COMPARING PERCEPTIONS OF RESEARCH-BASED EFFECTIVE TEACHING BEHAVIORS: A PILOT STUDY Edward A. Franklin Assistant Professor The University of Arizona, Tucson ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to determine teacher attitudes toward research-based effective teaching behaviors. Data for this study were collected from preservice student teachers, cooperating supervisory teachers, and university teacher educators (N = 22). Scores from the Teaching Behavior Questionnaire (TBQ) were analyzed using means, standard deviations, analysis of variance and a post hoc comparison procedure. Mean total scores indicated a support for research-based teaching behaviors. Teachers with more years of classroom teaching experience favored effective teaching behaviors more than teachers with less years experience. Differences were found to exist between university faculty and preservice student teachers (p. <.01). Student teachers will be tested again following the completion of their 13-week internship to determine if significant differences occurred. Findings will serve as a baseline for future research and teacher preparation.
INTRODUCTION In a traditional student teacher preparation program in agricultural education, there are three principal members or components (figure 1). University-level faculty or teacher educators admit student teacher candidates to a formal preparation program. Student teacher candidates enroll in teaching methods and curriculum development courses receiving instruction in a university setting. Cooperating agricultural education teachers at the secondary level are identified and recruited to serve as master teachers. They provide mentorship and training to student teachers on a daily basis in the secondary classroom during the internship experience at a local school site. University Teacher Educators Cooperating Secondary Agriculture Teachers Student Teachers Figure 1. Principal Components of Student Teacher Preparation A purpose of teacher educators and cooperating teachers is to influence student teachers in developing positive attitudes toward adopting effective classroom teaching behaviors. Student teachers are instructed to utilize effective classroom teaching behaviors to positively affect secondary student achievement. What is known of attitudes of student teachers toward effective teaching behaviors? Is their impression of good teaching the same has suggested by research? Cooperating secondary agricultural education teachers serve to directly influence student teachers to develop and adopt effective teaching behaviors. According to Marchant (1988) teachers have been shown to have difficulty developing a list of teaching behaviors that are effective in producing student achievement (p.4). How would agricultural education teachers respond to behaviors that research has identified as effective? University teacher educators serve to introduce and explain effective teaching behaviors to student teachers during the semester prior to their off-campus student teaching experience. Do university teacher educators support research-based effective teaching behaviors? THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Richardson (1966) states, attitudes and beliefs are important concepts in understanding teachers thought processes, classroom practices, change, and learning to teach (p.102). As defined by Richardson, attitudes and beliefs are a subset of groups of constructs that name and define mental states of thought to direct a person s actions; they include conceptions, perceptions, perspectives, orientations, theories, and stances. Beliefs about teaching and learning should be surfaced and acknowledged during the teacher education program if the program is to
make a difference in the deep structure of knowledge and beliefs held by the students (Richardson, 1966, p. 104). Wong (1998) writes, teachers who are efficient and effective are more capable of affecting the lives of students than teachers who are not efficient and effective (p.9). Wong identifies effective classroom teachers as having positive expectations for student success, are extremely good classroom managers, and possess the knowledge and skill to create lessons for student mastery. Shellard and Protheroe (2000) discovered that in the classrooms of highly effective teachers the following characteristics are likely to be identified: Time on task is high and focused on academic content, due in part to excellent classroom management; Learning goals are clear; Instruction encourages students to be active learners; Individual differences between students are acknowledges and accommodated for example, by providing more teacher instruction to students who need it; Skills-based instruction is balanced with higher-level instruction; Skills are taught in contest; and The classroom climate is supportive and collaborative. According to Marchant (1988), little research has been conducted regarding attitudes toward the effective teaching behaviors identified through research. Marchant conducted research to compare the attitudes of various groups such as principals, elementary teachers, secondary teachers, college of education faculty and undergraduate education students. College education faculty was found not to be significant from undergraduate students or secondary teachers. Secondary teachers were reported be the lowest scoring group. Marchant refers to a prediction of Haberman (1985) regarding teacher education preparation institutions: Teacher-preparing institutions will continue to ignore the research bases for their policies and curricula, and will continue the practice of developing teacher education programs based on university policies (ie., by faculty vote of faculty unburdened by data) (p.57). Marchant reported his results of the TBQ of college faculty appeared to support Haberman s prediction. In a study conducted by Marchant and Bowers (1988a), the researchers investigated the variables affecting teacher support for research-based effective teaching behaviors. Significant differences were found in grade level taught (elementary versus secondary), and years of teaching experience (a decrease in support occurred as teaching experience increased). Variables such as gender, educational background, reading of professional education journals, class size, or social economic status of students taught was not significant. Marchant and Bowers (1988) found secondary teachers were less supportive of research-based teaching behaviors than elementary teachers. Lower scores for high school teachers suggested
that research-based effective teaching behaviors were valid, but teachers may be less aware of effective teaching practices. The researchers recommended increasing the exposure of researchbased effective teaching behaviors through pre-service and in-service training. They suggest that teaching environment and content level may contribute to differences between elementary and secondary teachers. Early research (Ryans, 1960) found that high school teachers were more traditional and academically oriented in their preparation while elementary grade teachers were child-centered. Elementary teachers concentrate on the diverse development of basic skills requiring a comprehensive understanding of the teaching and learning process (Marchant, 1988). High school teachers are more specialized. Their scope may be limited to a single subject, and their role is perceived as information giver. Tests of accumulated knowledge are a means of assessing student achievement, rather than the progressive development of a skill. According to the literature, the focus of research on effective teaching has been conducted with lower grade levels (Brophy, 1979; Medley, 1977). Little is known about secondary level teachers in agricultural education teachers. In agricultural education, a research study by Miller, Kahler, and Rhealult (1989) identified effective vocational agriculture teachers and behaviors that distinguished them as being more effective than their peers. A conceptual framework (figure 1) illustrates the process of developing attitudes towards effective teaching behaviors. University classroom and classroom teaching experience affect preservice student teacher attitudes toward effective teaching behaviors. Years of experience in the classroom affects teachers education faculty and cooperating master teachers attitudes toward effective teaching behaviors. Perceptions of Research Based Effective Teaching Behaviors Teacher Education Faculty Cooperating Master Teachers University Classroom Instruction Classroom Teaching Experience Preservice Student Teachers
Perceived Effective Teaching Behaviors Figure 2. The conceptual framework model of perceived research-based effective teaching behaviors PURPOSE The purpose of the study was to determine teacher attitudes toward research-based effective teaching behaviors. Following are research questions that guided the study: Are there differences in teachers attitudes toward research-based effective teaching behavior based upon years of classroom teaching experience? Are teachers with more years of classroom teaching experience more supportive of research-based teaching behaviors than teachers with less years of experience? To test for differences, the following research objectives were developed: 1. With regard to attitudes toward research-based effective teaching behaviors, determine if differences exist among teachers related to years of teaching experience. 2. With regard to support for research-based effective teaching behaviors, determine if differences exist among preservice student teachers, cooperating secondary agriculture teachers, and university teacher educator faculty METHODS This was descriptive study research of a comparative nature. The study was designed to compare groups with regard to their attitudes toward research-based effective teaching behaviors. The Teaching Behaviors Questionnaire (Marchant, 1989) was used to determine attitudinal support in terms of degree of agreement with stated teaching behaviors. According to Marchant (1988) the teacher should statements were developed from effective teaching research (Brophy & Good, 1986). Instrument reliability was established at.76. Preservice student teachers (N=8), cooperative secondary agriculture educators supervising individual student teachers (N=9), and university agriculture teacher education faculty associated with a single agricultural education teacher-training university program (N=5) completed the questionnaire Specifically, the researcher examined three groups in one setting: preservice student teachers prior to their student teaching internships, cooperating teachers supervising the student teacher class, and university faculty responsible for providing course instruction to student teachers. Data were collected from all three groups using a 36-item Likert-type scale Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (Marchant, 1988). The completed instruments were coded and the statistical program for social sciences (SPSS V. 11.5) was utilized to analyze the data. Frequency tables, means, standard deviation, and analyses of variance were run on the data.
FINDINGS Objective One The mean number of years teaching experience for cooperating teachers was 14.8 (SD = 6.66) and the mean number of years teaching experience for university agricultural education teacher educators was 26.4 (SD = 7.36). Marchant (1988) reported that teachers with more than ten years of classroom experience scored lower than teachers with less than 10 years of classroom experience. The mean of both teacher groups was greater than 10 years. However, university teacher education faculty scores were higher than secondary cooperating agriculture teachers. For each respondent, a total response score was calculated by adding together the response to the thirty-six effective teacher behavior statements. Negatively correlated behavior statements were recoded to align all responses to a positive direction. The total response score for each respondent had a possible range of between 36 and 144 based on a response range of one to four for each of the 36 individual statements. Actual response scores for the eight preservice student teacher respondents ranged from 98 to 111. The range of scores for cooperating teachers was 99 to 118, and scores for university teacher educators ranged from 110 to 130. Table 1 shows mean years teaching experience and means and standard deviations for group scores on the TBQ. Table 1 Mean years teaching experience and TBQ score means & standard deviations. Years teaching experience TBQ Total Score Group n M SD M SD Pre-service teachers (Pre test) 8 102.87 4.54 Cooperating teachers 9 14.8 6.66 109.11 6.31 University faculty 5 26.4 7.36 116.60 8.01 University faculty in teacher education preparation of agricultural education teachers was more supportive of research-based teaching behaviors than cooperating teachers and preservice student teachers. Objective Two Individual group means and standard deviations for each of the 36 items were analyzed and presented in Table 2. Scores for preservice student teachers differed significantly from university teacher educators effective teaching behaviors as teacher s sitting at their desk while students work, teachers staying with the lesson regardless of student comments. Preservice student teachers differed from cooperating agriculture teachers on the behavior of the teacher rephrasing a question when a wrong answer is given. Significant differences between all three groups were found on behaviors as letting students know which assignments are for practice and which are for a grade, and introducing rules and procedures in class. Table 2
Means and standard deviations for student teachers, cooperating agriculture teachers, and university teacher educators toward research-based effective teaching behaviors. Preservice student teachers (n=8) Cooperating agricultural teachers (n=9) University teacher educators (n=5) Statements M SD M SD M SD The teacher should allow the students to figure out the main idea of a lesson on their own. 2.75.71 3.11.78 2.80.84 The teacher should provide drill and practice after each skill or section taught. a 3.25.46 3.22.44 3.80.45 The teacher should explain assignments and go over practice examples with the students before they are allowed to work independently. a 3.25.89 3.33 1.32 3.60.55 The teacher should monitor the progress of each student daily. 3.25.89 3.22.67 3.40.55 The teacher should spend most of the class time teaching the student as one whole group. 3.00 1.07 2.00.87 2.40.55 The teacher should sit at the teacher's desk while the students are doing seatwork and have students come up to the desk when they need help. 2.75.71 3.33.50 4.00.00 The teacher should call on both volunteering and non-volunteering students after asking a question in class. 3.00.76 3.67.50 3.20.45 The teacher should redirect relevant student questions to the class and incorporate comments into the lesson. a 3.00.76 3.78.44 3.40.55 The teacher should expect all of the students master the course content. a 2.38.92 2.56.73 3.40.55 The teacher should quickly ask the class another question when a student gives an incorrect answer to a question asked in class. 2.75.71 3.22.67 3.20.84 The teacher should not let the students know which assignments are for a grade and which are for practice. 1.88.99 2.89.60 4.00.00 The teacher should introduce classroom rules and procedures one-at-a-time as they become necessary throughout the year. 2.50 1.07 3.78.67 3.80.45 The teacher should make classroom presentations of less than 20 minutes. a 3.00.53 2.67.50 3.00.71 The teacher should at least 3 seconds after asking a question in class before calling on a student. a 3.00.53 3.22.44 2.40.89 The teacher should convey a strong sense of enthusiasm to the students. a 3.75.46 4.00.00 3.60.55 The teacher should receive 60 to 80 percent correct 1.88 1.13 2.11.60 2.60.89
by most of the students on assignments that the students are expected to work on independently. The teacher should rephrase the question to the student when an incorrect answer is given in class. a 2.38.92 3.44.53 3.00.71 The teacher should continue to work on problem material when performance on assignments is poor. a 3.13.99 2.89.93 2.80.84 The teacher should only call on volunteering students after asking a question in class. 3.00.53 3.22.67 3.80.45 The teacher should move around the classroom during the time the students are working independently at their seats. a 3.50.53 3.89.33 4.00.00 The teacher should stick the to the lesson regardless of student comments. 1.88.64 2.56.53 3.40.55 The teacher should primarily emphasize academic instruction in the classroom. a 3.00.76 2.22.67 3.00.71 The teacher should expect about half of the students to master the curriculum. 2.88.83 3.00.50 3.60.55 The teacher should not praise excessively in the classroom. a 2.13.83 2.33.71 2.20 1.10 The teacher should save drill and practice until the students have a number of skills to practice. 2.50.93 2.44 1.01 2.60.55 The teacher should often use unfamiliar and abstract words in classroom lessons and presentations. 3.13.64 3.00.87 3.20.45 The teacher should inform the students exactly what determines the grade on an assignment. a 3.25.77 3.11.33 4.00.00 The teacher should overtly acknowledge correct answers that a student gives to a question. a 2.88.35 2.67 1.11 3.40.55 The teacher should expect the students to figure out instructions as part of an assignment. 2.88.64 2.89.93 3.20.45 The teacher should identify the main ideas of a lesson during the lesson and at the end of the lesson. a 3.38.74 3.67.50 3.00 1.00 The teacher should continue to the next scheduled unit when performance is poor, and in the future the teacher should avoid material similar to that which the students had problems. 3.50.53 3.22.97 3.00 1.00 The teacher should receive 90 to 100 percent correct by most of the students on assignments that student are expected to work on independently. a 2.38.74 2.22.67 2.80.84 The teacher should spend time at the beginning of the school year teaching classroom rules and procedures. a 3.63.52 3.44 1.01 3.60.55 The teacher should monitor the progress of each individual student every tow to four weeks. 1.50.53 2.44 1.13 2.40.55 The teacher should begin lesson and presentations to the class with a review or an overview of the material. a 3.63.52 3.44.73 3.20.45
The teacher should immediately call on a student after asking a question in class. 2.75.47 3.11.60 3.20.45 Note. Scale: Strongly Disagree = 4, Disagree = 3, Agree = 2, Strongly Agree = 1. a = Items were reverse coded. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of years of teaching experience on scores on the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (TBQ). There was a statistically significant difference at the p<. 05 level in TBQ total scores for the three teacher groups [F (2, 21)=7.702, p=. 004] (table 3). Despite reaching statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores was quite small. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was.45 (Cohen, 1988). Post hoc analysis using Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean total score of preservice student teachers (M=102.87, SD=4.54) differed significantly from university teacher educators (M=116.60, SD=8.01). Cooperating supervisory agricultural teachers (M=109.11, SD=6.31) did not differ significantly from either the preservice student teachers or the university faculty. Table 3 Analysis of variance of total scale scores. Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups 720.964 19 37.945 Total 1305.455 21 df Mean Square F Sig. 584.491 2 292.245 7.702.004 CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS University teacher educators reported more years of classroom teaching experience than cooperating supervisory secondary teachers. This suggests that university teacher educators are more agreeable with research-based teaching behavior than secondary agricultural education teachers. Teachers with more years of classroom teaching experience favored research based teaching behaviors than teachers with less years of classroom experience. This does not support Marchant s (1988) earlier finding or Haberman s prediction (1985). As preservice students teachers possessed no years of classroom teaching experience, it was anticipated that their attitude towards effective classroom teaching behavior would be lower than other teacher groups. It was anticipated that university teacher-educator faculty would score highest on the TBQ, and that preservice student teachers might score the lowest. University faculty should be closest to the research. Student teachers in their beginning semester of teacher education courses would just be gaining exposure to effective teaching behavior research and would have little or no experience from which to draw conclusions. Cooperating teachers should score in the middle, closer to university faculty as teachers should be modeling effective teaching behaviors. Additionally, cooperating secondary teachers were identified and selected by university faculty
based on classroom performance, and modeling effective teaching behaviors. Marchant (1988) cautions readers that scores of secondary teachers with many years of experience could possibly differ from secondary teachers with less years. The size of the teacher population in this study was too small to note significant differences among the teachers. Findings from preservice student teachers will be used as baseline data to determine measurable change in the attitude of preservice student teachers toward research-based effective teaching behaviors. Student teachers will be surveyed once again at the completion of their 13-week internship to determine if their attitudes toward effective teaching behaviors changed significantly from behaviors assessed at the beginning of their pre-service experience. This study will be conducted with future cooperating teachers and student teachers to determine their perceptions of research-based effective teaching behaviors. This will guide teacher educators in identifying potential cooperating teachers who were not trained by the university teacher educators in this study. Other university teacher preparation program faculty could measure and compare attitudes of secondary cooperative teachers toward effective teaching behaviors with themselves as a method to identify future cooperating teachers. The questionnaire may be used as tool to screen student teacher applicants during their application process. REFERENCES Brophy, J. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 733-750. Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Whittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching. (3 rd ed., pp. 328-375), New York: MacMillan. Hanarahan, L., and Tate, P. (2001). Accessing/assessing the development of beliefs and knowledge about effective teaching in prospective teachers: A practical inquiry. Action in Teacher Education 22, (40) 75-81. Marchant, G., and Bower, N. (2000) Teaching behaviors questionnaire. In P. Lester, & L. Bishop (Eds.) Handbook of tests and measurement in education and the social sciences. (2 nd ed.) (pp.367-369) Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Marchant, G. and Bowers, N., (1988a). Teacher agreement with research-based effective teaching behaviors. Paper presented at American Education Research Association. ERIC ED 302 503. Marchant, G. and Bowers, N. (1988b) Attitudes toward research-based effective teaching behaviors from teachers, principals, and college faculties and students. Paper presented at Mid-Western Educational Research Association. ERIC ED 303 449.
Medley, D. (1977). Teacher competency and teacher effectiveness: A review of process-product research. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Miller, W., Kahler, A., and Rheault, K. (1989). Profile of the effective vocational agriculture teacher. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30 (2) 33-40. Richardson, V. (1966). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2 nd ed., pp.102-119). New York: Macmillan. Ryans, D. (1960). Characteristics of teachers. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Shellard, E, Protheroe, N.(200). Effective teaching: How do we know it when we see it? Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Wong, H. K., Wong, R. T. (1998) The first days of school. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong, Publications.