independent means. The accompanying eta coefficients were used as a measure of the
strength of the relationship.
Type of
Classroom: Online
versus Traditional
Subject Matter
Taught: English,
Social Studies and
Mathematics/ Science
Years of Service:
Beginning, Experienced
and Advanced years
42
Research Question 2. Research question 2 was answered by using a One-way
ANOVA with eta coefficients.
Research Question 3. Research question 3 was answered by using a One-way
ANOVA with eta coefficients.
Additional Findings. A Three-way ANOVA was run to determine interactions
between independent variables: classroom type, subject matter and years of service and
the dependent variables, which are Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine
instructional strategies.
Limitations of the Study
There were statistical conclusions, internal, and external validity limitations in
this study. Statistical conclusion validity limitations include power. The sample size was
87 respondents, and thus the sample population is only minimally sufficient for a
comprehensive study to determine statistical significance. Internal validity limitations
take place when the researcher is not able to establish a causal relationship between an
independent variable and an outcome (McEwan & McEwan, 2003), and, in this study,
those limitations include unmeasured outside factors, such as, virtual teacher’s
experience in the traditional classroom may influence their opinions of Marzano,
Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective instructional strategies. External validity
limitations take place when a study cannot hold in an alternate setting, or is not
generalizable (McEwan & McEwan, 2003) and, in this study, the external validity may
not extend beyond the study’s population, the context and the measures of Marzano,
Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine instructional factors. The final limitation to this
43
study is the assumption that virtual classroom learning is the same as traditional, or in-
class, learning.
44
CHAPTER FOUR: Analysis of the Findings
The purpose of this study was to determine traditional and virtual classroom
teachers’ perceptions regarding Marzano’s effective instructional strategies for student
learning in virtual and traditional classrooms. A total of 87 teachers participated in this
study. The study methodology was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. To what extent do teachers’ perceptions of classroom strategies differ between
traditional classroom teachers and virtual classroom teachers?
2. To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional strategies differ
based on their years of service (Beginning, Experienced and Advanced
years)?
3. To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional strategies differ
based on subject matter taught (English, Social Studies and Mathematics/
Science)?
Organization of the Data
The findings were organized and analyzed within the context of three research
questions. Each of the research questions are followed by descriptive statistics and a
narrative explanation of the tables. Research question one aimed to determine the
differences in perception of Marzano’s Instructional Strategies between virtual and
traditional classroom teachers. Research questions two and three aimed to determine
differences between teachers within three subject matter groupings and teachers within
three years of service groupings.
45
Table 3: Frequency Counts for Selected Variables (N = 87)
Variable Category n %
Type of Classroom

Online 29 33.3
Traditional 58 66.7
Years of Service
Less than 10 25 28.7
10-19 37 42.5
20 and above 25 28.7
Subject Matter Taught
English 31 35.6
Social Studies 24 27.6
Mathematics/Science 32 36.8

Participants
The participants for this study were secondary teachers from one traditional
school and four virtual schools. The data were obtained by utilizing the Effective
Instructional Strategies Questionnaire. The respondents identified themselves by their
school site, years of service and subject matter assignment.
Table 3 displays the frequency counts for selected variables. Fifty-eight
traditional classroom teachers (66.7%) participated alongside twenty-nine virtual
classroom teachers. Participants identified their years of service within three distinct
categories: twenty-nine percent of respondents taught for 0-9 years, forty-three percent of
respondents taught for 10-19 years and twenty-nine percent of respondents had 20 or
more years of service. Teachers documented subject matter taught by choosing from
three categories: a) English, b) Social Studies or c) Mathematics/ Science. Thirty-six
percent taught English, twenty-eight percent taught Social Studies and thirty-nine percent
taught Mathematics/ Science. Participants were instructed to choose the discipline they
spent the most time teaching in if they taught in more than one discipline (Table 3).
46
Table 4: Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores (N = 87)
Score Number of Items M SD Low High α
Identifying Similarities
and Differences

4

3.24

0.42

2.00

4.00

.53
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition

4

3.20

0.51

2.00

4.00

.69
Homework and Practice 4 3.42 0.41 2.25 4.00 .50
Nonlinguistic
Representations

4

3.28

0.42

2.00

4.00

.50
Cooperative Learning 4 3.12 0.47 1.75 4.00 .60
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback

6

3.31

0.35

2.50

4.00

.62
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses

5

3.42

0.45

2.00

4.00

.79
Summarizing and Note
Taking

5

3.12

0.33

2.20

3.80

.48
Cues, Questions and
Advance Organizers

4

3.50

0.38

2.75

4.00

.72
Total Score 42 3.29 0.31 2.58 3.29 .92

Table 4 displays the psychometric characteristics for the ten summated scale
scores. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients ranged from α = .48 to α = .92 with
a median alpha of α = .61. With seven of the ten scale scores having internal reliabilities
below the traditional cut-off score of α = .70 (Salkind, 2008), interpretative caution needs
to be exercised when using these scales in this type of study.
Research Questions and Analysis of Data
Research Question 1: To what extent do teachers’ perceptions of classroom
strategies differ between traditional classroom teachers and virtual classroom teachers?
47
To answer this question, Table 5 displays the results of the t test comparisons for
the ten ratings. Inspection of the table found no significant differences in the ratings for
eight of the ten subscales. However, traditional classroom teachers gave significantly
higher ratings than Virtual teachers for Subscale 5, “Cooperative Learning” (p = .03) and
Subscale 8, “Summarizing and Note taking” (p = .001) (Table 5).
Table 5: Comparison of Selected Satisfaction Ratings Based on Whether the Respondent
was a Traditional or Virtual Teacher (N = 87)
Rating
Classroom
Type
a
N M SD Eta t p

Identifying Similarities
and Differences

T

58

3.29

0.43

.18

1.70

.09
V 29 3.13 0.37
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition

T

58

3.22

0.50

.04

0.37

.71
V 29 3.17 0.52
Homework and Practice T 58 3.47 0.43 .16 1.46 .15
V 29 3.33 0.37
Nonlinguistic
Representations

T

58

3.33

0.43

.16

1.46

.15
V 29 3.19 0.39
Cooperative Learning T 58 3.20 0.46 .23 2.21 .03
V 29 2.97 0.48
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback

T

58

3.34

0.38

.10

0.89

.38
V 29 3.26 0.30
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses

T

58

3.40

0.46

.04

0.37

.71
V 29 3.44 0.42
Summarizing and Note
Taking

T

58

3.21

0.31

3.9

3.91

.001
V 29 2.94 0.29

48
Table 5, Continued
Cues, Questions and
Advance Organizers

T

58

3.52

0.41

.11

0.99

.33
V 29 3.44 0.32
Total Scores

T

58

3.33

0.34

.18

1.70

.09
V 29 3.21 0.24
Note. Ratings based on a four point scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agre
a
Classroom Type: T = Traditional V = Virtual.

Research Question 2: To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional
strategies differ based on their years of service (Beginning, Experienced and Advanced
years)?
To answer this question, Table 6 displays the results of the one-way ANOVA
comparisons based on the teachers’ years of service. Inspection of the table found no
significant differences for any of the ten measures (Table 6).

49
Table 6: Comparison of Selected Satisfaction Ratings Based on Years of Teaching
Experience (N = 87)
Rating
Years of
Experience

n M SD Eta t p

Identifying Similarities
and Differences

0-9

25

3.20

0.34

.06

0.27

.88
10.19 37 3.25 0.49
20+ 25 3.25 0.39
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition

0-9

25

3.15

0.47

.10

0.45

.64
10.19 37 3.18 0.57
20+ 25 3.28 0.45
Homework and Practice

0-9

25

3.36

0.41

.23

2.32

.11
10.19 37 3.53 0.38
20+ 25 3.32 0.44
Nonlinguistic
Representations

0-9

25

3.26

0.44

.16

1.03

.36
10.19 37 3.35 0.40
20+ 25 3.20 0.41
Cooperative Learning

0-9

25

3.04

0.47

.24

2.54

.09
10.19 37 3.25 0.43
20+ 25 3.01 0.51
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback

0-9

25

3.26

0.36

.16

1.13

.33
10.19 37 3.38 0.37
20+ 25 3.27 0.31
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses

0-9

25

3.39

0.41

.04

0.05

.95
10.19 37 3.43 0.47
20+ 25 3.42 0.46
Summarizing and Note
Taking

0-9

25

3.17

0.37

.10

0.42

.66
10.19 37 3.01 0.32
20+ 25 3.01 0.30

50
Table 6, Continued
Cues, Questions and
Advance Organizers

0-9

25

3.49

0.37

.04

0.06

.94
10.19 37 3.51 0.41
20+ 25 3.48 0.37
Total Scores 0-9 25

3.26

0.27

.11

0.54

.59
10.19 37 3.32 0.35
20+ 25 3.26 0.31

Research Question 3: To what extent does a teacher’s perception of instructional
strategies differ based on subject matter taught (English, Social Studies, Mathematics
and Science)?
To answer this question, Table 7 displays the results of the one-way ANOVA for
nine of the ten scores. No significant differences were found based on subject matter
taught. However, significant differences were found for the ratings for Subscale 7:
Generating and Testing Hypotheses (p = .008). Scheffe post hoc tests found
Math/Sciences teachers gave significantly higher ratings for this subscale than did either
the English Language Arts teachers or the Social Science teachers (p = .03). For this
subscale, ELA and SS teachers gave similar ratings (p = .98) (Table 7).
51
Table 7: Comparison of Selected Satisfaction Ratings Based on Subject Matter Taught
(N = 87)
Rating
Subject Matter
Taught
a
n M SD η F p

Identifying Similarities
and Differences

ELA

31

3.23

0.44

.11

0.51

.60
SS 24 3.30 0.40
M/S 32 3.19 0.41
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition

ELA

31

3.26

0.51

.10

0.46

.63
SS 24 3.13 0.53
M/S 32 3.20 .50
Homework and Practice ELA 31

3.34

0.41

.15

0.96

.39
SS 24 3.48 0.46
M/S 32 3.45 0.37
Nonlinguistic
Representations
ELA 31 3.34 0.45 .14 0.77 .46.
SS 24 3.20 0.39
M/S 32 3.29 0.40
Cooperative Learning ELA 31

3.16

0.41

.09

0.37

.69
SS 24 3.05 0.45
M/S 32 3.13 0.55
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback

ELA

31

3.30

0.36

.04

0.06

.94
SS 24 3.33 0.36
M/S 32 3.31 0.36
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses

ELA

31

3.32

0.41

.33

5.07

.008
SS 24 3.29 0.51
M/S 32 3.61 0.37
Summarizing and Note
Taking

ELA

31

3.06

0.36

.17

1.20

.31
SS 24 3.20 0.33
M/S 32 3.11 0.29

52
Table 7, Continued
Cues, Questions and
Advance Organizers

ELA

31

3.46

0.40

.10

0.39

.68
SS 24 3.55 0.41
M/S 32 3.49 0.35
Total Scores ELA

31

3.27

0.32

.06

.13

.88
SS 24 3.28 0.33
M/S 32 3.31 0.29
a
Subject Matter: ELA = English Language Arts, SS = Social Studies, M/S = Math/Science.
b
Scheffe post hoc tests: M/S > ELA (p = .03); M/S > SS (p = .03); ELA ≈ SS (p = .98).
Additional Findings
As an additional exploratory analysis, Table 8 displays the results of the three-
way ANOVA model examining the teacher’s total score based on type of classroom,
subject matter and level of experience. The overall model was not significant (p = .97)
and accounted for only 9.7% of the variance in the teacher’s total score. Inspection of the
table found none of the main effects, two-way interaction effects or the three-way
interaction effect to be significant at the p < .05 level (Table 8).
Respondents were asked to reply to the open ended question, “Please share the
teaching strategies you use in your classroom.” Forty-six teachers responded to this
question. The teacher response pattern included one, if not all, of the following
characteristics: Marzano’s strategies, classroom management strategies, Bloom’s
taxonomy, specific strategies and the frequency and comfort of usage. The two most
discussed subscales were Cooperative learning groups and Summarizing and Note
Taking. Thirty-one teachers stated they used summarizing and note taking on a regular
basis, while thirty teachers discussed their usage and comfort level with cooperative
learning groups.
53
Table 8: Three-Way ANOVA Examining the Total Score Based on Type of Classroom,
Subject Matter and Level of Experience (N = 87)

Source

SS

df

MS

F

p
Partial
Eta
Squared
Full Model 0.81 17 0.05 0.43 .97 .097
Classroom 0.22 1 0.22 2.02 .16 .028
Subject 0.03 2 0.02 0.15 .86 .004
Experience 0.02 2 0.01 0.10 .91 .003
Classroom X Subject 0.07 2 0.03 0.31 .73 .009
Classroom X Experience 0.07 2 0.03 0.30 .74 .009
Subject X Experience 0.17 4 0.04 0.38 .82 .022
Classroom X Subject X Experience 0.18 4 0.04 0.40 .81 .023
Error 7.58 69 0.11
Total 8.39 86

When given the opportunity to discuss strategies, participant’s discussion mostly
focused on their like or dislike of strategies. Cooperative Learning and Summarizing and
Note Taking were more polarizing than other subscales in the study. When teachers
discussed Cooperative Learning, typical responses included the mechanics, enjoyment
and usage of the strategy. Unlike Cooperative Learning Groups, respondents all appeared
to value Summarizing and Note Taking. There were lengthy responses about the variety
of ways in which to apply this strategy. Other topics respondents discussed using were
scaffolding, chunking information, differentiation, student centered learning, Bloom’s
taxonomy building background and checking for understanding strategies.
Respondents were asked to respond to an open ended question regarding their
years of service, “Please share your teaching experience in the classroom.” There was
one hundred percent participation in this question. The teacher response pattern included
one, if not all, of the following characteristics: years of service, subject matter taught,
credentials and learning platform. The most notable response pattern came from the
54
virtual teachers. Nearly all virtual classroom teachers discussed their training and
credentials; yet no virtual classroom teacher discussed training or education specifically
designed for teaching in a virtual classroom. Of the 29 virtual classroom respondents, 28
previously taught in the traditional classroom. The years of service in the traditional
classroom ranged from a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 39 years of service in the
traditional classroom. Only 1 teacher had taught exclusively in the virtual classroom
environment. These responses were particularly interesting because the virtual teachers
had experience in both types of classrooms. The open-ended responses provided further
insight about teacher’s individual backgrounds and their reasoning for choosing specific
survey responses, which allowed me to further interpret and understand the three research
questions.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this chapter was to share the findings of an online survey with
teachers from traditional and virtual high schools. Open-ended comments collected from
participants were included in the findings’ descriptive narrative. Traditional and virtual
teachers had differences in their beliefs of Marzano’s Instructional Strategies; however,
there are also many similarities between the two groups. The greatest differences
between the two groups of teachers were within Cooperative Learning and Summarizing
and Note Taking (Table 7). Additionally, there was a difference among teachers in the
three subject matter groupings. Mathematics and Science teachers believed that
Generating and Testing Hypotheses was more important than did their English and Social
Studies counterparts (Table 8). Interestingly, Generating and Testing Hypotheses also
was the only subscale in which online instructors’ importance ratings were higher than
55
traditional instructors. The Chapter Five discussion focuses on the findings, conclusions
drawn from the data, implications for practice, and suggestions for future research.
56
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions and Recommendations
This study was designed to gain a greater understanding of teaching strategies in
traditional and virtual classroom environments. This chapter focuses on the findings, data
conclusions, implications, future research and concluding thoughts. The rationale for this
study was that it is necessary to gain a research-based understanding of teachers’
perceptions of instructional strategies for the virtual schooling format as online education
programs steadily increase in number.
Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective instructional strategies
were used as the foundation of this study because they are widely accepted as high yield
strategies. Much of the current virtual classroom instruction research states that
traditional classroom strategies are equally effective in the virtual classroom environment
while never truly testing that assertion (Pape, 2005). Three research questions guided this
study: to what extent do teachers’ perceptions of classroom strategies differ 1) between
traditional classroom teachers and virtual classroom teachers 2) based on years of
experience and 3) based on subject matter taught?
The results of this study were largely consistent with the existing research;
however, there were a few conflicts within the findings. Traditional and virtual classroom
teachers did not arrive at complete agreement on their beliefs regarding Marzano,
Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective instructional strategies. The limitations
within two of the subscales, Cooperative Learning and Summarizing and Note Taking,
could be attributed to the fact that all virtual classroom teachers, with the exception of
one, had experience in the traditional classroom. Subscale inconsistencies with the
research could be caused by virtual teachers’ broader experiences in the two classroom
57
formats. Teachers within the three experience groupings, Beginning, Experienced and
Advanced, equally agreed that Marzano’s strategies were effective in the classroom.
Teachers within the three subject matter groupings, English, Social Studies and
Mathematics/Science, largely agreed upon strategies they believed were most effective
with the exception of one subscale, Generating and Testing Hypotheses. Overall, the
most significant interactions in this study took place within the virtual and traditional
classroom teachers.
Summary of Findings
The summary findings below are organized by research question. Each research
question is followed by study findings, then supporting research literature and research
literature that is in disagreement with the study findings.
Finding # 1: There was a significant difference between virtual and traditional
teacher’s perceptions of Marzano’s nine effective instructional strategies.
The purpose of research question 1 was to determine whether there was a
difference between virtual and traditional teachers’ perceptions of Marzano, Pickering
and Pollack’s instructional strategies. Traditional classroom teachers believed that
Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective instructional strategies were
more valuable than did virtual classroom teachers. Traditional teachers valued eight of
the nine strategy subscales more highly than did their virtual teaching counterparts.
Therefore, virtual classroom teachers were less likely to use the Marzano strategies in
their classrooms. This finding is in agreement with Munro’s (2005) contention that what
is operational in one learning platform may not necessarily be effective in another. As
Roblyer (2009) stated, virtual instruction is a growing instructional medium that serves to
58
provide teachers and students with a new avenue for success in education. Therefore, it is
relevant and important to determine which strategies work specifically for the virtual
classroom.
Traditional and virtual teachers did not come to full agreement on the
effectiveness of the nine instructional strategies which are widely accepted in the
research on effective teaching strategies in the traditional classroom. Teachers in both
learning platforms were in agreement within the following subscales: identifying
similarities and differences, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, homework and
practice, nonlinguistic representations, setting objectives and providing feedback,
generating and testing hypotheses, and cues, questions and advance organizers; however,
the Cooperative Learning and Summarizing and Note Taking subscales were found to
give rise to significant differences between the two groups of teachers. Additionally, in
the open-ended response questions, teachers discussed Cooperative Learning and
Summarizing and Note Taking more than any of the other strategies.
Teacher’s varied responses could be attributed to individual teacher’s preference
and differing opinions of the most effective way to teach students. Comments appeared to
focus on the respondent’s belief of usefulness or management problems associated with
Cooperative Learning. Another possibility for the difference could be the relatively little
time and opportunity to utilize Cooperative Learning Groups in virtual classroom
learning. It would stand to reason that virtual classroom teachers rated Cooperative
Learning lower than their traditional classroom counterparts. There were fewer
comments by virtual classroom teachers about Summarizing and Note Taking strategies,
which may be due to the fact that much of the virtual classroom curriculum is prescribed
59
curriculum. This is curriculum in which the teacher acts more as a facilitator than a
curriculum designer and instructor.
Cooperative Learning and Summarizing and Note Taking were also the two
subscales in which there were significant differences between virtual and traditional
school teachers. This discrepancy in thinking is noteworthy because it has been widely
accepted that what works in the traditional classroom will also work in the online
classroom (Ferdig et al., 2009). It became clear that teachers do not believe the two
learning environments are similar; therefore, the strategies would need to be adapted and
modified to suit the classroom.
Researchers Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001) asserted that the nine
effective instructional strategies are universal strategies that will work in all classroom
types, which is in disagreement with this study’s findings. Virtual classroom teachers
consistently rated the strategy subscales lower than did traditional teachers, which
contradicts Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) research. Their research was
developed in the traditional classroom setting, not in the virtual classroom. Therefore, it
can safely be assumed that, within the context of these schools in this study, the previous
research stating these strategies are the most effective strategies for all class types may
not necessarily be correct.
Finding #2: There was no significant difference between teachers of various levels of
experience.
There was no significant difference in results among the three experience level
groupings: Beginning, Experienced and Advanced years of service. This finding agrees
with Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) assertion that the nine effective
60
instructional strategies are valuable in all classrooms for all learners. Years of service act
as a means to further entrench a teacher in his/her personal teaching ideology. However,
it is a teacher’s knowledge of content, personal success and students’ success with
strategies that determine the strength of belief in those strategies (Izrik, 2005; Shulman,
1987, Wozney et al., 2006). As this study demonstrated, teachers are more inclined to use
strategies which they perceive to bring about success in student learning. Additionally,
Shulman (1987) agreed that teachers utilize their pedagogical knowledge to make
instructional decisions.
This study’s findings demonstrate that years of service had no bearing on a
teacher’s belief of an instructional practice. Study participants identified their years of
service and had the opportunity to respond to open-ended questions regarding their usage
and belief in Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective strategies. There
were zero teachers who responded that their years of service were a means to determine
whether a strategy was useful or not; rather, the respondents chose to discuss perceived
success or failure while using a particular strategy. Therefore, these findings are
inconsistent with the research. For example, much of the research states that, the more
experienced a teacher, the stronger held beliefs, which ultimately will influence the
instructional strategies they choose to utilize in the classroom (Russell et al., 1988).
Furthermore, researchers have also noted that teacher beliefs are developed over time and
influence the decisions made regarding lesson delivery, content and instruction in the
classroom environment (Rokeach, 1968; Russell et al., 1988). This study’s findings
suggest that there were alternate reasons for teachers’ believing instructional strategies
were successful.
61
There are two possible explanations, other than experience level, for teachers’
believing a strategy is successful. One might be a teacher’s perceived relationship
between the strategy and the efficacy of that strategy. The respondents consistently
discussed their usage of a strategy because they observed it in action and believed the
strategy was effective in teaching students. Another reason could also be motivation.
Teachers who are motivated, and passionately believe in a strategy, are more likely to be
successful, than their less motivated counterpart.
Finding # 3: There was a significant difference between teachers who taught in
different subject matter areas.
There was a significant difference found between teachers who taught
Mathematics/Science and their English and Social Studies counterparts. For example,
Scheffe post hoc tests found Mathematics/Science teachers gave significantly higher
ratings for this subscale than did the English Language Arts teachers or the Social
Science teachers. Mathematics/Science teachers believed Generating and Testing
Hypotheses to be a more valuable practice than did the other two groups of teachers,
which was not a surprising finding among the three subject matter groupings. According
to the research, Mathematics and Science teachers’ curriculum heavily focuses on
problem-solving skills that include generating and testing hypotheses (Rohrer &
Paschler, 2010; Slough & Rupley, 2010). Researchers agree that Mathematics and
Science teachers focus on questioning and testing hypotheses (Ibe, 2009; Rohrer &
Paschler, 2010).
The study findings established that Mathematics/Science teachers did not come to
a complete consensus on all subscales with the teachers of English and Social Studies
62
teachers. This finding is in contradiction to the research that states English, Social
Studies and Mathematics/Science teachers all utilize teaching strategies which focus on
problem solving (Marzano et al., 2001; Yang, 2006; Key et al. 2010). Generating and
testing hypotheses focuses on problem-solving as a strategy for student learning.
Specifically, Yang (2006) noted that English teachers use strategies that teach students to
monitor their own learning, problem-solve and increase comprehension (Yang, 2006). In
Social Studies instruction, strategies focus on post reading activities, which include
simulations and problem-solving to encourage further comprehension (Key et al., 2010,
Shriner et al., 2010, Russell, 2010). All three subject matter teacher groupings utilized
Generating and Testing Hypotheses; however, Mathematics/Science teachers appeared to
value this subscale more highly than did their counterparts.
Mathematics/Science teachers’ value of the subscale Generating and Testing
Hypotheses can be attributed to the focus of the discipline. Strengthening a hypothesis by
rejecting or accepting ideas based on testing is at the heart of these disciplines. Social
Sciences, such as English and Social Studies, also focus on strengthening hypotheses
based on testing; however, these disciplines have a greater focus on reading, writing and
linking concepts. It is clear that all disciplines value the same strategies, but the focus on
generating and testing hypotheses is greater in Mathematics/Science classrooms.
Limitations
The limitations of this study included the sample size, variations of programs in
virtual schools and scale. The sample size caused difficulties in conducting this study for
the reason that virtual schools tend to have a smaller faculty size than traditional schools.
Virtual schools address learning through a variety of ways, unlike traditional schools
63
which are quite similar in make-up and design. Although widely accepted as a survey
instrument measure of agreement, the Likert scale’s measure of agreement is separately
measured, which caused difficulty determining significance within subscales.
The study instrument was first launched in June of 2011. At that time, the
researcher was able to obtain a sufficient number of traditional school teacher
respondents but unable to gain an adequate number for the virtual teaching population.
Only eleven, of the thirty-five, virtual classroom practitioners responded to the survey,
which led to a six month search for additional virtual study schools. There were many
challenges in gaining access to virtual school sites to conduct the study. For example, the
researcher spent nearly six months reaching out to over forty school site administrators
through phone calls and emails with no response. This led to face-to-face visitation
attempts, which were also met with resistance. These administrators did not return phone
calls, emails or set up meeting times to discuss survey participation. The final two study
schools were obtained in December of 2011, and the study was launched in January of
2012. Similar to the previous virtual schools, the study population was fairly small,
which was a limitation to this study.
Another limitation to this study was the variety of types of virtual schools within
the study. Currently, there is no one specific design for virtual schools. For example,
within this study, there were three different designs used to instruct students. Two
schools employed two variations of a hybrid model in which both synchronous and
asynchronous instruction was applied. The other two school sites utilized prescribed
curriculum, in which the teacher acts as a facilitator, mentor and tutor as opposed to
curriculum designer and instructor. It became apparent that Marzano may not apply to
64
these sites, as face-to-face instruction was not applied during direct instruction. The final
limitation to this study was the Likert scale which utilized the 4 levels of agreement.
Likert scales produce a highly reliable scale when paired with the appropriate survey
instrument; however, the level of agreement is separately measured. For example, within
a subscale, teachers may be in agreement 90 percent of the time when combining
response values “agree” and “strongly agree.” However, the Likert scale in this study
measured level of agreement separately. Therefore, if 40 percent agreed and 50 percent
strongly agreed, it will appear as though respondents did not form a consensus of
agreement.
Recommendations
Recommendations for practice were made for research question 1 and none were
made for research questions 2 and 3. There were no significant findings for research
question 2. Therefore, there was not a need to make recommendations based on the
study’s results. Although research question 3 yielded a significant finding on subscale
Generating and Testing Hypotheses, it was logical difference based upon the disciplines
within which it was found. Therefore, there are no recommendations for this research
question.
Recommendations for Practice: Research Question 1
Recommendations for practice became apparent as the story of the study unfolded
with data analysis. There was a distinctive difference between virtual and traditional
classroom teaching. For example, students may be taught synchronously or
asynchronously and some virtual schooling programs have learning programs in which
the teacher acts as a facilitator. Additionally, virtual classroom teachers use a traditional
65
classroom teaching credential to teach online classes. These teachers are not trained to
specifically teach in the virtual classroom environment. As an outcome of this study, two
recommendations include the following suggestions:
1. In response to research question 1, a school specific intervention program for
virtual classroom teachers.
2. In response to research question 1, a course of study specific to virtual classroom
instruction.
Practitioner Recommendations for Research Question 1
An intervention for online teachers may be necessary to help virtual classroom
teachers recognize the value in Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) strategies. The
purpose of this intervention plan would be to train and educate teachers in strategies that
are accepted as effective. School policy and administration decisions play a direct role on
student learning at school sites (Dawson & Billingsley, 2002) although curriculum design
responsibilities differ from district to district. However, traditionally, classroom teachers
have had the power to determine how to disseminate the course content to students.
Teachers have the greatest impact on student achievement and it is the responsibility of
an administrator to ensure learning takes place in the classroom every day (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998).
One recommendation to arise from this study is a three-step plan to implement the
intervention program. The program consists of training, planning and reflection, which
relate to the study finding that virtual classroom teachers are not trained for online
teaching. The first step is teacher training which, ideally, finds a way to adapt all nine
strategies to the virtual classroom content. Once trained, teachers would have acquired
66
the skills necessary to make appropriate adjustments to their curriculum. The next step
would be to provide time. Teachers often attend trainings but are rarely given the time
necessary to implement learned strategies in their classroom (Harwell, 2003). Building in
time would provide the essential support to effectively implement strategies in the
classroom. The final step includes reflection, as teachers need time to reflect on their
practice (Schon, 1987). The intervention should specifically provide teachers with time
allotted for reflection, problem solving, collaboration, and discussion with colleagues or
mentors.
Ultimately, the program would be designed specifically for each individual
institution and progress assessment would be the responsibility of the site administration
and teachers. Data may be utilized to determine whether the intervention was a success or
failure, as well as to guide instructional strategy improvement during reflection and peer
collaboration. The intervention program should include continuous training and yearly
adjustments to cater to the changing needs of the student population and technology. This
intervention plan should be reviewed and adjusted annually to ensure continued
effectiveness.
Policy Recommendations for Research Question 1
There must be teacher education programs and professional development
programs that have research-based pedagogy in which to base effective practices for
virtual teachers. Current teaching programs focus on teaching skills such as subject
matter knowledge, academic ability, professional knowledge, enthusiasm, flexibility,
perseverance and concern for children to have a positive influence on student learning
(Darling-Hammond, 2003). These traditional programs are based on educating students
67
in the traditional classroom, although virtual schools have continued to increase in
popularity and number for a variety of reasons (Archambault et al., 2010; Tremblay,
2006; Watson & Gemin, 2009). Virtual schools are here to stay, so it is necessary to
remain consistent with the scholarly tradition in the teaching field. Programs must adapt,
as schools have adapted to new technology.
It is imperative that we recognize the growing number of children who will be
educated in this increasingly accepted learning platform. Virtual classrooms have their
limitations, as do traditional classroom settings. Not one study participant mentioned
specific training to become an online teacher, while nearly all teachers discussed the
training they had to become a traditional classroom teacher. As the study findings
unfolded, it became apparent that teachers are unable to use exactly the same teaching
strategies in the virtual classroom as in the traditional classroom. Therefore, it is relevant
and true that teachers need specific training to teach in this virtual learning platform
(Ferdig et al., 2009).
In conclusion, it the responsibility of the Department of Education to recognize
that the standard teaching credential will not suffice for a new teaching medium. Virtual
and traditional classrooms are different. Consequently, teachers need training specific for
the learning platform they work within.
Future Research
In order to increase teacher effectiveness in the virtual classroom, there are four
suggestions for future research: 1) utilize other strategies in addition to Marzano,
Pickering and Pollack’s strategies, 2) design virtual school best practices, 3) increase the
68
sample size of the study and 4) use a mixed methodology of quantitative and qualitative
research.
Given the findings of this study and what the research says in relation to teacher
beliefs, one recommendation is that more research should be conducted on instructional
strategies in the virtual classroom environment. Including all strategies utilized by
teachers, rather than limiting the study to Marzano’s strategies, will serve to paint a more
complete picture of strategies used in the virtual classroom. Furthermore, research should
be conducted on the efficacy of usage in virtual classrooms. Substandard teaching has a
negative impact on student learning and achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
National and state priorities should be research and educating those who teach in the
virtual classroom.
First, future research should focus on broadening the scope of teaching strategies
used in the virtual classroom beyond Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) strategies.
Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective teaching strategies are widely
accepted as strong teaching strategies that work in the classroom. However, they are not
the only strategies teachers use. As more and more children are being educated in virtual
classrooms, it is important to understand what techniques are being utilized and what is
most effective and appropriate for this learning medium. A more extensive study may
establish a greater variety of strategies, as this study limited the research to Marzano,
Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) strategies.
Second, Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) research was not designed for
virtual classrooms but for the traditional classroom. Virtual instruction is individual to
each institution and manifests itself in various ways. For example, one school may
69
engage in exclusively online instruction while another may utilize a hybrid model, or a
combination of online and face-to-face interactions. Other institutions may use
synchronous instruction, asynchronous instruction or a combination of both which may
not necessarily support the research of Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001).
Therefore, there is a need to develop virtual classroom best practices that are specific to
the unique needs of the virtual classroom environment.
Third, an increased sample size of all stakeholders including teachers,
administrators and students would enable future researchers to gain a big picture view of
the unique, and growing, atmosphere of the virtual classroom. By allowing more
stakeholders to share their opinions, the survey will demonstrate different tendencies
amongst the individual categories. This may illustrate a more accurate picture of the
climate within which the study is held.
The fourth, and final, suggestion is to utilize both stakeholder surveys and
interviews. Administration, teacher and student surveys would pinpoint specific
information, such as motivation level, expectations, perceived benefits and consequences
of achieving goals. Surveys will also help identify the overall school climate, teacher
approach to instruction, and student’s opinion of instruction. After the survey data has
been analyzed, interviews provide clarity and additional insight on programs and
incentives that may improve motivation for administrators, teachers and students.
Conclusion
This study sought to discover what practices teachers believed to be most
effective in virtual and traditional classrooms. Experienced teachers use strategies they
believe are effective, which leads to a question regarding what would be most effective in
70
the virtual classroom. The virtual school is a rapidly growing medium in education. As
with any learning platform, not all methods are appropriate for all students. Virtual
schools serve to provide another avenue for achievement for students, and it is important
to identify what strategies teachers believed were the most effective. This study used
Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective instructional strategies because
they are widely accepted within the research.
There were differences in opinion between virtual and traditional classroom
teachers. Teachers are the single most important factor in student learning (Darling-
Hammond, 2001). Therefore, it is highly important that they are trained to use a
repertoire of strategies that will effectively reach students. Districts and schools must
appropriately train teachers for the learning platform they work within because,
ultimately, it is children who suffer.

71
REFERENCES
Abrego, Jr., C. & Pankake, A. (2008). Sustaining a professional learning community
through leadership changes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the UCEA
Annual Convention, Buena Vista Palace Hotel and Spa, Orlando, Florida.

Angiello, R. (2010) Study looks at online learning vs. Traditional instruction. Education
Digest, 76 (2), 56-59.

Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Brown, R., Cavanaugh, C, Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D.,
Richarson, J., & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An
exploration of at-risk learners and online education. International Association for
K-12 Online Learning, 24.

Armellini, A. & Aiyegbayo, O. Learning design and assessment with e-tivities. British
Journal of Education Technology, 41 (6), 922-935.

Ash, K. (2010). Schools combine virtual and face-to-face teachers to meet student needs.
Edweek, 30 (4), 8-9.

Baker, E. L. (2005). Technology and effective assessment systems. In J.L. Herman &
E.H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and
improvement (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol.
104, Issue 2, pp. 358-378). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Distributed by Blackwell Publishing.

Ball, D.L. (2000). Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3), 241-247.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

CDE. (2011). California Department of Education website retrieved from
www.ced.ca.gov/index.asp.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Arizona State University: Education Policy Analysis
Archives.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ross, & P., Milliken, M. (2006-2007). High school size,
organization and content: What matters for student success? Brookings Papers on
Education Policy, 163-203.

72
Dawson, T., & Billingsley, K.L. (2002). Unsatisfactory performance: How California's
K-12 education system protects mediocrity and how teacher quality can be
improved. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Desai, M., Hary, J. and Richards, T. (2008). E-Learning” Paradigm Shift in Education.
Education, 129 (2), 327-334.

Dexter, S., Anderson, R.E., Becker, H.J., (1999). Teachers’ view of computers as
catalysts for changes in their teaching practices. Journal of Research on
Computing Education, 31 (3), 221-239.

Diaz, L. & Entonado, F. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-
face learning environment really different?. Educational Technology & Society,
12 (4), 331-343.

District Administration. (2011). Capistrano Unified School District. Retrieved from.
http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/

Ed-Data. (2011). Education Data Partnership. Retrieved from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp?

Erickson, R. (1986). Tasks in time: Objects of study in a natural history of teaching.
Improving Teaching.

Ertmer, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2000). Technology using teachers:
Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, 1-39.

Ferdig, R., Cavanaugh, C., Dipietro, M., Black, E. & Dawson, K. (2009).Virtual
schooling standards and best practices for teacher education. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479-503

Gregory, G.H., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven instruction in the standards-based
classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. and Passaro, P. (1994) Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions.
American Education Research Journal, 31 (3), p. 627-643.

Harwell, S. (2003) Teacher professional development: It’s bit an event, it’s a process.
Standard’s for Staff Development, Revised Edition, p. 1-51.
Haycock, K. (1998) Good teaching matters… A lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 3-14.
Heathman, A. (2004). From pencil and paper to the digital age. National Staff
Development Council, 25 (3), 10-15.
73

Ibe, H. (2009). Metacognitive strategies on classroom participation and student
achievement in senior secondary school science classrooms. Science Education
International, 20 (1-2), 25-31.

Irzik, G. (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Springer.

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Judd, T. (2010). Beyond native and
immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 332-343.

Key, L., Bradley, J.& Bradley, K. (2010). Simulating instruction in social studies. The
Social Studies,101 (5,) 117-120.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 4(2), 75-86.

Linn, R.L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center of Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student
Testing.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-bases strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd.ed.) Pearson: Upper Saddle River:
NJ

Munro, C. (2005). “Best Practices” in teaching and learning: Challenging current
paradigms and redefining their role in education. College Quarterly, 8 (3), 1-8.

Mercury Online Academy. (2011). Retrieved from http://mercuryonlineacademy.com/

Pacific Coast High School. (2011). Retrieved from http://pchs.k12.ca.us/home.html

74
Pape, L. (2010). Blended teaching and learning. Education Digest Condensed Readings
for Quick Review, 76(2), 22-27. RAND Corporation. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org.libproxy.usc.edu/index.html

Roblyer, M.D., (2006). Online high-school programs that work. Education Digest, 72(3),
55-63).
Robelen, E.W., (2009). California schools girding for cuts under fiscal plan. Education
Week, 28 (23), 15-18.

Rohrer, D. & Paschler, H. (2010) Recent research on human learning challenges
conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, (39) 5, 406-412.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rosenthal, I. (2010). Online instruction: An opportunity to re-examine and re-invent
pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(8), 21-28.

Russell, T., Munby, H., Spafford, C., & Johnson, P. (1988). Learning the professional
knowledge of teaching. In P. Grimmett & G. Erikson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher
education (pp. 67-90). New York: Teacher College Press.

Russell, W. (2010). Teaching social studies in the 21
st
century: A research study of
secondary social studies teachers’ instructional methods and practices. A Teacher
in Action, 32 (1), 65-72.

Salkind, N.J., (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Hale, G. (2010). Framework fuels need to read:
Strategies boost literacy of students in content-area classes. Journal of Staff
Development, 31 (5), 38-42.

Schunk, D. (2003). Self efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling,
goalsetting and self evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly,19, 159–172.

Sharma, P. & Maleyeff, J. (2003). Internet education: Potential problems and solutions.
The International Journal of Educational Management, 17 (1), 19-25.

Schon, D.A., (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey_Bass.

Shriner,M., Clark, D., Nai, M., Schlee, B., Libler, R. (2010). Social studies instruction:
Changing teacher confidence in classrooms enhanced by technology. The Social
Studies, 101 (2), 37-45.
75
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

Shulman, L.S., (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Education Review, 57, 1-22.

Slough, S. * Rupley, W. (2010). Re-creating a recipe for Science instructional programs:
Adding learning progression, scaffolding, and a dash of reading variety. School
Science and Mathematics, 110 (7), 352-362.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child left
behind. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers?WP138.pdf

Tierney, R. (1985). Reading Strategies and Practices. A compendium. Second Edition.
Allyn and Bacon: New Jersey.

Tremblay, R. (2006). Best practices and collaborative software in online teaching.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7 (1), 1-5.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. The University of
Chicago Press: Chicago.

U.S. Department of Education. (March, 2010). A blueprint for reform: The
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

Volante, L. (2010). The assessment of, for, and as learning within school: Implication for
transforming classroom practice. Action in Teacher Education, 31 (4), 66-75.

Watson, J. & Gemin, B. (2008). Promising practices in online learning: Using online
learning for at-risk students and credit recovery. Washington, DC: North
American Council for Online Learning.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2008) Put understanding first. Educational Leadership,
65¸(8), p. 36-41.

Wozney, L., Vivek, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:
Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 14 (1), p.173-208.

Yang, Y. (2006). Readign strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading
Psychology, 27 (4), 313-343.

76
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and
the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477-501.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical
background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.
77
APPENDIX A
Contextual Approach (Mayer, 2008)

78
APPENDIX B
Recruitment Letter

June 1, 2011

Participant School
Participant School Street Address
Participant City, State ZIP

Dear Teacher Participant:

I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California and as a part of my
dissertation research, I am conducting a survey about teacher’s perception of instructional
strategies in the online and traditional classroom environments. Three schools have been
selected to participate in the research process.

As a secondary teacher, I understand you have many demands on your time but I hope
you will take this opportunity to share your knowledge and expertise. Please be assured
that all survey responses will be anonymous. The survey should take 15 to 20 minutes to
complete.

As a thank you for completing the survey, you will be entered in a drawing for a Visa gift
card. In order to be entered into the drawing, you will need to complete the survey and
send an email to me with your name, school and email address at jdediego@usc.edu.

Best Regards,

Joslin de Diego

79
APPENDIX C
Effective Instructional Strategies Questionnaire
Please identify the school you teach at:
Aliso Niguel High School
Mercury Online Academy
Pacific Coast High School
Teacher Demographic/Background Information
1. What are your years of teaching experience?
0-9 10-19 20+
2. What subject do you teach?
Science English Mathematics Social
Studies

Teacher Beliefs Value Scale
Directions: For the following questions, rate your level of agreement with the statements
according to the scale. You may decline to answer questions, by simply not answering
them. Participation is voluntary and will be anonymous.

Rate the following instructional strategy is an effective practice using this scale:
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
3. Assigning in-class and homework tasks that involve comparison is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
80
4. Recognizing effort by using charts and rubrics is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
5. Asking students to construct graphic organizers representing content is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
6. Setting specific learning goals at the beginning of a unit is an effective instructional
strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
7. Engaging students in projects that involve generating and testing hypotheses through
problem solving tasks is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
8. Organizing students into formal cooperative learning groups when appropriate is an
effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
9. Establishing and communicating a homework policy is an effective instructional
strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
10. Asking students to generate outline summaries is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
81
11. Providing ways for students to organize and think about content, prior to presenting
new content, is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
12. Assigning in-class and homework tasks that involve classification is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
13. Teacher and student designed learning contracts are an effective instructional
strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
14. Assigning homework for the purpose of skill practice and procedures that have been
the focus of the lesson is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
15. Asking students to make physical models is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
16. Using questions to elicit inferences is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
17. Recognizing and reinforcing the importance of effort through praise is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
18. Asking students to revise their notes is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
82
19. Organizing students in heterogeneous ability groups when appropriate is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
20. Asking students to generate written summaries is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
21. Asking students to draw pictures or pictographs representing content is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
22. Assigning in-class and homework tasks that involve creating metaphors is an
effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
23. Using explicit cues to provide students with direct links to what they have studied
previously is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
24. Engaging students in projects that involve generating and testing hypotheses through
decision-making tasks is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
25. Recognizing effort and providing recognition through tangible rewards is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
26. Organizing students in homogeneous ability groups when appropriate is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
83
27. Engaging students in projects that involve generating and testing hypotheses through
investigation tasks is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
28. Providing students with teacher prepared notes is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
29. Articulating the purpose of homework is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
30. Criterion referenced feedback is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
31. Various forms of feedback on all assigned homework is an effective instructional
strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
32. Organizing students into informal cooperative learning groups when appropriate is an
effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
33. Providing specific feedback on student progress towards learning goals is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
34. Recognizing effort and providing recognition through concrete symbols is an
effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
35. Engaging students in projects that involve generating and testing hypotheses through
systems-analysis tasks is an effective instructional strategy.
84
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
36. Asking students to act out content is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
37. Analytic questions that analyze errors, construct support and analyze perspectives are
effective instructional strategies.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
38. Using knowledge and skills rubrics to assess students is an effective instructional
strategy.
1 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
39. Assigning in-class and homework tasks that involve creating analogies is an effective
instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
40. Engaging students in projects that involve generating and testing hypotheses through
invention is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
41. Asking students to generate subject matter webs is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree
42. Using student led feedback is an effective instructional strategy.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine whether teachers’ perceptions of effective instructional strategies, as defined by Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001) differ in the traditional and virtual classroom environments. The Effective Instructional Strategies Questionnaire was used to gather data on teachers’ knowledge and expertise about classroom instructional strategies. The questionnaire was designed using the nine effective teaching strategies identified by Marzano, Pickering and Pollack (2001). Data was gathered from the participating schools. Aliso Niguel High School is a traditional school. Four virtual schools also participated: Capistrano Connections Academy, Riverside Virtual School, Mercury Online Academy and Pacific Coast High School during the Spring and Fall semesters of 2011. Data was generated utilizing t-tests, one-way ANOVAs and a three-way ANOVA. Data analysis consisted of determining relationships between classroom type, years of experience, and subject matter taught and the nine instructional strategy subscales. ❧ The results revealed that there were significant differences between virtual and traditional classroom teacher’s perceptions of Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s (2001) nine effective instructional strategies. There were no significant differences between teachers within three years of service groupings. Additionally, only one subscale had notable differences among teachers of different subject matter groupings. The findings from this study suggest that traditional classroom teachers value Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s nine effective instructional strategies more than virtual classroom teachers do. The Marzano framework is not completely compatible to virtual classroom learning because all strategies are not adaptable to this learning platform.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

Teacher perceptions of classroom management practices in public elementary schools

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

PDF

The comparison of hybrid intervention and traditional intervention in increasing student achievement in middle school mathematics

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

PDF

Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Multiple perceptions of teachers who use data

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

Asset Metadata

Creator de Diego, Joslin (author)

Core Title Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 05/29/2012

Defense Date 05/14/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag instructional strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher perceptions,traditional classroom,virtual classroom

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Mafi, Gabriela (committee member)

Creator Email jdediego@usc.edu,joslinmarie@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-42336

Unique identifier UC11289368

Identifier usctheses-c3-42336 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-deDiegoJos-865.pdf

Dmrecord 42336

Document Type Dissertation

Rights de Diego, Joslin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA