Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
(USC Thesis Other)
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
MODELS OF TEACHING: INDICATORS INFLUENCING TEACHERS’
PERCEPTION OF PEDAGOGICAL CHOICE
by
Alison Michelle Nordyke
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 2011
Copyright 2011 Alison Michelle Nordyke
ii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my grandmother, Vera Yates
White. Her support, encouragement and belief in my abilities made this degree seem
obtainable. I love her to pieces.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation is the culmination of a great deal of time and effort and would
not have been possible without the guidance and support of many individuals. First
and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan. I am
appreciative of her willingness to serve as my chair, which allowed me the opportunity
to study a meaningful topic that will positively impact my academic and professional
career. Dr. Kaplan has been a wonderful mentor and is someone I hold in the highest
regard.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr.
Robert Keim and Dr. Margo Pensavalle. I appreciate their support and suggestions
offered throughout writing process. I would especially like to thank Dr. Keim for his
flexibility and willingness to accommodate my schedule and discuss “all things
statistical”. Additionally, he imparted the wisdom and encouragement to input and
interpret my own data.
I also want to make certain to acknowledge my family, especially my parents
Penny and Gary Nordyke. Their continued love, encouragement and unfaltering
support made the tough times seem easier to manage. Additionally, I would like to
acknowledge my brother, Christopher and his wife, Kimberly. Their support and
praise continued to push me in the right direction. Thank you to my grandparents;
George, Vera, Al and Barbara whose belief in education and the many doors it can
open, helped shaped me into the educator I am today. I would also like to thank Candi,
Chris, Carly and Connor for opening their home to me during my first year in the
iv
program; Patti, for her monthly phone messages of encouragement; and
Debbie for allowing me the flexibility to pursue career opportunities and the
encouragement to balance both my academic and professional careers. I feel very
fortunate to have had a support network as solid and strong as I have with my family.
I would like to acknowledge the educators and families at Red Hill Elementary
and thank them for their support. I would especially like to thank my principals,
Wendy Hudson and William Neddersen for their understanding, flexibility and
encouragement; Pam Campbell for her continued mentoring and support; Janelle
Crain, who has been one of my biggest cheerleaders and greatest friends throughout
this entire process; and finally, I would like to thank my teaching partner, Ann
Lambourne, whose support, encouragement, friendship and understanding allowed me
the opportunity to finish this dissertation while working full time.
Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my best friend, classmate and
the love of my life, Rocke DeMark. His encouragement and support has been
unwavering throughout this entire process. The journey to degree completion was not
an easy one for us. I will forever be grateful to him for the kindness and compassion
he showed while taking care of me when I was sick. As a full time doctoral student
himself, he gave me the courage to fight for my health and supported my decision to
remain active in the program all while completing his own dissertation. I could not
have finished this dissertation and degree without his love and support.
v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Study 2
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Significance of the Problem 11
Overview of the Study 11
Limitations 12
Delimitations 13
Definition of Terms 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 15
Models of Teaching 15
Direct Instruction 20
Advanced Organizers 21
Group Investigation 23
Summary 25
Theory into Practice 26
Teacher Self-Efficacy 29
Teacher’s Beliefs and Narcissistic Pedagogy 32
Conclusions 34
Chapter Three: Methodology 36
Research Questions 37
Research Design 37
Population and Sample 38
Instrumentation 40
Data Collection 42
Data Analysis 43
Summary 43
vi
Chapter Four: Results 44
Purpose of the Study 44
Methodology 45
Results 48
Question 1 Quantitative Results 48
Question 1 Qualative Results 54
Question 2 Quantitative Results 63
Question 2 Qualitative Results 64
Conclusions 67
Chapter Five: Conclusion 69
Findings 71
Summary of the Findings 72
Implications for Future Research 74
Limitations of the Study 76
Conclusions 77
References 79
Appendices 84
Appendix A: Teacher Survey 84
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 91
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Direct Instruction Model Development 20
Table 3.2: Instrumentation 40
Table 3.3: Research Question Instrumentation 42
Table 4.1: Participant Demographics 46
Table 4.2: Pearson’s Chi Square Significant Results 51
Table 4.3: Pearson’s Chi Square Test Between
Groups and Question 1 to b 51
Table 4.4: Pearson’s Chi Square Test Between
Groups and Question 2 to b 52
Table 4.5: Pearson’s Chi Square Test Between
Groups and Question 2 to d 52
Table 4.6: Pearson’s Chi Square Test Between
Groups and Question 11 to b 53
Table 4.7: Factors Influencing Models of Teaching
Usage in Classroom Instruction 55
Table 4.8: Participant Responses to Direct Instruction 55
Table 4.9: Participant Responses to Advanced Organizers 57
Table 4.10: Participant Responses to Group Investigation 59
Table 4.11: Descriptive Statistics 64
Table 4.12: Key Factors Identified as Influencing Teacher Choice 65
viii
ABSTRACT
The models of teaching are systematic tools that allow teachers to vary their
classroom pedagogical practices to meet the needs of all learners in their classroom.
This study was designed to determine key factors that influence teachers’ decisions
when determining a model of teaching for classroom instruction and to identify how
teacher training on the models of teaching in a pre-service or in-service program affect
teachers’ fidelity to these pedagogical practices. In this mixed method study,
participants responded to both survey and interview questions to determine their
understanding and usage of the models of teaching. Results indicated that teachers
trained in the models of teaching in a pre-service program were more likely to use the
models correctly in classroom instruction. Additionally the findings suggested that
teachers identified similar factors that influenced their selection of pedagogical
practices for classroom instruction regardless of the time period in which they were
trained in the models of teaching. The interview results found that teachers indicated
student ability level, allotment of time for lesson, lesson objectives, academic content
standards, and the group of students being taught as the factors that greatest influenced
their decision when selecting a model of teaching for classroom instruction. A
foundation in the models of teaching as a use for pedagogical practice ensures a
teacher will be more likely to use the varied frameworks for classroom instruction
(Eggen & Kauchak, 2006: Hess, 2003; Miller, 2008).
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Pedagogical theory guides classroom instruction. Different theories steer our
perceptions about learning, specifically they define how students learn. If pedagogical
learning theory is to guide learning, subsequently it should also influence instruction.
In early American education, the essence and features of teacher’s knowledge was
straightforward (Joyce, 2002). Looking at early teacher certification assessments, it
was apparent that teachers were expected to know content and have some
understanding of pedagogical practice (Shulman, 1987). As systematic programs of
research on teaching began to emerge in the 1960s, attention shifted to various teacher
characteristics and behaviors associated with increased student achievement.
Although this research did not directly examine the knowledge or thinking of teachers,
it was grounded in an assumption that knowledge of relationships established through
systematic research could provide a foundation for teaching (Joyce, 2002). Teachers
do not have a strong pedagogical background due to factors influencing their choice
when selecting a pedagogical model for instruction. Teachers need to be able to assess
their students’ needs and efficiently and effectively develop instruction that will meet
the needs of the diverse learners in their classrooms (Joyce et al., 2007).
Teachers vary from one another in learning style, pedagogical practices and
personality traits. Research has been conducted in several teacher education
disciplines to determine the characteristics that are most likely to influence teacher
2
choice in pedagogical practice (Broudy, 1963; Bruner, 1998; Graves et al.,
1994; Joyce, 2007; Lyons, 1997). Understanding the characteristics that influence
how each teacher is unique in the way they deliver instruction allow teacher educators
to design pre-service or in-service programs that address the identified characteristics.
Models of teaching are systematic strategies used to reach learning objectives
(Joyce, Weil & Showers 1972). The models of teaching support different learning
styles and strengths (Joyce, 2002). Most teachers do not think of teaching in terms of
a repertoire of models of teaching to be used for different purposes and learners.
Instead, they teach the method they were taught (Broudy, 1963; Gaskins & Elliot,
1991; Lyons, 1997). Models are useful tools to allow students the ability to access
the curriculum, providing more appropriate learning experiences for each student
(Joyce, 2002).
Background of the Study
Teachers are expected to be knowledgeable in both subject matter and
pedagogical practice. Schulman (1986) introduced the phrase pedagogical content
knowledge to highlight the types of knowledge teachers must possess: (a) content
knowledge of the teaching curriculum and (b) knowledge of pedagogical practices. He
argued that traditional teacher education programs were presenting a disservice to
teachers when they treated pedagogical knowledge separate from content knowledge
(1986). Shulman believed that teachers should have a thorough understanding of how
content and pedagogical knowledge are inter-related since different subjects have
different content structures (Schulmn, 1986, 1987).
3
Teachers bring a unique factor into their teaching as individuals
who have experienced the schooling process and therefore have preconceived notions
of teaching and the idea of teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2005). Teachers tend to teach
in a manner similar to that in which they were taught. Often the first exposure a pre-
service teacher has to pedagogical practice is in a teacher education pre-service
program (Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Goodlad, 1990; Cochran-Smith & Zeicher, 2005).
Teacher education programs advocate that pedagogy is a significant component of
their programs; however, it is pragmatic to presume that teacher education programs
are not consistently producing teachers who are steeped in pedagogical knowledge
(Cochran-Smith & Zeicher, 2005).
Schulman created a model of pedagogical reasoning for teachers to use in
classroom instruction. This model is a cycle of activities teachers go through resulting
in what he considers to be “good teaching” (1986, 1992). Consisting of six stages;
(comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection and new
comprehension) Shulman’s model of pedagogical reasoning is designed to help
teachers develop an understanding of how their students learn Schulman, 1992).
Acquiring scholarly knowledge and developing a practice that is different from what
teachers experienced as students, requires learning opportunities for teachers that are
more powerful than simply reading and talking about pedagogical practices (Ball &
Cohen, 1996).
Teachers have many things to consider when identifying pedagogical practices
for curriculum delivery (Herron, Beedle, & King, 2006). There are a number of
4
influences on teachers when making pedagogical decisions (Miller, 2008;
Segal, 2004). The instructional strategies used when preparing teachers for the
classroom have an impact on the pedagogical choices a teacher will make later in their
professional teaching career (Herron, Beedle, & King, 2006; Segal, 2004). From their
pre-service experiences, teachers construct views on what they believe or observe to
be good and bad teaching, what practices enhance student achievement and what
makes the learning environment overall more enjoyable (Herron, Beedle, & King,
2006; Miller, 2008).
Pedagogical practices influence how curriculum is delivered to students. A
teacher’s delivery impact the level of curriculum a student receives (Guskey, 1986).
There is often a variance between the intended curriculum and the implemented
curriculum (McDonnell & Ormseth, 1989). This continuum, from the ideal
conceptions of subject matter and curriculum experts, continuing through various state
and local policies and guides, to actual teacher-student interaction within the
classroom is known as curriculum slippage (Oakes & Carey, 1989). The idea of
curriculum slippage is not new and is another factor as to why teachers need a
systematic approach to pedagogical practices (Goodlad, et al., 1990).
Gender may also play a role in the decisions a teacher makes in regards to
pedagogical practices in a classroom (Miller, 2008). Female teachers are more likely
to engage in classroom discussions or group models of teaching, while male teachers
are more likely to use a dominant lecture teaching of teaching style (Herron, Beedle,
& King, 2006; Miller, 2008). The differences between male and female pedagogical
5
choice is thought to be related the socialization of the genders. Societal
norms teach that women are to be more compassionate, helpful and directly work with
students, whereas men are expected to be dominate and less likely to work directly
with students (Miller, 2008).
The personality of the teacher also plays a role in the decisions teachers make
in the classroom in regards to pedagogical practices (Herron, Beedle, & King, 2006).
A teacher has the ability to choose a pedagogical model that can influence students
learning or acquisition of beliefs. For instance, because they are often the only adult
in the classroom and in a position of power, teachers are able to control a discussion to
influence the outcome they believe to be best (Woods, 2010).
The tendency for the person in power to favor the needs of one’s self and to
view those with less power as an extension of self is an example of narcissisms (Hess,
2003). The idea of narcissism in the teaching profession is not abstract. It has been
thought that teachers must possess some degree of self-fulfillment in order to lead a
classroom (Hess, 2003). Narcissistic pedagogy reflects teaching processes and a
classroom atmosphere that pervasively reflect narcissistic patterns (Hess, 2003).
With so many factors influencing the pedagogical choices teachers make, it is
reasonable to see how the idea of identifying teaching models came to be “The classic
definition of teaching is the design of environments” (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2007, p
24). The way in which students learn is through manipulation of and interaction in
these environments (Dewey, 1916, as cited in Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2007). As
Schulman described in his models for pedagogical reasoning, teaching models have
6
different purposes (1997). While some models of teaching are designed to
plan instruction and curriculum development, others allow for delivery of instruction.
Some have broad application and other models are used for a specific practice. For
centuries, teachers have been engaged in the practice of using systematic approaches
to teach. Teachers have been using models before they were identified as models
(Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2007). A model of teaching is a model of learning.
Joyce and Weil used their knowledge and research with pedagogical practices
to develop an organized repertoire of teaching models that could be used with
specificity. For purposes of continuity, when referring to the models of teaching,
reference will be to the models as delineated in the work of Joyce et al. (2007). The
models included in this grouping are those found to accomplish most of the common
goals of schooling (Joyce et al., 2007). These models will explicate teaching methods
and strategies, which are in turn based on teaching approaches. The models of
teaching prescribe steps and procedures to effectively generate desired outcomes
(Joyce et al., 2007).
The models of teaching have been found to be valid and consistent in the
outcomes they produce (Joyce et al., 2007). Through research and extended
implementation, both teachers and researchers validate the usefulness of teaching
models (Joyce et al., 2007). Gage & Berliner (1992) state that the use of models as
learning aides have two primary benefits. First, models provide "accurate and useful
representations of knowledge that is needed when solving problems in some particular
domain" (p. 314). Second, a model makes the process of understanding a domain of
7
knowledge easier because it is a visual expression of the topic. The models
are grouped based on learning outcomes and have been found to “share orientation
toward human beings and how they learn” (Joyce et al., 2007, p 25) These models fall
into four basic families: the information processing family, the social family, the
personal family and the behavioral systems family.
The Information Processing Family of Models are related to Cognitive
Psychology and include they most types of teaching models; concept formation (Hilda
Taba), concept attainment (Jerome Bruner), picture-word inductive model, scientific
inquiry/making inferences, memorization, synectics, and advanced organizers
(Ausubel, 1960). Under this family of models, interested is placed on how a person
thinks, remembers makes connections to the world around them. The Social Family of
Models are linked with social psychology (Joyce et al., 2007). They include
cooperative learning and role-playing (Johnson and Johnson) theories in social
psychology allow us to understand interaction patterns among people. Dynamics
within both large and small groups are of equal importance in this family of models
(Joyce et al., 2007). The Personal Family of Models lends them from humanistic
psychology and include child centered learning (Carl Rogers) and developing positive
self-concepts (Jean Piaget and Abraham Maslow). Models from this family focus on
the individual and emphasize the self (Joyce et al., 2007). The Behavioral System
Family of Models is pulled from behavioral psychology and includes mastery
learning, direct instruction and simulations. Behavioral psychology is only concerned
with measurable behavior or behavior that can be operationalized (Joyce et al., 2007).
8
Statement of the Problem
Teachers must to be able to assess their students’ curricular needs and
efficiently and effectively develop instruction that will meet the needs of the diverse
learners in their classrooms. The models of teaching support different learning
strengths. Most teachers do not think of teaching in terms of models of teaching, but
teach in the method they were taught (Joyce et al 2007; Feiman-Nemser, 2005).
Models are useful tools to allow more students the ability to access the curriculum,
providing more appropriate learning experiences for the students (Joyce et al., 2007;
Schulman, 1997).
A potential danger in describing various categories of knowledge for teaching
is thinking of teachers' knowledge as organized into abstract, discrete categories
(Darling-Hammond, 2006). What teachers know is complexly intertwined with other
knowledge, beliefs and specific contexts in which teachers work (Bruner, 1998).
Numerous scholars have posed constructs in an attempt to capture the complex
contextualized nature of teachers' knowledge (Burner, 1998; Cochran Smith &
Zeichner, 2005). Some researchers have argued that teachers' personalities and life
experiences play a major role in shaping the kind of knowledge they develop about
teaching, calling this knowledge "personal practical knowledge.” In 1987, Carter and
Doyle argued that much of what experienced teachers know is "event-structured
knowledge" which is organized around the activities and events they have experienced
in classrooms. Others have argued for the importance of articulating the "craft
knowledge" of teaching, which is the implicit theories, skills, and ways of perceiving
9
that teachers develop through their work.
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, such efforts to understand
knowledge for teaching have intersected and been informed by a more general
movement in psychology and education to view knowledge and cognition as situated
(Broudy, 1963). Situative theorists posit that how and where a person learns a
particular set of knowledge and skills become a fundamental part of what is learned.
An individual's knowledge is a combination of physical and social contexts in which it
was acquired (Bruner, 1998). All of these efforts to characterize the ways in which
knowledge for teaching is intertwined with contexts, other people, and personal
histories help one appreciate the rich and complex nature of what teachers need to
know (Bruce & Bruce, 1992). A number of important implications arise from this
work.
What teachers know and how they know the information are tied to particular
contexts (Bruce & Bruce, 1992). Developing expertise in teaching entails working
and learning in the contexts of teaching. A great deal of what teachers know is
connected to particular tools, such as textbooks and instructional materials. Much of
what teachers know is routinized and automatic (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985).
The way teachers interact with students is guided by routine. It is having a good deal
of what they know embedded in these routines that enables teachers and students to
coexist in a highly complex social environment (Gaskins & Elliot, 1991).
Unfortunately, a high percentage of teachers' knowledge being routinized in teacher
education programs and their knowledge is becoming automatic. It can be difficult to
10
examine and change when desired.
As psychological perspectives shifted from behavioral to cognitive in the
1970s, a number of researchers began to focus on the thinking processes entailed in
teaching. Much of this research focused on teachers' planning and decision-making
(Cochan Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Research on planning suggests that it occurs at
different levels (e.g., across a year, across a unit, across a day), that it is mostly
informal (i.e., formal written plans play less of a role than does informal thinking
about what to do), and that planning requires a broad knowledge base (i.e., of the
various categories discussed above). Research that focuses on the decisions made
during interactive teaching finds that teachers make few decisions as they teach and
that those decisions deal primarily with keeping planned activities on track (Ball &
Cohen, 1996). Other research suggests that the well-established routines teachers and
students have developed do much to determine the nature of instruction and minimize
conscious on-the-spot decision-making (Black, 1989).
Purpose of the Study
This study will identify the factors that influence teacher’s perceptions of
pedagogical choice in classroom instruction. It will seek to determine what inhibits a
teacher’s ability to choose appropriate pedagogical models. The specific models of
teaching examined will be direct instruction, advanced organizers and group
investigation. Direct instruction is teacher centered. It is the most common used
model in teaching. It typically follows a six-step process (a) review, (b) present new
material, (c) student practice, (d) feedback, (e) independent practice, (f) assessment
11
(Rosenshine, 1983). Advanced organizers are highly structured and
continue to be teacher centered with the students and teacher collaborating on
concepts (Ausabel, 1960). In contrast, group investigation models are less teacher
centered and allow for the teacher to play more of a facilitative role for the learning
groups (Thelan, 1963).
Research Questions
1. What personal and contextual factors influence teachers’ perception of
pedagogical choices?
2. How do teachers value key factors associated with pedagogical
practices based on their teacher training?
Significance of the Problem
The understanding of what teachers know and how they came to know it
should provide insights into both pre-service and in-service education. Furthermore,
understanding how teaching models are currently used will provide information about
the context on student learning.
Overview of the Study
The models of teaching are systematic pedagogical practices that enhance
student learning. Many factors influence a teacher’s decision when selecting a model
to use for classroom instruction. This study will be conducted to understand the
elements that influence teacher choice when selecting a model of teaching. This first
chapter provided background knowledge on the models of teaching and the purpose
and significance of the study. The second chapter will explore the relevant literature
12
influencing teacher choice when selecting a pedagogical practice to use in
classroom instruction. The third chapter will highlight the methodology of the
research that will be conducted to determine which factors greatest influence
pedagogical practice. The results and implications of the research will be discussed in
the fourth chapter. The final chapter will conclude with recommendations and
suggestions for further research.
Limitations
The limitations of this study include the following: time, convoluted
understanding of the terminology, inter-rated reliability, location of the study, and the
degree of trust present in the relationship. This study had a three-month span in which
to collect relevant data from the teacher. The short time frame affected the amount of
time spent on interviews and observations. There is a vast amount of knowledge on
the subject of pedagogical practices and different definitions for the models of
teaching. Even though all of the teachers participating in the study have been trained
in the models of teaching, some inconsistency maybe present in the amount of
information they initially retained, have retained or has been convoluted through in-
service and school culture not conducive to the ideals and theory behind the models of
teaching. Additionally, there was a lack of inter-related reliability as there was only
be one researcher performing interviews and observations. Due to the short time
frame for data collection, there may have been issues of trust. Finally, this study was
be performed in the district where the researcher works. Some individuals may have
13
been inhibited due to a perceived risk involved in communicating certain
information or demonstrating their pedagogical practices.
Delimitations
This study represented factors teachers believe influence their decision-making
practices when selecting a model of teaching. The teachers in the is study were
trained in teaching methodology courses through the University of Southern
California, a program with theory grounded in the models of teaching and the Tustin
Unified School District Gifted and Talented education program professional
development. Teachers trained in institutions or programs that are not grounded in
this theory would not have this same level of understanding relating to pedagogical
practices.
Definition of Terms
Beginning Teachers: Teachers in the first or second year of in-service. Many states,
including California, require the participation in a two-year induction program that
pairs the beginning teacher with a mentor teacher.
Curriculum Slippage: Term used to express the discrepancy between the official
curriculum, or the curriculum that has been designed by curriculum experts, and the
implemented curriculum, or the curriculum that is taught in the classroom.
Models of Teaching: A systematic approach to teaching incorporating resources,
learning activities, instructional strategies and assessments.
Narcissistic Pedagogy: Pedagogy that centers disproportionately on the needs of the
teacher, especially the need for admiration.
14
Pedagogy: The activities of educating, teaching or instructing
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A term introduced by Lee Shulman (1986).
Theoretical framework highlighting teachers’ knowledge of their subject matter and
the importance of this knowledge for successful teaching.
Pre-service Teaching: A period of guided, supervised teaching done by a fifth-year
post-baccalaureate student in which the university student is introduced into the
teaching role for a particular class by a mentoring teacher.
Pre-service Programs: Year-long university program in which a fifth year, post-
baccalaureate student participates in education course work in both academic content
knowledge and pedagogical practices as well as one or two classroom teaching
experiences. A state teaching credential is commonly awarded following successful
completion of the program.
Teacher Efficacy: Defined by Guskey and Passaro as a teacher’s belief or conviction
that they can influence how well students learn
15
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of literature will discuss factors associated with pedagogical
practices in K-12 education. In the first section, the models of teaching will be
defined. The organization of the models as well as their impact on teaching will be
discussed. Three specific models, direct instruction, advance organizer, and group
investigation will be discussed in detail, as these models will be the focus of the study.
The next section will discuss the discourse between instruction at the university levels
in teaching pre-service programs and the context of in-service classroom teaching.
The third section defines teacher self-efficacy and the research on effective teaching
practices. The final section looks at teacher beliefs and the idea of narcissistic
pedagogy impacting decisions influencing pedagogical practices in the classroom.
Models of Teaching
Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil introduced the concept of teaching models in
1972, which at that time was a controversial topic. The idea that teachers could use
different strategies to teach different objectives was not as widely accepted as it is
today. Since the introduction of the models of teaching it has become the norm in the
teaching profession to use a variety of instructional strategies to meet the needs of all
learners in the classroom (Eggen and Kauchak, 2006). Having a repertoire of teaching
strategies is essential for effective teaching, knowing when to use the different
strategies is also important (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006).
16
Models of teaching are systematic approaches to instruction that
have four characteristics: They are designed to help students develop a critical
thinking skills, they have a series of steps to ensure students reach the learning
objectives, they are grounded in learning theory and supported by motivation theory
(Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Professional educators have developed a variety of models
of teaching designed to enhance student understanding and learning. Joyce et al.
(2002) describe four categories of models of teaching that summarize the majority of
teaching models. Each model differs in the specific type of learning that is desired.
The different models of teaching have been developed and based on specific
interpretations of the concepts and principles of teaching and learning. Teachers need
to understand the concepts and principles on which the models are based not just learn
the approaches developed by the experts (Huitt, 2003).
Eggen and Kauchak (2006) describe teaching models as a blueprint for
teaching. Teachers must first determine what is to be learned before selecting a model
to use for instruction. A teaching model provides the structure and direction for the
teacher to allow for their teaching to become systematic and efficient. Using a model
of teaching does not equate good teaching. It does not allow for characteristics
deemed to be exemplified in good teachers such as sensitivity to students and
understanding of content knowledge (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce et al., 2002).
The models of teaching are commonly grouped into four categories that Joyce
et al. describe as families. Within each family, concepts of the teaching models
frequently overlap, but each model has its own purpose for specific teaching and
17
learning situations. Joyce et al. recommend that beginning teachers acquire
a ‘repertoire’ of models, using at least one model from each of the four families
(2002). More experienced teachers are encouraged to combine models form the
different families to suit the needs of the learners in their classroom and increase the
effectiveness of the models (Joyce et al., 2002). Behaviors of the most effective
teachers show that they combine aspects of several models in their teaching. The
models serve as a set of tools teachers can use to polish their craft (Eggen and
Kauchak, 2006; Joyce et al., 2002).
The information-processing family enhances making sense of new information.
The models in this family help students learn how to construct knowledge (Behar-
Horenstein & Seabert, 2005). Some models within this family provide the learner
with the information and concepts, some emphasize concept formation and hypothesis
testing and others ask students to generate new knowledge through creative thinking
(Proctor, 1984). Key components of models within the information-processing family
are the acquiring and organizing of information, identifying and solving problems and
learning new concepts. Information-processing models allow for the studying of one’s
self and society, “thus achieving the personal and social goals of education” (Joyce et
al., 2002, p 26).
The social family of models focuses on the social interactions of students in the
small group setting. Emphasis is placed of group inquiry and problem solving
strategies. Students are encouraged to work together to come to a consensus of
understanding and assimilation (Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, 2005). “When we work
18
together, we generate a collective energy that we will call synergy. The
social models of teaching are constructed to take advantage of this phenomenon by
building learning communities” (Joyce et al., 2002, p 28). The culture of the
classroom is changed through the integration of the social family of models. Students’
personal beliefs and social values play a strong role in the group dynamic within this
family of models.
Prior to the sixties the research on important school- and classroom-related
variables was directed toward the best traits or characteristics of teachers in an attempt
to identify good teaching and the important characteristics of schools and communities
that support good teaching. Proctor (1984) provides a model that updates this view by
including important teacher and student behaviors as predictors of student
achievement. It is derived from other teacher- and classroom-based models but is
redesigned to emphasize teacher expectations. Proctor states that it is possible for a
self-fulfilling prophecy to be an institutional phenomenon and the climate of a school
can have an effect on the achievement of its learners. The attitudes, the norms, and the
values of an educational faculty and staff can make a difference in achievement test
scores. The paradigm most influencing Proctor's model is that of a social nature and
not of a teacher/student one-on-one relationship. The other models include the
variables that provide the focus for this model, but show these variables in a more
subordinate manner (Proctor, 1984).
The personal family emphasizes self-actualizing, self-awareness, directing
destinies (Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, 2005). Students are engaged through the
19
exploration of future goals and personal reflections. These models attempt
to shape education so that we come to understand ourselves better, take responsibility
for our education, and learn to reach beyond our current development to become
stronger, more sensitive, and more creative in our search for high-quality lives (Joyce
et al., 2002, p 30). The individual perspective is highly sought and independence is
praised.
The behavioral family of models is grounded in developing mastery in subject
matter or acquiring a set of skills (Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, 2005). The models in
the behavioral family target specific behavioral changes and have measurable
outcomes. “The stance taken is that human beings are self-correcting communication
systems that modify behavior in response to information about how successful tasks
are navigated “ (Joyce et al., 2002 p. 32). Actualization is highly praised in this family
of models. The models in this family are guided by behavior modification and social
learning theories and are appropriate for all learners and all stages (Woolfolk & Hoy,
1990).
For purposes of this study, three models will be considered in teacher surveys,
interviews and recorded observations; direct instruction, advance organizers and group
investigation. The direst instruction model incorporates the benefits of modeling and
having teachers demonstrate tasks to students. It is teacher centered with the teacher
identifying both the content and the lesson pace. The advance organizer model allows
the instructor to facilitate the learning process through a highly structured process that
allows for student and teacher interaction. Finally, the group investigation model
20
requires the students take a hands on approach to the learning process by
constructing knowledge in the context of a problem situated learning environment.
Direct Instruction
The direct instruction teaching model is the most common model used in
teaching concepts and skills (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Direct instruction is a favored
model for learning assessed on standardized testing measures and basic skills. This
model has developed out of hundreds of studies on student learning and pedagogical
practices (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). The direct instruction model is one that uses
teacher modeling and explanations to teach concepts which are then assessed through
guided student practice and ultimately an independent assessment measure. The
following chart highlights several well-known direct instruction models that have met
the most common thought of elements in a direct instructional model (Slavin, 1994).
Table 3.1.Direct Instruction Model Development
Slavin (1994) Gagne (1977)
Gange & Briggs
(1977)
Rosenshine (1995) Hunter (1982)
1. Gain control and
attention
1. State learning
objectives and
orient students to
lesson
2. Inform the
learner
of expected
outcomes
1. Review
* Homework
*Relevant prior
learning
*Prerequisite
skills
1. Objectives;
provide
anticipatory set
2. Review
prerequisites
3.Stimulate recall
of
relevant
prerequisite
capabilities
2. Presentation
* State goals
*Small steps
*Model
* Examples
*Check for
understanding
2. Review
3. Present new
material
4. Present the
stimuli inherent to
the learning task
3. Guided Practice 3. Input and
Modeling
21
Table 3.1 Continued
4. Conduct learning
probes
5. Offer guidance
for
learning
4. Corrections and
feedback
4. Check for
understanding
and
guided practice
6. Elicit
performance
5. Provide
independent
practice 7. Provide feedback
5. Independent
practice
5. Independent
practice
6. Assess
performance
and provide
feedback
8. Appraise
performance
7. Provide
distributed
practice and
review
9. Ensure retention
and make
provisions for
transferability
6. Weekly and
monthly review
6. Homework
In a direct instructional model, teachers must determine the best way to meet
the needs of the varied levels of student in their classroom. This model traditionally is
taught to an entire class and there is not integration of pedagogical practices that
would allow for differentiated instruction within the model. One way of meeting the
needs of all learners in the classroom is to incorporate instructional events in the
presentation of the material that would meet the needs of varied students (Huitt, 2003).
Integration of additional models in the social family including grouping models is
another way to meet the needs of varied learners in the classroom.
Advanced Organizers
The advance organizer model is not traditionally included in a defined set of
teaching models (Joyce et al., 2002). Joyce et al. (2002) include the advance organizer
in the information/processing family due to the nature of data collection the model
allows for. Advance organizers were developed by David Ausubel in 1960 to
22
facilitate learning. An advance organizer helps learners organize new
material by organizing it in a familiar way. Advanced organizers use familiar terms
and concepts to link what the students already know to the new information that will
be presented in the lesson.
An advance organizer is created by the teacher for a specific learning task.
The advance organizer can be in the form of a chart, diagram, or concept map. There
are four types of advanced organizers: expository, describes new knowledge;
narrative, presents new information in a story format; skimming, skims through
information; graphic organizers, includes graphs, patterns and concept maps. Joyce et
al. (2002) describe the implementation of an advance organizer in a three-phase
approach. In the first phase the advance organizer is presented to the students and the
objective of the lesson is described. During the second phase new material is
presented in a general to specific manner. During this phase, the teacher continually
links the material to the organizer and makes repetitive mention of key definitions and
ideas. In the third and final phase students begin to integrate their prior knowledge in
with the new material through the organizer (Joyce et al., 2002). Students are
encouraged to make connections through higher-level cognitive processes by making
assumptions and critically analyzing inferences within the context of the new content
material. Cognitive theorists view it as essential that new knowledge is related to prior
knowledge (Mayer, 2003). Advance organizers allow teachers to facilitate learning by
organizing information into concepts that are easily relatable to previously learned
concepts (Ausubel, 1960).
23
Since the advent of advance organizers, research has been able to
prove that these work best when there is no prior knowledge involved, because an
advance organizer becomes the students prior knowledge before learning the new
material. If prior knowledge is available, advance organizers do not work as well for
these students (Mayer, 2003).
Group Investigation
The group investigation model falls within the social family models of
teaching (Joyce et al., 2002). Group investigation requires the teacher to act as a
catalyst in the learning process. In this model, student work in groups to cooperatively
complete a set of tasks. Joyce et al. (2002) describe the teacher as facilitator who
helps guide students through the group process. In group investigation students are
presented with a problem. Students discuss reactions to the problem and form groups
based on similar reactions. Newly formed student groups plan out a procedural action
plan to investigate the problem and individual student tasks are assigned. Groups are
responsible for generating hypotheses and collecting the necessary information to test
them. Information is then organized in a manner that can be presented to the class or
the intended party as initially identified in presentation of the problem.
The teacher’s general role throughout the group investigation process is to
make the students aware of the resources available to aid students in completion of the
task (Zingaro, 2008). Group investigation incorporates what Zingaro (2008) identifies
as the “four I’s” as important elements in the implementation process. The four I’s are
investigation, interaction, interpretation and intrinsic motivation. Investigation refers
24
to the fact that groups focus on the process of inquiring about a chosen
topic. Interaction is a hallmark of all cooperative learning methods, required for
students to explore ideas and help one another learn. Interpretation occurs when the
group synthesizes and elaborates on the findings of each member in order to enhance
understanding and clarity of ideas (Sharan & Sharan, 1989).
Group investigation is rooted in Dewey’s idea that the goal of education is to
develop socially responsible citizens who understand how to work together to solve
problems and construct knowledge (Dewey, 1897). Classroom environments should
provide students with opportunities to practice behaviors they will experience in
society. Providing students with the opportunity to complete the group investigation
process, the teacher is allowing students to explore their own ideas about the world
around them (Sharan & Sharan, 1989). Additionally, by allowing students to interact
with their peers in a way that encourages group consensus, students are co-
constructing knowledge in a true to life manner.
The constructivist perspective asserts that knowledge is acquired through a
person’s interactions with social and material environments (Mayer, 2003). Group
investigation requires that students guide their own learning in a direction that they
find to be most beneficial and of most interest. This can be contrasted with direct
instruction in which the knowledge is transferred directly form the teacher to the
student in a methodical explicit manner. Group investigation allows students the
opportunity to become responsible for their own learning.
25
Summary
In selecting a model for teaching, the teacher plays the greatest role in the
decision making process. How we teach is influenced on whom we are (Kegan,
1992). A teacher’s effectiveness is determined by the way in which they understand
their own strengths and preferences and modify them through effective pedagogical
strategies (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). Having a set of models to use gives teachers the
flexibility to select those most compatible to their personality and teaching style
(Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce et al., 2002).
Students also play a role in the selection of a teaching model. Each classroom
is made up of a variety of learners who each have their own background and
experiences they bring to the classroom. Collectively, these students present a
classroom unlike any other. In selecting a model of teaching, a teacher must consider
the classroom make up and the impact the learners will have on the dynamic of the
teaching model (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006). It is very likely that a model that was
successful in previous years with a pervious set of students would not show the same
level of effectiveness with a different class.
The final factor to consider when selecting a model for teaching is the subject
matter that is being taught. A teacher needs to first decide the objectives that are to be
taught. Some concepts lend themselves to a specific model and it will be an apparent
choice for use in instruction (Joyce et al., 2002). However, some curriculum may
create a more complicated process and two or more models may seem appropriate for
the content (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce et al., 2002). This is when teacher
26
pedagogical content knowledge proves its place among teacher education
programs and the effective teacher uses a blend of the models to deliver the intended
curriculum.
Theory into Practice
Teacher education and practice don’t have to be at odds with each other…We
shouldn’t be forced to choose between the way things are-you know, life in the
classroom- and the way we think things should be.
Evan, graduate student and prospective teacher (Menwissen, 2005)
This pre-service teacher’s remarks resonate with many beginning teachers and are
unsettling to many teacher educators. Pre-service programs and in-service practice
conflict with one another but they do (Menwissen, 2005). Beginning teachers are
finding that once they enter the classroom they are having to choose between teaching
the curricular programs that have been adopted by the state and meaningful, focused
pedagogical practices they have been taught at the university level (Tanase & Wang,
2010).
Menwissen’s article about the disconnect between teacher education programs
and the realities of schooling suggest that pre-service teachers eventually succumb to
the methodical routines of classroom teaching notwithstanding their desires for a more
meaningful pedagogy (2005). The article asks the question “ How do teacher
education programs combat the seemingly inevitable resignation and promote
teacher’s academic freedom from the time of their entry into the field and throughout
their careers” (Menwissen, 2005, p253)? Teacher educators need to streamline
27
theoretical and pedagogical knowledge while at the same time navigating
the political academic environments new teachers will find themselves in
(Laframboise & Shea, 2009 & Menwissen, 2005).
The job of teacher education is to guide pre-service teachers in developing
pedagogical content knowledge and use it to evaluate and reflect on their practices
(Laframboise & Shea, 2009 & Menwissen, 2005; Tanase & Wang, 2010). Scholars
suggest that in addition to knowledge, pre-service teachers aims and goals deserves
attention. Barton and Levstik (2004) and Thorton (2005) state that teachers need to be
able to evaluate how social and political contexts influence their pedagogical practices
and their own interpretation of the curriculum (Behar-Horenstein, 2005; Eggen &
Kauchak, 2006; Joyce et al., 2002; Menwissen, 2005).
Research in teaching education has shown that beginning teachers’ practices
do not mirror the practices and beliefs expressed by these same teachers in pre-service
practice (Laframboise & Shea, 2009; Kegan, 1992; Tanase & Wang, 2010). Reasons
for this mismatch are numerous and include highly political accountability measures
and the pressures for teachers meet rigorous benchmarks. Additionally there is a lack
of strong teaching models used in and across university systems and unfortunately,
many teachers do not have access to teaching models. Furthermore, the profession
does not offer enough incentive and/or praise for innovative teaching (Menwissen,
2005).
Often the first time a pre-service teacher is in the context of a classroom is
during their field placement experience. It is here that they first experience the
28
discourse between the theory taught at the university and the practice taking
place in the classroom (Menwissen, 2005). Teacher educators need to be able to
provide pre-service teachers with a picture of the context of classrooms today and the
possible reasons as to why many teachers have resorted to practices in the classroom
we do not consider being “best” (Tschannen-Moran Wolfolk Hoy, and Hoy, 1998). If
pre-service teachers understand the state of the current education system and the ways
in which they can integrate their newly learned theory and pedagogical knowledge
into the current classroom curricular context, we could begin to see teachers regaining
control of the learning in their classroom and remaining accountable to the current
education system.
Pre-service teachers have a valid concern in that the theories they have learned
in the university classroom do not prepare them for the dealings of an everyday
classroom (O’Brien, 2007). The theories are viewed as ideal and abstract philosophies
that are very different, to say the least, from the reality of schools and teaching. The
concern is that there is a mismatch or, even worse, an unbridgeable gap between
educational theory and the practice of teaching (O’Brien, 2007).
There is also a misconception shared by many pre-service and beginning
teachers that educational theories are established facts or undisputable truths that have
direct applicability to the classroom. Common thought is that good theories should be
directly applicable to real life and can be applied directly into actual situations with
immediate results (Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998). The problem is with the false
assumption that there is a direct or causal connection between educational theory and
29
the practice of teaching, as though one could simply apply a given theory to
a classroom situation like one applies a proven remedy to a disease (O’Brien, 2007).
It is thought that theories can be taken in their entirety, without any modification or
adjustment and put into practice in a particular classroom. Many pre-service teachers
incorrectly assume that there is a one-to-one relationship between theory and practice
(Menwissen, 2005).
Teacher education should provide pre-service teachers with an understanding
between the disconnections between their university courses and life in the classroom
before cynicism moves beginning teachers in the direction of rejecting the knowledge
acquired in a pre-service program and adapting the complacent role of marginal
teacher (Menwissen, 2005; Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998).). First and foremost,
teacher education needs to aim to anticipate the ways fieldwork experience defy
university instruction and find ways in which we can integrate the two more efficiently
(Menwissen, 2005). This goal is being addressed at many universities in southern
California where we see bridges with universities and local school districts to establish
tight relationships between supervisor teachers at the university levels and classroom
teachers at the district levels. This partnership would allow for pre-service teachers to
practice their newfound knowledge in the context of a classroom setting.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Research on the concept of teacher efficacy spans over 20 years, but much
remains to be learned. Teacher efficacy is defined as teacher's belief or conviction
that they can influence how well students learn (Guskey and Passaro, 1994). Teacher
30
Efficacy is founded in social cognitive theory. Teacher’s beliefs have been
repeatedly associated with positive teaching behaviors and student outcomes (Henson,
2001). Efforts to clarify the definition of teacher efficacy are sometimes clouded by
similar or related constructs (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). It is suggested that the
only major difference between perceptions of efficacy and responsibility is in the tense
of the items used in the measure, with efficacy representing projected potency and
responsibility being an attribute directed toward the past (Henson, 2001).
From the earliest research, teacher efficacy has been considered to have two
dimensions, sometimes suggested to be outcome expectations and efficacy
expectations. Others have interpreted the dimensions as personal efficacy and
teaching efficacy. Guskey and Passaro (1994) have found the two dimensions to be:
internal, the extent that teachers believe that they, and other teachers, have the
influence and impact on student learning; and external, a dimension that measures
teachers' perceptions of the influence and control of factors outside the classroom.
In understanding teacher efficacy, it is important to understand the theoretical
foundation of social-cognitive theory. Developed by Albert Bandura (1977), social
cognitive theory assumes that people are capable of human agency, or intentional
pursuit of courses of action, and that such agency operates in a process called triadic
reciprocal causation. Reciprocal causation is a multi-directional model suggesting that
our agency results in future behavior as a function of three interrelated forces:
environmental influences, our behavior, and internal personal factors such as
cognitive, affective, and biological processes (Henson, 2001).
31
Grounded in Bandura’s framework is the concept of self-efficacy.
Bandura’s aspirations about self-efficacy were grand, as reflected in the title of his
1977 article “Self- Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” In
this seminal work, Bandura defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments”
(Bandura, 1977, p 3). Self-efficacy beliefs were characterized as the major mediators
for our behavior, and importantly, behavioral change. Over the last quarter century,
Bandura’s other works continued to develop and defend the idea that our beliefs in our
abilities powerfully affect our behavior, motivation, and ultimately our success or
failure (Hansen, 2001).
In harmony with the tenets of self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998)
defined teacher efficacy as a teacher’s judgment of his or her abilities to bring about
desired outcomes of student engagement and student learning, even among those
students who may be difficult to motivate. Research within teacher self-efficacy is
relatively new in the field of education. Tschannen-Moran, et al. (1998) compiled a
historical review of the developments in teacher self-efficacy and it should be noted
that early researches interpretations of Bandura’s foundational theories were not
always correct and caused for inconsistent data in the initial stages. Despite the initial
confusion, teacher efficacy has emerged as a viable area of research. They found
consistent relationships between characteristics of teachers and teachers’ self efficacy
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). This notion, that teachers’ self-beliefs are indicating
factors of teaching behaviors is a notable idea.
32
Tschannnen-Moran et al. (1998) contended that teachers’ sense of
efficacy is cyclical, which is one of the reasons it is so powerful. Higher efficacy
leads to greater effort and persistence, which results in improved teaching/learning,
which leads to higher efficacy. Unfortunately, the same cycle applies to low teacher
efficacy. Lower efficacy leads to less effort and persistence, which results in poor
teaching performance, which leads right back to lower efficacy.
Teacher’s Beliefs and Narcissistic Pedagogy
It is necessary to understand teacher’s beliefs I order to understand how teachers
conceptualize teaching. Teachers’ beliefs influence teacher practices (Richards,
1998). Teaching allows for a narcissistic hospitable environment in that the teacher
typically is the only adult in the confined classroom (Hess, 2003). Teachers often
enter the field with an expectation to succeed in that they have been preparing for the
roll all of their life’s. It is a profession most have a preconceived notion of what it
entails as everyone has been schooled. Teacher’s beliefs are formed early during their
own schooling while observing the teachers who taught them (Richards, 1998).
Pre-service teachers beliefs of teaching are often confirmed in teacher
education where there continues to be an idealistic view of the profession. It has been
shown that there is discourse between teacher education programs and the contexts of
classroom teaching, but teacher education programs rarely touch on teacher’s
perceptions of teachers’ beliefs about teaching (Richards, 1998). Upon entering the
classroom, beginning teachers find themselves faced with the task of choosing a
variety of pedagogical practices to teach the given content to students. A pedagogical
33
practice which proves helpful or successful in these early stages of their
teaching career often become embedded in their beliefs of what is considered to be
good teaching practices (Richards, 1998).
Beginning teachers interactions with colleagues and within a school setting
further shape personal beliefs about pedagogical practices in the classroom (Richards,
1998). Mentoring is vulnerable to the dynamics of narcissism (Hess, 2003).
Ineffective mentors approach the process of teacher mentoring as molding the
beginning teacher to emulate their own pedagogical practices (Hankey, 2004). A
beginning teacher is particularly vulnerable to adapting a mentor teacher’s ideas and
beliefs about pedagogical practices because of the overwhelming nature of the first
year teaching (Hankey, 2004; Laframboise & Shea 2009; Richards, 1998).
Narcissism can influence a teacher’s choice when selecting a pedagogical
practice to use in classroom instruction. In a narcissistic learning environment, the
teacher does not foster either spontaneity or particularity (Richards, 1998). A
spontaneous moment is a moment of discovery, a joyous sense of having made a
genuine insight into oneself or an authentic connection between oneself and something
else. Effective teachers use these moments as “teachable moments” where they value
the possibility of reaching a student or students they not have otherwise (Ornstein,
Thomas & Lasley, 2000).
Narcissistic pedagogy disproportionately centers on the needs of the teacher.
The teacher views students as a part of their self, expecting that they mirror his or her
needs (Richards, 1998). A narcissistic teacher expects students value the same things,
34
believe the same things and desire the same things. When students fail to
share admiration for the same things, or express loyalty to the narcissistic teacher, the
teacher often becomes upset, disappointed and can result in the student falling out of
favor (Hankey, 2004; Richards, 1998). The narcissistic teacher views the student as
an extension of their self. In a narcissistic learning environment, the teacher fails to
recognize the needs, concerns or individualism of the students in the classroom.
Conclusions
Pedagogical practices influence student learning. A teacher’s educational
background, self-efficacy views, and personal beliefs all influence pedagogical
practices in the classroom. Understanding how a pre-service program can adequately
prepare a teacher for the context of classroom teaching can help shape the curriculum
taught at these institutions. When training teachers, pre-service programs need to
connect teacher’s beliefs about education to current theory and bridge this into the
context of the classroom.
Pre-service teachers face many challenges during their first year of teaching.
Currently schools are pushing for teachers to strive for higher test scores and models
encouraging teacher directed “drill and kill” strategies are favored for all content
areas. When teachers are prepared for the stagnant pedagogical environment many
schools are currently immersed in, they will be better able to use the theory they have
immersed themselves in and better make adaptable pedagogical changes to the given
curriculum.
35
Teachers who employ a variety of pedagogical models in classroom
instruction provide their students with a variety of models of learning (Joyce et al.,
2002). The more opportunities a student has to access the curriculum the better suited
they are to make connections to prior knowledge. Understanding the factors that
influence teacher choice when selecting a pedagogical practice will help pre-service
and in-service programs in developing a program that addresses these factors.
36
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This study looked at teachers’ perception of the models of teaching and the
factors associated in selecting specific teaching models in their classroom. Models of
teaching are systematic strategies used to reach learning objectives (Joyce, Weil &
Showers, 1972). It is essential for teachers to assess their students’ needs and develop
instruction that will meet the needs of the diverse learners in their classrooms in a
efficient manner. Models of teaching support different learning strengths (Joyce et al.,
2002). Most teachers do not think of teaching in terms of models of teaching, but
teach in the method they were taught (Broudy, 1963; Gaskins & Elliot, 1991; Lyons,
1997). Models are useful tools to allow students the ability to access the curriculum,
providing more appropriate learning experiences for the each student. In
understanding factors influencing pedagogical choice, it is important to examine
teacher’s beliefs on pedagogical practice.
There are a number of elements that may influence teacher choice when
selecting a pedagogical practice for instruction. This study determined how teacher’s
beliefs about theory learned in a pre-service program influence current practice and
their ability to match models and lessons to teaching objectives. Additionally, the
study looked at the variance between teachers introduced to the models of teaching in
a pre-service program and those who introduced to the models of teaching during in-
37
service training. Finally, a third element evaluated the role teacher
narcissism has in selecting a pedagogical practice.
Research Questions
1. What personal and contextual factors influence teachers’ perception of
pedagogical choices?
2. How do teachers value key factors associated with pedagogical practices
based on their teacher training?
Research Design
The research questions were examined through a mixed method case study.
The use of both qualitative and qualitative methods allowed for critical issues to be
examined, paying close attention to detail, context, and quality of implementation
(Patton, 1987, p. 29). A case study is an effective approach to evaluating the factors
that influence teacher’s perceptions of pedagogical choice, based on criteria identified
in the literature. Creswell (2007) states that case study research involves the study of
an issue within a bounded system during a specific period of time while utilizing
multiple sources of information to develop conclusions.
Throughout the data collection process, the researcher conducted surveys and
focus groups. The researcher reviewed artifacts and documents to provide a rich body
of data. In order to strengthen the validity of the findings, the researcher used a
triangulation method (Patton, 2002). Within this process, the researcher examined the
consistencies and inconsistencies among the data, as well as the ability of one source
to supplement the information gathered from another (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002).
38
The overarching purpose of the chosen methods for collecting data was to
determine the factors greatest associated with a teacher’s choice in selecting a
pedagogical practice for content instruction.
It is important to note, however, that constraints of time and resources,
investigator bias, generalizatibility, validity, and reliability can limit a case study
(Patton, 2002). In order to minimize the effects of these limitations, triangulation
methods were implemented through the use of multiple sources of data (Creswell,
2007; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002).
Population and Sample
The population of teachers this study evaluated were trained in the models of
teaching in either a pre-service or in-service setting. The final sample included 25
teachers who were given a survey and asked to identify lessons and models of
teaching associated with a teaching objective. Of the 25 teachers surveyed, 14
teachers having varied levels of teaching experience ranging from 5 to 23 years were
interviewed. All teachers were employed in the Tustin Unified School District.
Participants were initially contacted through e-mail asking for their participation in a
survey on the methods of teaching. Final participants were selected based on their
ability to match the set criteria.
The Tustin Unified School District is located in central Orange County, 37
miles southeast of Los Angeles and 88 miles north of San Diego. The Tustin Unified
School District has 18 elementary schools, five middle schools and four high schools.
The district services students in grades Kindergarten through 12
th
grade. The district
39
serves over 23,000 students with an ethnic make up similar to the state of
California: 42.4 % Hispanic, 33.6 % White, 17.1% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.2%
African American and .3% American Indian. The district caters to families form 73
different countries and more than 50 languages with 34.4% of students classified as
English Learners. The district has a Growth Academic Performance Index (API) of
826, which exceeds the state of California’s API by 84 points. 63% of the schools in
the district have exceeded the target API of 800, as compared to 54.9% of schools
within Orange County and 33.7% of schools within California.
Purposeful sampling used in this study was to ensure that the researcher had
access to an information rich case, in which they were able to gain data critical to the
purpose of the research (Patton, 2002). According to Merriam (1998), “purposeful
sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover,
understand and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most
can be learned” (p.61). The process of selecting participants began with an
introductory e-mail to teachers the researcher knows meet the qualifications of having
been formally instructed in methods either during pre-service or in-service teaching.
Snowball or network sampling occurred within the study, which is a strategy that
involves asking each participant, or group of participants, to refer the researchers to
other potential participants (Merriam, 1998). There were also instances of emergent
sampling, in which researchers follow new leads on information gained through
fieldwork (Patton, 2002).
40
Instrumentation
Participants were contacted through e-mail, inquiring about availability to
participate in the study. Included in the e-mail will be a brief background of the study,
implications for its relevance, and a description of participant responsibilities. The
initial e-mail was sent to all elementary school principals in the Tustin Unified School
District, which then was forward to teachers at the school sites who were trained in the
models. All participants who met qualifications were asked to take an initial survey
on the models of teaching (Appendix A). The survey, which was developed by Dr.
Sandra Kaplan as part of the Javits Models of Teaching grant funded by the United
States Department of Education (2007). The survey looks at the factors that influence
teacher’s perception of pedagogical choices.
Table 3.2. Instrumentation
Type of Instrument Purpose Sample Questions
Survey
Determine teachers’
perceptions of differentiated
core content/ standards based
areas of study and selected
models of teaching.
Which lesson is the best
match to teach the lesson
and the objective?
Focus Groups
Determine teachers’
perceptions of their use of
differentiated core
content/standards based areas
of study and selected models
of teaching.
What do you consider to
be the greatest
influencing factor(s) in
selecting a model of
teaching for a lesson?
Give an example of how
you would teach a lesson
using direct instruction,
an advanced organizer or
group investigation.
41
A group of 14 teachers were selected for the interview process
regarding their experiences with the models of teaching, specifically direct instruction,
advance organizers or group investigation. Participants were interviewed in groups of
four or five using an interview protocol of 6 questions based on the survey results
Appendix B). The researcher conducted small group interviews and asked participants
about their familiarity with the models of teaching, their preference for using the
models, and their reasoning for selecting specific models for their classroom
instruction. The focus groups took approximately 45 minutes to complete. Interviews
were transcribed and coded.
“The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, 341). Interviewing is based on the assumption
that the perspective of others is meaningful. The interviews the researchers conducted
enabled the researcher to learn about events, feelings, thoughts, and intentions that
they are not able to observe. The interview questions were designed to ascertain the
interviewee’s attitudes, knowledge of, and experiences with the models of teaching.
Semi-structured interviews contain more open-ended questions that are flexibly
worded to elicit more varied responses (Merriam, 1998). The format of the semi-
structured interview allowed for diversity in the way questions are asked. The
researcher predetermined interview questions. However, flexibility was given
depending on whether the researcher felt that more than one question has been
answered in the interviewees’ responses. The researcher had some discretion in
42
adding questions for clarification or eliminating questions that have already
been answered (Patton, 2002).
Attention was given to the structure and diction of each question so as to
ensure “what [was] being asked [was] clear to the person being interviewed”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 76). Questions to be avoided included: multiple questions
embedded within one; leading questions that may reveal the researcher’s bias, or yes-
or-no questions that elicit no significant information (Merriam, 1998). The interview
questions also included several probes aimed to help to guide the interview and allow
the researcher the opportunity to make adjustments throughout the interview
(Merriam, 1998).
Data Collection
The data collection procedures included survey results and small group
interviews. Data was collected between January and February 2011. In order to
address issues of validity and reliability, data triangulation, investigator triangulation,
and methodological triangulation will be implemented. According to Brewer and
Hunter (2002), “using multiple methods allows inquiry into a research question with
an arsenal of methods” that have non-overlapping weaknesses in addition to their
complementary strengths” (as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 248).
Table 3.3. Research Question Instrumentation
Research Question Survey Interview
What factors influence teachers’
perception of pedagogical choices?
X
X
How do teachers value key factors
associated with pedagogical
practices based on their teacher
training?
X
43
Data Analysis
Following data collection, initial surveys, and interviews, data will be
transcribed and analyzed in order to identify significances. Transcriptions were
carefully read and the information was categorized and coded according to main
themes, topics or patterns that were identified. The two primary sources of data
regarding the implementation of the models of teaching will enable the researcher to
engage in data triangulation (Patton, 2002) to increase validity of the findings.
Summary
This chapter has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this mixed
method case study. This case study of the factors that influence teachers’ choice when
selecting a pedagogical practice included a variety of data collection methods and
instruments to answer the research questions identifying the on-going processes
promoting co-construction. The data collection methods and instruments also
identified evidence that inhibited the correct implementation of the models of
teaching. Finally, the data collection looked at differences between how teachers
introduced to the models of teaching in a pre-service program versus those who were
introduced to the repertoire of the models of teaching during in-service, influence how
teachers identify key that most influence a teacher’s choice when selecting a
pedagogical practice in the classroom.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
A strong foundation in pedagogy allows teachers ability to ensure the
curriculum they teach reach the students they are serving. There are many factors
associated with how a teacher selects a pedagogical practice for classroom instruction.
The variance in teacher preparation and personal background training allow for the
wide variety of classroom instruction we see in our schools today. The models of
teaching were developed in order to provide teachers with concrete templates that
prescribe steps and procedures to produce desired outcomes in classroom learning (
Joyce et al, 2002, Huitt, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to identify the factors teachers most associate with
their selection of a model of teaching. The specific models of teaching examined
within the study were direct instruction, advanced organizers and group investigation.
These pedagogical practices were selected due to their prevalence in classroom
teaching. Most pre-service institutions instruct teachers using a direct instruction
model, yet fail to mention it is just one type of model (Behar-Horenstein & Seabert,
2005). Teachers who use a variety of pedagogical practices are better prepared to
meet the needs of the diverse learners in their classrooms (Behar-Horenstein &
45
Seabert, 2005; Broudy, 1963; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Gordon
& Brien, 1997; Laframboise & Shea, 2009).
Research Questions
This chapter presents the results of the data analyses conducted in the study.
This study was designed to look at the factors associated with teacher choice when
selecting a pedagogical practice for classroom instruction. The following research
questions are to frame the results:
1. What personal and contextual factors influence teachers’ perceptions of
pedagogical choice?
2. How do teachers value key factors associated with pedagogical
practices based on their teacher training?The data will show the
relationship between the factors teachers determine most influence their decision in
selecting a model of teaching, as well as, how teacher training in the models impact
teacher’s pedagogical practices in classroom instruction.
Methodology
The study included 25 teachers in the Tustin Unified School District who were
formally trained in the models of teaching at either the University of Southern
California or through the Tustin Unified School District professional development
program. All participants completed a survey (Appendix A) pertaining to the models
of teaching and their usage in their classroom. Fifteen teachers participated in an
interview using an interview protocol (Appendix B) to see what, if any, consistencies
occur between what teachers say they do and what they do in relation to the models of
46
teaching. The study began with a secondary study using the Javits Model
of Teaching survey (Using the Models of Teaching to Improve Student Achievement:
UP-06-00177; directed by Dr. Sandra Kaplan 2005-2010), in which teachers match
academic standards and objectives to lessons and models of teaching. Survey results
helped to guide the questions used on the interview protocol. Data was coded and
analyzed to make connections between strategies learned in a training program and
implementation of the models of teaching in the classroom setting (Appendix D).
Table 4.1 Participant Demographics
Participant Number Gender Experience Training
101 F 5 in-service
102 F 10 in-service
103 F 10 pre-service
104 F 11 pre-service
105 M 12 pre-service
106 F 7 pre-service
107 F 10 in-service
108 F 8 in-service
109 F 8 pre-service
110 F 8 pre-service
111 F 8 pre-service
1001* F 15 pre-service
1002* F 23 in-service
1004* F 14 in-service
1005* F 15 pre-service
1006* F 15 in-service
1008* F 9 in-service
1009* F 11 pre-service
1010* M 8 pre-service
1011* F 24 in-service
1013* F 19 pre-service
1020* F 7 pre-service
1021* F 8 pre-service
1099* F 14 pre-service
1098* F 14 pre-service
* Participants who were administered both teacher survey and interview protocol
47
Participants were contacted through an introductory e-mail. The
researcher contacted teachers within the Tustin Unified School District who were
trained in the models of teaching through the University of Southern California or the
TUSD professional development training. Purposeful sampling allows for the
researcher to find participants that will provide a sample from which the greatest
amount of learning can obtained (Patton, 2002). There were 50 e-mails originally sent
out to principals and teachers within the TUSD district with 22 initial responses. The
participant group finalized at 25 teachers with varied training and experience in the
classroom. The initial 25 teachers each responded to the teacher survey. From this
group, 15 participants agreed to participate in a group interview. For purposes of this
study, participants have been categorized into two groups based on the time period in
which they received pedagogical training on the models of teaching. Participants
trained during an undergraduate or post baccalaureate program at the USC were
labeled as pre-service teachers as their training transpired prior to entering the
classroom. Participants trained through the USC Javits grant or the TUSD
professional development were labeled as in-service teachers because their training
occurred after having entered the teaching profession and while in-service. Of the 25
participants who were administered the teacher survey, two were male and 23 were
female. There were 16 participants who instructed in the models of teaching in a pre-
service program and nine who participated in an in-service training. Years of
experience varied from five to 24 years of classroom teaching with a median of 11.72
years experience in classroom teaching. Interviews were conducted with 15
48
participants as indicated by a participant number greater than 1000. There
was one male participant and 14 female participants in this set. There were 10
participants who were identified as having received model of teaching training in a
pre-service program and five who were identified as having received training as an in-
service teacher.
Results
The following sections will highlight the results of the study. Study results
have been reported in regards to each of the research questions. As a mixed methods
study, the quantitative findings will be reported first, followed by the qualitative
findings for each of the research questions. The results for question one will address
the personal and contextual factors that influence teacher’s choice when selecting a
pedagogical practice for classroom instruction. The results for question two will
highlight the key factors associated with pedagogical practices based on teacher’s
training in relation to the models of teaching.
Question 1 Quantitative Results
What personal and contextual factors influence teachers’ perceptions of
pedagogical choice?
All participants in the study participated in a teacher survey developed by Dr.
Sandra Kaplan at the University of Southern California as a measure of teacher
understanding as part of the Javits grant funded by the United Stated Department of
Education. All 25 participants completed the six, multi-step questionnaire using a
pencil and pen method. The survey asked participants to match six lessons and
49
models of teaching to a pre-determined lesson objective and content
standard. Participants then identified which, if any of the following factors influenced
their decision; gifted students needs and abilities, time allocation, teacher’s perceived
ability to implement the lesson, and philosophy of teaching and learning.
Results were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Science
(SPSS) to determine what if any statistical significance could be determined from the
teacher survey results. The survey’s existing numbering made it difficult to enter the
questions into SPSS. Each standard and objective set was followed by the same two
questions; 1) Which lesson best matches the standard and objective of the lesson, and
2) Circle the model of teaching for the lesson (A, B or C) that you selected. In order
to clearly understand which question was being examined, survey questions were
given labels to represent their location in the survey. The two questions on the first
page following the first standard and objective matching task were labeled Q1 and Q2.
The two questions following the second standard and objective matching task were
labeled Q3 and Q4. The two questions following the third standard and objective
matching task were labeled Q5 and Q6. The two questions following the fourth
standard and objective matching task were labeled Q7 and Q8. The two questions
following the fifth standard and objective matching task were labeled Q9 and Q10.
The two questions following the sixth standard and objective matching task were
labeled Q11 and Q12.
A Pearson’s Chi Square test of significance was used to determine significance
among participants’ responses to each question and the reasons they selected as
50
supporting their answer. Critical differences set the p-value at 0.05 to
determine significance using the Chi-square analysis to determine a relationship
between two nominal variables. Since this study is looking for trends, rather than
critical differences alpha will be set at 0.1 to detect trends that would have otherwise
gone unnoticed with an alpha > 0.05. A p-value less than 0.1 but greater than 0.051
will show a marginal significance between the responses of participants in Group A
and participants in Group B in relation to the factors they chose as reasons influencing
their decision to select a specific answer. A p-value less than 0.05 will show a critical
significance between the responses of participants in Group A and participants in
Group B in relation to the factors they chose as reasons influencing their decision to
select a specific answer.
An asymptotic significance (Asymp. Sig.) value will indicate a significant
difference between the responses of the participants in Group A and the participants in
Group B in conjunction to the reasons they selected as supporting the answers they
selected for each set of standards and objectives. An Asymp Sig. less than 0.1 but
greater than 0.051 indicates that there is a marginal significance between the responses
of the participants in Group A and the participants in Group B. An Asymp Sig. less
than 0.05 indicates a critical significance in the responses given by the participants in
Group A and the participants in Group B.
Forty-eight Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to
compare the findings between Group A and Group B. Table 4.2 show which Chi-
square tests yielded significant results or trends. The following tables (Table 4.3 – 4.6)
51
each indicate Chi-square result findings for the individual tests with
significant results or trends.
Table 4.2 Pearson’s Chi Square Significant Results
Variables value Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Q1 x B - 0.073
Q2 x B - 0.048
Q2 x D - 0.086
Q11 x B - 0.021
Table 4.3. Pearson’s chi-square test between groups and question 1 to b
Lesson “yes” response “no” response Total responses
A 14 5 19
B - - -
C 2 4 6
Total 16 9 25
The Chi-square test in table 4.3 revealed a marginally significant difference on
“time allotted for lesson” in relation to the lesson selected among participants in
Group A and participants in Group B; !2(1, N = 25) = 3.222, p =.073. Participants who
selected Lesson A as the lesson that best matched the standard and objective in
question 1 were more likely to consider “time allocated for lesson” as a reason for
selecting Lesson A.
52
Table 4.4. Pearson’s chi-square test between groups and question 2 to b
Model of Teaching “yes” response “no” response Total responses
DI - 3 3
AO 10 4 14
GI 6 2 8
Total 16 9 25
The Chi-square test in table 4.4 revealed a significant difference on “time
allotted for lesson” in relation to the model of teaching selected among participants in
Group A and participants in Group B; !2(2, N = 25) = 6.089, p < 0.05. Participants
who selected Advanced Organizer as the model of teaching they felt best meet the
standard and lesson objective in question 2 were more likely to consider “time
allocated for lesson” as a reason for selecting the advanced organizer as their preference
in pedagogical practice.
Table 4.5. Pearson’s chi-square test between groups and question 2 to d
Model of Teaching “yes” response “no” response Total responses
DI - 3 3
AO 5 9 14
GI - 8 8
Total 5 20 25
53
The Chi-square test in table 4.5 revealed a marginally significant
difference on “philosophy of teaching and learning ” in relation to the model of
teaching selected among participants in Group A and participants in Group B; !2(2, N
= 25) = 4.911, p =.086. Participants who selected Advanced Organizer as the model of
teaching they felt best meet the standard and lesson objective in question 2 were more
likely to consider “time allocated for lesson” as a reason for selecting the advanced
organizer as their preference in pedagogical practice.
Table 4.6. Pearson’s chi-square test between groups and question 11 to b
Lesson “yes” response “no” response Total responses
A 15 2 17
B 3 4 7
C - 1 1
Total 18 7 25
The Chi-square test in table 4.6 revealed significant difference on “time allotted
for lesson” in relation to the lesson selected among participants in Group A and
participants in Group B; !2(2, N = 25) = 7.743, p <0.05. Participants who selected
Lesson A as the lesson that best matched the standard and objective in question 11
were more likely to consider “time allocated for lesson” as a reason for selecting
Lesson A.
54
Summary: The quantitative results for question one identified four
areas of significance related to teacher’s identify as a factor influencing their decision
to select a specific pedagogical practice for classroom instruction. The response
choice “time allocated for lesson” was a variable in three of the four significant results
and trends findings. The response choice “philosophy of teaching and learning” was
the response choice in the other significant finding. Teachers often indicate “time” as
a factor influencing teacher choice when selecting a pedagogical practice for
classroom instruction (Eggen & Kauchak 2006; Gaskins & Elliot, 1991: Joyce et al.,
2002). We see personal teaching philosophies and ideas of learning having great
effect on teacher choice as well (Richards, 1998). Teacher’s beliefs about pedagogical
practices are often shaped in the early stages of their teaching career (Laframboise &
Shea, 2009; Richards, 1998).
Question 1 Qualative Results
What personal and contextual factors influence teachers’ perceptions of
pedagogical choice?
The following results indicate the qualitative findings as found during the interview
portion of the study. Table 4.7 highlights the personal and contextual factors teachers
responded as having the greatest impact on teacher choice when selecting a specific
model of teaching (direct instruction, advanced organizer, or group investigation) for
classroom instruction. Tables 4.8- 4.10 report the frequency in which teachers reported
specific factors as one of three factors most influencing their decision to select a
specific model of teaching for classroom instruction.
55
Table 4.7 Factors Influencing Models of Teaching Usage in Classroom
Instruction
Direct Instruction Advanced Organizer Group Investigation
• Easy to implement
• Teacher centered
• Time saving
• Instant feedback
• Universal template
• Structured
• Teacher directed
• Student interest
• Time consuming
• Fun to teach
• Student driven
• Cooperative
learning
• Time intensive
Participants who were interviewed using the interview protocol (Appendix B ),
answered questions pertaining to three specific models of teaching, direct instruction,
advanced organizers and group investigation. Participants were asked to identify the
benefits and hindrances of each of these models they felt most impacted their
classroom teaching. The responses were categorized by type of model and then coded
and analyzed by the researcher to look for similarities and themes within the
responses. The table above lists the strongest themes found within the data for each of
the three models used within this study. The following tables will detail each of the
themes and factors associated with teacher choice when selecting a one of the models
of teaching. The responses have been divided into pre-service and in-service teacher
responses. For the purpose of this study, participants instructed in the models of
teaching in a pre-service program will be referred to as Group A, while participants
trained on the models of teaching while in-service will be referred to as Group B.
Table 4.8, Participant Responses to Direct Instruction
Theme Pre-service
(Group A)
In-Service
(Group B)
Ease of implementation 2/10 (20%) 4/5 (80%)
Teacher centered 7/10 (70%) 2/5 (40%)
Time saving 1/10 (10%) 2/5 (40%)
Instant feedback 4/10 (40%) 2/5 (40%)
Universal template 7/10 (70%) 4/5 (80%)
56
Participant responses on the direct instruction portion of the
interview indicated ease of implementation, teacher centered, time saving, instant
feedback and universal theme as the greatest factors in selecting the direct instruction
model for teaching. Participants in Group A most often cited both teacher centered
and universal template as factors they consider when selecting this model of teaching.
One participant explained, “ The direct instruction model is tried and true. I know
what to expect, I know how long it will take and I can ensure the content is delivered
and students got what I wanted them to” (Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011).
Each of these factors was cited by seven of the ten teachers in Group A. Instant feed
back was a factor given by four out of the ten teachers in Group A, ease of
implementation was a factor given by two our of the ten participants and only one
participant cited time saving as a factor they considered when selecting this model of
teaching. “ The direct instruction model is straight forward. It is tried and true. It is
easy to use” (Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011).
The most prevalent response in Group B was ease of implementation and
universal template, which four out of the five teachers indicated was a factor they
considered when selection the direct instruction model of teaching. “The direct
instruction model is the model that I learned when I was in a credential program and it
is straight forward” (Participant, Group B, February, 22, 2011). Another participant
further explained their preference for a structured model, “ I like that the steps are
universal. The template is universal. Every teacher knows it. It is the way we were
taught” (Participant, Group B, February, 22, 2011). Two out of five participants in
57
this group responded that teacher centered, time saving and instant
feedback were also factors they considered when selecting this model of teaching
(Winitzky & Kauchak, 1997).
Similarities between the groups are shown within the theme of universal
template in which seven out of the ten participants Group A and four out of five
participants in Group B indicated was a factor they considered when selecting the
direct instruction model for classroom teaching. According to Eggen and Kauchak
(2006), the direct instruction model is the most common model used in classroom
instruction due to transfer of knowledge directly form the teacher to the student.
The greatest differences between the groups were seen within the ease of
implementation and teacher centered themes. Whereas, two out of the ten participants
in Group A stated ease of implementation as a factor that they consider when selecting
the direct instruction model, four out of five participants in Group B listed it as a
factor. Within the theme of teacher centered, seven out of the ten participants in
Group A responded that this was a factor that they consider when selecting this model
of teaching. As for participants in Group B, two out of the five participants listed
teacher centered as a factor that influences their selection of this model of teaching.
Table 4.9. Participant Responses to Advanced Organizer
Theme Pre-service
(Group A)
In-Service
(Group B)
Structured 5/10 (50%) 2/5 (40%)
Teacher directed 10/10 (100%) 5/5 (100%)
Student interest 10/10 (100%) 4/5 (80%)
Time consuming 4/10 (40%) 4/5 (80%)
58
Interview data pertaining to the advanced organizer model of
teaching indicated the following themes as the most often cited factors that influence
teacher choice when selecting this model of teaching; structure, teacher directed,
student interest and time consuming. All participants in Group A indicated both
teacher directed and student interest as two of the three factors they most consider
when selecting this model for classroom instruction. One participant emphasized this
when stating, “I move from the center of attention to the one guiding the learning. I
still am able to ensure that they get the content I want, but it is organized in a way
where the students take ownership over their learning” (Participant, Group A,
February, 22, 2011). Another participant explained, “the advanced organizer keeps
my students focused on the lessons and objectives” (Participant, Group A, February,
22, 2011). Behar-Horenstein & Seabert (2005) indicate that the advanced organizer
helps students learn to construct knowledge and Joyce et al. (2002) states that
connections students arte more likely to make through higher level thinking processes
and therefore more likely to be engaged in the learning task while using an advanced
organizer (Winitzky & Kauchak, 1997). For the final theme, five out of the ten
participants in Group A indicated structure and four out of ten indicated time
consuming as a factor they consider when selecting this model of teaching.
All participants in Group B responded that the fact that the advanced organizer
is teacher directed weights heavily on their decision to select this model for classroom
instruction. “I like that the students get to do work on their own, but because I provide
the organizer, I still have a say in what the content is” (Participant, Group B, February,
59
22, 2011). For the participants in Group B, four out of five responded that
both student interest and time consuming were major factors that influence their
choice when selecting the advanced organizer for classroom instruction. “This (the
advanced organizer) can take a long time for student to fill out” (Participant, Group B,
February, 22, 2011). Another teacher clarified, “ It can take two or sometimes three
class periods to make sure that everyone has all of the information I want them to
have” (Participant, Group B, February, 22, 2011). Two out of five participants stated
that structure was one of the greatest factors influencing their choice in selecting a
model of teaching.
All participants in both Groups A and B indicated teacher directed as one of
the factors most influencing teacher choice when selecting a model of teaching for
classroom teaching. This mirrors what the research states. Advanced organizers are
highly structured and continue to be teacher-centered (Joyce et al., 2002). Differences
between the groups were indicated among participant responses pertaining to the time
consuming theme. Within Group A, four out of ten participants indicated time
consuming as a factor that they consider when selecting the advanced organizer for
classroom instruction. Of the participants in Group B, four out of five indicated time
consuming as a factor they consider when selecting this model for classroom
instruction.
Table 4.10. Participant Responses to Group Inbvestigation
Theme Pre-service
(Group A)
In-Service
(Group B)
Fun to teach 10/10 (100%) 4/5 (80%)
Student driven 9/10 (90%) 2/5 (40%)
Cooperative learning 3/10 (30%) 1/5 (20%)
60
Table 4.10 Continued
Time intensive 3/10 (30%) 3/5 (60%)
Participants in the study most often cited the following themes when asked to
name the three factors they felt greatest influenced their choice in selecting the group
investigation model; fun to teach, student driven, cooperative learning and time
intensive. The most prevalent response among the participants in Group A was fun to
teach with ten out of ten participants indicating it was one of the factors that greatest
influenced their choice when selecting the group investigation model of teaching. One
participant stated that the “group investigation model is my favorite model to teach”
and she liked that “it allows me to cultivate learning” (Participant, Group A, February,
22, 2011). Another participant added that “this is how I like to learn, so presenting
lessons in this manner brings a different level of satisfaction than the other models (of
teaching) do” (Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011). Additionally, the theme,
student driven was also highly selected as a factor influencing teacher choice when
selecting this model of teaching with nine out of ten participants indicating so during
the interview process. Participants stated, “I like having the kids work cooperatively
and find conclusions together” (Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011) and “I love
empowering students to work together” (Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011).
Both, cooperative learning and time intensiveness were selected by three out of the ten
teachers as one of the three factors most influencing teacher choice when selecting the
group investigation model of teaching for classroom instruction. Throughout the
group investigation process the teacher’s main role is to allow students the opportunity
to explore and form their own ideas about the world (Zingaro, 2008).
61
Participants in Group B most often indicated fun to teach as a factor
influencing teacher choice when selecting the group investigation model of teaching.
“ I like to use this model because the kids are excited and more likely to
participate…even those who usually do not” (Participant, Group B, February, 22,
2011). Time intensive was selected by three out of the five students in Group B.
Participants in Group B stated that this was a deterrent for using this model in their
classroom, “I usually only use (group investigation model) for science because it takes
too long” (Participant, Group B, February, 22, 2011). Sharon and Sharon (1989)
acknowledge this time constraint but praise its value as an opportunity for students to
explore their own ideas about the world with their teacher as a guide. Student driven
was selected by two out of five and cooperative learning was selected by one out of
the five participants in this group.
The most predominant response in both groups A and B was fun to teach. All
participants in Group A and four out of five participants in Group B indicated it as one
of the greatest factors influencing teacher choice when selecting a model of teaching.
Joyce et al. (2002) confirms that the group investigation model allows for the teacher
to take a less traditional role as a guide to facilitate classroom learning. One
participant added the further clarification when they said, “Since I am not at the focus
of the lesson, I am able to walk around the room more and interact with students in a
different manner than I typically do, which makes this type of teaching model so
enjoyable” (Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011). Cooperative learning was the
least prevalent response in both groups with three out of ten participants in Group A
62
and one out of five participants in Group B citing it as a factor that
influences teacher choice when selecting a model of teaching.
The greatest difference in response to which factors greatest influence teacher
choice when selecting the group investigation model of teaching was evident within
the theme of student driven. Of the participants in Group A, nine out of ten selected
this as one of the factors that greatest influence teacher choice when selecting this
model of teaching. “ I love that the students are responsible for their own learning”
(Participant, Group A, February, 22, 2011). Among participants in Group B, two out
of five participants selected this as a factor that influences teacher choice when
selecting the group investigation model of teaching.
Summary: Question One Results
The most common factors teachers associated when selected a model of
teaching were student ability level, allotment of time for lesson, lesson objectives,
academic content standards, and the group of students being taught. These five factors
were also repeatedly identified during participant interviews (Appendix B). Survey
results indicated two areas where significance was seen: time, and philosophy of
teaching and learning (Tanase & Wang, Richards, 1998). “ The models have allowed
me to reach more learners by adapting my instruction based on the lesson’s objectives
and the needs of the students” (Participant, Group A, February 22, 2011). An
understanding of how the models differ and which times are most appropriate for
specific models are necessary for success in classroom instruction (Joyce et al., 2002).
The factors participants in this study cited as those that greatest influence their
63
decision when selecting a model of teaching mirror those factors identified
as most important when considering a model for classroom instruction based on the
literature (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006: Huitt, 2003; Joyce et al., 2002).
Participant responses varied when asked about the factors that greatest
impacted decision making when pertaining to a specific model of teaching.
Participants were asked to identify both the positive and negative aspects of each of
the three teaching models. For the direct instruction model, ease on implementation,
teacher centered, time saving, provides instant feedback, and universal template were
the personal factors most often cited. One participant reported that “ the direct
instruction model helps keep me focused and make sure that I have hit all points and
students in one lesson” (Participant, Group A, February 22, 2011). Another
participant responded, “students get the exact information I need for them to have, it is
straight forward” (Participant, Group A, February 22, 2011). According to Eggen and
Kauchak, this may be attributed to the fact that knowledge is transferred directly from
the teacher to the student in a methodical, explicit manner in the direct instruction
model (2006).
Question 2 Quantitative Results
How do teachers value key factors associated with pedagogical practices based
on their teacher training?
Independent sample t-tests were conducted to determine if participants scores differed
based on when training in the modes of teaching offered relevant to start of teaching
career.
64
Table 4.11. Descriptive Statistics
N M Std. Deviation
Group A 16 10.2500 1.80739
Group B 9 5.55556 1.74005
The results indicate that there is a statically significant difference between the mean
for Group A (M=10.25, SD 1.80) and Group B (M=5.55, SD 1.74); t(23) = 6.314;
p=.000. Participants in Group A have a statically higher mean on the survey results
than the participants in Group B. Participants in Group A averaged 16 out of 18
correct answers on the teacher survey and participants in Group B averaged nine out
of 18 correct answers on the teacher survey.
Question 2 Qualitative Results
How do teachers value key factors associated with pedagogical practices based
on their teacher training?
Pedagogical practices in classroom instruction greatly influence how students receive
information. By identifying the factors teachers associate with selecting a pedagogical
practice for classroom instruction, the researcher hopes to generate a set of factors that
can be used to determine which model of teaching to be used for a set standard and/or
teaching objective. The following chart identifies which factors participants in both
Group A and Group B most often identified as factors they considered when choosing
a model of teaching. Participants in Group A were further spin into two groups; those
who were first introduced to the repertoire of the models of teaching during their
undergraduate education and those who were introduced to the models of teaching
during the credential/graduate program. In both instances, participants in Group A
were introduced to the models of teaching prior to classroom teaching. Participants in
65
each group were asked to identify three factors they felt greatest influenced
their personal preference for a specific model of teaching. This question was open
ended. Participant responses were charted and coded for similarities. From these
individual responses, the following five factors proved to be the most frequent among
all participants; student ability level, time, lesson objectives, academic content
standards, and groups of students.
Table 4.12. Key Factors Identified as Influencing Teacher Choice
Student Ability
Level
time
Lesson Objectives
Academic content
standards
Group of Students
(Personality, student
interest)
Group A
Pre-service (5)
(undergrad)
xx x xxxx xxxx xxx
Pre-service (5)
(credential)
xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx
Group B
In-service (5)
xxx xx x xxxx x
Participants in Group A favored lesson objectives and academic content
standards as the factors they most often cited as those which greatest influenced their
choice in a specific model of teaching with eight out of ten participants in this group
selecting each of these as one of their three choices. Participants in Group A
identified time and group of students as a favored method with six out of ten
participants identifying time and five out of ten participants identifying groups of
students as one of top three factors they consider when selecting a specific model of
teaching. Student ability level was the factor least selected by the participants in
66
Group A with two out of ten participants identifying it as one of three
factors that greatest influence their selection of a model of teaching.
Among the ten participants in Group A, five stated that they were introduced to
he models of teaching during their undergraduate education, while five indicated they
received the models of training during a credential/graduate program prior to entering
the teaching profession. Results were similar among each subgroup in most categories
with the exception of time where one of the five participants from the undergraduate
group and all five of the five participants from the credential/graduate group identified
time as one of the factors they most consider when selecting a specific model for
classroom instruction.
Participants in Group B stated that academic content was the factor that
greatest affected teacher choice when selecting a pedagogical practice for classroom
teaching with four out of five participants selecting this as one of the three factors.
Three out of five participants in Group B identified students’ ability level as one of the
factors greatest affecting pedagogical choice. Of the remaining factors that showed
the greatest impact on teacher’s decision to select a model of teaching for a given
standard/objective, time was indicated by two of the five participants in Group B; and
lesson objectives and groups of students were each identified by one participant as a
factor they consider when selecting a model of teaching for classroom instruction.
Summary: Question Two Results
Survey results indicated that participants in Group A, or those trained in the
models of teaching prior to their teaching service began scored significantly higher on
67
the teacher survey than those in Group B, or those who were trained after
their teaching career began. Teacher education advocates argue that foundation
teacher’s receive in a pre-service program is one of the greatest factors influencing
their personal philosophy of teaching (Barton ad Levstik, 2004; Laframboise & Shea,
2009; Menwissen, 2005). These results indicate that those teachers who wee trained
in the models of teaching prior to entering the classroom have a better understanding
of their use in classroom practice. Additionally, participants in Group A most often
cited lesson objectives and content standards as the factors greatest influencing the
decision practice when it came to selecting a model of teaching for their classroom
teaching. Joyce et al. cite these as the driving force behind selection of a teaching
model (2006). Understanding of classroom curriculum and teaching objectives should
be the greatest factors indicated when selecting a model for classroom teaching.
Conclusions
The results stated in this chapter find the models of teaching to be useful tools
in classroom instruction. “The models of teaching give me the freedom to address
different types of learners in my classroom. They (the models) ensure I have a variety
of frameworks from which I am able to use to make learning an enjoyable experience
for all students in my classroom” (Participant, Group A, February 22, 2011). The key
factors identified as most influential in selecting a model of teaching were consistent
with those stated by teachers as the ones they consider when they selected a model for
classroom instruction (Joyce et al., 2002). Additionally, teachers instructed in the
68
models of teaching prior to entering the classroom proved to not only have
a better understanding of the usage of the models in classroom teaching, but were
better able to correctly identify lesson and models that matched a set of teaching
standards and lesson objectives. According to research in the field of teacher education,
this is consistent with field research in which experts indicate that teacher’s beliefs are
strongly influenced by their early experiences in teacher education and student teaching
experiences (Metallidou, 2009; Richards, 1998; Tanase & Wang, 2010).
69
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
This study was designed to determine which factors greatest influenced
teacher’s perception of pedagogical practices. A teacher is the greatest indicator of
student success within a classroom (Barton and Levstik, 2004). An understanding of
pedagogical practices and those that greatest impact student learning benefit all
learners within a teacher’s classroom (Lyons, 1997; Richards, 1998). The models of
teaching are one way of organizing pedagogical practices for classroom teachers.
They allow for concise, systematic tools teachers can use to deliver state standards and
teaching objectives for classroom instruction (Joyce et al., 2002). Formal instruction
on the within of the models of teaching are not found within all teacher training
programs (Winitzky & Kauchak, 1997). The teaching of pedagogical practices is
often embedded in introduction courses or is assumed understood by the pre-service
teacher (Tanase & Wang, 2010; Woolfolk- Hoy, et al., 2006).
This study compares two groups of participants formally trained on the models
of teaching. Participants were able to identify and explain usage of the three specific
pedagogical teaching models; direct instruction, advanced organized and group
investigation. Participants were split into two groups based on when their training was
acquired. Participants in Group A were formally trained on the models of teaching
during their pre-service schooling at the University of Southern California.
Participants in Group B were formally trained on the models of teaching after they had
70
already begun their teaching service through the University of Southern
California Teacher Training Institute or a Tustin Unified School District Models of
Teaching/Gifted and Talented (GATE) in-service training. Both of these in-service
trainings follow specific guidelines and measures identified in the Dr. Kaplan model
for Gifted and Talented Education classroom training. It was through this model that
it could be confirmed that all three trainings incorporated key tenants of the same
model of teaching training.
Participants were all teachers in the Tustin Unified School District and
contacted through e-mail or referral. Initially, 44 participants were contacted, 33
followed up through e-mail and 25 met the criteria through training and ability to
understand the subject matter. All 25 participants were administered the survey
(Appendix A) and 15 agreed to the additional interview process. The survey was
created by Dr. Sandra Kaplan as part of the Javits grant (Using Models of Teaching to
Improve Student Achievement: UP-06-00177). Survey questions identified teacher’s
ability to match a classroom lesson and model of teaching to a set of standards and
lesson objectives. Additionally, the survey asked teachers to identify which of four
factors influenced their decision to select a specific lesson and model of teaching.
Results were coded and analyzed through the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) data analyzing program. It was determined that there was not enough
information gained from these quantative results to adequately answer both of the
research questions. An interview protocol (Appendix B) was designed and used to
guide the interview process and gain sufficient results in relation to the research
71
questions. Results from the interview protocol, along with the survey
results, were coded and analyzed for significances pertaining to the following research
questions:
What personal and contextual factors influence teachers’ perceptions of
pedagogical choice?
How do teachers value key factors associated with pedagogical practices based
on their teacher training?
Findings
Research Question 1
The findings indicate that teachers identify a set of common personal and
contextual factors that influence their pedagogical practice in classroom instruction.
The interview results found that teachers indicated student ability level, allotment of
time for lesson, lesson objectives, academic content standards, and the group of
students being taught as the factors that greatest influenced their decision when
selecting a model of teaching for classroom instruction. A strong foundation in
pedagogical content knowledge proves a teacher has a strong understanding of the
models and their implication for classroom instruction (Black, 1989; Behar-Horenstein
& Seabert, 2005; Sharon & Sharon, 1989). The effective teacher is able to identify
key factors associated with content standards, teaching objectives and the group of
students in the learning environment (Bandura, 1983; Eggen & Kauchak, 2002).
72
Research Question 2
The findings suggest that teachers trained in the models of teaching as a
pedagogical practice prior to entering the teaching profession are more likely to
correctly use and understand why specific models of teaching work best for a given
academic standard and lesson objective than those who are trained in the models of
teaching after their service began (Cheng et al, 2009; Metallidou, 2009; Richards,
1998; Tanse & Wang, 2010). Teaching effectiveness studies indicate that classroom
effect is much more important than school effect when identifying factors associated
with variation on student achievement levels (Teddlie & Renyolds, 2000). Teachers
trained in the models of teaching prior to entering the classroom are more likely to be
open to the idea of a varied pedagogical practice approach in classroom learning
(Cheng, 2009; Metallidou, 2009).
Summary of the Findings
Teachers trained in the models of teaching after beginning service have a set of
behaviors, procedures and teaching practices already in place (Cheng et al, 2009;
Metallidou, 2009; Richards, 1998; Tanse & Wang, 2010). Narcissistic pedagogy
supports the idea that teaching is a profession that allows for narcissistic patterns in
that it is a profession where there is one dominate figure in the learning environment
(Hess, 2003). In any given classroom, the teacher is the authoritarian figure
responsible for making decisions that affect students’ ability to access the curriculum
(Scheerens, Glas & Thomas, 2003). The longer a teacher is in a classroom the more
likely they are to become “set in their ways” and feel that their way of doing things are
73
the correct way or the best way (Hess, 2003). Shulman (1987) defines this
as the “wisdom of practice”, a process of learning from doing. It is much more
difficult for a seasoned teacher to make adjustments to their personal beliefs and
philosophy of teaching in order to accommodate their teaching style to incorporate the
model of teaching frameworks into their existing teaching styles (Tschannen-Moran,
et al., 1998).
As a pre-service teacher, participants in Group A had not yet had the
opportunity to experience a classroom of their own prior to their training in the models
of teaching. Typical pre-service classroom experience is limited to volunteering,
fieldwork of student teaching, all which commence in a pre-established classroom
(Cheng et al., 2009). The ideas and philosophies associated with the models of
teaching as pedagogical practices are more likely to resonate with pre-service teachers
who have yet to experienced the narcissistic tendencies that come with years of
dictatorial routine (Hess, 2003; Richards, 1998; Thorton, 2005).
Teachers believe strongly in their knowledge and their wisdom of practice.
For training purposes, pre-service programs need to provide pre-service teachers
experiences with a variety of teachers seasoned in using multiple pedagogical
practices in the classroom. In-service teachers need similar opportunities to see
teachers in action using a variety of pedagogical practices in-order to see the new
learning in action. Research on teacher knowledge indicates that teachers view
knowledge a possession, which can be identified, accumulated, transferred and
measured (Clandinin, 2000). Understanding this idea, allows teacher educators to
74
develop programs that allow for teachers to see successful teachers in
action and make their habits and beliefs their own.
Implications for Future Research
Through the data analyzing process, results of this study allow opportunity for
future research in the area of pedagogical practices, specifically in the area of teacher
education. California teaching candidates must meet the Teaching Performing
Assessments (TPAs) prior to applying for a preliminary California teaching credential.
Results from this study suggest there is a correlation among the time in which a
teacher received training on the models of teaching and their usage in classroom
instruction. With the creation of Senate Bill 2042 in 1998, the state of California
required that all teacher candidates for a California teaching credential pass a state
approved teaching performance assessment. TPAs were developed by the California
Commission on Teaching Credentialing (CCTC) as a way for pre-service programs to
ensure their candidates met a uniform set of standards. Currently in California, there
are two methods for assessing pre-service teacher knowledge, the Performance
Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and TPAs. Research conducted within
these TPAs to determine the usage and assessment of pedagogical practices would
help to determine if teacher understanding of pedagogy is embedded in these
assessments.
Although most credentialing institutions in California use the state the CCTC
assessment known as TPAs, 31 institutions in the state make up the PACT consortium
and use an alternative assessment known as the PACT. Research done to compare the
75
understanding of pedagogical practice in classroom teaching among
graduates of each type of institution would further help to ensure that teachers in pre-
service programs would help teacher educators to have a better understanding of how
teaching assessments affects teacher knowledge.
The models of teaching have proven to be systematic strategies for teachers to
create learning environments that allow for the success of all classroom learners.
Results form this study indicate that teachers trained in the models of training after
entering the teaching profession are less likely to use these model correctly if at all.
Research done in the area of teacher effectiveness indicates that teachers are more
likely to use methods they have already been using regardless of their rates of success
in the classroom (Barton and Levstik, 2004; Laframboise & Shea, 2009; Menwissen,
2005). Determining a set of criteria for training teachers in the models of teaching
would determine if there are factors that could be identified that associate with the
success of implementing usage of the models of teaching in an experienced teacher’s
classroom.
This study also highlights the need for teacher to vary their pedagogical
practices in order to meet the needs of today’s learners. Teachers often assume that
because they are teaching, students are learning. When in fact we find that many
college professors indicate that the generation of learners in their lecture halls and
classrooms are less likely to show the same degree of academic achievement as
generations before had shown (Fink, 2003; Richards, 1998). Teachers in the K-12
76
education system, specifically those in the K-5 classrooms need to
understand the importance of teaching their students to learn how to learn (Haug,
2009).
The idea of learning to learn is related to significant thinking where the learner
becomes responsible for his own learning. Teachers need to be able to present
students with situations that require them to establish their own needs for learning and
ascertain a reason to learn (Haug, 2009). It would be beneficial to the teacher
education field to determine if the pedagogical practices found within the models of
teaching allow teachers to present students the opportunity to explore different types
of learning and find ways to determine which ways best suit their individual needs
(Fink, 2003; Joyce et. al, 2002; Haug, 2009. This type of learning allows students to
learn with a greater level of effectiveness and is necessary for the 21
st
century learner
(Fink, 2003).
Limitations of the Study
The main limitation of the study was the fact that the qualitative data collected
through interviews was self-reported. Actual observations, video submissions and
journal entries would have enriched the study. Additionally student work
accompanying these lessons and journal entries would also allow for a more rounded
view of the impact the teacher’s pedagogical practices had on classroom learning and
understanding. Student interviews of satisfaction surveys completed after lessons
would have also enriched the data set by incorporating student’s point of view and
preferred learning styles.
77
Conclusions
This study has identified factors teachers associate with the selection of
pedagogical practices. Looking specifically at three models of teaching: direct
instruction, advanced organizer and group investigation. This study aimed to
determine which factors greatest influenced teacher choice when selecting a model of
teaching. The major findings within this study are as follows:
1. Teachers indicated similar factors associated with pedagogical choice
in classroom instruction regardless of time spent in teacher training.
2. Teachers trained in the models of teaching during pre-service training
are more likely to correctly identify the lesson and pedagogical practice
associated with a given content standard and lesson objective.
3. Teachers trained in the models of teaching during pre-service training
are more likely to correctly use the models of teaching in classroom
instruction.
Teachers need to understand the concepts and principles on which the models
are based not just memorize the frameworks developed by the experts (Huitt, 2003).
A foundation in the models of teaching as a use for pedagogical practice ensures a
teacher will be more likely to use the varied frameworks for classroom instruction
(Eggen & Kauchak, 2006: Hess, 2003; Miller, 2008). The most effective teachers
exhibit behaviors that are consistent with variation in the classroom when using the
models of teaching (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006; Joyce et al, 2002). Effectiveness studies
identify the quality of teaching as the most important factor at the classroom level (
78
Brophy & Good, 1986; Scheerens, Glas & Thomas, 2003). Once the models
become an integrated part of the teacher’s pedagogical practice, the potential for
student success greatly improves (Cheng et al., 2009; Huitt, 2003, Eggen & Kauchak,
2006; Metallidou, 2009; Joyce et al., 2002).
79
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of
meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 267-272.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,
Psychology Review, 37(2). 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45 464-469.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is--or might be--the
role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?
Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.
Behar-Horenstein, L.S., & Seabert, D. M. (2005). Looking into classrooms: Teachers’
use of models of teaching. Educational Practice and Theory 27(1), 49-66.
Black, J. (1989). Building the school as a center of inquiry: A whole-school approach
oriented around models of teaching. Ph.D. thesis. Nova University.
Broudy, H. (1963) Historic exemplars of teaching methods. In N.L. Gage (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bruce, W. C., & Bruce, J. K. (1992) Learning social studies through discrepant event
inquiry. Annapolis, MD.: Alpha Press.
Bruner, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A brain too far. Educational
Researcher, 26(8), 4-16.
Bruner, J. T. (1998). Brain science, brain fiction. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 14-
18.
Carroll, J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teacher College Record, 64,723-
733.
Carter, K, & Doyle, W. (1987). Teachers’ knowledge structures and comprehension
processes. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachrs’ thinking (pp. 147-160).
London: Cassell.
Cheng, M.M.H, Chan, K., Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, A. Y. N. (2009) Preservice teacher
education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching.
Teaching and teacher education. 25, (319-327).
80
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Research on teaching and teacher
research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher. 19. 2-11.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cruickshank, D. (1985). Profile of an effective educator. Educational Horizons. 90-92.
Cummings, C. B. (1985). The effect of training on interactive and classroom
management in non-volunteer teacher behavior. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, and mixed methods approaches
(2
nd
. ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-315.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogical creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual
alternatives. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (pp. 212-233). New York: Macmillan.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher
preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53-65.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach
to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1992). Educational Psychology (5
th
ed.), Princeton, New
Jersey: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gagne, R. (1997). The conditions of learning (3
rd
ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Gange, R., & Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2
nd
ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gaskins, I., & Elliot, T. (1991). Implementing cognitive strategy instruction across the
school. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Books.
81
Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). The moral dimensions of
teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, M. & O’Brien (1997). Bridging Theory and Practice in Teacher Education.
Rotterdamn, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Graves, M., Watts, S. & Graves, B. (1994). Essentials of classroom teaching:
Elementary reading methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hankey, J. (2004). The good, the bad, and other considerations: reflections on
mentoring trainee teachers in post-compulsory education. Research in
Post-Compulsory Education 9(3), 389-400.
Haug, F. (2009). Teaching how to learn and learning how to teach. Theory and
Psychology. 19(2), 245-273.
Hess. C.L. (2003). Echo’s lament: teaching, mentoring, and the danger of narcissistic
pedagogy. Teaching Theology and Religion. 6(3), 127-137.
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Sequndo, CA: TIP Publications.
Huitt, W. (2003). Classroom instruction. Educational Psychology Interactive.
Valdosta State University. Retreived [6/12/2010]. from
http://www.edpsycinteactive.org.
Joyner, B., Weil, M., Calhoun, E. (2007). Models of Teaching seventh edition. Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Kegan, D. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 65- 90.
Laframboise, K. & Shea, K. (2009). Developing understanding of research-based
pedagogy with preservice teachers: An instrumental case study. Qualitive
Report 14(1). 105-128.
Lyons, Christine E. (1997). Elementary teachers' preferred instructional methods for
teaching reading and their relationship to student reading achievement. Ph.D.
dissertation, Boston College, United States -- Massachusetts.
Mayor, R. (2003). Learning and instruction. New jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Metallidou, P. (2009). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ metacognitive knowledge
about problem-solving strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 76-
82.
82
Meuwissen, K.W. (2005).Maybe someday the twin shall meet: Exploring
disconnections between methods instruction and “Life in the Classroom”. The
Social Studies 96(6) 253-258.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3
rd
Ed), Sydney, New South Wales:
Merrill, Prentice Hall Australia Pty Ltd.
Ornstein, A. C., Thomas, J., & Lasley, I. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching.
New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3
rd
ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Proctor, C. P. (1984). Teacher expectations: A model for school improvement. The
elementary school journal, 469-481.
Putman, R. T., and Borko, H. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher
29(1):4–15.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instrction. The Journal of Educational
Research, 88(5), 262-268.
Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary
School Journal, 83, 335-350.
Sharan, Y. & Sharan, S. (1989). Group investigation expands cooperative learning.
Educational Leadership 47(4) 133-140.
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 Educational Review, 51, 1-22.
Shulman, L. S. (1992). Ways of seeing, ways of knowing, ways of teaching, ways of
learning about teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 393-399.
83
Slavin, R. (2006). Educational psychology (8
th
ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn
& Bacon
Tanase, M. & Wang, J. (2010). Initial epistemological beliefs transformation in one
teacher education classroom: Case study of four preservice teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies.
26(6). 1238-1248.
Taba, H. (1967) Teacher’s handbook for elementary school social studies. Reading,
Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Thelan, H. (1963). Dynamics of groups at work. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M. Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K., (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research. 68. 202-248.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., Davis, H. & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and
beliefs. In P.A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.) Handbook of educational
psychology (2
nd
ed). (pp. 715- 737) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winitzky, N., Kauchak, D. (1997). Constructivism in teacher education: Applying
cognitive theory to teacher learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist
teacher education: Building a new understanding (pp. 59-83). London: Falmer
Press.
84
Appendix A: Teacher Survey
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Teacher name:
Grade level taught:
School:
Year(s) Models of Teaching Training
Occurred
Type of Training
(select one)
University
Undergrad Program
Post Baccalaureate
Seminar
In-Service Training
Understanding the Models
1. How were you introduced to the models of teaching?
2. Briefly explain how you use the following models in your classroom.
a. Direct Instruction
b. Advanced Organizer
c. Group Investigation
Using the Models of Teaching
1. Please explain how you use the models of teaching in your current classroom?
2. What are 3 key factors you use to determine which model you use for a
specific lesson?
3. What positive aspects do you see when using the following models of teaching
in your classroom?
a. Direct Instruction
b. Advanced Organizer
c. Group Investigation
4. What negative aspects do you see when using the following models of
teaching in your classroom?
a. Direct Instruction
b. Advanced Organizer
c. Group Investigation
5. How have the models of teaching impacted your classroom teaching?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The models of teaching are systematic tools that allow teachers to vary their classroom pedagogical practices to meet the needs of all learners in their classroom. This study was designed to determine key factors that influence teachers’ decisions when determining a model of teaching for classroom instruction and to identify how teacher training on the models of teaching in a pre-service or in-service program affect teachers’ fidelity to these pedagogical practices. In this mixed method study, participants responded to both survey and interview questions to determine their understanding and usage of the models of teaching. Results indicated that teachers trained in the models of teaching in a pre-service program were more likely to use the models correctly in classroom instruction. Additionally the findings suggested that teachers identified similar factors that influenced their selection of pedagogical practices for classroom instruction regardless of the time period in which they were trained in the models of teaching. The interview results found that teachers indicated student ability level, allotment of time for lesson, lesson objectives, academic content standards, and the group of students being taught as the factors that greatest influenced their decision when selecting a model of teaching for classroom instruction. A foundation in the models of teaching as a use for pedagogical practice ensures a teacher will be more likely to use the varied frameworks for classroom instruction (Eggen & Kauchak, 2006: Hess, 2003
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching
PDF
Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching
PDF
Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice
PDF
The effects of the models of teaching on student learning
PDF
Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom
PDF
Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners
PDF
The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms
PDF
A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness
PDF
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
PDF
The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom
PDF
Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice
PDF
Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy
PDF
The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes
PDF
An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes
PDF
Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor
Asset Metadata
Creator
Nordyke, Alison Michelle
(author)
Core Title
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/22/2011
Defense Date
05/11/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
models of teaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogical practices,teaching pedagogy
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kaplan, Sandra N. (
committee chair
), Keim, Robert G. (
committee member
), Pensavalle, Margo T. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
Alison.Nordyke@yahoo.com,amsnyder@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c127-641861
Unique identifier
UC1365218
Identifier
usctheses-c127-641861 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-NordykeAli-156-0.pdf
Dmrecord
641861
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Nordyke, Alison Michelle
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
models of teaching
pedagogical practices
teaching pedagogy