EP 173 340

AUTHOBTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS: AGENCYPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

FORS PRICEDESCRIPT0ES

DOCUMENT RESUME

SP 014 4 64

Brophy, Jer E.Advances in Tnlchar Effectiwenese Eesearch.Occasional Paper No.' 13.Michigan tat Univ., nAt Lansing. Inst. forResearch on Teaching.National Inst. of Education (DHEw), shington, D.C..

Apr 79400-76=0013:2bp.; Some paqs may not :-..produc 01 arlyInstitute foi Aesoarch en 7achin1, College ofEducation, MichigAn Stat? Uffivrsity, 252 EricksonHall, East Lansing, michilan 43624 (-82.00)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postag.*Academic Achievem,,,,rt; Basic Skills; BehaviorPatterns; *..-71as5 nag-m an; Class Organization;*Educational ii..ese-arch; *Effctive Te,aching;Elementary 3econdary lAucation; Group Instruction;*T6acher Behavior; *T-laching m.,,thod3

ABSTBACTFollowing a reviw of resarch findings on the

,rFlationship 'between teach: br,'havior and student aohiavement,

current activitis in teach,?: eftectiveass research ars discussed.Two maior trends emerge it recc'nt rese-aroh studies. Existingcorrelational findings- on topic ar.e being integraterland appliedto contexts' beyond 6a sic skil1 !3 instruction in the elementary grades.

clusters at correlational findiaqsar!:t bing asressed for degree ofimplementation by techerS in their daily insrucinal mnthods.Aecont findings indicate that dirct instruction in small groupscoupled with formal classroom organization and management are aseffective in producing sitiSfactcry leanaing resultsat the secondary

level as they in teaching basic skills at tL elementary level.

(JD)

****.,t ************************************************ **

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the Lest that can be madefrom original ,iocuirr=.11t.

****************************************,t*********************

Occasional Paper No. 18

ADVANCES

IN TEACHER EFEECTIVENESS RES- RCH

Jere E.

'Pols ish d by

The lost ,; [.nt for Research on Teaching

252 rric:spn HAllhigan Staue Un[yersiv

EnSt 1,ans4ai,,, Michigln 48,824

April 1979

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

ECM t:A TION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PEBBO.DUCED ExACTLy AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PFRSoNON OHGANIzATioNAims/0 IT POINTS ot, VI EW OR OpINIONESTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY PEPRE.SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE_ OFEDUCATION POSITION OP POLICY

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

This work is sponsored in part bv theInstitute for Re erch Lin

lehlug Colic-TO of iducation, Michigr:n StateUniversity. The Institute_

Research On Teaellin is funded primariLyby the Teaching Division of

Nntionni:Institute of Education, United StatesDepartment of Health,

Education, an&Welfaro .The opinionscxpreed in this publication do not

rr.crssari the positin, policy, orendorsement of the National

Institute Education.(Contract No. 400-76-0023)

2

INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TEAM

Teache rs hougl r and do it roan , 'Ire the focus of studcurrently

under way at Michigan State Univern[mu-flute fc r ReSearch oaa Teach-

lag (1ST). The IRT, fc nd'd. in rjaar II1976,with a $3.6 million grant from

the National jhstitutc., of I' ducati on, has aaa jor aatojeelsvestigntlng

teacher decision- aki

classroom wn nemont

gong- art,

ti

is i'cssa of reading diagnosis and reme-

in the areas of len-

ading, aid atl motic, teacher education, teacher planning

feats of external pressures on ton(' s' decision, and

cape:

-s' percep-

t affect. Researchers from many different disciplines ca-

1ST re= search. In additicc public school teachers work atIRT

as half-time collaborators in arch, helping to design andplan studies,

collect data, and analyze results. The Institute publishes research reports,

conference proccedi ocensi.Laaafl Nip°. - and e quarterlynewsletter

for practitioners. For more information or to heplaced on the 1ST mailing

li t please write to The IRT Editor, 252 Erickson, MSU, East Lansing, Mich-

igan 48824.

Dl rector: Lee S. Shulman,

Associate Director: Judith E, Lanier

Editor a- Staff:

once W. Lezotte coordinator of Comm n- ons ssemination

Linda Shainway, 1ST _editorJames Kern, editorial assiStantJanice Aehrs, editorial assistant

Advances i cher Effec t vcness Research

Jere E. upiL

Historically, reviewing r ,ear( c,n. the links b, .aching

behavior and student learning has been a frustratingtask. Morsh and

Wilder (Note 1) and Medley and Mitzel (1963) couldfind virtually no

P

clear results to discuss. The situation improvedsomewhat over the next

10 years, so that Rosenshine and Furst ( 9and Dunkin and Biddle (1974)

could point- to weak but consistent findings supportingsuch variables as

an organized, businesslike approaLh _ tteaching, clarity, and enthusiasm.

Still, even where clear trends c___ obviouS, there always seemed tobe

exceptions and a- nt contradictions.Dunkin and Biddle resolved many

of these by taking into account canteat variablessuch as grade level and

subject matter but a great manycontradictions, remained. ..

In the last five or six years, the situation has improved considerably.

The National Institute of Education began fundingexpensive studies, and

important improvements research design began to appear;among these

were rational sampling of teachers(rather than random or convenience

sampling), inclusion of enough teachers to a--11 ow for meaningful statistical

analyses, collection of many hours worth of data perclassroom, develop

ment of multifaceted and sophisticated classroomcoding instruments

that accounted for context and sequence of interactionrather than just

1-This paper was presented as part of a research symposium entitled,

"Progress Report:, Advances During the Past Year in the KnowledgeBase for the

Preparation of Teachers," at the annual meeting of. the AmericanAssociation of

Colleges for Teacher Education, )Chicago;- 1979.Portions of the paper were

presented earlier as part of the keynote speech to the annual meeting-Of

the .Midwest Association of Teachers of EducationalPsychology, Bloomington,

Indiana, ,1978. 42Jere E. Brophy\is a senior researcher in the

Institute for Research on

Teaching andprofessok of teacher education and educational 'psychology.

2

behavioral frequen ies, and con nuration on the individualteacher and

class as the unit of analysis. These studies havefocused on instruction'

in basic skills in primary grade classrooms, usingstandardized 'a ieve-

ment tests ag learning measures.

This effort began with several

conducted at various

emscale field correlational studies

ary grade 1evel6 (Brophy & Evertson, Note 2;

Good & Grouws, Note 3; McDonald & Elias, Note 4; Soar & Soar,1972;

Stallings & Kaskowitz, Note 5; Tikunoff, Berliner, Rist, Note 6).

These studies varied with regard to the types of teachers andstudents

included, the kinds of variables addressed, and methods used, butthdre

was sufficient overlap and replication to prov;hledependable knowledge

about relationships between types of teaching, particularlydirect ins_ uc-

tion and student learning of basic skins ifithe elementary grades (see

reviews by Borich 1977; Medley, 'Vote 7; and Rosenshine, 1976).Since then,

other studies have built on the results ofresearch; the work has been

extended to the junior high and high school levels, and experimental

studies designed to test hypotheses developed from earlier correlational

k have been conducted.

The data frora the correlational studies hang together quitewell

to support Rosenshine's (Note 8) claim that "directinstruction" is

effI7tive for producing student learning of basic skills. Rosenshine

(in press) suggests that for direct instruction to be effective,teachers

must (1) focus on academic goals;)(2) promote extensive contentcoverage

and high Levels of student involvement; (3) selectinstructional goals

and materials and actively monitor student progress; (4) structure

learning activities and include immediate, academically. .orientedfeedbac

and (5) create an environment that is task oriented butrelaxed.

Taken together, the correlational studies provide strong supportfor

the for.owing generalizations:

10 Teachers make a difference.Contrary to the theorizing of

Stephens (1967) and the implications of prOjects like the Colemanreport

(Coleman t al., 1966), which, unfortunatelyanalyzed data only at the

school le,/el, research that analyzes at the teacherlevel makes it clear

that certain teachers elicit much more student learningthan others, and

that their success is tied to consistent differences inteaching behavior

(see the'studies cited on page 1, and also Good, Biddle, &Brophy, 1975;

sand Rakow, Aira an, & Madaus, 1978).

2. Despite the first generalization,there is no support for the

notion of generic teaching skills, if these are defined asthe types

4*

very specific behaviors typically included in performance based teacher

education programs. Few, if any, specific teachingbehaviors are

appropriate in all contexts.

On the other hand, when data c integrated at ahigher level of

generality, several clusters or patterns of behavior emerge that are

consistently related to learning gains.

3. One of these behavior patterns -1-des teacher expectations

and role definitions. Teachers who believe thatinstructing students in

the curricuum is basic to their role, who fully ex2ect toconduct such

instruo t.ion, and who attempt to do so ir, their classrooms are more

successful than teachers who do not. The more effective teachersallocate

more of their time for teaching and actuallyspend more of that time

accordingly.

4. Another basic Cluster includes such variables as classroom

management skills, student engagement/time on task, and studentopportunity

4

to learn materidl. Eftr ctive teachers know howto organize and maintain

a classroom learning environment that mximizes thetime spent on

productive activities ar and minimizes the time lost duringtransiti

periods of confusion, car distuptions that require disciplinaryaction.

5. A third cluster indicates sup t for the variouselements

direct instruction. Studies of general approaches toinstruction con

sistently reveal that students taught with a structuredcurriculum do

better than those taught with ind.vidualized or discovery learning

approaches, and those who receive muo11 instruction directly twin the

teacher do better than those expected to le 1own or from one

another. Teacher talk in the form cif 1.es and demonstrations is

imp.rta t as are the me h--on red mcthn 1.of recitation, drill, and

prance. It appears that most Drms of open education orindividualized

imr.t,-uctionunrealistic expectations about the degree to which

stud , . in the rly grades can manage theiractivities and learn

-tdepc4elently (see studies cited on page 2, also Gage, .1978; Ininan,

INL: _and Stallings & Hentzell, Note 10).

The instruction that seems most efficient is the kind in which the

teacher works w class (or with small groupsin the early

grades), presents information in lectures/demonstrations,and then

follows up with recitations or practice exercises in whichthe students

get opportunities to make responses and receive corrective feedback.The

teacher maintains an academic focus, keeping the studentsinvolved in a

lesson or engaged in seatiork, monitoring their performance,and. providing

individualized feedback. The pace is rapid in thesense-that the class

moves efficienti y through the curriculum as awhole (and through the

successive objectives of any given lesson), but. progressfrom one

objective to the next involves very small, easy steps.Success rates

7

5

in answering teachur questions durint l --ons are high (about75%), and

success rates on assignments designed be done independently are very

high (approaching 100%). (See studies cited on page 1,and. also the

reviews by Borich, 1977; Medley, Note 7; and Rosenshine, Note 8, in

press.)P

These specifics concern -W-,.pp -uction vary somewhat

11 context, particularly grade level and student ability level. In

the primary grades, where the emphasis i.s on mastering the basic skills,

the teaching/learning situation differs from later grades, wherestudents

0are expected to use basic skills to learn other things, and to manage-

their own learning to a greater degree. The early grades appropriaCely

involve more small -group instruction relative to whole-class instruction,

more teacher circulation around the room and initiation ofcontact with

the students who are working on assignments opposed to letting the

students come to the teacher for help), more recitation and drill (but

less genuine discussion), morepraise and affect generally,very low

error rates, and 'a low cognitive level due to the emphasis on repetition,

recitation, and drill, (Higher cognitive level activities seem counter-

productive in the early grades, although they become more important

later.) More specifics about grade leveldifferences can be found in

Eve- son, Anderson, and Brophy, Note 11; Fisher, Filby, Marliave, Cahen,

Dishaw, Moo e and Berliner, Note 12; McDonald and Elias, Note 4; Murnane

and Phillips, Note 13; and Trismen, Waller, aiLd Wilder, Note 14.

Within any given grade level, teachers working with low-ability

students need to move at a slower pace and provide more repetition

and individualized monitoring to make sure that overlearning isattained

before moving on to objectives that assume prior mastery. of Tresent

objectives. They also need to supply gr ter warmtl

6

oura Bement, and

personalized teaching gen -ally but Tess challenge ((although not less than

`iticism (Brophy &

. Eve tson, Note 2, 1976; Program on TeachingEffoLtiveness, Note 15).

the students can handle) and less demand

Current Progress.

Current activities in teacher effectiveness research feature two.

major trends: (1) integration of exi ti.ng correlationalfindings add

probing Of the limits of th

Skills ins -rue

llization tr ntexts beyond basic

ion in the elementary grades; and (2) experimental

studies in which clusters of correlat.ic na.t E tndiugs are brought together

into treatment packages and assessed Inc ee of implementation by

teachers and for success in producing more learning than what is observed

in control groups.

The maturation __ the field can he seen in recentreviews, which read

less like laundry lists of random findings and more like integrated

discussions of organized approaches to instruction. Good (in press) is

publishing an interesting paper that makes many of the same points made

here and some, others that are worth mentioning.

First Good notes that the support for group-based rather than

individualized instruction, and for whole class instruction rather than

small-group instruction (except in the early grades), should renew

educators' appreciation for the advantages of these methods. Group-

based instruction is often maligned by those who favor individualizedand

self-paced instruction, but, like recitation, it survives. Good suggests,

and I concur, that group-basedinstruction survives because it has

important advantages. It is easier to plan and manage,provides more

modeling of correct thinking and responses for slower students, and

avoids the elitism And labeling problems that can crop up whenability

9

7

grouping is used. This does not mean that large -groupinstruction should

be the exclusive method, of course; qt only indica _s that thisapproach

has advantages, is effective, and may be the method of choice for many

goals and contexts.

Good also notes that tradi onai or direct instruction seems

clearly superior to open education for producing mastery of basickills.

-He adds, however; that it may not be the hest appr {each, or even

appropriate, curricular areas that do not involveskill mastery,but

instead seek to promote appreciationgeneral familiarity, enrichment,

or student personal development. Nor is open educationnecessarily

effective here,'either; Good notes that open-education advocates have

put too much stress on things like free choi.ce of tasks or free movement

around the room, which are less vital to real-life application than things

like developing skills for problem solv g and self-evaluation. In any

case, he observes. that some structure is needed for most educational

6

active and that relatively more structureis needed in the early

grades, for low-ability. studehts, and for anxious or dependent students.

Classroom Mane egnt

Recent publications by Brophy and Putnam (1979) and Evertson and

Anderson (Note 16) have elaborated on what constitutes effective classroom

management and how it ,interacts with effective instruction. Brophy and

Putnam review studies on classroom management generally, not just those

that link management with student learning. They note strong support for

most of the variables stressed by Kounin (1970): "withitness," "over-'

lapping," signal continuity and momentum during lessons, and variety and

challenge during seat- ork They also !totthat recent stud {es h ve not

supported Kounin's variables of group aler i nd accountability, which

call for teachers to be random and unitredictah.lc in their questioning,

to call on nonvolunteers frequently, arid to _require studentsto comment

on one another's responses (to make sure that they pay atten nto peers

as well as try the teacher). These group alerting and accountability

techniques either correlate negatively or show curvilinear relations ips

learning gains. Apparently, teachers who do all theother things

that'Kpuninstrb ses, and therefp successful in maximizing student

attention and engagement, should not need to use group alertingand

accountability behaviors very

Thesece ents help reconcile Kounin's findings with the findingsof

Brophy and Eve -son (Note 1976) and Anderson, Evertson, addBrophy

(1979), which indicate that teachers whocalled on students in a

predictable pattern in going around the reading group had more successthan

teachers who were unpredictable. Apparently', any disadvantages thatthis

-technique might involve (e.g., student' who can predict when their turn

will come may pay less attention when it is not their turn) areoutweighed

by the advantages gained: ...the method insures, that(1) everyone.zets

roughly equal opportunities to r&cite and participate in the group4(often,

"random" questioning really means calling on the brighter and more eager

students often and the slow or alienated students rarely);(2) the greater

structure that the technique provides may be helpful toanxious students'

and (3) the automatic determination, turns prevents thedistractions'

involved when students call out answer petition the teacher tocall'

on them.

-"Mithltness, as defined by Kounin(1970), is a strategy wherebyteachers

are conti=nuously aware of all that is going on in the'classroom, and they

communllate this awareness -to their students,'tOverlapping," according to

Kounin, is the ability to do 'several things at once, such asmonitoring the

classroom while teaching a small group. ,

A

Ivcrtson and Anderson (Note 1.6) hNve ex Loring the specifics.'

involved in organ]. zing and managing the classro n and the interar:tions

between management and instruction. During the 1977 -7d' school year,they

.

.Observed 28 third-grade classrooms extensively during the firstthree

weeks of school, and periodically the-,after, gathering information

on what rules and procedures the teachers introduced,dnd low they did so.

During 1978-79, they are ohs rving junior high. lassrooms.

suits from the study strongly support two major generalize-/

,1?

Classroom organization and management sl;rills are intimately

related to instruction skills; that ts, good ihstructor_ tend to be good

managers, and (2) good organiz'ti-n and mane e e t is good instruction,

at least at the third-grade level; that is, successful classroom managers

`spend a great deal of time early in the year conducting semiformal lessons

familiarize students with rules and procedures. This research is

yielding very rich, detailed information about procedures involved in

setting up effective classrooms, and ultimately should be extremely

valuable to teacher educators.

ILTIETIllallatijchool Studies

Several investigators are probing the limits co generalization of the

linkageS between direct instruction and student' learning observed in

basic skill'instruction in the early grades. Recent studies.by Stallings

(Note 17) and Everston et I. (Note 11) indicate that the key to

generalization may not be student age or grade level, but mastery of

basic skills. Stallings, (Note 17) has been studying reading instruction

the junior and senior high school levels. Her findings are very

similar to the findings reviewedearlier for 'basic skills in the early

10

grades:. Growth -in reading skills isassociated with maximizing time on

task, instructing the total. group most of the time,directing questions

to specific students (rather than volunteers).,regularly providing feed-

Amok, controlling negative behavior, encouraging positivebehavior, and'.

using guides and probing qUestions when students do notknow the answer.

Negative indicators include grading papers during theclasS period,

socializing of allowing students to socialize, allowinginterruptions

and intrusions into the class activities, and allowingnegative behavio

McCennell (Note 18) reported the following correlates of student

learning in high school algebra else es: task orientation, clarity,

frequent probing to improve student response, anthus asm,and frequent

teacher talk. Again, these are familiaraspects of the direct instru

tion approach,

Evertson,et al. (Note 11) _report the following correlatesof

student learning in seventh- and eighth -grade math classes:considerable'

class time spent on discussion jecture; and drill, and notjust indivi-

-dualiZed instruction or individual seatwork; taskoriented, bueinesslike

instruction; much teacher time spent actively instructing andinteracting

with .students; greater praise of good contributions.(althoUgh praise was

not frequent in an absolute' sense); good classroommanagement; especially

withitnese; asking of process (thought or:explana ion ) questions aswell

as preduct (fact or memory) questions.

With two exceptions (discussed in, the next paragraph), these findings

replicate what was found in the earlygrades, and suggest that direct

'instructional may b_ the most effective method at any'g adelevel when

mastery Of basic skills is the goal,This . pa "tte rn did not appear, however,

seventh- and ,eighth-grade English classes, where Evertson etal., (Note 11)

obtainedjstrikingly different results. Significant relationships between

1-3

11

classroom process variables and student learning in these classes were

infrequent, and there was little support for the direct instruction model.

Several factors probably explain this finding, but the' ajor one seems

to be that basic skill mastery is not a primarygoal of seventh- and

eighth-grade English classes. The instructional objectives pursued in

these classes are more numerous and variable than in math classes._ Many.

objectives, such as poetry composition, oral dramatization, or literature

appreciation, are not easily or even appropriately pursued with the direct

instruction approach.

One implication, then, of recent work is that the findings concerning

direct instruction do generalize to higher grade levels and different

kinds of students, but only when basic skill mastery is the primary goal.

Not everythinggeneralizes; of cou Positive findings in the Everts on

et al. (Note 11) study for public praise of student contributions and

for asking higher level questions in addition to factual questions are

not usually observed in the early grades. Praise correlates sometimes

positively, sometimes negatively, but usually not at all with learning,

depending on context factors such as student ability, levels, teacher

versus student initiation, and specification and elaboration of the

praise itself. (Praise seems to be generally overrated, although it

s seem impo tant for low ability/anxious/dependent students, provided

=hat it is genuine and deserved and the praiseworthy aspects of the

-,performance are specified.)

Level-of question or cognitive demand usually shawsa negative

correlation (although sometimes a curvilinear relationship) with

learning"in the early grades (Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978; Soar & SOar

Note 19). The implications_ or teaching in the early grades seemto

be:- (1) move in very small steps ancloverteach to the point of over-

12

learning and (2) move at a rapid pace,but do not challenge students

beyond their ability to respond meaningfully.

Several recent studies indicate that the situationis somewhat

different in.the middle and upper grades(Anderson & Scott, 1978; Evertson

et al., Note 11; McDonald & Elias, Note 4;Mu nane & Phillips, Note 13;

Trismen, Waller, & Wilder, Note 14 ). Compared to the elementarygrades,

the later grades. tend to have more large-groupand whole-class activities;

less frequent and less affectively-toned'dyadic teacher-stu&nt interactions;

less recitation and drill and more discussion; morecognitive challenge

and high level cognitive activity;less teachercenteredness and more

student autonomy; more sustained concentrar

a more rapid pace within these acti-'

In the early grades, it is 4mporgunt for theteacher to elicit

(This is-a. major

on academic and

responses from, and provide feedback to each student.

reason why small-group instruction is important atthese grade levels.)

Later, this individualized (within the group continstruction is no

longer necessary, and it becomes moreImportant for the teacher to keep the

whole class together and move along at a good,pace.Basic skills have been

mastered, and learning objectives now involvehigher cognitive activity,

so challenging Students with difficult orcomplex questions is more

app-45priate, Even so, learningshould-be relatively easy -- most questions

should be answered and students should beable to Complete independent

work assignments correctly

-Eliciting student cone but , integrating them into thediscussion,

and praising the more noteworthy ones allbecome useful techniques that

y

correlate positively with leerning gain, .Recent work. has helped clear

up the apparent discrepanciebetween the writings of Flanders (1970) in

this area and some of the data supporti=ng' thedirect ,instruction

I

13

There is continuing and increasing support for the effectiveness in the

Upper grades of certain aspects of what Flanders called "indirect

teaching ": praise, use of student ideas, andhigh frequency of student

talk (if it is focused on academic objectives; non-academic student

talk correlates negatively with learning).

These data must be placed in context, however. It appears that

the:really important determinants of learning at the highergrade levels

are not the things that Flanders clustered under "indirect instruction

but instead are other aspects of teaching that Rosenshine includes under

"direct instruction": frequent lectures, demonstrations,and teacher-led

discussions (Barr & Dreeben, 1977). In the process of using these

techniques, teachers elicit frequent student contributions, which makes

it possible for them to use student ideas and to integrate them into

the discussion, as well as

ideas in the first place 'seems

praising them or inte sting them Into the discussion.

.them. In any case, eliciting the

the, crucial variable her e not

Interactions with Learner Characteristics

Another recent trend is the qualification of general process-product

findingsrby analysis of the data for aptitude- treatment interactions (ATI's

or other interactions betweenlearner characteristics and optimal

instruction. Brophy and Evertson (Note 2,1976), Evertson et al. (Note.11),

Good and Grouws (Note 3); and'the Program on TeacherEffectiveness (Note 15)

all noted somewhat.4,ifferent patterns of optimal instruction for students

who differed in socioeconomic status or ability level. .Other investigators=

have analyzed .interactions between instructional methods and student:

personality characteristics or classroom behavior patterns indetermining

student learning (Bennett, 1976; Cunningham, 1975; Ebmeier &Good; 17:

press, Peterson, 1977; Solomon & Kendall, 1976).These, findings have not

16

14

been well,`integrated:yet, because somewhat different studenttraits have

been used as the basis for classification, but certailvt-ends arealready

evident: direct instruction (and close teachermo monitoring and supervision

-generally) is needed more by students who are anxious and dependent, easily

distracted, low in ability, or low in achievement Motivation. 'Students

with opposite traits can handle more of their learning independently.

expect to see more research on interactions in the nearfuture, followed

by attempts to'integrate the interaction data with maineffects data

in order to make prescriptions about how teachers can optimizethe

tradeoffs that are necessarily involved'in teaching groups of studet

Experimental Studies

The final recent trend discussed here is probably the mostimportant:

the design of experiMental studies to test the causal linkages between

.teacher'behavior and student learning that are implied but not proven by

correlational studies. Obviously, such work needs to bedone if we are to

claim that teacher behavior correlated with student learningactually causes

that learning.

Recently, three major field experiments have been conducted to

follow up on the process- product work reviewed here. Anderson et al.

f.

(1979) pulled together 22 princlples ofsmall -group instruction derived

from earlier work and organized them into a coherent treatment deSigned

for first-grade teacher's to use with their reading groups. Good and

Grouws (in'pres-)incorporated a variety of principles draWn from their-

earlier correlational work into a systematic approach for teaching

mathematics in fourth grade, and tested these principles in an

-,experimental study. Fin'ally, Crawford, Gage, and their-colleagues in the

Program on Teaching Effectiveness (Note 15) aC Stanford pulledtogether.'

l5

a large number of principles drawn from previouswork, by Brophy and

Evertson (Note 2,, 1976), McDonald and Elias (Note 4), Soar and Soar

(1972), and Stallings and Kaskowitz (Note 5), and included them in,

a treatment designed for the third-grade level.

Each of these, studies yielded statistically significantresults

favoring tTeatment teachers over control teachers in producingstudent

learning gains on standardized achievement tests.

Each study also involved-a strong observation component, so the

tea e ,be monitored forthe degree to which they implemented

the tre nt (and control teachers could be monitored for thedegree

to which they spontaneously included treatment behaviorin their

teaching). These observational data yieldedimplementation scores for each

of the teacher behaviors included in the treatment,and these scores

were analyzed to determine whether they showed theexpected relationships

with learning scores,

Not all treatment elements have been implementedproperly, of

course, and not all of those that were implemented haveshown

expected significant relationships with learning scores.However, where

the treatment behaviors were implemented 'sufficiently,and'Where significant

results were obtained, the findings have been overwhelminglypositive,

replicating previous correlational work and providing strangerevidence

of a causal linkage between teacher behavior and studentlearning;

M9st of these findings are prescriptive, althoughy allow for

teacher judgment This can be seen in the followingexamples, drawn frot,

the study by'-Anderson et al.( 1979), all of which werevellimplemehted'

by the treatment group teachers and significantly related tolearning -gains.

16

Once in (reading) group, the children should be seatedwith

their backs to the rest of the class bile the teacher is facing

the class.

2. The introduction to the lessonshould contain an overview of

what is to come to mentally kepare the students for the

presentation.

The teacher should work with one ndividual at- a time in

having the child practice the new skill and apply the new

concept, making sure that everyone is checked and receives.

feedback.

The teacher should use a pattern for selecting children to take

their turns reading in the group or answering questions (such

as going from one end of the group to the other) rather than

calling on them randomly and unpredictably:'

When call-outs occur, the teacher should remind the child that ,

everyone gets a turn and that he/she must wait his/her,turn to

answer.

6. After asking a crestion, theteacher should wait for the child to

respond acid also see that other children wait and do not call

out answers, If the child does not respondwithin a reasonable

title, the teacher. should indicate that some response is

expected by probing.

7. Praise should be used In moderation.The teacher 'shbUld praise

thinking and effort'more than just getting the answer, and

should Make-praise as specific and individual as possible.

Criticism should also be as,specif c.as possible, and'shouldinclude-specification of desirable or correct alternatives.

Similar examples can be found in the other -two experimental studies.

Taken together, these.studies provide an impressive'number ofguidelines

for direct instruction in the early grades the great majority o

which are either overlapping or complementary (but not contradictory):

Thus, in conclusion, I am happy to say that recent studies, linking

teacher behavior to student learning, and especially these experimental

studies, are making significant progress in developing a scientific,

basis lor teacher educati-

1 9

17

Reference Notes

Morsh, J., & Wilder, E. Identifyinginstructor:

review of the uantitative studies 190071952.Project No 7714.

Task No. 77248. Chanute Air ForceBase, Illinois: Air Force

Personnel and TrainingAtesearch Center, 1954.

2. Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. Process-(paint correlations in the Texas--

Teacher Effectiveness Stud:: Final re ortResearch Report no 74-4),1

Austin, Texas: Research and DevelopmentCenter for Teacher Education,

University of Texas, 1974.

Good, T., & Grouws, D. Process- rod_uctrelationships in fourth grade

mathematics classrooms. Final Report ofNational Institute of

Education Gra (NEG-00-30123). Columbia:University of Missouri,

1975.

McDonald, F & Elias, P. The eft.of teacher performance on

learning, _ ginning TeacherEvaluation Study: Phase II, final

report:

Vol. Princeton N.J.:Edu.,-:atiophl 'eating Service, 1976.

5. Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz,D. .Follow Through classroom observation

evaluation, 1972-1973 (SRI Project URU-7370).-Menlojark, Cali

'Sianford Research Institute, 1974,

Tikunoff Berliner, D., & RIst,R. An_ethnographic atudylfth

fort classroms of theTe_?cher

(Technical Report No. 75-10-5). San Francisco:Far West Laboratory

for Educational Research and Development,1975.

7. Medley'

D. Teacher corn =teice and teachreview

P

procelsictresearch. .Washington, D-JC. The American Association,-

of Colleges for Teacher Education,- 1977.

8. Rodenshine, B. New itmla11LapaLaH!EIiopsfrom recent research

21ementaajsheelf Paper presented atthe annual meeting of h

Educational Research Association, 1977.

11.

Classroom actices and basicskill_ Kinde_ erten and third

)Lale. Division of Research,North Carolina State Department of Public

Instruction, 1977.

Stallings, J., & Hentzell, S. Effective. eachhnd-learnin

schools. Paper presented atthe National Conference-on Urban

Education, 1978.

Evertson, C., Anderson, L., & Brophy, J.Texas 4nivalanqq1221alAx:

IiisE.rfpmt21_RLossa-outcomerelationships, Vblume 1 .(Researcb Report

No. 4061). Adstin: Research and. DevelopmentCenterifor Teacher Education,

The Univer&ity of Texas at Austin,1978.

12. ,Fisher, C, Filby, N.,MarliaVe, R., Cahen, Dishaw, M., Moore,

J;,

Berliner, D. Teaching behaviorsacademic. learnin t me and student

achievement. Final report ofPhase II;I -B, Beginning 'Teacher Evaluation

Study. San,FranciscoFar West Laboratory for Educational

Research and

Developmenti, 1978.

0

13. Murnane, R., & Phillips, B. Effective teache±

Who the., are and _what_ they do. Princeton, New

Policy Research, 1978.

18

inner c en;

ersey: athematica

14. Trismen, D., Waller, M., & Wilder, G.C.lass.room observation in a stud

iplfcompenatoryreading_programl. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1977.

15. Program on Teaching Effectiveness.Arieacfriment on cher effectiveness

and arent-assisted instruction inthe third grade. get of five papers

presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch

Association, 1978.

16. Eyertson, C., & Anderson, L. Theassroom_oi7anization stud- : Interim

pt2Ezt (Report No. 6002). Austin:Research and.Development

Center for Teacher Education, The Universityof Texas at Austin, 1978.

17. Stallings, J.Is,shlag_t2.Airpaons skills in the secondary schools.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational

Research ASsociation 1978.

18. McConnell, J. Relationshi.s betweenselected teacher behaviors and

attitudes/achievemen ebra 'classesPaper preSented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation,1977.

19. Soar, R.S., & Soar, R.M. Settinvariables, classroom interaction and

multiple outcomes.,. Final report for National Instituteof Education,

Project No. 6-0432. Gainesville:, University ofFlorida, 1978.

19

References

Anderson, L., Evert or, C. & Brophy, J. An expprimentalstudy of

effective torching in first-grade reading groups.

Journal, 19 79, 193-223.

Anderson, L., & Scott, C. The relationship amongteaching methods, student

characteristics and student involvement in learning.Jobrnal of Teacher

Education, 1978, 29(3), 52-57,

.

in classrooms. In L. Shulman (Ed.),

Review of Research in Education (Vol. 5). Itasca, Illinois:Peacock, 1977

Bennett, N. Teachin -les and o ress.Cambridge, Mass. Harvard

University Press, 1976.

Barr, R., & Dreeben, R.. Instruction

Borich, G. (with Fenton, K.).If2tairsiaTtot teach n Conceits and

process. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1977.

Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. IL:e2IRkkai_E2!Iteaching: A developmental

2fElpecCive. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1976.

BLophy,-J., & Putnam, J. Classroom management in the elementarygrades.

In D. Duke (Ed.), Classroom management. 78th earbook of the National

SocieStyIdofEducation. Chicago University of ChicagoPress, 1979. .An expanded version is available as IRT Research

Series

No. '32. East Lansing, Mi.: Institute for Research onTeaching,

Michigan State University, 1978.

Coleman, J., et al. Lguality of educationalWashington, D.C.:

uperintendent of.Documents, U.S: Government Printing Office, 1966.

Cunningham, W. Theimpact of Student-teacher pairings onteacher effective-

nees. American Edueational Rebearch Journal,1975, 12, 169-189./

Dunkin, & Biddle, B. study ofMolt, Rinehart

- & Winston, 1974.

Ebmeier, H., & Good, T. An invest gation'of the interactive effects among

student types, teacher types, and instruction types on the mathematics

achievement c).f fourth grade students. American Educational Research,

Journal, in press.

Flanders, N. Aaalarjm-b

'Gage N. The-011ege Pre

vier. Readingss.: Addison-Wesley,

c basis of the art of:teachina New York: Teachers

Columbia University, 1978.

Good,.T. Teacher effectiveness in the elementaryschool: What we know about

it now. Jot- aal of Teacher Education, in press.'

Good, T.Rol

Biddle, B., & Brophy, J. Teache d ake a difference. New York:

Rinehart and Winston, 1975.

22

Good, T., & Grouws, D. .The Missouri MatherAn experimental study in fourth grade class oo s. Journal of

Educational o-, in press.

20

iveness Project:

Kounin, J. Discipline rou rfpepent in cl srooms. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

Medley, D., & Mitzel, H. Measuring classroom behaViorJoy systematic ob-

servation. In N. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teachin

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Peterson, P. Interactive effects of student anxiety, achievement oa-

tion, and teacher behavior on student achievement and attitude.

Journal of Educational Ps cholggyi 1977, 69,,779-792.

Rakow, E., P., & Madaus, G. Assessing school and programeffective-

fleas: Estimating teacher level effects. Journal of Educational

Measurement, 1978, 15, 15-21.

Rosenshine, B. Content, time, anti uctIon.In P. Peterson and

H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teachin C9

implications. Berkeley, Ca.: McCatchan, in press.

Rosenshine; B. Recent research on teaching behaviors and student achieve-

'went. Journal of Teachei' Education 1976 7 27,'61 -64.

Rosenshine, B., & Berlin'er,- D. Academic -Aga ec time. British Journal

Teacher Education, 1978, -4, 3-16.

Rosenshine, B,, & Furst-, N. The use of direct ';r1)servation to study teaching.

In R. Travers (Ed.). Second handbook of research on teaching.Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1973.

Soar, R.S. 1S Soar, R.M. An empirical analysis of selected Follow Through,

programs: An example of a process approach to evaluation.In I.

Cordon (Ed.), Earl= ,t education. Chicago: National Society

for the` Study of Education, 19772.

Solomoni, D., & Kendall, A. Individual charaterist:cs and children's

forrnance in "opeh" and "traditional" classroom settings'. Journal'

f Educational Psychology, 1976, 68,613-625.

Stephens, J. nerc,cesp.inL. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1967.

47t

PUBLICATIONS

Of-the

Institute for Research op reachirsNtchigan StateUnieerresty

250f

rebrvary 1, 1979

To order any of ihe following' publicatIons please send check, Insmey order,or prepaid purchase order -- payabie to Michigan State University-- to IRTPublications, 252 erlaSon, MS0. East Lansing, NT 48F114. ,PublicatIon prices in-clude only the-cost of productIor and mal.ling. Michigan residents should add a4 state sales tam to all orders. The Institute for Research on Teach,ng isflinded primarily by the Nation31 Tnstitute of Education, Unito4 Stares Dcpartmentof Health, Educ.7,tien, and Welfare.

Research cries

No. 1 The Inuiry Theory: An informaLion-pr,wci;*:,, Qpproaciv to clin-1-cajprehtem7sol v in ref.e:Ireh and applioa. Vinsemhafer, C .C. Wn1,ner, &A.S. Fl Loin '1978. $2.00.

1.

No 2 -Impact on what?- The ipoi t nr of ront,T07 cover_od, A.C. Poi id. W .1.Schmidt, R.E. Floden, & D.J. Freeman. 19/8. $1.75 ,

No,. 3 Ins_tructlow--:_for nfAinc!, rho AJ 83:2_ill()Lr.in.2,ofcware,pn_c1:,111, as modifjedfor the CDC 6500 Oonlimter.' M.C:arlyn. 1977, $1.75.

No. 4 Traininl manual for Lhe elaifloi.ion of Lhcoont.entof fourth7grado..mathematics. 14.11.'SchmidL, A.C. Porter, R.E. Floden, D.J. 'Freeman.1978. $2.25

No, 55 Flexner, acc,redtation:6 andcvpluation, R.E. Pin-den. 1978: $1.75

No 6 Analoov and crN1t,nitialfing. RFE Flodon.. 1978. $1,25

a. 7 Conceptions of roadln,g: The Rep Test. -M. Johnston. 1978. $1.00

No. 8. Bovarch andAeveleTmeftt,peed5!for the advancement of teacherJ.E. Lanier & R.E, Floden. 1978, $3.00

N(,) 9 On:iHe:coricontnalizatton Of_Minical_problem o1 1i C.C.C C' Wahuer &J.F. VInsonhalor. 1978. $1.50

education.

* No. 10

No. 11

Ayillfeations of the lfiqpirvotheou Lo roaqin _and JearnlnlydisaMiqes_.L. Patriarcn., VanRookol, ,& J.F. Vironhaler. 1979.

3h701110S_SorL111.seovrivo_ rtiosO waftllaj142c1rs.C.M. Clark & R.J. ringor.. T;1978.. $1.00

Si

'24

dds

No. 12

No. 13

No.

a

14

No. 15

No. 16

No. 17

18

No. 19

No. 0

No'. 21

No. 22

No.

N

Research onteaeher . R.J

rlaa _(1,11r.!

IETILD(1(1141vjclual

CLIPIR_Pilot Chsetvat-i: fee -& A. Weinshank.

nw_.r. 1978. $2.25

t)il't :/ 1

The Inc-wiry Theoretic ;Tip).

/11-0°W";11-Vol, 1. J.P. Vinsonhalor, C.C. V

1978. $4.50

rph npd

mn

indman.

Tlieuser's manual for the Ba rmntion:Svo B_NTS

technical manual Vol__. C.- fler, J.F. Vinvooholci', A.S. L stein,

L.S. Shulman. 1978. $17.00

Teaell2IaLf2pLuponsof reading: The ,_volute of a

R. Barr & Duffy,- -.1978. $U'

-A study-. of teqsbEI2)!ntiint: Dcrlc tic?n and mo+lcl t f ITeactive do oiion

making.' R.J. Yinger,. 1978. $4.25

Fieldwork-as halts for .theor buldin_a_in research on tea-h . R.J. Ying,

1978. $2.25

Choice of. a model

$1.50

ch on teacher thinkin C.M. Clark. 1978.

Conceptual issues 10_ content-

1978. $2.25

An econOmeD.. Saks. 1978 $1.75'

v disc cion. D. Frccuuar

on classroom B.W. Brown

DiffILLLyjng, cues for use in stud tencherIEL2iL. c-R.J. Yinger, & S.C. Wildfoug. 1.9x81. $1.75

ruttonomv mllhe control of content A.C. Porter. 1978, '$3.75-24' Teac

No. 25

*No' i 26

No 27

Clark,

Donit_th all measurb_the 'same thin3Conscwimes.df standardizedelection. R.E. Floden, A.C. Portet, w.n. Schmidt, & D.J. Freeman. 1978. $1,50

Critical moments in the teaChina_ o_ mathemUtics. J.C. Shroyer1978.

Char4ctqyistics of the clinical, apabl.em-solv118 model and ltsirelevance

to educa4onnl_ research. .(ForMerly available as an IRT collateral paperL.S. Shn111 J.F. Vinsonhaleri,C.C. Wagner, &. L. Bader.

1978. $1-.25

* NO." 28 The conals:tency_nfreadfn .diaga psis. A. `Wetl.nslrank. 1978.

4 No. 30

by lufluyy Theory_re_sprchh C.

Itatin,7 the_iniohlAmt

1 Tra i s_prcf sts

e

No. ,32,Classr r m mannAmont in the 01o.,.-,ntary

trl

.C. 'utuam. 1916. $3.25

An othnrwruhlejtudy of a toP...11cy'f-:

for curriculum. V.J.19-/8,

The problem of dead_l

witinE S. Florio. 1978. $1.50

No. 35 Mcasurinz content o

*No. 36 The

Sh

-struetion. W.H. hm dt.1978. $1.5

11 or

ship of te.-cher aliena fto schoel workplace eha--

torast3cs

and pare or st et crf teachers.M.J. Vavrus. 1978 $250 ,

No. 37 The rcl-tionshi)between diagnosis`

study. We Lnshttnk.1978. $1.75

=

* No. Teacher judgment of 'child en'sByers. 1979. $2.00

nd -median itt )-eading:

ling p,refer&uces.Evans &

at South Bay_S'chol-. Joyce1979. $2 . ?.5

* . 39 The achinz sev,

* No. 40 Teachers' thoughts while -teacl!faa.B. Joyce 1979. $2

41 Measurin toacltcconceptions about rcading.

G.G. Duffy & W. Meeheny.

_1979. $1.75A

* 111: 42 Studies of,clinical_problatinzbehavior in re adinp diagnosis. D. Gil

J,11. Vinsonhaler, & G.C: Wagner.1979. $2.00'

* No. 43 Study lue /_beliefittetns of teachers and administrators. :

P. Chbick 1979.6=.

No. 44 Teochu_EacRpLions rstudent affect. R.S. Prawat.

1979. $2.50

Ar

Occasional Papers

1 Teachers'- con nd toneut1(A G. B6111,,

number of free copies.

of re dip and the eeachin of roaclin:Blau & A. Reisor. 1977. Limited

No. 2 Teachers And - se'_. ,-------hers:.___ TownrcLnswalALLIILIJ:'

be r. C. Kennedy.

1977. Limited number offv0e coNes.

3 A:causal analypis.of Attitudestownrship training in 4plassroom,

setpInE, J.E. Hunter,It. F. 1461ter & ;

'26Lapis. 1978. $2.00

No. 4 :1170 twich coljoapua In _classr_(

1978.

No. 5 Form and funci:lon mDonahue. 1978. $1.75 4.

Nei 6' Individual school lolldinT. do aoc oon: i ttr di!

Performance'. L. VI. -LezoL & lin !-:!;,.1. I , .(1

No. 7 Besearch on1978. $1.25

No.

chin A dynim :Ire

t de A vlew f rompraetj

Na. 9 RelationShips hctween tosm

Walsh.

u-t:4:11,. MA.

J.E. Lior.

h.S. Shuh 11. 1978. $1.75

A.C. Porter. 1978. $1.00

sd: 1976. L.S. ShLlm 1.No. _10___RsclioloiLyi piathemati.c s educJ it on r

1978. $1.75

No. 11 Science and mathematics, educatiov. .trouse: acid prpsnect.L.S.

Shulman & P Pamir. 1978. $2.00

No 12 Rel a tin ice in cdotat ional reriearch: A:inipaper.

L.S. Shulman. 1978. $1.75

No. 13 Glim.sin dt.scp: line: Toward a in+.,nn ;ri.c modr1 intec!rat fug_ teachers'thouThts and action s. D. Gil & P.S. Heiler. 1978. $1.00

No. 14 Attention and modnlil)2IELQLts in STg: A second look.T.Evnns & J.

Byers. 1978. $1.75

15 1~lere cthnngiap_hy :

F. Nricksc.n. 1979. $ 2.00

in it .use in educational practic

16 On standard of descri Live validity in Studies of eldssr.opm

F. Erickson. $2.00

No. 17 Ch.:1!.1 ksehool, chaa icte_ristics coincicyLLLwijilolarTesin

achievement. . W. B. Brookover, & 1, .14. Lezotte. ,1979. $5.100(Executive Summary $1.*00)

Con e en les

tudent

No. Current lirect .ons in r_esenreh ,on 'tenehin1) ...._mv,ELtmor thecAkuL:larElmL9aIa104:ELN vorcher 17- 1 9, 1= 9 TO_e 1977. $4.25

4 ,

R QL0 of a- nar on field research tncthuds iri n dot ation.- Cusick,1978. $1.5C.

Procgoc____Bms of the Research-. -'reaching 1 ma ics 'Conja1977. 1978. $8.25

Tcachors qtminfur ralcs

oommunitz. Shalaway, J.E

in production and will bo avallablc2 l5y nly 1. 1

exact price and publication dat :!.

for