ED 143 629

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT MUNE

95 SP 011 395

Medley, Donald M.Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness. A

Review of Process-Product Research.American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation, Washington, D.C.Office of Education (DHEW) , Washington, D.C.Aug 77188p.Order Department, American Associationof Colleges forTeacher Education, One Dupont Circle, Suite 610,Washington, D.C. 20036 ($4.00)

MF-$0.83 HC-$10.03 Plus Postage.Academic Achievement; Behavior Patterns; *EducationalResearch; *Effective Teaching; InstructionalImprovement; *Performance Based Teacher Education;Reinforcement; Response Mode; Student TeacherRelationship; *Teacher Behavior; Teacher Education;*Teaching Quality; Teaching Techniques; TimeBlocks

ABSTRACTThis report analyzes and synthesizes the results of

research studies on teacher competence and teacher effectiveness. Itsprimary purpose is to provide the teacher educator with access forthe findings of this research. The dynamics of teacher effectivenessare illustrated by 43 tables each dealing with a different teacherbehavior as observed in the classroom. Subjects examined are: (1)

working with groups; (2) classroom nanagement; (3) time allotment;(4) questioning techniques; (5) teacher reactions; (6) behaviorproblems; (7) teaching techniques; (8) working with individualpupils. An extended bibliography is appended. (JD)

************************************************************************ Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished *

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *

* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) . EDRS is not *

* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. ************************************************************************

A

;

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

H' DO? ,mENT mAS BFFN RFPRO0.(F F XAC rlr AS AFC( ,s/f FROMro.E AF AsON OR OF7r,AN.ZAF,ON OAGIN-

Os 44.4 OR OP,ONSSTA-10 DO Nj-CESSAP. v RF PRESENT OT I r A, NAF,ONAL .NSiToTE OF10., A,OF PQ', ON OR Apt. ry

rt-ii%1B,`,ION) TO fTPROOUrf THISTIATERIAt BFEN (MANTEL) BY

1, TO DIA Ani .0 01

INf ail l1.:TII)U 01 T414 00 f 110 s ANDTHE f {Of ',10 ,1 I o^.11i4Al 1040$

The Ameitan AssociationdeollegesiorTeacher Education2

TEACHER COMPETENCE AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

A Review of Process-Product Research

by

DONALD M. MEDLEYChairman and Profesor

Department of Research MethodologySchool of Education

University of VirginiaCharlottesville, Virginia

For the AACTECommittee on Performance-Based Teacher Education

August 1977

American Association of Colleges for Teacher EducationOne Dupont Circle, Suite 610

Washington, D.C. 20036

c)

Published 1977 byAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATIONOne Duporit Circle, Suite 610Washington, D. C. 20036

Available from the Order Department at $4.00 per copy. ,

The activity which is the subject of this report wassupported in whole or in part by the U.S. Office ofEducation, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,through the New York State Department of Education.However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the U. S. Office ofEducation or the New York State Department of Education,and no official endorsement by either agency should beinferred.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-88225

Standard Book Number: 0-89333-006-X

11 4

..

.. ...WI.

FOREWORD

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) ispleased to publish this paper because of its relevance to teacher educationand to the education profession generally. This monograph addresses one ofthe critical questions involved in designing and implementing pre- and in-service teacher education programs, namely: What does research say aboutteacher competence and teacher effectiveness? The answer to that questionwill be particularly useful for those teacher educators who are reexaminingthe objectives of their present preparation programs, those evaluating theeffectiveness of their programs, and those experimenting with performance/competency-based teacher education programs.

But what research says about teacher competence and teacher, effective-ness is of interest to and has critical implications for other educators aswell: classroom teachers, teacher organizations, teacher center directors,school administrators, state departments of education, professional standardscommissions, the U. S. Office of Education, educational researchers, schoolboard members, and the general public. Because of the nature of the topicand the way in which it is addressed, we believe that this monograph is asignificant addition to educational literature.

The author, Dr. Donald M. Medley, has brought to the task of analyzingand synthesizing the results of research studies on teacher competence andteacher effectiveness a rich background of experience in research methodology.He is well known and respected in the field of educational research. Hiscontribution in this work includes not only the substantive findings, but aunique metnodology for carrying out this task.

Or. Medley was commissioned by AACTE's Committee on Performance-BasedTeacher Education to develop this monograph. While the study was' generatedunder the auspices of the PBTE project, the Committee from the beginning waswell aware that the results would have implications far beyond the design andimplementation of performance/competency-based teacher education programs.

The study, which is endorsed by the Committee, was conducted under itsgeneral sdpervision. To augment its own expertise in the area of educationalresearch, the Committee created a researchers' panel to work with Or. Medleyduring the course of the study. Members of this panel are identified on theinside cover of this monograph.

The contributions of the researchers' panel, as acknowledged by theauthor, were especially helpful in developing the final product. Most of theircomments (see Appendix C) were highly complimentary. Some of the reviewers'suggestions were incorporated into the study. Some of their objections wouldevaporate if the reviewers' accepted our purpose--to present interim findingsthat can be used to improve teacher education now while we wait for theresearchers to produce definitive results. A number of other objections aredisarmed by the results obtained. Meaningful, dependable, and consistentfindings were uncovered, an° more of them than these objections, if valid,would lead us to expect. The author must have done something right.

AACTE acknowledges with appreciation the role of the National Centerfor Improvement of Educational Systems (NCIES) of the U. S. Office of Educationin the PBTE Project. Its financial support (provided through the Interstate

lit5

Certification Project of the New YorF State Department of Education) as well asits professional stimulation, particularly that of Allen Schmieder, are majorcontributions to the Committee's work. The Association also acknowledges thesignificant of the author and his support staff, and that of themembers of the Committee and researchers' panel. Slecial recognition is dueLorrin Kennamer, PETE committee chairman, Shirley i;onneville of the projectstaff, and Armette MacKinnon, technical editor, for their contributions tothe development of this )utlication.

EMARD C. PCHERCY

Executive Director, AACTE

KARL MASSANARI

Associate Director, MCTE

and Director, PISTE Project

0IfWilMWil

DEDICATION

With appreciation, AACTE dedicates this monograph to

GILBERT F. SHEARRON

Former Professor and Chairman

Division of Elementary Education

College of Education

University of Georgia

who suffered a fatal heart attack on March 14, 1977.

Dr. Shearron was associated closely with AACTE'sPBTE Project since its inception. He served as acommittee member, and provided valuable assistancein conceptualizing the design of leadershiptraining institutes and in their implementation.He was one of the architects of the University ofGeorgia Elementary Education Model fn the late 60's.Since that time he provided leadership in experiment-ing with a competency-based preparation program forelementary teachers. He provided wise counsel toAACTE's Committee and to institutions of highereducation regarding the potential and pitfalls ofimplementing competency-based teacher educationprograms.

Dr. Shearron's professional life was dedicated tothe improvement of education for children throughexperimenting with more effective ways to prepareschool personnel. The education profession willmiss his creative leadership, and those who knewhim as Gil will miss the inspiration of workingwith him personally.

AUTHOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Preparation of this paper involved considerable time and efforts of a greatmany people. I would like to offer them my particular acknowledgements andthanks. To the committee for, giving me just enough time and support to do it,but not enough to overdo it. To the researchers whose findings I have appro-priated, with apologies for any violence I have committed in the cause ofsimplification; as well as to those researchers whose findings I have notincluded (for reasons given below). To the members of the review panel andothers whose letters and comments appear as Appendix C. To Ned Flanders,Robert Houston, and Nathaniel Gage for wise and useful suggestions; andespecially to Barak Rosenshine for the detailed and pertinent criticism onlyhe can give. To my wife Betty who assembled the bibliography. To the graduatestudents who did the hard work, especially to Nenette Lara, Betsy Miller, DickNicholson, and Jim Vermillion. To Phyllis Virunurm, who struggled valiantlyto maintain some sort of order in the process, and typed everything. Andfinally to Annette MacKinnon who was very helpful in providing technicalassistance in editing the manuscript for publication.

- D. M.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 Foreword

Dedication':

Author's Acknowledgements vi

Table of COntents vii

List of, Tables ix

1./ INTRODUCTION1

Knowledge of Teacher Effectiveness

Interpretation of Findings

Dangers of Misinterpretation

Waiting for Definitive Results

2. PROCEDURE

Rationale of the Study

Criterion I. A Relationship That IsGeneralizablysi

Criterion II. A Strong and ReliableRelationship

Criterion III. A Defensible Measureof Teacher Effectiveness

5

Criterion IV. An Interpretable Measureof Teacher Behavior

3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 10

Notes on Interpreting the Tables

The Structure of Teacher Competence

The Competent Teacher of Low"SES Pupilsin the Primary Grades

Teacher Use of Time

Organizing for Instruction

Environmental Maintenance

vii 9

Page

Individual Attention

Teacher Competence and Pupil SES in thePrimary Grades

Conduct of Discussion

Attention to Individual Pupils

Concluding Remarks

Competent Teacher Behavior in the UpperElementary Grades

Concluding Remarks

4. TABLES 3 -43, INCLUSIVE 23

5. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PROCESS-PRODUCT RESEARCH 66

ntew _Priorities for Research in Teacher Effectiveness

Levels of'Assessment in Teacher Education

Future Strategy forProcest-Product Research

6. REFERENCES 72

7. APPENDICES 73

A. Details on Studies Used

B. Bibliography

C. Letters and Comments

viii

LIST OF TABLES

(For specific instructions on how to readand interpret the tables, see pages 10-12.)

Table

1. PUPIL INITIATIONS

2. PERCENTS OF PAIRS OF PROCESS-PRODUCT RELATIONSHIPSBETWEEN THE SAME BEHAVIOR AND TWO TYPES OF OUTCOMEMEASURES THAT MATCH (i.e., HH, LL, OR MM)

3. GROUP SIZE

4. SMALL GROUP WITHOUT ADULT

5. SEATWORK

6. ACADEMIC TIME

7. TIME SPENT ON READING

8. TIME SPENT IN READII .-RELATED ACTIVITIES

9. TIME SPENT ON ARITHMETIC

10. TIME SPENT IN OTHER SUBJECTS

11. READING MATERIALS

12. ARITHMETIC TEACHING MATERIALS

13. STEADY-STATE TEACHER TALK

14. PUPIL INITIATIONS

15. TEACHER ENCOURAGES PUPIL PARTICIPATION

16. NUMBER OF TEACHER QUESTIONS

17. PUPIL RESPONSE TO TEACHER QUESTIONS

18. LOW COGNITIVE LEVEL QUESTIONS

19. HIGH COGNITIVE LEVEL QUESTIONS

20. TEACHER REACTIi. TO PUPIL RESPONSE--GENERAL

21. TEACHER REACTION 10 PUPIL RESPONSE--AMPLIFICATION,EXTENSION

22. TEACHER REACTION TO WRONG ANSWER

ix

A

--..,,,-.....,

Table

23. TEACHER REACTION WHEN PUPIL RESPONSE ISPART CORRECT

24. TEACHER REACTION WHEN PUPIL FAILS TO ANSWERQUESTION OR SAYS "DON'T KNOW"

25. TEACHER WORKS WITH INDIVIDUAL PUPIL

26. CLOSE ATTENTION TO PUPILS

27. TEACHER MOBILITY

28. MISCELLANEOUS TEACHING TECHNIQUES

29. MISCELLANEOUS TEACHING TECHNIQUES

30. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE TEACHINGOF READING

31. TIME SPENT ON MANAGEMENT

32. MANAGEMENT SKILL I-III

33. MANAGEMENT SKILL III-VIII

34. REBUKING BEHAVIOR

35. DISRUPTIVE PUPIL BEHAVIOR

36. PUPIL INVOLVEMENT

37. PUPILS SPEAK FREELY

38. POSITIVE AFFECT

39. REINFORCEMENT

40. PRAISE

41. DEPENDENT PUPIL BEHAVIOR

42. NON-SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS

43. PERMISSIVE TEACHER BEHAVIOR

x 12\ .

INTRODUCTION

It is the primary .purpose of this report to provide the teacher educatorwith access to the meaningful findings of research in teacher effktiveness,

In the last few years, the advent of a major innovation in teacher-,education--performance-based teacher education--has_made the importance ofthese findings--and of access to them--more apparent than ever before.

The-central notion behind performance-based teacher education is thatdecisions about a teacher's career--about passage through preservice training,certification, promotion, recertification, and so on--should be based ondemonstrated competency to perform in ways that an effective teacher performs.Implementation of this idea requires that the nature of effective teacherperformance be specified in sufficient detail. Then it is possible to measureto what degree, and in what ways, the performance of any individual teacherresembles effective performance.

Knowledge of Teacher Effectiveness

Efforts to develop performance-based pregrems both for educating andcertifying teachers have made it,painfulyrolear'jgst how inadequate the baseis :for what we know today about ..the dynamits of tea er effectiveness. Theseefforts have also demonstrated how weak the connection is between research inteacher effectiveness and the teacher education curriculum.

There seem to be two major reasons why this is so. One has- to do with

the quality and quantity of research findings to date; the other has to dowith access to these findings.

First, research in teacher effectiveness is much more difficult andexpensive to do well than research in most other aspects of the educationeprocess. Technical difficulties are formidable and, until recently, were noteven suspected by most researchers in the area. For this reason, many of thefindings reported were inaccurate and, therefore, inconsistent with each other.Recent research has been better designed and better supported; it has alsogreatly increased both the sheer amount of results reported in the literatureand the difficulty of access by anyone uilable or unwilling to work full timeon the problem.

Second, whenever teacher educatorSattempt to sift these findings theyfind the task so difficult and time, cdnsuming that theit.can scarcely be blamedif -they abandon it. The literature.of the subject is,vest and inaccessible,and much of it is difficult to comprehend-and evaluate.

A number of sound scholarly reviews of this literature have appeared inrecent years (cf. Rosenshine, 1971, 1976; Rosenshine and Furst, 1971, 1973;Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; Brophy,and 1Vertson, 1976*). These are invaluable;but the reader comes away with the feeling (not really justified) that therehas been access, not to the research itself, but to a synthesis or interpretation

*See References following the text.

of that research. This leaves the reader at the mercy of what Dunkin andBiddle (op. cit.) refer to as the "commitment" of the reviewer.

In this project we have made a strong effort to put the reader in directcontact with the research. We have canvassed the literature and culled themost significant findings from it, without attempting to select or interpretthem or to reconcile them with each other. We have then presented them in aseries of tables in a particularly simple format.

Interpretation of Findings

Readers of this report are invited to examine the process-product corre-lat ons presented in Tables 3-43 and draw their own conclusions. These tableswer designed to communicate the most clearly established facts about effectiveteaching and only those facts. They constitute what we regard as the principalproduct of our investigation.

In reading the pages to follow, it is important to bear in mind certainlimitations; the procedures we followed made an effort to reduce the complex-ities in many thousands of correlations to something both accurate and com-prehensible.

First, we have presented only the strongest and most dependable findings,ignoring both small correlations that are statistically significant, andlarger correlations that are not. The fact that a relationship is not reportedshould not be taken as evidence that it does not exist, or even as indicatingthat there is no research evidence that it exists. Absence of a relationshipfrom Tables 3-43 means only that its existence has not 4cen clearly establishedas far as we can discover. If a relationship is reported in the tables, thereis strong evidence that it does exist. The reader whose questions are notanswered in these tables is urged to consult the original studies or thecomprehensive reviews, cited previously for more details.

The second limitation we would like to emphasize has to do with general-izability. For reasons mainly connected with the funding strategy of theU. S. Office of Education, most of the research summarized here was done inone segment of the school population--in classes of Grade III or below inwhich most of the pupils come from homes of low socioeconomic status. Towhat extent these findings apply to pupils with other backgrounds or inother grades is not known. What evidence we have about pupils of high socio-economic status and pupils in the higher grades indicates that results fromone group do not always apply to another.

Dangers of Misinterpretation

A secondary product of this investigation is our own reading of:some ofthe conclusions these facts support. If these conclusions seem'incorrect,the reader can go to the facts and draw others. The only rule that ohe shouldfollow is what we tried to observe: a valid interpretation, must fit'at thefacts. Anyone who selects some facts and rejects others on any baSis whatsoeverwilt.] reach conclusions which cannot be said to be based on the facts, therebydefeating the whole purpose of the enterprise.

14

In education especially, no more serious obstacle to the advancement ofknowledge exists than the universal tendency we have to embrace and rememberresearch findings that fit our expectations, and to reject and forget thosethat do not. Educators who do not frequently question and alter their beliefsto suit research findings should suspect themselves of impeding rather thanaiding progress in the field.

Particularly vulnerable to misinterpretation are the suggestive findingsreported herein about possible differences in optimal strategy for teachingprimary grade pupils from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds. Most of ushave strong convictions about these matters. One group, the group opposed toclassroom integrafion, will be inclined to overinterpret these findings, losingsight of their tentative nature (they come from a single study done in a smallnumber of classrooms in a single city) because the results agree with theirbiases. Another group, those who favor integration, will be inclined toundervalue the results, concluding that they are incorrect because they donot agree with their biases.

Neither group will advance toward the solution of the problem so longas they follow this practice of evaluating data on the basis of the conclusionsreached rather than on the basis of their quality. As far as they go, thesedata do indicate that optimum learning in the two SES groups requires quitedifferent teaching strategies. What educators must do is to interpret theseresults in combination with all other evidence available, and if the evidenceis not strong enough either to substantiate or to discredit the conclusion, tokeWan open mind and press for more research.

Another of the unavoidable risks that attends the publication of researchfindings is that readers with preconceived attitudes and various axes to grindwill misinterpret these findings to suit their own ends. To prevent distortionof research findings, to frustrate those who quote out of context or evenmisquote the findings, a researcher would be forced to withhold publication ofthe facts entirely. In this case, the cure would be worse than the disease.At present, while we do not have enough facts, it is still important todisseminate what facts there are and so reduce our ignorance.

Waiting for Definitive Results Before Doing Anything

This is a strategy that appeals to some because it sounds very. logical.The - argument seems to be that if you don't do anything, you can't do anyharm. Since we do not yet have a full and complete understanding of thedynamics of effective teaching, we are expected to ignore the imperfectknowledge that we do possess and do nothing that requires such knowledge.

Now fortunate it is for the human race that at least some of our ancestorsdid not subscribe to this position. If Columbus had waited until he had, acomplete and accurate map of the world before setting sail, his little fleetwould still be sitting in Genoa.

Very few decisions worth making can be put off until there is adequateinformation to base them on: In medicine - -and poker, most actions must betaken, most decisions made, on insufficient data. Patients die, and moneyis lost, because action is taken when data are inadequate- -but more patientsand more money would he lost if no action were taken at' all.

1,

So too, educators must make decisions everyday, regardless of theavailability of hard evidence on which to base them. With this need in mind,we have proceeded.

We believe that after reading this report and studying the findingspresented, the reader will agree that no serious student of teaching canafford to be ignorant of the,findings produced by research in teacher effec-tiveness.

)

416

PROCEDURE

The basic bibliography of this study consisted of 289 studies* whichpurported to shed light on the question, "How does the behavior of effectiveteachers differ from that of ineffective teachers?" These studies were thesurvivors of a weeding-out process from an original list of 732 items. Mostof the 445 rejected items were rejected because they reported no originalresearch; some were reviews of research; others theoretical, philosophical,or opinionated discussions (from the armchair) of what a good teacher oughtto do.

The remaining 289 items were examined for empirically obtained relation-

ships between how a teacher behaves and how much the pupils learn from him orher, commonly called prooeos-iroduot relationships, Pour criteria were usedin deciding whether or not a reported relationship should be included in thisreview. Only those which met all four criteria were included. Briefly, thecriteria were:

1.' The study from whith.a relationship came had to bedesigned so that the relationship was generalizableto some population of teachers larger than the samplestudied.

2. The relationship had to be both reliable enough to bestatistically significant and-large enough to be prac-tically significant..,

3. The measure of teacher effectiveness had to be based onlong-term pupil gains in achievement areas recognizedas important goals of education.

4. The process measure had to specify the behaviorsexhibited in such a way that they could be reproduced

as desired.

By the time we had applied these criteria to the thousands,of reportedrelationships between teacher behaviors and pupil learning reported in theliterature,-the number of relationships which survived was 613; and these 613correlations all came from just 14 of the 289 studies. Since our standardsturned out to be so severe in their effect, it seems appropriateto discussthem further.

Rationale of the Study

'Al) four criteria proceed logically from a point of view adopted in thisstudy which is at variance with that underlying most of the research reviewed.This viewpoint may be described briefly as follows:

The ultimate base of teacher education curriculum must be a thoroughunderstanding of the dynamics of effective teaching--e 4hat e tcaeer rust

*See Appendix B, Bibliography.

7

know, and be, and do, in order to provide the greatest possible assistance topupils in their efforts to achieve the goals of education. Such understandingdepends on the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between teacherbehavior and pupil learning. Only when we know why a teacher is effective--aswell as how--can we decide how best to train teachers.

The recognized purpose of research in teacher effectiveness is to developsuch an understanding by discovering the cause-and-effeCt relationships fromwhich this understanding may be derived.--Teacher education cannot become a

fully rational and knowledge-based enterprise until such an understanding hasbeen developed to a degree far beyond what exists at present.

What is the proper course of action for the teacher educator to followwhile waititij For the researcher to develop this knowledge bit by bit? Shouldthere be a moratorium on teacher education until the research catches up?

Obviously not; the schools of this country need teachers, and this needmust be met by programs designed to give the prospective teacher all the helppossible. These programs are based on the judgment and intuition or cumulativewisdom of lifelong students of teaching. There is little doubt that they do alot to improve. teaching. There is less doubt that.they could do a lot more ifthe research base were adequate.

Are there interim findings of the research that can help teacher educatorsdo a better job--or must we wait until the researcher is satisfied that thefindings are definitive before touching them?. This project was undertakenunder the assumption that interim results can be useful. The nature of theresearch is such that it generates information that is currently useful toteacher educators as is, no matter where the researchers are in their contin-uing search for cause-and-effect relationships between teacher behavior andpupil gain. Because the researchers collect their data by observing realteachers in real classrooms and measuring-what real pupils learn, what theyobserve can be useful today.

_..

Suppose, then, that we forget about the cause-and-effect inferences theresearchers worry about and examine their findings for information aboutcompetent teacher performance. Suppose we examjne them to see what they tellus about how the day-to-day practice of competent teachers differs from theday-to-day practice of less competent teachers. Does it not seem reasonableto expect that a novice teacher can benefit from learning the best currentpractices of competent teachers? What techniques and strategies are morelikely to work for the novice on-the job than those techniques and strategiesthat work best for other teachers? This is the point of view we have used in_this survey of the literature--that process-product research can tell us quitea lo about how competent and less competent teachers differ in their classroombeha ior, even though we may not know exactly why.

.

f

A strong relationship between a behavjor variable and a measure ofteacher effectiveness need not be regarded As evidence-that the observedbehavior caused the measured effect. Iittdad:,.we shall use the measure ofeffectiveness as an indicator of teacher,COMpeience, inferring that teacherswho are effective are more competent on .the average than teachers who areineffective. The distinction between competent and effective implied inthis statement is important and yet easy to forget. Competence has to do .

with how a teacher teaches and is measured in terms of the teacher's behavior;

6 18

how effective a teacher is is measured in terms of pupil learning. in other.words, an effective teacher is always competent, but a competent teacher maynot always be effective, for a multitude of reasons.

We shall view the behavior of the teacher as an effect rather than acause, assuming that the competent teacher behaves in a certain way bemuse heor she is competent. A strong relationship between teacher effectiveness anda particular behavior will be interpreted as indicating that such a behaviorcharacterizes competent teachers, and therefore may deserve to be called a

"FnPet encli*

7,4, Let us now examine, one by one, the criteria used in selecting relation-snips to be reported here.

Criterion I. A Relationship That Is Generalizable

The most important criterion we have used in deciding whether a relation-ship should be reported or not has to do with the design of the study from whichit comes. In.brief, the study should be designed so that the results maylegitimately be generalized to teachers other than those in the sample studied.

Many of the studies that we examined were "methods experiments" in which 3

one or more teachers taught the same material to two or more groups of pupilsby two or more different methods, and the effects on pupils were examined tosee whether the methods used affected the outcome. Such experiments are almostinvariably analyzed in such a way that the findings generalize to other pupils,ftaught by the same teachers, but not to other teachers. If the,results ofsuch experiments are to be generalized to other teachers, it must'be assumedthat there is no interaction between methods and teachers- -that the methodeffect is the same for all- teachers. This assumption is almost always false;unless it is shown to be,true, the findings of the experiment tell us nothingabout teacher effectiverteks.

Most of the "process-product" studies--studies in which samples ofteachers were observed and their behaviors were correlated with<measures ofmean gains in their classrooms--met this criterion automaticallyrl, One methodsexperiment, Project CRAFT (see Appendix A), Was found which was disigned'toyield results generalizable to other teachers; it is the only one which metall criteria for inclusion in this report.

Criterion-II. A Strong and Reliable Relationship

Before the development of a given competency (behavior) is adopted as aprogram objective,' there should be strong evidence that the effectiveness ofa. teacher who-acquires that competency will increase. Direct eviidence of thisis obtainable only by adopting the-competency as a program objective on anexperimental basis and evaluating the consequences'. Meanwhile, ,the Magniof the relationship between the competency and pupil learninOseSti ed ina process-product study provides the best evidence available aboutHgfiichcompetencies should be so tested. The stronger the relationship, the strongerthe evidence the competency will be useful to the teacher. Now strong shouldsuch a relationship be?

1 9

We have somewhat arbitrarily chosen a relationship equivalent to a linearcorrelation of .39 as the minimum that will be reported. A correlation of thismagnitude indicates an overlap of 15% in the variances of the two measuresinvolved. It is of the same order of magnitude as, for example, the correlationusually found between aptitude scores and college grades. Despite recentcriticism of abuses of such scores, admissions offices have found them useful.A correlation of .39 between any test and a criterion is regarded as acceptableevidence of validity in general practice.. We have therefore reported no corre-lations below .39 in Tables 3-43.

In addition, we have reported no relationship, whatever its magnitude,unless it is statistically significant at the 5% level. This means, of course,that the risk that'a relationship due to chance (one which would not be expectedto recur in a different saaple of teachers from the same population) would bereported in our tables is not greater than 5%.

When the same behavior (or similar ones) correlates in the same way withthe same kind of effectiveness measure in two or more studies, the risk thatboth are chance results becomes much smaller; such a relationship becomes asnear a sure thing as we are ever likely to get. The identification of suchinstances is an important goal of this investigation.

In the,studies which'involved larger samples of teachers, there werecorrelations that were statistically significant, but smaller than .39; inthe studies which used smaller samples of teachers, there were correlationsgreater than .39 which were not statistically significant. None of thesewasTeported.

;So stringent a criterion may seem likely to result in our overlookingmany relationships that really exist. The danger maybe smaller than it.appears at first. Among the thousands of correlations run in all of thesestudies, most relationships of-any,size have had several chances to show up.Lowering our criterion would admit many more unreliable and contradictoryfindings, and very few important ones that would' otherwise have been missed.

When.two inconsistent relationships are reported in this study - -that is,when a pair of relationships that should agree (because both involve similarbehaviors and similar outcomes) do not agree, the contradiction is almostcertain to be a real one. Since such pairs will usually come from differentstudies done in different teacher populations, they may contain importantinformation about theeffects of context on these relationships. On theother hand, since the different studies often Use different instruments,they may only reflect differences between definitions of similar behaviorson different instruments. (It seems improbable thatsuch.semantic differencescould account for contradictory findings of this strength, however.)

Criterion III. A Defensible Measure of Teacher Effectiveness

The product measure in a relationship- -the measure of pupil learninggains--is regarded in this investigation as a means for identifying thecompetent teacher whose classroom practices are what we are trying to discover.To be defensible for this purpose, the measure should relate to pupil progresstoward outcomes that society generally regards as important the kinds ofoutcomes, you might say, that teachers are hired to accomplish.

8 44

.6

There have been a number of studies of teacher effectiveness in whichboth teacher behaviors and pupil learnings have been measured during theteaching of a special unit (usually developed by the researcher) over a brieftime--a week, a day, even an.hour. This is an excellent strategy for studyingcause-and-effect relationships between teacher behavior and pupils' immediatelearning; but since such a product measure has no demonstrated relationshipto teacher effectiveness in achieving long-term goals of education, such studiesare irrelevant to our purpose. The ability to raise pupils' scores,on a unittest in a short period of time cannot be accepted as a measure of competentteaching, without evidence that the two are highly correlated.

Virtually all of the reportable results we found employed measures ofgains in reading or in arithmetic as the basis for assessing teacher effective-ness. ?Some of these studies also used measures of attitudps toward schoolor of changes in pupils' perceptions of the self to assessieacheriffectfienessin these respects. Relationships with such gains were reported in addition torelationships with cognitive gains from the same study. One or two studiesalso reported relationships with gains in creativity, work-study skills, orother variables. These results were judged too scattered to be worth reportinghere:

1 .

Criterion IV. An Interpretable Measure of/Teacher Behavior

To be useful for our purpose, a process measure must be defined so thatthe behavior' involved is specified clearly enough to be reproducible whenneeded. To know that effective teachers explain clearly is of no use to theteacher educator unless one can tell just what a teacher does when explainingclearly. Without this knowledge, how can one train a novice to behave in thisway? In effect, this criterion has limited us mainly to what are called "low-inference" observation instruments, although,some use has been made of teachersplf-report data and even of what some authorities would classify as "high-inference" measures when the behavior in question was clearly described.

921

If

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

As we have pointed out, the primary objective of this report was toprovide direct access to the findings of research on teacher effectiveness toteacher educators who lack the time, inclination, or technical competence itwould take to dig them out personally. Tables 3-43 were designed to accomplishthis. Anyone who reads the next few pages of this report can learn from themhow to read these tables at a glance. Thus, whatever relevant, important andreliable findings the research contains are at one's disposal.

Immediately following these notes on interpreting the tables is a

section in which we have tried to summarize some of the most consistentfindings and provide our own interpretation of them. In doing so, we havemade no conscious use of any source of ihformation other than the data reported

t. in the tables themselves. This has been done so that the reader who wishes to',use these findings in conjunction with information from other sources may be,sure that the information from the two sources is, in fact, independent. Too

. "often, conclusions reported in different places are in reality based on thesame evidence and present a spurious consistency in appearance, thus gainingcredibility in-much the same way as an oft-repeated rum* does: If the con-clusions we draw are consistent with our readers' own experience, then theymay be regarded as mutually supportive. If they are inconsistent, readersshould go to the facts to verify our interpretation--or their own.

Notes on Interpreting the Tables

Table 1 illustrates the format in which the 613 relationships are dis-played in Tables-3-43. (These tables are grouped together following thetext)

The table title at the head of the page is meant to identify a commonelement in the process measures listed at the left under the heading "BehaviorItem." These are identified where possible by the actual item or categoryname used in the study; or when the name was not descriptive, a brief descrip-tive phrase is employed.

At the right of the list of behaviors is a column indicating the gradelevel or levels of the classes in which the behaviors were observed. At theextreme right, under the heading "Source Symbol," are codes identifying thestudies from which the relationships reported for each behavior item came;when available, the number assigned to thA item in the actual instrument'isalso included. This will enable the reader to refer to the original studyand identify specific items. .

.The studies are listed,by code in Appendix A, with details about sample,instrumentation, and the like.

Each letter in the body--L, M, or H--identifies a strong relationship; ,)and the location of the letter identifies the two variables related: to_the____left-is the behavior or process variable; above it the teacher effectivenessor product measure.

Thus the first L.on the upper left tells us that a strong negativerelationship was found between 'Pupil-initiated vs. teacher-initiated

2210

Table 1 - PUPIL INITIATIONS

BEHAVIOR ITEM

111ft

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

low highL

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

comolexitY

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

ccmplexity

low high

AFFECTIVt

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Pupil-initiated vs. teacher-initiatedinterchanges

Pupil-initiated interaction vs.response to teacher

Pupil initiates substantiveinterchange

Pupilsspeak freely

Pupil task-related commentsto adultt

Pupil questions, requests,commands--non-academic

All non-responsive pupil

utterances to adults

I

I-II

II

II

III

III

III

L1

L1

L1

I1

L

L

L

Hi

1L

L

L

Hz-

L1

H1

H1

L1

.

HI H!

H H

WGC OSCAR

S73 RCS1

WC OSCAR

WGC OScAR

SK 388a

SK 477c,346a

SK 343a

WGC OScAR

WGC OScAR

GG

WGC OSCAR

.

Pupil initiates substantive interchange

Pupil "volunteers information vs.pupil asks for information

,

Total pupil-initiated contacts

Pupil-initiated vs. teacher-initiatedsubstantive interchange.....

III-VIII ,---

III-VIII.

IV

IX-XII

H1

H1

2 4

interchanges" and gains on an arithmetic test made up of items of highcomplexity, in^classes which contained pupils of low socioeconomic status..We also note that they were first grade classes, that the relationship wasreported in the Carroll County-West Georgia State study (WGC), and that theprocess instrument used was OSCAR.

The superscript (in this instance, a one) is used to indicate that therelationship is shown twice in the same row of the table; in this case, italso appears under high complexity arithmetic gains in classes with pupilsof high socioeconomic status: Reference to Appendix A will verify that inthe Carroll County (WGC) study, classes observed had pupils of mixed lowand high socioeconomic status.

In the second line, we note a negative relationship between "Pupil-initiated interaction vs. response to teacher" and gains on low-complexityreading test items, and between the same item and gains on low-complexityarithmetic test items, for pupils of low socioeconomic status in grades Iand II, reported in Soar 1973 and based, on the Reciprocal Category System,Factor 1. The superscript on the two L's indicates that the measure usedcontained items on both reading and arithmetic.

.

In reading the tables, the reader may interpret L as meaning that thefrequency of the Dehavior.in question is lob in the classes of effectiveteachers; or, in the case of bipolar measures (like the fftst two items inTable,1 which contrast two extremes), that the effective teacher will be atthe lower df the two poles*. Thus, effective teachers in the lower grades,according to these two studies, tend to initiate more, and permit their pupilsto initiate fewer, interactions than the ineffective teachers.eo.

The line across the table divides results found in grades III or lowerfrom those found in the higher grades. Because some studies combined resultsin grade III with those in higher grades, there is some overlap.

Note that the items below 'the line, which are similar to those abovethe line, tend to show strong positive relationships--li's. In the upper grades,the frequency of pupil initiations seems to be high in classes of effectiveteachers--a reversal from the lower grades.

This particular table does not show any curvilinear relationships--doesnot contain any ,m's. An't4 should be interpreted as meaning that the frequencyof the behavior. in question is intermediate in the effective teacher's class,and may be either low or high in the ineffective teacher's class.

Readers are now free to turn to the tables and make their own interpre-tation. For those who are interested, we now present some interpretations ofour own. Please-bear in mind that interpretations should not he confused withthe facts upon which they are based.

The Structure of Teacher Competence

Nheh-independent relationships between a single behavior and two distinctkinds of teacher effectiveness are reported in a study, wehave what will be

calleda pair of relationships. Such pairs contain information about thestructure of competent teaching which we now propose to examine. If the two

1225

relationships in a pair match--if, for instance, both are L's (as was the casein Table 1 with "Pupil questions, requests, comandsnon -academicltheimplication is that teachers competent in the two different ways +and to behavealike. If they do not matchif, for example; one is reported L and the otheiE--the indication is that teachers competent in one way behave in an oppositemanner from teachers competent in the other way. By.examiningall such pairsof relationships in Tables 343, we can get some idea about the structure of'competent teacher. behavior. In other words, we can learn something about whichbehaviors are generic, in the sense that,they are equally effective for differentobjectives and with different kinds of pupils.

We first examined all pairs in which one outcome was cognitive--a measureof achievement gain--and the other affective--a measure of pupils' attitudestoward school. Do teachers who work for and achieve maximum gains on achieve-melt tests do so at the expense of pupils' attitudes toward school? ;Or arepupils' attitudes highest where achieveMent gains are also greatest?

Table 2 shows that in the data presented in Tables 3-43 there were 54pairs of relationships in which one outcome was pupil achievement gains (ofone kind or another) and the other outcome was pupils' attitudes toward school.The two relationships matched in 72% of the pairS. These figures suggest thata competent teacher of subject matter is likely to be developing positiveattitudes toward school as well.

Next we lobked at 36 pairs of relationships in which one, utcome was'ameasure of pupil gains in achievement and the other a measure of improvementin pupil attitudes toward the self. Here we found that 75%-of these pairs.matched. This suggests that teachers who produce maximum achievement gainsare also likely to improve pupils' self-concept the most. These results donot support the notion that efforts to teach children to read and do arith-metic--in and of themselves--are damaging to their self-esteem.

t

When 80 pairs of relationships to effectiveness in the two major contentareas--arithmetic and reading--were examined, we found that 73% of themmatched. -The implication we-draw from this is that (in these data at least) .

there is relatively little difference in the behaviors of teachers effectivein either of these two skill areas. (It may also he important to note thatmost of these data apply to Grade III or below,1

When 158 pairs of relationships involving low and high-Complexity out-comes were examined, 91% ofthem matched. Thissuggests that our effort todistinguish between items of high and low cumplexity was not successful.

Finally, we studied pairs of relationships in which the same outcomeand behavior were correated in both nigh and low SES'classes. The.figure of38% shown in Table 2 is based entirely on data from one study (BE); since thiswas the only study which analyzed relationships in both high and low SESclasses separately. The conclusibn we draw is that patterns of behavior of .

teachers effective with low SES pupils differ considerably, from those ofteachers effective with high SES pupils in these data, and should thereforebe examined separately.

Imsummary, the evidence is that, with early grade pupils of the saneSES level, the teacher who produces maximum achievement gains in either readingor arithmetic is quite likely to produce high gains in both subjects and at

0

2t13

Table 2

Percents of Pairs of Process-Product Relationships Between

the Same Behavior and Two Types of Outcome Measures That.Match (i.e., HH, LL, or MM)

.

Relationships 'Number of PercentPaired ,, PairS" Matching

Attitude Toward School vs.Achievement Gains (same .

SES level) 54, 72

Gains in Self-Concept vs.Achievement Gains (sameSES level)

.

36 i 75

Reading Gains vs. Arithmetic Gains(same level of complexity andsame SES level) 80'

.

73

High Complexity vs. Low ComplexityGains (same SES level) 158 91

Gains in High SES Classes vs.Gains in Low SES Classes(same subject and level ofcomplexity) 84 38

27

both levels of complexity (as defined in this paper), and in the pupils' self-concept and attitudes toward school as well. There is also evidence (from onestudy) that competent teachers of low SES pupils behave quite differently fromcompetent teachers of high SES pupils.

The Competent Teacher of Low SES Pupils in the Primary Grades

In this section, we will examine the-differences between the behavior ofteachers of low SES pupils whose classes show high mean gains on achievementtests of arithmetic, reading, or both, and the behaviors of teachers of lowSES pupils whose classes show low mean gains on these tests. 442 shall concen-trate on those relationships which are reported more than once, preferably intwo .or more different studies. Since there is evidence that some of thesebehaviors may be negatiiely related to pupil attitudes toward themselves andtoward school, we shall also discuss relationships to attitudes when available.

Teacher Use of Time. The'effective teacher of low SES pupils in Grade IIIor below differs from the ineffective teacher in devoting more class time totask-related or "academic" activities (6, S73).* A large portion of pupils'time is' described in one study as structured, while another (SK) reports moreinteractions related to lesson content, more class time, more academic activity,and less time in which a child is unoccupied.

Two studies (CRAFT, SK) reported more reading-related activities'(7) inclasses of more effective teachers; but a third study(BTES) seems to contradictthese two. There is also a suggestion that the relationship may depend on the

Ireading methods used (cf. Table 30).

The amount of arithmetic activity (9) observed in one study (SK) was foundto be higher-in classes taught by effective teachers; the frequency of teachingoperational skills was reported greater for the effective teachers in a secondstudy (BTES).

The number cif teacher questions asked and/or pupil answers made (16) wasfound in one study (SK) to be higher in effective teachers' classes on.severaldifferent items; however, a second study (BE) reported that the proportion ofopportunities a pupil had to respond per unit of time in arithmetic lessonswas lower in effective teachers' classrooms. This suggests that, even thoughthe total'amount of task-related activity is higher in the more effectiveteachers' classrooms, the distribution of such.activities between teacherquestions and other tasK-related activities may also be important.

A final confirmation, verified in two studies (SK, WGC), is provided bythe fact thit more effective teachers spend less class tine discussing mattersunrelated to lesson content (42).

To summarize: 'mainly one study (SK) provides support for the conclusionthat effective teachers of low SES pupils in the primary grades engage theirpupil:,,, -in more lesson-related activities than less effective teachers do; yet

*From here on in the text, numbers in parentheses refer to tables, and codesymbols refer to studies (identified in Appendix A).

15 28

there is enough confirmation from other studies to justify considerable confi-dence that this conclusion is correct. It should also be noted that no evidenceone way or the other was found that this particular kind of behavior was related

to pupil attitudes toward schbol.

Organizing for Instruction. Effective and ineffective teachers of low SES

pupils also differ in how ,they usually organize their classrooms: it is the lesseffective teachers who spend more time working with pupils in small groups andleis time working with the whole class or a large group of pupils (3).

The evidence that effective teachers spend more time with large groups andless with small ones comes mainly from one study (SK) but is verified in oneother study (BTES).

The_amount of time pupils spend working independently in small groups (4)is reported in two studies (S73, SOas consistently lower in classes whereachievement gains are high. The picture is very much the same with respect toseatwork (5), with closely similar findings reported in four different studies(BTES, WGC, S73, SK).

, A fifth study,(BE) reports that effective teachers assign more seatworkthan ineffective ones',-but does not indicate directly that the effectiveteachers' pupils spend more time in seatwork (which would conflict with thefindings of other studies). The sixth item in Table 5 indicates that effectiveteachers individualize assignments more than ineffective ones do. These twoitems suggest that effective and ineffective teachers differ not only in theamount of seatwork they assign but also in what the pupils do at their seats.Evidence that the two types of teachers also behave differently during seatworktime will be presented below.

There is some evidence in these tables (4, 5) that the amount of timepupils spend in small groups without a teacher (or other adult) present isrelated to their attitudes toward school. When the individual:or group is '

-described as working independently (SK 138, 142), attitudes toward school arehigh. 'Otherwise (S73 FLA6, TP4) they are low. It appears that teachers whopermit more independent work have classes who like school better, but learnless; teachers who have a lot of nonindependent small group work have classes,

who neither like school nor learn much. The teacher who permits the leastamount of individual and small group work has the greatest gains in achieve-ment And gets mixed results as far as attitudes are concerned. Independent

seatwork does not seem to help the pupils' self-image much either (SK 138, 142).

Quality of Instruction. Whit kinds of questions and what ways ofresponding to pupils distinguish the more effective teacher of low SES pupils

from the less effective teacher? We have consistent evidence (Table 18) fromfour different studies (S72, S73, WGC, SK) -that effective teachers of low SESpupils ask more questions classifiable in the lower levels of the Bloom

taxonomy than ineffective teachers do. This difference holds no matter how

teacher effectiveness is defined--whether in terms of high.or low complexityoutcomes in arithmetic or in reading. A fifth study (BE) suggests thateffective teachers of low SES students ask fewer "choice" questions--that is,questions which offer a limited choice of answers. The general conclusionthat effective teachers prefer low-level questions seems justified, despitethis one somewhat inconsistent finding,

16

29

Evidence that effective teachers also ask fewer high-level questions (19)is less extensive, but the results from three studies (S72, S73, WGC) agree.

Patterns of teacher reactions to pupil responses are complex; however,there are findings from three studies (Perham, S73, BE) which indicate thatthe effective teacher of low SES *at is less likely to be seen amplifying,discussing, or using pupil answers than the ineffective teacher (21). Thealternative to discussing a pupil answer is either to acknowledge it or to givefeedback and then go on to something else. There is some evidence (SK, BE),not entirely consistent (cf. BE S164), that this is what the effective teacheris Likely to do (20). This seems consistent with a preference for low-levelquestions, since it is high-level questions--those calling for analysis,synthesis, evaluation--which-are usually appropriate to discuss or amplify,not low-level-ones.

The number cf pupil-initiated questions and comments (14) also tends tobe lower in classes taught by effective teachers than in those taught by inef-fective ones, according to results reported in three studies (WGC, S73, SK).Moreover, effective teachers treat pupil initiations differently than inef-fective teachers do (15); they are less likely to listen and provide feedbackto pupils or to solicit questions from them than ineffectiie teachers are(WGC, BE).

- It seems clear that in low SES classeSat this'level, the competentteacher keeps interaction at a low level of complexity -and pupil' initiative.He or she does not encourage pupils to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, or indeedto do anything but answer rather narrow questions-asked by the teacher. The-teacher who encourages such pupils to express themselves freely, to think,,toquestion, to discuss, is not effective in teaching, them to read or do arithmetic.

The only evidence that any of this has a_direct impact on pupils' attitudestoward school is one item (WGC TP23) Suggesting that,pupil attitudes are low in .

classrooms in which questions tend to be narrow and followed by quick feedback--that Is, in classes taught by effective teachers (18).

Environmental Maintenance. Evidence from five studies (Bemis, S73, BYES,WGC, BE) indicates that there is less deviant or disruptive pupil behavior-(35)in classes taught by effective teachers than in classes taught by ineffectiveteachers. One study (Bemis) reports more hyperactive pupil behavior in effectiveteachers' classes and more instances in which the teacher talks over pupil noise.Since the same study reports less disruptive pupil,behavior where there is more '-hyperactive pupil behavior, it would appear that neither of the :two itemsreflects disruptive behavior but rather excitement that is probably taskxelated

Data related to teacher rebukes (34) is consistent with these findings:such behavior is less frequent in the classrooms of more effective teachers(WGC, CRAFT). Findings from'three studies (WGC, CRAFT, BE) also indicate thateffective teachers devote less time to managing their classrooms than ineffectiveones do (31).. (This dovetails with the finding already reported that effective,teachers spend more time in academic activities.)

There is also some evidence related to what may be called the quality ofteachers' efforts at classroom management (32). Effective teachers differ fromless effective ones in that they control their classrooms with less criticism

1730

(cf. Table 34), and use a more varied repertory of techniques in doing so (WGC).

An effective teacher's errors in management are more likely to take the form ofoverreactions, and less likely that of errors in timing (32, BE); and a patternin which the teacher supports appropilate pupil behavior and ignores inappro-priate behavior was observed less often in the behavior of effective teachers(WGC).

Effective teachers were found in three studies (SK, CRAFT, BE) to usemore praise or positive motivation (40), although there were some indicators(CRAFT) that this depended on the context. Effective teachers were observedin one study (SK) to make more use of token' reinforcement (39); but anotherstudy found'that it was the ineffective ones who reported most frequent useof such things as gold stars and special privileges (BE).

Permissive behavior-:-giving pupils freedom to govern their own activities(43)--was consistently found to be-more common in classes of less effectiveteachers (S73, WGC, BE).

There is evidence from one study (WGC).that pupil attitudes are morefavorable toward school in the more orderly environment maintained by theeffective teacher (31, 32, 33, 34, 35).

In summary, the effective teacher maintains an environment that issupportive and, if not always quiet, free fl'om disruptive pupil behavior.She or he maintains this environment with little apparent effort'or expressionof negative affect.

Individual Attention. It was noted at the beginning of this section thatthe effective teacher-OrTow socioeconomic status pupils in Grade III and belowsets Opils to work in small groups or as individuals (seatwork) less of thetime than the ineffective teacher does, and spends more time working with themall in one large group. The effective teachers' pupils do spend some time inseatwork or "independent" study; but their teachers behave differently duringthis time than ineffective teachers. For one thing, they spend more timechecking individual pupils' work (25); for another; they are less perfunctorywhen they do so (26). Evidence from two studies (RTES, BE) indicates that,even though their pupils may spend less time in seatwork, effective teachersspend more of their time working with individual pupils, and are more likelyto have initiated the contact themselves.

An interesting point is the indication (in Table 25) that, in the moreeffective teacher's classroom, the proportion of teacher-initiated contactswith pupils that relate to lesson content is neither higher nor lower than itis in the classes of less effective teachers, but somewhere between (BE). Theteacher who hardly ever speaks to a pupil about anything but class'work isnot the effective one; nor is-the teacher who spends too much time in nonsub-stantive conversation (cf. Table 42). The effective teacher seems to knowhow much is enough.

When the effective teacher does talk to,an individual(BE, S73) agree that she or he tends to talk longer, to payto the pupil than the less effective teacher (26).

The general picture these datateacher's pupils work independently,

pupil, two studiescloser attention

convey is clear. When the effectle::-rthe teacher activajy supervises them,,,,

,

- 18,

*eV.

1

, 4".

giving careful attention to those individual children who, in the teacher'sopinion, need it. The ineffective teacher who assigns pupils to seatworkleiVes them pretty much to themselves; anyone wha needs help must seek it.

Evidence about teacher mobility (27) would seem to be related to thisarea, but what evidence there is is not consistent. One study (SK) reportsthat the more effective teachers move about more than less effective ones,which seems consistent with what we have found. But another study '(BTES)reports that effdctive teachers (of arithmetic, at leist) spend more timeat their desks than ineffective ones. A third study-(s/GC) reports that thecompetent teacher is more aloof and detached than the less ,competent teacher.

One way of reconciling these findings would be to interpret them as

grade related--as indicating that the effective third grade teacher movesabout a lot, while the effective second grade teacher sits at the desk lookingaloof and detached. Needless to say, such a conclusion needs verificationbefore it is taken very seriously, since the different grades were observedin different sites. The conflicting evidence that effective teachers workwith individuals both `closely and often has,peen verified in different sitesand demands to be taken seriously.

The evidence regarding the effects of individual attention on pupilattitudes is mixed. The behaviors that are more common where pupils' attitudestoward school are favorable are: teacher checking pupil work (25, BTES) andteacher aloof, detached from pupil activities (27, WGC)--both observed in thesecond grade.

1-

Teacher Compeeence and Pupil SES in the Primary Grades

A question that has important implications for teacher edUtation iswhether the same patterns of behavior are effective in classes made up mainlyof pupils of low socioeconomic status and in classes of pupils made up of highsocioeconomic 'status. We do not have much information on this point becauseonly one of the studies used in this review obtained comparable data in classesof both types. There are, however, a surprising number of instances (62% of allpairs)-in which a process-product relationship reverses between the two typesof classes--that is, instances in which the ineffective teacher in one groupbehaves like the effective teacher in the other.

Such reversals cannot be verified in other studies as the relationshipsreported in the last sections could; on the other hand, any such reversal reported_in one-oflhe tablesis statistically significant beyond the .01 level, andrepresents a difference of at least .78 between the two correlations involved.We have found such reversals in two areas--one related to the conduct of class-room discussion, and the other related to teacher attention to individual pupils.

Conduct of Discussion. Effective teachers in high SES classes are mostlikely to use-one of the two following questioning patterns:' (1) to identifythe pupil who is to answer a question before asking it, or (2) to ask a questionand then call on a pupil who indicates a desire to answer the question. Effec- : .

tive teachers in low SES classes are most likely to use a third strategy--toask a question first, and then choose a respondent who probably has not indicateda,desire to answer the question (29).

19

32

r

In a high SES class taught by an effective teacher, the pupil is morelikely to answer incorrectly than a pupil in a low SES class taught by aneffective teacher (17).

Once the pupil has answered, the effective teacher in the high SES classis more likely to discuss the pupil's answer than. the effective teacher in thelow'SES class (21)--unless the answer is incorrect.

If the pupil's answer is incorrect, the effective teacher',in the high SESclass is more likely either to criticize the pupil's ansWer or,to answer thequestion personally than the effective teacher in the low,,SEStiass_.(22).

r.

If the pupil fails to answer, the effective teacher in the high SES classis isea likely to give him or her another chance to respond (by repeating orrephrasing the question or asking a new question) than the effective teacher inthe low SES class (24).

If the pupil says he or she does not know the answer, the effective teacher;.in the high SES class is more likely to call on someone elSe than the effective'teacher in the low SES class (24).

In summary, the relationships just discussed seem to indicate two distinctdiscussion strategies.

In Strategy I, the questions tend to be difficult and to require the pupilto think; and the teacher tends either to indicate who is to answer the questionbefore asking it, or to let a volunteer respond.. If the answer is incorrect,the teacher is likely to be critical of it or to give the answer. The pupilwho fails to answer or doesn't know the answer is not likely to get a secondopportunity; the teacher will give someone else a chance to answer it. Theteacher who uses this strategy successfully seems to be challenging pupils to .

respond near their highest level of capability.

Strategy I seems to be appropriate in classes made up of high,SES pupilsbut inappropriate in classes made up of low SES pupils.

In Strategy II, the questions appear to be simple ones, since they elicitresponses that are usually correct and seldom merit further discussion. Theteacher is likely to raise a question first and then to indicate who is toanswer it, possibly as a way of holding pupils' attention. The teacher seemsto choose a respondent likely to get the right answer, since wrong answers arerelatively infrequent. Criticism of a pupil's answer is rare, even when it isincorrect; and if a pupil fails to answer or does not know the answer, theteacher is more likely to help out (perhaps by rewording the question, orperhaps by asking an easier one) than to turn to another pupil. The teacher

who uses Strategy II appears to be more concerned with giying pupils a chanceto experience success than to challenge them with!ditacillt questions.

Strategy His used by effective teachersin easses made up mainly of.low SES pupils and by ineffective teachers in classes of high SES pupils.

It should be remembered that thewfindings comefrom one study (BE),ancr,.hive not been verified elsewhere_as yet.

203 3

Attention to Individual Pupils. There are a few contrasting findings inthe tables (all from BE) which suggest that how much attention a competentteacher pays to individual pupils also depends on SES. We noted in the lastsection of this report that the effective teacher of low SES pupils tends topay more and closer attention to individual pupils during seatwork and small-group activity periods than the ineffective teacher does.

There is evidence that this relationship may reverse in classes in whichmost pupils are of high SES. It is the less effective teachers in these,classeswho accept a higher proportion of pupil attempts to initiate work contacts (15),who initiate a higher proportion of private contacts related to arithmetic (25),and who are most likely to give long feedback during teacher-initiated workcontacts (26).

As far as they go, these findings indicate that the teacher who gives themost individual attention to pupils in high SES classes is the one who is leasteffective in producing cognitive gains, and that the reverse is true in low SESclasses.

Concluding Remarks. In this section we have examined the tables forevidence about whether the nature of competent teacher behavior depends on theSES of the pupilt being taught. We did so in part to illustrate a way of usingthe tables that is different from the one illustrated in the preceding section.In the earlier section, we looked for consistencies across studies; one mightsay that we exploited similarities in the relationships. Ln this section wehave exploited differences in relationships within a single study. The formerapproach leads to results that are much more impressive--harder to question- -than those obtained in this section. The kind of findings obtained in thissection are neither as obvious nor as impressive, but are not to be dismissedlightly, since each difference reported is so great.

If they are accepted as read, these findings have clear implications forteacher educators, for researchers, and for educators. For teacher educators,they strongly suggest that teacher education students may need to learn verydifferent strategies for dealing with pupils from different backgrounds, atleast in these earlier grades.

For the, researcher, they indicate a great need for further study of howoptimal teaching strategies vary with the setting in which the teacher works.Much more could have been learned about these matters from the various studiesof Follow Through (SK) and from Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (RTES) ifthe samples had been chosen to represent both SES levels, and if the two typesof students had been isolated in the analysis. And the increase in cost wouldhave been negligible.

The implications for the public schools might be the most far-reaching ofall. If there are many strategies which have opposite effects on pupils ofthese two types (or any others), is it fair to the pupils (or to the teachers)to mix them together in the same classroom? More findings like these,vouldindicate a negative answer..

21 34

Competent Teacher Behavior in the Upper Elementary Grades.

-lhere has been much less reviewable research done in grades above the .

third, and making sense of.what there is calls for more imagination or ingenUit',Following are the principal differences we find between effective and ineffectiveteachers in these grades, ignoring pupil SES.

.0 The effective teacher in upper eleme ntary grades talks more (13, £66, Sp;28, WGC).; keeps pupils on task more (36,14GC, BTES); and is less permissive(37, WGC; 43, WGC, SoK), although the pupils do initiate more interchangesthan those in classes taught by less effective teachers (14, WGC, 1G). Theeffective teacher's questions tend to be easier and of a lower cognitive level,however (17, 22, 40, GG; 19, WGC; 20, S66; 21, WQC). The picture that emergesis one in which the teacher presents most of the content, with low-level teacherquestions and pupil questions interspersed.

The effective teacher manages the upper elementary classroom with lesseffort and is more selective in use of rebukes or criticism (31, 33, WGC; 34,WGC, Sp, GG; 35, WGC, BTES). During seatwork, upper elementary pupils ineffective teachers' classrooms are more likely to approach the teacher, andthe teacher is less likely to approach the pupils (25, GG); and teacher:: attend _

upils less closely (26, WGC), which suggests more pupil autonomy. There isalso some indication that more effective teachers favor less traditionalmaterials (11, WGC, BTES).

Inspection of relationships to affective gains_indtcate_that:pUpils!self-concepts improve in the classesjihere-cognitive level-is Tot(18) andwhere management is unobtrusive (33, 34,-35), and that attitudestoWard schoolare also high where the latter competence is displayed.

In sumary, the picture we derive of the effeCtive teacher in these gradesis rather traditional and, let's face it, unexciting. jlete implications-are-not nearly as well supported as those drawn about teachers oflow SES pupilsin grade three and below. "cost: of them are based on results from more thanone study, however, unlike the conclusions we drew above about differencesbetween low and high SES classes. Those should be viewed as tentative at best.

Concluding Remarks

- The reader should bear in mind that these attempts to interpret some of thefindings in Tables 3-43 are to be regarded as of secondary importance. Thefacts shown in the tables are the primary product of this study, and we wouldprefer that the value of-the study be judged according to their usefulnessrather than on the merits of our interpretations of them. If we have succeededin providing easier access to some of the strongest findings of the research inteacher education, we have done what we set out to do.

If there is one conclusion that we would like the reader to share withus, it is the conclusion that fairly leaps from these pages: where sufficienteffort and resources have been applied to the study of teacher effectiveness,useful and dependable findings have emerged. This approach to the study ofteacher-effectiveness does work, and we need more of it.

22 5

: -

l. -,

TABLES 3 to 43, Inclusive*

*Instructions for interpreting tables are presented on

23 36

r

Table 3 - GROUP SIZE

..

BEHAVIOR ITEM

-

.

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS,, ..

READING

GAINS.

cool exi ty

10m high

ARITHMETIC,

GINS

complexity

ia . kith

AFFECTIVE

GINS

school self

READI

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

'GAINS

cemplexity

No high

AFFECTIVE

GAIIG

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

e

-1r-:

H H

H H

'

L

Ll

Adult with large group of pupils-general

Adult with large group of pupils -arithmetic

Adult with large group of pupils.; .

reading

Teacher, aide, or any adult withsmall group of pupils t

Small group with teacher (arithmetic), .

Small group.with any adult arithmetic)

Adult (other than teacher) working with(small) group 7-'

Small group with eacher, aide, or anyadult (reading)

-----\

I

``III`

III

III

III

III

III

II

III

A

H` H

H

,

L

.

Ll

SK89 et al.

SK 123,135

SK 146,158

SK 106,88,94

SK 122

SK 134 .

BTES AP

SK 157,145,149

,,

--H---7H

H H

H H

L

L L

38

Table 4 - SMALL GROUP WITHOUT ADULT

BEHAVIOR ITEM0

INNIMPL

GRADE

SLOW ''SES ' PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexitr

lot high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low 1110

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

Igo high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

'1

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL\1

tAIIIMME111

Pupils work without teacher - -

seatwork, parallel or instructionalgroup

Pupils work without teacher--seatwork, parallel or instructionalgroup

Hours of instructional learningwithout teacher vs. hours ofstructured learning with teacher

Small group working independently(arithmetic)

.

Twp pupils w rking independently(arithmetic)

Two pupils orking independently(reading)

I

.

II

K,II

III

III

' III

L1 L2

L1 L2

Ll L2

L

L1 L2

it L2

L1 L2

L L

L

L

,

S73 FLA6

S73 FLA6

S73 CDR3

SK 138

SK 137

SK 160

_,-

3940

ti

Table 5 - SEATWORK

-

BEHAVIOR ITEM

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH 'SE:........

ARITHMETIC

..- GAINS

complexity

low high

PUPILS

SOURCE

SYMBOLGRADE

READING

GAINS

complexity

for high

ARIINMETI,

:,GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school stlf

READING

GAINSGA

:omplexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

,

school self

Activity: seatwork

Pupil self-directed and task oriented

.

.

All pupils work on same task at sametime, are responsible for same assign-ments, no individualized assignments

All pupils working independently(arithmetic)

Teacher assigns large amountof seatwork

Teacher individualizes assignments

II

II.

II

III

II-III

II

L1

H

L1

L1 L2

L1

.

.

.

H1

L

_

,

L1

L1 L2

'

H1

, .

j BITS R15

WGC FLACCS

S73 TP4

SK 142

GE 18

WGC TP17

,-,

.

if ,

Table 6 - ACADEMIC TIME

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS,

READING

GAINS

complexity

lcel high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cceplexity

low highi

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Structured vs. unstructured time

Total academic verbal interactions

Structured learning with.,teacher

Total academic verbal interactions

Percent of observations in which anacademic activity is occurring

Total class duration

Unoccupied child

,

I-II

I

II

III

III

III

III

.

H1

H

L1

H

H2

H2

H1

H

L1

H

H

H

L

.

H2

H

H2

H

H

H

L

S73 CDR6

SK 435a

S73 CDR3

SK 566c

SK 242

SK 17

) SK 77

.

44

Table 7 - TIME SPENT ON READING

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE'

, LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

SOURCE

SYMBOL

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING'

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

Reading activities (self report), ,

.

Reading, alphabet, language devel-opment activities

Number of pupils involved in reading

Reading, alphabet, language devel-opment activities

Number of pupils involved in reading

Time teacher spends preparing andteaching reading (self report)

Total reading time (self report)(Phonovisual method)

.

I

I

I

III

III

II

II

H

H

Ll

H

H

H

L2

L

H

H , H

L1 L2

,

,

..

.

CRAFTlog

SK 67

SK 163

SK 67

SK 163

BTES WD1

CRAFTlog

Time teaching decoding skillsin reading (self report) V Ll Ll BTES WD2

) 46

Table 8 TIME SPENT IN READING-RELATED ACTIVITIEST 11

P

BEHAVIOR ITEM

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS''

GRADE

READING

GAINS

complexity

for high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity-

Ilw high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

Complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Supportive rate (self report)

Supportive activities (self report)(Language experience method)

Listening to stories (sel report)(Phonovisual method)

Listening to stories (self report)(Language experience method)

Listening to poetry (self report)(Basal reader method)

Percent of time in spelling

Percent of time in language arts

I

II

I

II

II

II-III

II-III

L

L

H

H

L

H

.

.

L .

..

M M M

.

CRAFT log

CRAFT log

CRAFT log.

CRAFT log

CRAFT log

BE 5(T4)

PE 2(T4)

,

47 48

Table 9 - TIME SPENT, ON ARITHMETIC

0

BEHAVIOR ITEM -

LOW SES PUPILS

A.m..HIGH SES PUPILS

SOURCE

-SYMBOL

4

GRADE

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GOMIS

'

school self

, READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

toe high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

111111116

.

.

H H

H H

H1 H2

.

,

,

H1 H2

,

,

.

SK 66

SK 140

ETES WD

,

.

.

.

,

N*bers, mathematics, arithmeticactivities ,

Numberpf -pupils involved inarithmetic

Frequency.. of teaching operation

skills in arithmetic (self report)

.

.

.

_,

.

/MEM&

III

III

II

Table 10 - TIME SPENT IN OTHER SUBJECTS

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

la high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

szhool self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cimplexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

.

Art work with reading (self report)! ,

Total science time (self report)

otal social studies time .(self report)

Pe ent of time in social studies

Perce t of time in art

Group ti.

Story, music, dancing activities

. .

II

II

II

II-III

II-III

III

III

H

L

H

H

L

M

.

L

.

.

M

.

CRAFT log

,CRAFT log

CRAFT log

BE 7 (T4)

BE 4 (T4)

SK 62

SK 63

5?

,t

Table 11 - READING MATERIALS'

BEHAVIOR ITEM

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

GRADE

READING

GAINS

coolisity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAMS

ampluity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cemplexfty

la_ high

\

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

ichool self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

II

II

II

II

_

H1

^L1

H2

Ll

L1

-

,

BTES WO

,BTES R11

WGC TP4

BTES WD

Use of basal reader other than-stateadopted (self report)

Use of books, etc. (secondary)

Wide range of informative

materials available

Use of games (self report)

*

H2

H1

L1

H2

L1

L1

H2

-,

Wide range of informativematerials available

Use of:workbook other thanbasic (`self- report)

--,_

Use of board, etc. (secondary)

14.

III-VIII

V

V

L1

L1

1

.

.

,:,. 2

.,

.

L1

L1

H1 H2

.

WGC TP4

BTES WD

BTES R12

.

,

53

C

Table 12 - ARITHMETIC TEACHING MATERIALS

BEHAVIOR ITEM.

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS ,.

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

' GAINS

complexity

low high

,

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE,,

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

.' SYMBOL

Use of programmed materials (self report)...teacher-made materials (self report)

individualized materials (self report)

Games

Games, toys, play equipmedt present

Audio-visual equipment present

Audio-visual equipment used

\

1

0

.

II

II

II

II

III

III

III

_

Hl H2

H1 H2

H1

L1

L L

L L

L

,

,

.

i

H1 4i,2

H1 H4

H1

L1

,

BTES WDBTES WDBTES WD

BTES R19

SK 25

SK 37

SK 38

.

.

,/

,5.,

.

\5 56

Table 13 - STEADY-STATE TEACHER TALK

,

.

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW SES -PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

ccopiixity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

,

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL ,

SteadyLstate teacher talk vs.pupil talk

I

Teacher tells story, pupilsattentive, interested . II

Steady-state teacher talk vs.pupil talk II

Teacher lectures, pupils'Isored II

Li

Li L2

H1

H1 H2

Ll

,

H1

L1L2.

H1 H2

/

S73 RCS5

WGC CS1

S73 RCS5

WGC CS2

Extended teacher talk and inquiryvs. drill III-VI

Business-like lecture method,insistence on attention to tasksand conformity IV,VI

flIMMW

//

,

H

H H

H H S66 F3

Sp F6

3.

1.

05

Table 14 - PUPIL INITIATIONS

----',, BEHAVIOR ITEM

MN&

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS -

A

GRADE

mIme'

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

Ll

L1

ARITHMETIC '

GAINS

complexity

low highm--tL1

Ll

L1

L

L L

L L

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

.e______F

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

L1

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

L1

L1

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

I

SOURCE

SYMBOL

WGC OSCAR

-

S73 RCS1

WGC OSCAR

WGC OSCAR

SK 388a

SK 477c,346a

SK 343a

Pupil-initiated vs. teacher-initiatedinterchanges

=- pupil-initiated interaction vs.esponse to teacher

Oupil initiates substantiveinterchange

Pupils speak freely

Pupil task-related cementsto adults

Pupil questions, requests,

commands--non-academic

All non-responsive pupilutterances to adults

I

I-II

II

II

III

III

III

Pupil initiates substantiveinterchange

-..

Pupil volunteers information vs.pupil asks for information

Total pupil-initiated contacts

Pupil-initiated vs. teacher-initiatedsubstantive interchange

III-VIII

III-VIII

IV

IX-XII

H1

H1

H1 H2.

Hl

N1

H1 H2

H H .

WGC OSCAR

WGC OSCAR

GG

WGC OSCAR

Table 15 - TEACHER ENCOURAGES PUPIL PARTICIPATION

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH , SES PUPILS,

SOURCE

SYMBOL

BEHAVIOR ITEM d

INEMPIII.I.

GRADE

m.

kEADING

GAINS

complexity

for high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexitY

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

l'w high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

lay high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

Teacher listens to pupils andprovides feedback

Teacher pauses, asks for questions,and answers them before proceeding

Short feedback on pupil question

Teacher. gives long feedback onpupil question

Teacher praises pupil opinionquestion -'

II

II

II-111

II-III

_

II-III.

L1

L1

L

L

L2

H

H

L

.

L1

L1

L

L

L2

H

.

.

.

WGC FL27

WGC FLA

BE L83

BE L84

BE Q126

.

.

hi

Table 16 - NUMBER OF TEACHER QUESTIONS

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW. SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

0M high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

. AFFECTIVE

..' GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

lgw high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

,SOURCE

SYMBOL

Pupil\responses, academic

'Ratio of total opportunities pupilhas to respond to total time(arithmetic)

Group response to question,command, etc.

Pupil responses, academic

,Pupil responses, total

Direct academic questions, requests,commands

I

II-III

IIIIII

III

III

H

L

H

H H

H H

H H

H

H H

H H

SK 360a,491c

BE T169

SK 363a

SK 360a,491c

SK 358a

SK 353a,451e,582c

Imme

63

(1

Table 17 * PUPIL RESPONSE TO TEACHER QUESTIONS

1,

BEHAVIOR ITEM

..

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS.

complexity

1 high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cooplexitY

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

cowolesity

loo high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cosplexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

-SYMBOL

Percent correct

Percent incorrect

Percent no response

Percent don't know

II-III

II-III

II-III

II-III

H

L L

P

N

L L

L

H

N N

M

N

L

M

. BE C7

BE C9

BE Cli

BE C10 .

Number wrong

No response .

Percent correct

wow

IV

-IV

IV ,

L L.

L L

H H

GG

GG

GG

...

Q.,

Table 18 - LOW COGNITIVE LEVEL QUESTIONS

SES PUPILS HIGH SES

ARITHMETIC

GAINS 17'.

complexity

low high

PUPILS4..........

AFFECTIVE

:' GAD6

school self

SOURCE1-43

SYMBOL

AMMO!

'

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW

)READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

,ARITISIZTIC

GAINS

complexitY

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

f

school stir

READING

GAINS

.

complexity

low high

Convergent teaching - -teacher central,

low -level questions, quick response,feedback

Narrow questions, drill, pupilresponse

Questions calling for translation,interpretation

Questions calling for interpretation

Narrow questions, immediatefeedback

Direct academic questions,requests, commands

Percent of substantive questionsthat offer limited choice ofanswers (yes-no, etc.)

I-II

I

K-I

K-I

II

1

iIII

II-III

H1 H2

H1

Hl

H1

H1 H2

H1 H2

H1

H1

H1

H H

L

L3

f

M1 H2

.

:,-,...

,

H

L3

S73 TP1

S73 RCS3

S72 TCB3

S72 TCB1

WGC TP23

SK 451a,582c,353a

BE 86. :

.

,Recitation (low-level questions,quick feedback, narrow focus)

,

V ml M2

.

N1.

.

.

,

M2''; S73a Eli

.

,

68

Table 19 - HIGH COGNITIVE LEVEL QUESTIONS

BEHAviOR ITEM

, LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS,

GRADE

READING

GAINS _

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Broad answers vs. narrow ones

Open questions and pupil self-evaluation and free inquiry vs.closed, text-oriented questions,teacher evaluation

Concept attainment:bydiscovery method

K-I

I-II

II

L1

L1

L1

L1

L1

Ll

.

S72 TCB2

S73 TP7

WGC CS8

Teacher avoids causing pupildoubt or uncertainty III -VIII

.

Hl H2 H1 H2 WGC TP6

1.1MMEMII

Table 20 - TEACHER REACTION TO PUPIL RESPONSE--GENERAL

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

Tom high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school 4 sel f

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

la high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Total fledback (academic)

Positive corrective feedback(academic)

ANks new question

Repeats question

Acknowledgement, task-related,non-academic

No feedback (when answer is correct)

Rephrases question or gives clue

I

I

II-III

II-III

III

II-III

II-III

L

H

H

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

H

H

H

L

M

H

M

L

H

H

L

L

H

SK 412a,

543c

SK 406a

BE J69

BE S163

SK 397a

BE D14

BE S164

Criticism

Non-evaluative

III-IV

. V L1 L2 L1 L2

L L S66 Fl

BTES AP

71 72

Table 21 - TEACHER REACTION TO PUPIL RESPONSE--AMPLIFICATION, EXTENSION

BEHAVIOR ITEM

ilik

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS'

_4

GRADE

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

tow high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low highA

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

compleAity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school selfi

SOURCE

SYMBOL

-,.

Teacher uses pupil ideas, probes

Teacher responds to pupil & amplifies

Teacher discusses pupil answer (total)

Teacher discusses correct answer

Teacher discusses wrong answer

Teacher helps pupil correctmisperception

K -I

II

II-III

II-III

II-III

II

L1

M

L

L

L1

L1

L

H1

H

.

H

H

L1

.

Hl

1 Perham

S73 RCS2

BE J68

BE D15

BE F31

WGC TP8

Teacher helps pupil correctmisperception

....,

III -VIII Ll Ll WGC TP8

,

73

/11

IIk

able-2 i TEACHER REACTION TO WRONG ANSWER

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

SOURCE

SYMBOLBEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

READING

GAINS

cooplexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING'

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

coplexitY

tow high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

M M

L

L L

L L

M M

L M

L L

M

H

H H

H H

L H

BE F35,36,38

BE F30

BE F32

BE F29,J66B

Repeats, rephrases, or asks newquestion II-III

No feedback II-III

Gives the answer II-III

Criticizes II-III

Negates (neutral rejection) IV L L GG

76

Table 23 - TEACHER REACTION WHEN PUPIL RESPONSE IS PART CORRECT

BEHAVIOR ITEM

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

SOURCE

SYMBOL_

-GRADE

READING

GAINS

coeplexity

few high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

law high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

Cooplexity

lew high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

School self

Gives the answer

Calls on someone else

Asks a new question

Rephrases or gives clue (morning)

Repeat, rephrase, or ask newquestion

II-III

II-III

II-III

II-III

II-III

H

M

L

H

H

H

H

H

H H

M

L

Ai

L

vr--

L

M

L

L BE E21 ,

BE E22

BE £27

BE E26

BE E24

/fable 24 - TEACHER REACTION WHEN PUPIL FAILS TO ANSWER QUESTION OR SAYS "DON'T KNOWN

.

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

OM

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

kw high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Repeats, rephrases, or asks newquestion II-III

Rephrases (or gives clue) II-III

Repeats question II-III

Another pupil,calls out theanswer II-III

Calls on another pupil (no answer) II-III

Calls on another pupil (don't know) II-III

Gives the answer II-III

Criticizes II-III

H M

H

H

H

M

L L

__-----

H H

L

M

M H

M M

_-----

L H L L

L H

L L

L

H H H H

H

HHHHH--- H---

_________

BE 163,G44

BE 164

BE S163

J7BE4G43,

---

BE J73

BE G42

_BE-G44-----

BE G39

7980

.

5'

Table 25 - TEACHER WORKS WITH INDIVIDUAL PUPIL

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE ,

LOW SES PUPILS I

READING

GAINS

complexity

ow high

ARITHMETIC AFFECTIVE f

GAINS GAINS

complexity

low high school self

Teacher checking pupil work II

Teacher-initiated dyadic contactsper unit of teaching time (readinggroups)

Proportion of teacher-initiated

contacts that relate to class work

Percent of time pupil works alonewith teacher (arithmetic) II

Proportion of arithmetic contactsthat are teacher-initiated, private

Proportion of pupil-initiatedwork contacts accepted

Ratio of teacher-initiated contactsto pupil-initiated contacts IV

Pupil-initiated work contact with teacherfeedback IV

H1

H

H1

L

H2

HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL,

H1

L M

L

L

H1

2 BTES AP

BE 0170

BE P146

BTES AP

BE T167

LE N105

GG

GG

/11108.2

Table 26 - CLOSE ATTENTION TO PUPILS

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH .SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

ccmvlexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Proportion of teacher-initiated workcontacts that involve "mere"observation

Long feedback on pupil-initiatedwork contacts

Proportion of teacher-initiated workcontacts that involve long feedback

Teacher attends pupil closely intask setting

II-III

II-III

II-III

I

H

H1

L

H

1:2

L

H1

M

L2

L

n

L

L

L

L

M

BE P148

BE 16B

BE P150

S73

FLAB

Teacher attends pupil closely III-VIII L1 L1 WGC FLA

8384

41

es-

Table 27 - TEACHER MOBILITY

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Adult movement ,

Teacher stays at desk (self report)

Teacher at desk - -working oravailable

Teacher aloof, detached frompupil activities

III

II-III

II

II

H

H1

H

H2

H H

H1

H3

L

H1

L

H2

H1

H3

SK 444a

BE Q3

BTES AP

WGC TP16

Positive pupil affect and freeteacher movement

II

V

,

L1 L1 S73a F5

8(

Table 28 - MISCELLANEOUS TEACHING TECHNIQUES

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS\

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

MEM

READING 1

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high lschool

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

.

self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Giving and receiving information K-I

Giving and receiving information II

Naming (pictures, objects, etc.) II

Teacher uses non-verbalcommunication skills II

Visual demonstration II

Games II

Teacher always gives instructionsfor follow-up seatwork (self report) II-III

L1

H1

H1

L2

L1

H1

L

L1

H1

L2

1.1

Ll

L2

J

Y___

H1

,

H1

,

H

L1

L2

S72 TCB

S73 TCB

S73 TCB

WGC FLA

BTES R20

BTES R19

BE 85

Clear explanations (teacher explanationnot followed by pupil question) III-VIII

L1

H1 H2 H3

L1

H1 H2 H3 WGC OScAR

WGC FLA

Teacher uses non-verbalcommunication skills III-VIII

I

87 88

Table 29 - MISCELLANEOUS TEACHING TECHNIQUES 1

BEHAVIOR ITEM

11111h

.

GRADE

LOW SES.

PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

READING

GAINS

complexity

lam high

ARITHMETIC.

GAINS

complexity

Igoe high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

sthool self

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cowAlexity

few high

If

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Variety of instructional contexts(i.e., groupings)

Class grouped by skill needs

Class grouped by reading level

Teacher selects respondent beforeasking question

,

Teacher calls on volunteer,.,.

Teacher uses non-patterned turns

Structuring comments at beginningand end of lesson

Structured learning with teacher

eiwm.

II

II

II

II-III

II-III

II-III

K-I

II

Ll

L

L

L2

H1

M

H

H

L3

L

H1

L

I

L4

L1

L

H

I

Ll

H

H

L2

H1

M

. L

L3

H

H1

L4

L1

M

w....,

.,

BTES WD4--.

BTES WD

BTES WD

BE Al

BE A3

BE 27

Perham

S73CDR1

.

n0

Table 30 - METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE TEACHING OF READING

.f

,

BEHAVIOR ITEM

MOM

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS

SOURCE

SYMBOL

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school Stlf

READIIG

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

Using basal readers (self report)(basal reader methOd)

Behavior resembles that of teacherusing language experience approach(language experience.method)

Behavior resembles that of teacherusing language experience approachwith audio-visual enrichment (languageexperience method with audio-visualenrichment)

Behavior resembles that of teacherusing skills-centered approach (languageexperience method with audio-visualenrichment)

Behavior implementing languageexperience approach (phono-visualmethod)

(Continued)

I

I

I

I

II

H

H

H

L

,

4

CRAFTlog

CRAFT

OSCAR

CRAFTOSCAR

CRAFTOSCAR

CRAFTOSCAR

91 9-`2

Table 30- Continued

BEHAVIOR ITEM

.

MMEMOMPW"

GRADE

.

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES 'PUPILS ,

READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

cREADING

GAINS

comPlexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

.

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

/

Behavior resembles that of teacherusing language experience approach(basal reader method)

.

.

Behavior resembles that of teacher usinglanguage experience approach with audio-visual enrichment (language experiencemethod with audio-visual enrichment)

Behavior resembles that of teacherusing skill-centered approach (basalreadermethod)

Minutes/day in phonics activities(self report)

Usinj expeilence chart

II

II

II

II

II

L

1

H

I

.

I

\-ClUMI'-------0ScAR

CRAFTOSCAR

CitAFT

OSCAR

CRAFTlog

CRAFTlog .

.

Table 31 TIME SPENT ON MANAGEMENT

BEHAVIOR ITEM

IMINDIrik

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH' SES PUPILS.,

AMAM

READING

GAINS

complexity

for high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cooplexitY

Alow high

(AFFECTIVE

GRINS

school self

REA0a, -

GAINS ,

complexity

loo high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

Ism high

_AFFECTI'VE

GAINS

school self,

'SOURCE

SYMBOL

Managing behaviors

Controllikbehaior

Time-spent in transitions

Number of times when pupilsline up

I

I

II-III

II-III

L1

,

L2

'

,

M

L1

M

L

L2 WGCOSCAR

CRAFTOSCAR

BE8(14)

BE Q87

Teacher provides feedbackto pupil on his/her behavior III -VIII

)

i

L1 L2 L3 L4.

L1 L2 L3 L4 WGC FLA

9 6 .

/ Table 32 - MANAGEMENT SKILL I-III-

sisir

BEHAVIOR' ITEM-. , --,--

, f '....:

GRADE

LOW :SES . PUPILS HIGH_ SES POILS

READING

_GAINS

complexity,

for too

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

ley kw,

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

. ,READING

GAINS

complexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

cemplex4y

1101 MO

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

selloff self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

Control without; criticism,:-

Teacher"maintains self-control

Teacher uses variety of controltechniques, non-verbal., ,

Proportion of management errors thatare overreactioni: .'y

..

. ,, ..:',1Teachet,iuppoits appropriate; ,fgnoreiinappropriate, coping behavior' .

,,

Proportion. of management errors thatare errors. in timing

, .

,

.

',...

.

I

II

.

II-UI,'

_ _ f.

II

II-III

1

D

H1

HI

H2

L1 L2

2 H3

L3

.

,

. HI

HI

L1

o

L2

H2

....

,.

,

.

H3

,

WGC OScAR

WGC FLA

4/GC _FLA

,

BE, R161

.

WGC CS1O

.

BE R160

4.

-

4,:..._._...

.

_ ..

8

Table 33 - MANAGEMENT SKILL. III-VIII

.

'LOW SES- PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS4 ;.

,

SOURCEREADING ARITHMETIC AFFECTIVE READING ARITHMETIC AFFECTIVE

BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE GAINS .v

GAINS GAINS GAINS GAINS GAINS , SYMBOL- .-,complexity complexity complexity complexity

.

,1 ,, low 'high': 'isw) 'high school self low high low high school self 4

.

. -4 ,.

Control without criticism 'III -VIII HIT, :1..:' 112. .:.::::,-' 1 H2 H3 '*WGC OScAR,,

Teacher maintains self-control III -VIII H1 H2 .' H3. H4 H5.H2 H4 H

5WGC FLA

. .

....

Teacher supports appropriate,inappropriate, coping,behavior- III -VIII H1 (., Hl ' WGC CS10

_

Teacher uses variety of Control, _

techniques, verbal and non-verbal III -VIII L1 L2 'L3 L1 L2 L1

WGC FLA

Supportive classroom management III -VIII L1 _L2 L2 L3 Ll L L3 WGC FLA

.

t

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

I '...'

,.

.

-

.

r

100

'table 34- REBUKING BEHAVIOR

LOW, 4.,,c.4;

-, .... P'....,

:)...:_SES PUPILS

. .

HIGH .SES .,PUPILS,,,.. ,,

. ; .,..-

BEHAVIOR OEM ;,,..:GRADE..",. .-

HEADING

'GAINS

--

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

comolloltY1

Igo ' kilik

. AFFECTIVE

GAINS

_______./-

school self

READING'

r.-.GAINS

complexity

Tow Milk

ARITHMETIC

'GAINS

eistplexity

low Allill

-----.4AFFECTIVE

GAINS

Wool self

.SOURCE

SYMBOL

.-,r, 7.---. . '7.,... - ,

. ..s .tr:

km . high

e,.______-.'-- .,

tititi ', .-; Ie,,.....,

'Teither,rebtikee', desisti with ..:'-'inappropriate puptlAithavliir,.` ';', I

Negative motivation (laguage; si..-:,.-''. ,

experience method with aUcliooji-skar.1' .,

enriOmient) . -_, .,.- -:--:. ?';,.--,,...-......,,,;_,i-_,.."-., , . ,.5:'."--,:..#-

\;. ),:- .. ;,-%-',.;;'Negative mOtivatton (Pheno-Visual '--:method)

. , .,:,..., It-

.-.

Negative motivation lucent languageexperience method with audio-visual \.

enriehieitti--------...,- II

, .:-,.....i.,.1.

r-'/ ,.1.1

L

(r.- -

L

t ,

L2

.

.

.

, _ J.1;,.- ."

..4:-.,.--e.1

,,

*

L2L

WGC OSCAR.

WGC CS5 , ,'

7- .,CRAFT '-'--

- .OSCAR_-

.

CRAFTOSCAR

. _

.

CRAFTOScAR

-4

. --.. .

Teacher .hostility Iii-VIII0

Teacher rebukes, desittS with'inappropriate, pupil -behavflor III -VIII

. .

Teacher criticisms, rebukes, desists III -VIII

-Dominative teaching style with controlthrough shame, ridicule, and threat IV,VI

.Teacher warns pupil \ IV

------- L1

. L1

t

H1 -H2__

L2 L3

L3,

L2 L3

-.._--

_ .-

L1

L1

= L

L2 -13

13.

L2 L3 f-/

.L

WGC OSCAR

,

WGC CS5 ,_

WGC OSCAR----,/

Sn..._F-

GG . _

a

102

Table 35 - DISRUPT! E4UPILIEHAVIOR\v

.; r

.

,

BEHAVIOR ITEM

.,

.

.. LOW SES ,PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS\.,e,

-,, ,,,4

GRADE

'CARING

GAINS

cespleitity

low kith

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

la 'high

AFFECTIVE.

GAINS

,

school self

RENDING

. GAINS

complexity

for RIO

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

amenity

la high

AFFECTIVE--_

CANS ---

school self

,S RCEr -,,,...6'' ..

P ,-

'Teacher talks over pupil-noise

Hyperactive pupil behavior

. e

DisrUptive,pupil behavior .

Pupil negative affect

\Negatkfe pupll'behavior'

Inappropriativpupil talk

-Reduced deviant behivior

Freq. discipline problems attiiibuted to-lack-of interest (self report)

I

I

I

I-II

II

It

II

II-III

H

H

L

L1 I

Ll

Ll

L1-

L

Ll H2

i

.11

,"

t' c

'..-/

It,--

),',2!. .

-

142

,

Bemix\11 .

Bemis P2

Bemis P1

S73 FLAT

BTES AP

.

BTES AP V:

WGC FLA "Il''

BE 1/

Reduced deviant behavior

)Inapproprietejpupfl talk'

.

'

.

III -VIII

i V

H1 H2 4 H - 0 -14---

.

iogju

RTES_ A,P)'%/ -.

.

103ist

Table 36 - PUPIL INVOLVEMENT

.a i.kt. -v.:A

'BEHAVIOR ITEM

i

GRADE\

-t

I

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SES PUPILS .

READING

GAINS

eeeplisItylea AleA

ARIMPIETIC

1GAINSo

uselexItylow Altok

-AFFECTIVE

GAINS ,

school self

- READING

GAINS

cowelexity

low MIA

MIMETIC

GAINS

egelexttyUr Mee

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school'

self

. SOURCE

SYMBOL

l'

Pupil not responding to adult

Absence,of.Withdrawn behavior

Pupil calls out answer toteacher question

I .

III

II

, II-III L

H H

L1 7-

H

,SK 544c.

'WGC FLA

BE A4

Pupil on task, actively involved

Pupils on task, involved-

Absence-of-withdrawn behavior

Pupil joins in class or groupactivity

Pupil attentive to subjectof lesson

.

.

.

III,VIII

III=VIII.

III -VIII

. V

V

H1

H1

L1)

H2

)

H1

40! _

L2

H1

.H1

-H1

L1

.

H2

H1

LZ

a

,..1

,

a

WGC-FLA

WGC TP3,-.)10

-,

WGC FLA

RTES AP'_,-

RTES AP

.....

.

.

l n6

Table 37 - PUPILS SPEAK FREELY

.

LOW SES PUPILS tHI SES PUPILS.

,

: BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE'

WADING

'GAINS

pelexity

ler high

ARITHMETIC,

GAINS

teroluity'

low high'

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

ichool self

READING

'GAINS

t000lexity

low high

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

isolexity

jai high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SO9RCE

SY4BOL

Ll L2

L

L

_ _

:

H1

H

L

-

.

LI

H1

WGC FLA

WGC OSCAR

WGC TP7,15

*SK 234

SK 476c

Pupili pe ipRr-to vik freely II

Pupilp, s a 4TrellP:41,_.-----7

._.-1 II_

, ..,

Teacher outages pupilsto speaker ty ...------- \ II

'., ________-----

_Uicial--tiite;action among pupils VIII__

Verbal interaction among pupili -IIIt

Teacher listens while pupils interact III - VIII"

Teacher encouragei -pupils-

H1

.

L1

,-

..,

r.AO.

WGC OSCAR

\....,___,

WGC TP7 '15

.

WGC1

MAR

. _

..,.

H2 .L3

.

-to-speak -freely irr4iii ,

-.

PUpils speak freely IX,XII

.

.

%--

107108

.Table 38-- POSITIVE AFFECtvs

hr

LOW SES- i.., . .

. ...

2 BEHAVIOR ITEM'

.: . --

.

-

GRADE

PUPILS'

SOURCE

SYMBOL

WADING -

,GAIl

cooplexity.

low MO

, ARITHMETIC

GINS. :

".coNP1SNItY

lo; 440

AFFECTIVE

Gad

school self

,, READING

GAINS

.c000lexity

I'd Rio

ARITHMETIC

° GAI*Ni

cooOlexity

I... igh

AFFECTIVE

GAINS"

'1,6631 jiff

.

S73 FLA9

'573' COR2.

BE 0154.

WGC oscAk

.'HGC FLACCS

WGC FACCS

.

.TeaCher 'positive Affect (enthusiastic,--friendly; etc.)-

.

',Pupils happy, positive attitudeand climate..-- . : - - -

,,Percent of management requests,-

-,followed by thanks,- ...

.0411 pride, cooperation vs. apathy,'fear, ete..%,,. ........

i' y

Pupils enjoy class

Teacher develops ",we feeling

6 ..

i-.4.!'-

II

! -II-III,

II -,4 '

IiII

l.,

Hl ,.K2

..,,,

H11.12.141

.0

-

Hl . H2

-,

. ".-2,

'-

fl , '

.

.

.

,

1

Ll

,-L1-?;-,.,

,

a \l'Li--7.*.

'

Teacher develops "we feeling -

Pupili enjoy class .

'

.

..,

. _.

. _. .

.

.

Ili -VIII -

-*IX7X11-_

.

.

Hl

-` --;1'1

.

4. t

a

w.

.

*S.

I`

,.,,

\.

- 1

'fZf

a;rill!,,

.

.

er -

- H2

H2

WGC FLACCS

WGC.FLACCS

.

., 't

.1)

A

ri

Table 39 - REINFORCEMENT

BEHAVIOR ITEM__-----, GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH 't's SES PUPILS

-

... . .

READING

GINS

cemplexitr

1" MO

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low MO

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

"kW self

READING

GAINS

complexity

lcot ill*

'ARITHMETIC

GAINS

ammlexity,

lox high

AFFECTIVE

GAINS

school self

SOURCE..

SYMBOL

'----

With token-- task - related, non-;.,___

acadeidc- achiever

\With token--all

-"Smiles", gold stars, etc.

(self report)

Special privileges (self report)

..

.

.

.

.

. .

.

,.

,.

,

ti

_4 ,--

-,

,

I

II -III

.

-

c L

L

.

.

...-----

...,

.

14

.

.

.

...

.

,...

_z

.

,

.

.

.}-_

SK 401a.

SK 469a

Y --BE Q46

BE Q47

.

112.:

4

1

Table 40 - PRAISE

S

BEHAVIOR ITEM

r

GRADE

LOW SES PUPILS HIGH Pin t=,sr ,

READING ARITHMETIC - AFFECTIVE READING

GAINS GAINS GAINS GAINS

ieeplexiti cemplexitY camPlexity

lew high low high school self low )dye,

ARITHMETIC

GAINS

complexity

low high

SOURCE,-AFFECT

GA 66: 1 SYMBOL

school self -

All adult praise

Positive motivation twithAanguageexperience method)

Poiltive motivation (t -Wlanguageexperience method)

Positive motivatfortatrU.Istcentered method)

Public praise as motivation for-others (self'report)

Praise.in pupil-initiated workcontacts.

ROM Of prafsekte praise-plusL'criticism (In reading groups)

Retie Of praise to praise4lus-:criticism (general)

Priise after-pupil response IV

sH SK 398a 1.

r

CRAFTOSCAR

CiAFTOSCAR

CRAFT'OSCAR

BEQ39

BE P133

BE Q155

Q155

,xtrr.

114,

/-3.

I

Table 41,- DEPENDENT PUPIL BEHAVIOR

HIGH* Sit , PUPILS-- .

...

.'1. BEHAVIOR ITEM GRADE

_

LOW SES ',PUPILS

REARING

GAINS

triplex

high

,:.ARITIOIETI

ceepleitity

fat high

ECTIVE

school

1

liS

self

-REARING

INS

complexity1

low high

ARITHMETIC

. Wincoieolexity

lef High

.AFFECTIVE

, CoUn.school self

SOURCE

SYMBOL

, ._,.....:101.1 asks for help, teacher gives it

\

,o-I

f I

II

L

-

Hl'

.

Ll

L2

7

1:- 1-.'-1--.-

-cL.=.

,

L2

Bemis'6:,

WGC CS6

WGC CS6-

.

.

.

.

Pupils-seek and\get support from. . teacher ,...

..,--

,,...e

PupilS seek and get support fromteacher

Pupils ieek and get support fromteacher ,.., .

---,,,,,,,

, .

,,--:,---s--- r >

.

A

- _-_ . '0.

III -VIII

l' .

A.

%,.,%,4.14%,

HI

....,...,-...

..7-

0

,

-'s

-........

---

V

'''..---------.

A-7'S.1.,,,

C

.

.

]

1

H

,

;

.

.

.

.

.

.

-WGC CS6

.

.> '

.

..

ti

-----.....L.... 9,

. '1

-

0A

1164-

imr,,LOW SES PUPILS HIGH SEB-- .PUPIL'S \ A- .:..\,(, i, \.47 ,o,,z, . '-\..,,,Z

".., \7, -v.."AOIJRZREADING ARITHMETIC AFFECTIVE. ,RIAIIING - - ARITHMETIC 771,AFFECTIVE \ 4, T-7---------:

_...-...:. i !-----BEHAVIOR ITEM . GRADE GAINS CAIN CAMS CAMS- 4/1106'4. GAM SYMBOlfampleXiti eilliatity cmigo. lintlty eamolexIty .. -,1 i'4t/..----

-,--:._- '.,lee Silk lee MO' mewl self loot . RIO law A* silast self ,

Non-academiC direct questions, f L. ''''

requests, commands to individual -- - ..6:7'7----". ';--pupils III ----SK 35ia I,

1 /, ..,Teacher non-substantive talk, .,

pUpils interested II. L1 L2 WGC CS4- ." /.Pupil responses, ,non-academic ,

/III L L SK 359a /._ ....-"

., /-.

). ./

-,....

4':.- ,:".. ..

.. . .... <-I ''';- r.

..-..'

,

.

-

1

A .. 4 b.....,1/ .

.

..

Table 43 - PERMISSIVE TEACHER BEHAVIOR

..

BEHAVIOR ITEM

. .

LOW. SE- ,PUPILS HIGH'.

SES PUPILSV2:-

SOURCE

SYMBOLGRADE

, PLACING

GAINS

coolatts

hill MO,

w

MITIOVIC

GUNSGUNS

gempluitY

Ow b

.

'mainWO

Wool KU

HEADING

GAINS

tooliitity

ow boo

AITIKfteGAINS'

a4teatti

oWN m

-. AFFECTIVE

UM

wowm mai---.

Awpilchoice of activities vs. .

-teacher-structured.activities _ ,

Pet wisitye teacher behavior

PropOrtion of pupil requestsnot granted-

Pupils speak aloud withoutasking permission tt

,,_

Ptoportion of pupil-initiated work-contacts delayed

.I -II_

II

..

II-III

II

i.

II-III

L1

t

L2

H

L2

___

.

,..

Ll

H

M

.

,-

S73 TPS

WGCOSCAR

BE P142

WGC FLA

BE P136

M

L2

Permissive teacher behavior

Teacher control, structure vs.permissiveness, spontaneity

.

.

- III -VIII

. IV

a

.

.

.

;-

L1 .

L. ..

1

,..

,

WGC0ScAR

Sok

119 10

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PROCESS-PRODUCT RESEARCH

The results reported in this study are both encouraging and dittouraging.It-is-encouraging to find that the use of the process-product model has yieldedsonny consistent indicators of how effective teachers behave; clearly thiskind of-research can increase, and has increased, the knowledge base forteacher educe on. But it is discouraging to note how small the contribution,

s ow the increase has been. Are there any steps that can be. taken toincrease the productivity of research based on this model without abandoningit?"o

. f %Under the assumption that the goal of research in'teacher effectivenessis to strengthen the knowledge base for teacher-educationy-A-here-4m-at----1casttwo. steps that should be taken. One involves a change'in prioretiet) =in theiity-in ohith-peodtts variables are chosen for study; the other involiies a

. Change in strategy--a modification in the model itself. And the implementationof thete two steps implies closer collaboration between.the te4her.educatorand_the researcher than we have seen'in the past. The-knowledge and resources

,, that each possesses must be brought together in a unified effort.

\.New Priorities for Research in Teacher Effectiveness. ,,r':.

One -consequene of the lack of such-collabofttionin the past 4n.14-seen.by comparing a list of the teacher be avior.(procest) variables studiedby the rase -chars wi e list of c tencies that define.the objectiyesof a competency teach on program.. Brand large, the researchersdo, not seem e studying the teacher behaviors that.the educators regard asimpor There is overlap, but the lists are far-fr9m congruent.

,

This has two implications, both of them bad. First, we lose the important,.

contribution the teacher educatoricoild make to, selecting for study thoseteacher,behaviors,likely to characteriie effective teachers._ And second, theresults the researcher gets would have much more direct implications forteacher education if they involved the competencies teacher education programs ,,

1 k to develbp directly., Their relevance would be obvious; and negitiVe\ ft (which, alas, are far more common than positive ones) would be aliost .

-_, as useful as positive findings.

Some.d;iVrom one study reViewed'in this Piper (WGC) were recentlyscored to yiel Ameasures of a typical set of competencies, and correlations.

, .

between the competenties and a number of measures of pupil learning wereestimated -(Lorentz,' 1977). More than 70% of the significant correlations, oundwere negative,_ indicating that the more "competent" a teachee was, the less hit%or her-pupils-learned from that teacher., .

\

A , ., ..-; 4,-. z

: tv.

Ffndings from this study have not yet been verified; if they should be,We would:be forced to conclude that as teacher, educators we are lot merelyignorant* but misinformed about whit makes an effective teacher. Perhaps themost disturbing aspect of the present state of .affairs is that at. present vie ,

do not know which we are.,

If there is any danger that similar results Wbuld be obtained in othersites, then the need for more of this kind of research is indeed urgent4. The.

-

4

,implication that most of what we train teachers to do may tend tolearoasetheir iffeCtlienessis certainly alarming. But even if these findihgs aredisregarded, the fact.that we do not really know whether what we teach pre -service teachers makes them more effective is intolerable.

The way out of this situation is for future process-pr 4hict researchto use as process variables the same competencies that the teacher educatipnprogrami-are trying to help teachers acquire; Researchers and.teacher educators

ld get together to investigate the validity of the latter's program goals.V44

Yk.

If the information thus developed were used as the basis for Oiogragrevision, and if the researcher continued to-study the-fivised objectives inthe same way, the result would amount to a large - scale, continuous experimentin teacher educatioWil h an experimentor betteryet, a nmparTeirthaiilinked to several cher ucation programs- -would have at least two. Importanteffects. FirStsi -Id directly improve the effectiveness of -the- programstudied. And second, it wouleadd as much to our understanding of the dynamicsof effective teaching-or more--than any amount of the one - shot,,, process- product-reiearch--thiit4s the present norm. This shift in priorities would make itPossible for the research to be based on routine assessments of teacher conk'petence at various lever of developmenttIassessments that or, ought tobe, aniptegral part of.any CBTE program.

.

Levels of Asieiikent in Teacher Education

Figure 1 shcws four points or levels at each of which teacher 'effectiveness"has been'or may be assessed. The horizontal arrows Joining the boxes represent.lines of influence Thus, the training mooperionoos provided in a teachereducation program are intended to change the performanae,00mpitonoies oftteacherin ways that will result in changes in the isaiming szperkenoes pupilshave, which will in turn change th, pupil outcomes (hopefully, for thi better).

There" are, of course, many Other important factors which 'affect pupil'outcomes (such as pupil and community characteristics) pat are not under theteacher's influence or control. Because' the present focus is on the effectof teacher education on teacher competence, and for the,sake of simplicity,:these factors areinot shown in the diagram.

In most states, teacher effectiveness is assessed for certificationpurposes,at the level-of trainincsxporivtoss. In order to be'Certified, ateacher must have completed an 'approved program." The basic innovationproposed in competency-based teacher education is to bate this decision onassessment at the next level--to certify teachers on the basis of demonstratedeqbrinands oxpetenoisa. However, the essential idea behind the pressure, orteacher accountability" is-that teachersiould be assessed at the level of- .

ppit,outoomes. -The trouble with this idea is that it is based on a fallacious'assumption. It assumes that the lines of influence shown in Figure 1 can-beread backward as lines of responsibility: It the many other factors that:Influence pupil outcomes were shown in thkdiagramv-the fallacy would beobvious. .,

. :VN,

Oddly enough, nobody seems:to have advocated the assess ent of teacher.

coOpetency on the basis of tearninroxperifineso the teacher p ides,forpupils. The use that the teacher makes of pupils' time seems amore defensible

Program Validationsloop.

Training.

ExperiencesPerformanceCompetencies

NOWlearningExperiences

'.Pupil-Outcomes

it%4.4

; 44%mmingo..01.0.00.

"'Program Evaluation Loop' ..

FIGURES l. LEVELS OF.ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER, COMPETENCE,: 2'IN -TWO EDUCATION . ,

e

INS:110re is adapted frOm p.'12 in Donald:M. Medley,,lobart.S. Soar, andAuth Soar,Asseisment and.RetearchrinJeacher Education: Focus on PBTE,-for the AACTE Committeeon er ormance- as eac er- Ducat on. as ngtons Mcan Association of

.4

Collegesjor Teacher Education, June.1975):

ocis Of aocountabiliti than the outcomes' obtained--if for no other._ reason than.that the, teacher-has much more control over it.

'program evaluation (see Figure 1), teacher educatOrs examine the rela=tioltships between the training eaparim, sues teachers have and the pformanceGorOgtaiaiss

betweenin"the classroom., he extent that the.training

,401,Perle!1"cet produce the competencies defined is objectivetof the training''prOgramt: the. program,, is evaluated as effective. -

Ah'Ordero-evaluate, or validate, program.objectivesi teacher educators',. _

examine theretatiOnshiOs between' the pSrl'ormanoi oompotanaCmaa teacher'exhibits'ardthe *An) mpg outomies in-his or herglass. 'If those teachers:diSplayinua particular- competency produce greater pupil gainsAhah those not-displaying it, that-competency is regarded as a valid objective. It should be:noted thit,if our suggestion about research priorities were implemented, program'

validation and conventional proCessLproduct'research'WOuld become two names forthe:Same activity.

14'

Future Strategy for Process-Product Research

-FigOr alsos-reminds us that it is theilas*which- termine pupil outcomes. Thus, toAn the imne'clastroomr have different learning

differ from pupil to' pupil.

A

learning experiences each-pupilthe extenkthat different pupils,,experiences, the learning outcomes

It seems important, then, to study the ,relationships between the learning.exPerienees a pupil has (pupil behavior while under the of a teacher) andpupil outcomes (what the pupil' learns). These relationships have, of course,been the object of considerable-study in the past, called-research tin classroomlearning.

It'sgems equally important to study the relationships between teachers'performancecompetencio (teachers' behavior while teaching) and their pupils;,learning,experiencis (pupils' behavior while under the teachers' care). Suchresearch could weiLbe called research in-teacher competence.

,It is perhaps time to consider whether the process-product model as we

know it may not have outlived its usefulness, if for no other reason than thatit ignores two critical variables almost completely: the intent of the teacher,and thi,behavior,,of the, individual pupil..

As the model is implehekted, the process variablethe classroom behavior v:p

meashrementis obtained without regard to the purpose or- intent of the teacher.The,amount of praise used by a, teacher (for instance) is typically assessed by

'-:observing the teacher on a number of occasions chosen to approximate a randomsample of the teacher's' behaVior during- the year. No_attempt is, made toascertain''Oeli or for what purposes a' teacher usescpraiscor avoidt it.

t. r-

It;seems obvious to anyone who has taught,,,mstudied the,behavior ofteachers,'that when or for what purposes teachers' use praise is- at least as

'important as how such, in distinguishing effective' from ineffective teachers;just as when and' for what purposes physicians administer cortisone is at leastas important totheir success as how often they administer' it..

i9 125

:1*,

k

In the conventional application of_the_proCesS-product model., it is alsoe,precticeto relate teacher behavior to the'mean gain, of the pupili in a

-class.--, It, seems obvious that, even when alloWances are Made for preexisting-Pupil diffeAnces, different pupils in the same classroom learn differentamounts. Use the clatS-mewas-a-productHmeasure-ignores-these-diffefe=h.Ces.

It Is one of the truTiMioridUtationcthat learning results from theactivity of the learner - -a truism that receives-considerable lip service butis.uSually disregarded in practice: The process-product model in effect

-;;Assumns-that,learning results from the activity of the teacher. Granted that..the,verrpreartse of teacher education is that teacher behavior, ffects learning.But.tbis:effect is indirect. Teacher behavior can affect learning only through

,, its effects. on,learner behavior: The teacher teachei, but the-pupil learns.

--...:711mnehow, in future research in teacher effectiveness, we mutt -find anduse a model in Which the teacher's intent or purpose and the behavior of thendividual'Oupil both play a part.

,_

,-,

4 -Perhaps .the an$Wer will involve the description or assessment 0# teacher

purpOse:imeaning the,learning experiences teachers intend-their pupils to haVe;and instead, of correlating ,teacher behaviOrs.with outcomes, we will correlateteidher-behaviors with pupil behaviors. Thecompetent teacher would be theteacher who can behave in such a way that pupils have the learning experiences 4..11the teacher intends thin to have--prescribes for them, if you will. --

\

There is a secohecomponent in teacher competence, of course: the pre- .

scribed learning experiences must be those that maxitize,pupil learning outcomes:the' competent teacher-must, then, be able to diagnose, pupil needs --to, recognizewhat each pupil needs to do in order to learn;

1

...__

,

. TeaCher competence thus involves A knowledge componentknowledge ofrelationships between pupil behaviors andlearning outcomes;, and a performance.component= -the ability to act, to behave, in wayshat will help pupils exhibit

these behaviors,, haVe these learning experiences.,.

Research in teacher effectiveness might split, then, into two phases: the

study of teacher behavior in relatiarto pupil behavior, and the study of pupil.-behavior in relation to pupil learning Outcomes.

It would seem much more productiye if the Principal focus of futureresearch were on correlations between teacher behaviors and 001 behaviors,that_is, between Competencies and learning experiences, rather, than on corre-lations between teacher' behaviors and outcomes. The former correlations should,be' much easier to detect.

, .. , - -

At the same'time, the secondary focui should be on correlations betweenpupil behaviors and pupil outcomes. Oui understanding of the dynathics ofeffective teaching should increase much more rapidly if this strategy were

to be adopted. And there is no reason why data collected for these purposescannot also be analyzed to yield process-product correlations-the correlations.

: behimen teacher competencies and pupil learning outcomes that are, and mustremin;the primary basis for program,validation: ,

.

In-this way,'the close collaboration between the researcher and theteacher educator We have advocated above can produce maximum improvement inthe effectiveness of teacher education programs while (instead of after)4evelOping the solid research base-that seems so far out of reach today.

,..

,

70

12'6

REFERENCES,.

3rpphy,:Jere E. and Evertson, Carolyn. Learning Fran Teaching: ADevelopmental Perspective. Boston: Allyn &14=14.19/5-.

... .

,P0k1-i,201.1). and Biddle; B.J. The Study of New York: Holt; ,

Rinehirt'and Winston, 1974. ,,,

."../,

-Lorentz, .Jeffrey L. "The Development of Measures of Teacher Effectivenesstab Multiple Measures -of Student rowth." Paper presented at themeeting, of the American Educational Research Association, iew York,April 7, 1077; . e

Rosemmhine, Barak. "Classroom Instruction." Chapter X. The Psychologp,of Teaching Methods. Seventy-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society,for the. Study bf Education. Chicago:, NSSE, 1976, pp. 336-71.

ik,Teachinglehavtors_andfltudent Achievement. Windsor, Berkshire.,

National Foundation for Eduptional Research in England andWales, 1971.

-- and Furst, Norma. "Reteirch. on Teacher Performance Criteria."-,,77---i;11.0. Smith, ed. 'Research-in,Teather Education: A Symposium.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentige WI; 971, pp. 37=72. '. .

and Furst, Norma. "The Use of, Direct Observation to Study Teaching."Travers, ed. Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:

Rand=McNally, 1973, pp. 122-83. pc.

e

-s

1,

A

APPENDICES c

4 tft.....

72

1.28_

,

1

1.

-APPENDIX A

DETAILS-ON STUDIES USED

SYMBOL STUDY

t.

BE . and Evertson, Carolyn M. Process-ProductCorrelations in the Terme Teacher_ AffSotiospossi Stmly:FinaZ Repo *= Austin:, =Univertity of 'Texas at Austin,

. June 1974:-

ACCESS MEASURES

-et

Brophy-Good Dyadiy..Observation System

-TCC41E MEASURES

,..

-.Reading High Mitropoliiin Achieveimed TestWord KnOwledge .7-Reading

fi.ow Metropolitan Achievement -Test

Word_ Discrimination r- :

Spelling 'Arithmetic -High 'Metropolitan 'Achievement Test

Arithmetic Re,asOning -

Low Metropolitan-Achievement TestArithmetic computation

T-1 Grade Level II-III28 classrooms of High and Low SES

STUDY

Bemis . Bemis, Katherine A. and Luft, Sax.-- "Relationships. BetweenTiiither'Behavior, Pupil Behaviotand PupiT Achieyement."Anita Sinn and E. G. Boyer, eds.. Mirrors for Behavior: AnAnthology of Observation -Instruments Continued. 1970 Supiire-*Sent, -01: ;Phi 1 a de1 ph 1 Research- for -Better Schools,1970.

:-PROCESS MEASURES ,

Southwestern Cooperative Educational LaboratoryInteractioneObservation Schedule-(SCIOSY.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Reading Low Lee-ClarkReading Readiness Test

Letter SymbolsWord SymbolsTotal

4.,

SAMPLE4t

C

rJ

Grade Level' I,

15 classrooms of Low SES

_

G

74

130

S

t

STUDY\ - ,

i

'McDonald, Frederick4. and Elias "Patricia. ills Iffisois ierah/Ming Psrprmance 00 Fuel Ze;,rnily. Beginning TeacherEvoluation Study:. Phase II,-1973-74.' Final Report; Vol..I: Princeton, N.J.:- Educatiobal UstingiService, 1976.

ROCESS MEASURES

Anetdotal Process for Promoting thelearning Experience (APPLE)Reading and Mathematics Observation` System (RAMOS)Work Diary (WD)

OUTCOME 'MEASURES

Reading High California Achievement' Test*,Readingtomprehension, Level 2, -

Reading Application F=

. imading-Achie4ementLow Decoding*, ! -

Pictures--Soundtorrespondence.Rhymes

Word Recognition', Sight--WOrdt

Root4kords-Words frol Root WordsWord SoUnds

Artthmetic High California,Achievement,Test,Mathematits Concepts, Level 2,Form A

SAMPLE

4

,

Mathemaiics-Applicatiok 4.

Lori California Achievement Test;,.-Mithemitits CoOutation, Level 2,Form A

Attitude School - Attitude Toward Mathematics

Grade Level_II41 classrooms of High and Low SES,;

.

*Specially develoPed for the study by ETS.

z5131

. .

otirciii ivisoms,.

Reading High California Achievement Test, Reading--ComprReading onAeading Achievement

. Decoding*-' -

fWord Sounds 1First Syllable ,

Last Syllable._ Root Words

Words from Rootifords- t ,., Word- Sounds ./ \

Arithmetic High Cal ii)orni a Achievement Test,

Nat 'Melaka Computation, Level .3, \.

,

FOnm 3S 11- Mathematics,

-:

Application.

.,.

Low California Achievement Test,Mitlinatics Concepts,=Level 3,

0, Form '6; Attitude School Attitude Toward Reading

.1. Attitude Toward Mathematics-

oS

Grade Level V.54 classrooms of High and Low SES

\

*Specially developed for the study by,ETS.

'76182

\

O

-STUDY

Harris, Albert J. and Serwer, Blanche L. C son of ReadingApproaches in Piret-Groli T.aohing pith ed Chi.klren.Mho MOT Project). (Ooperative Research Project No 2677).flew -York: Division- of Teacher Education, The City University

,,p of New York;''' 1966:. ,

PROCESS"NEASURE:0

The Daily Log' Fork (Log). Obtervational Scale and Rating-Reading (OSCAR R)

4 COME MEASURES,

Reading High Stanford Primary 1 Battery Form XWord Knowledge

r s Paragraph Waning-.Vocabulary -

Word Study Skills

SAMPLE

a

Grade Level I48 classrooms of LoW SES

rz.

n.

SYMBOL STUDY, .

. ,

CRAFT Harris, Albert J.; Morrison,iColeman; Server, Blanche and Gold,Lawrence. A Continuation of the CRAFT Proje4CpwparingApproaches with Disadvantaged Negro Children in Prima* Grabs.New York: Division of Teacher Education, The-City University

, of New York, January 1968. -

PROCESS MEASURES

The Daily Log Form (Log)Observational Schedule and Rating-Reading (OSCAR R),

OUTC9ME MEASURES

SAMPLE

Reading High Metropolitan Advanced Primary,Form C,

Word Knowledge-Reading .

Low Metropolitan Primary II, Battery 1Word DiscriminationSpelling

M.

-Grade-Level II",38)classroOmlof Low 'SES

STUDY

Good, Thomas L. and Grows Douglas A. Proom-Produot Rela-tionship in Fourth. Grads Nathmatios Classrooms. Columbia:,University of Missourr,-October 1975. (Final Report to theNational Institute or'Education).-

r

.PROCESS MEASURES, ...\

. .

,t41. Brophy -.Good Dyadiciniteraction System..--

.. OUTCOME MEASURES ,..,

. ,

.Arithmetic High loWe Tests of Basic Skilli

IMatheMatics Concepts .

.Mathematics, Problem-SolvingBoth Iowa Testa. of Basic-Skills

- -Total Mathematics'

SAMPLE '-'

SYMBOL

Grade Level IV

41 classrooms of High,SES

STUDY'

ti

a

PerhaP Perham, Bernadette H. "A-Study of Multiple Relationships Among-Teacher Characteroistics, Teaching Behaviors and Criterion-Referenced Student Performance in Mathematics." Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1973.

PROCESS MEASURES,

Sign System Observation Schedule

OUTCOME MEASURES 1 1

141thmetic L

SAMPLE

11

Giade Level K-I'11 clissrooms.of High,and,Low

DMP Topic Inventories,.Level 1,Forms .1 and 2* ';

o

*Spectilly, developed for 'the study.,

0

78

-134

I \STUDY'

.

, -,;.

Soir, Robert S. ,An IntegratiieAnproach to,Clissroom Learning.Philadelphia, Pa:`; -Temple University, 1956: ii

...,

-i

sz

;.4,4)

PROCESS MEASURES

South Carolina' Observation Rating, (SCOR)Flanders`- TA (Interaction Analysis) .

OUTCOME MEASURES

Reading High Iowa Test of Batic Skills'Vocabulary ,

. ReadingArit tic High Iowa Test_d_Batic-Skill-

Arithmetic ProblemsBoth Iowa Test of,Basic.Skills

Arithmetic Total-

LowIowa Tett of Basic:Skill'sArithmetiC Concepts

Attitude School My Class-Inventory: ,

SAMPLE

Grade Level III-yi57 classrooms of High SES

J

S72.

STUDY1

Soars[Robert S. and Soar, Ruth N. "An EmpiricitAnalysis of,Selected Fellow Through Programs: An Example of a-Process

Approach to Evaluation.* I,n'Ira J. Gordon, -ed. [Early Childr4,

hood Education. Part II. ,The Seventy-First Yearbook orthe-National -eociety for the Study of Education. ChIcigo: MSSE,19' 72. . .,r,

i f z--

, -.. --PROCESS MEASURF.S

kporida Affective Categories System (LAC`)'.Teacher Practices Observation Record (TPOR)Florida Taxoncew of Cognitive Behavior (TO).

j-\"-P Reciprocal .Category System (RCS)

OUTCOME MEASURES

Reading*

C

Q

SAMPLE

-) Arithmetic*:

O

-:Metropolitan Readiness Test

,Word_Meaning-MatchingLis

y ngMetropolitan Readiness Test

Alphabet 4

Early :Childhood Inventory (Deutsch)

Alphabet .

Melrionc:lristan Readiness Test *-.

Early, Chi ldhoocV Inventory (Deutsch,;rely _

\

Childhood Inventory ;.1,..4.-t/.11)

Shape Mies

//.Gridelevel K-I..70 classrooms of tow'SES.,

1

*High and low complexity outceMes were measured on factor scores across all

tests of both' subjects. I

.2

.;

1,

rr

41111) . e ,r .. a i 0

Soar. Robert S. Fol throak;h Ciaocroom. ,Proosols,Noasuromont..,

and ;aW

wit Growth (2,970-U7i). Final Report.; Opinesyille: .,

College of EdpcationeUniversity of Florida; 1973.

MEAVRES .

Florida Climate and.Controil:Sistem .(FLAiCS1 f.-Teacher Practi ;est-Observation% RecorOTPOR)

: ReCiprocal Category System (RCS)Florida Taxonogy of Cognitive BehaVior:(TCS)

.6:10ba1 Ratings and :Classrool Description, Factors (CDR)

COME MEASURES

"-Reading*2-:F-7- Lee-Clark ,Reading ieadiness,Te;t

Matching. Letters 'end Words7t-r` .Widejtangla Achievement Test

,. li froatOcctation;

Metropolitan;ReaditieSss'

CORYth9Experilaental' Sponsor Items**

Order of AlphabetWide Range Achievement 'Test

:Naming Lette'rsRecbgnizing

Metropolitan ReedipesCrestAlphabet ,..4;

a larlY Childhood` Inventory/ .'41. Alphabet

Arithmetic* Wide, Range Achievement Test-..

Sol ving, Probl ems 'Written Computation

Metropolitan Readiness TestNumbers.

-Wide Range Achievement Test

Experimental...tounting .15 Dots _

Sponsor Items**1.1

totinf Numbers...:Write Numbers,'

Attitude., - School Days Absent ;

O

U. 7.0

wing

Grade *Level130 classrooms of Low SES-

,*111ch and low*mplexit,y outcomes were measured on factor scores across alltests- of both .subjects.

developfd, for the stutf:

81.1.37.

O.

$73 7-:

OUTCOME = MEASURES :

.Reading*' Metropolitan Reildine!s? Test

Word MeaningMatching

Experimental Sponsor Itens**...Opposites

Verbal Opposite's,

SimilaritiesAbsurditiesWord and -Phrase Readii,ig

Reading sSoundsf

_Story Reading -

Coaiprehensionttanford Achivicinent Test-4:Word Reading 1-10

Word Reading 10;20Wide Range. "Achievement-

Spelling 4

Weird Reading: Aloud

Wide'Rangi Achievement' Test13'Letteri k

Experimental, SPOnsor,Items**Dayi of Week

Arithmetic* Metropolitan Achievement TeitArithmetic'',CoMputation

Experimmtal- Sponsor ,Items**i,C. ° 1. Reading Numerals

Wide Range Achievement Test (I

SAMPLE

-Which Is More. Written, ComputatiOnT-

AMetUmbersropolitan Readiness Test

Attitude School Days Absent

4%

Gra e Level, II

A 20 classrooms of Low SEE"

A

A

c. ri

*High and low complexity outcomes were measured on factor scores acro s alltests of both subjects.

**Specially developed for the study. ,...;

STUDY

S73a Soar, Robert S. and Soar, Ruth IL Masaraarlt. Behav&I, as Cliaraotekatios and Pupit Growth' for the Sahroai Isar :it'd the

"'''''' - 841141100r. Gaineiville: College of Education, 'University oft,,,,,4 Florida, December 1973.

ESS-MEASURES

, -Florida Climate and. Control System ,(FLACCS)

Teacher -Practice,Observation Record (TPOR)Reciproial.Category Systeit (RCS)Florida Taxonomy. of Cognitive- Behavior (Cog. Tax.)Global 'Ratings (GR)

4

OUTCOME,KASURES

Reading High Iowa Tests of Basic,fcillsReading- .

Vocabulary-Iowa Tests .of Basic SkillsSpelling

Iowa 'Tests of Basic skillsArithmetic concepts

Dos Absent'm,/ I See Myself.

Low

Arithmetic' Both

Attitude School-

.,Self- Concept Self

Grade Levil V81 Classrooms of High and Low SES

r

,L

- ,

13 983,

-1

Y.

-SYMBOL 'STUDY.-, i;

J i

.SK Stallings, Jane and Kaskowitz, D. Palma-Through Claesivan .,',',i

Observation Evaluation 19724973. A Study 0..Deplementa .

Menlo Park, ,Calif.: Stanford _Research Institute,. 1974.1 .y_.

..

., i .

.

,

---z.

PROCESS MEASURES

Classroom Information Instrument (COI)

ow-Classroom Summary Information (CSI)--Phystcal'Environment Information (PEI)

-- Classroom Obiervation Procedure (COP)

--Classroom Checklist (CCL)

- -Five-Minute Observation Preamble (PRE)--Five-Minute.Observation (FMO)

'OUTCOME MEASURES

SAMPLE

2.

Reading Both Metropolitan Achievement Testi----

Form Primary ITotalReading

Low -Metropolitin Achievement Test,Form F, primary I :

Word Analysis

Arithmetic Both Metropolitan.Achievemeni Test,.Primary. I

Mathematict,

Grade LeVel I /

108 classrooms of LoveSES

9.

c

:08TCOMEMEASORtS 4)

. Reading Both ,Metropolitan Achievement "Test,

Form F, Elemental*,Iota 1:Reading

Low Metropolitan:*hi evanent, Test,' Form F,. Elementary, r."

1",inguage

Arithmetic 'Both Metropol tan Achievement Jest,`Fora r, Elementary,

Total MathelaticsHigh MetropOlitik:Achievenent Tett;

FennMathematicvConcepis .-

Mathematics.-Problem-Solvinglaw MetroPolitan,AchieveMent Test,.

Fors,F,:ElernentirkMathematics Computation

Attitude SChool Days Absent ;

Self-Concept Self Intellectual AchievementResponsibility Scale.

Grade Level III58 classrooms of Low SES

p

-

, -STUDY

'SoK SoloMon, Daniej and Kendall, Arthir 4. Individual Character -,%,Utica and Childresfe Peirforsianos in Varied EducationalSettings. Rockyllle, Md.: Psychological Servi lion,Montgomery County Public Schools, May 1978;

PROCESS MEASURES

'Classroom Observation FormClassroom Atiosphere-

Reading High '''California, Achievement Test,

'a

rReading .

Vocabulary',Comprihension'CAT..Languitge

.Usage ant-SthictureLow ,California -Achievement Test,

Reading -s-Capitalizati00.

Spell ing

Arithmetic High CaliforniarAchiev..ment--Tett,

Concepts

Low California, AChieitiment- Test;Mathematics

Computation -

Attitude- School Self...and-Class EvalUation*

Self-Concept Self Self...Esteem (adapted from.---Davidson' and Greenberg),

OUTCOME MEASURES

E

Grade Level TY50 classrooms of High*SES

*Specially developed for the study.

r.

86

,

STUDY' '''\

Spaulding, Robert L. Achievement., Creativity, GM Self- ConceptCorrelates ofTeaCher, il2144nSaotiops in Elementary SchoolClassrooms. Hempstead, .1,:: HofstrAUniversity, 1965.

, .,,

ESSMEASURES ,

,

',4

Transaction Sample :' Classroom (TSC)

MEASURES

LE

c

Reading aigh Cooperative Sequential Tests

of Educational-Progress (STEP)'-Reading.

Arithmetic High 'Cooperative Sequential Teits'of Educational ProgressISTEM_

Matheiatics-'`Self7Concept Self Self - Concept. nventory

Grade Level IV, VI ,

21 classivoms of High

0

A

A

A

CarrollCanty/WestGeorgia

College)

5r

STUDY-

Coker Homer; Lorentz, Jeffrei L. and Coker, Joan G. Interim.Report on Carron County Clifee Project*, Pali, 1078. This reportcovers procedures for major analysis of first year (1974-75)data, reliabilities and correlations. Reported to Georgia ,StateDepartinent of Education, 1976.

PROCESS "MEASURES

'Coping_Anilysis Schedule for Educational Settings -(CASES)

Spaulding Teacher Activity Rating 'Schedule (STARS)Florida Classroom Climate and Control System (FLACCS)Observation Schedule and Record Form 5-Verbal (0ScAR)Teacher. Practices Observation Re'cord (TPOR)

COME MEASURES

Reading Both Comprehensive test of BasfcSki11s,;Level :B;:Form S'Total leading' -.------

Arithmetic Both Comprehensive Test. of BasicSkills, Level B, ForM.1

Total Mathes .ticsSelf-Concept Self I Feel Me'Feel

Grade _Level I ",

Total of 60 classrooms of High and Low SES usedin the study

r

5,

*44

4.

Beadingv

High Iowa -Test 'of Basic Skills;. :Prillaryllettery, Level

Form 6 (II1S-Pj,VocabulirBeadint:ComprehenSion

Low ,lowa Testa of *tit .Skil I s,Primary .Batter 7;Form

1411011414.1 .SrielsingArithmetic High Iowa

Primary:Bat ,:LevelFoie 6- tpssep

ConcePtsLow .IOWil-Tesits,-.ofilasit

:Primal* Hattery,Ievel:7,,Form.6 (ITBrop)

rt Mathematics. Co4utationSelf-Concept Self I.. Feel ;ma -Feet

'

I

Grade Level IITotal of 60 classrooms orHigh and Low S'ES used

in the study

NTWIE '04SURaS** g

Reading High, Io4a.,Test.1 of Basic Skills,

Farms 6.arid 6, Levels Edition (ITBS)VocabularyCoinprehension

BOth -:Iowa-Tetts of !Basle Skills,_

Forms 5' and 6, ,Levels Edition (ITBS)Total LangUage

ArithMetic High. - Iowa Tests of,,Basic Skills,

Forms 5 and.6, 'Levels Edition (ITBS)Mathematics Concepts",

-Both , .,Iowa Tests.-of basic Skills,T forms laticil; Le*if1-f411tiOe-(118S) _

TOtal MathematicsIowa Tests of-Basic Skillsi,

ItEa'',

Forms 5 and 6;,:.taiiiels Edition -(ITBS)

Mathematics Computation's-

Grade LevetTotal of 60 classrooms of Hiih-ted Low-SES sed

in the Study .Q4TCOME MEASURES

Selfr.Concept Self I Feel He Feel (iniF)

Grade Level III

`"OUTCONCHEASURES

Self-Concept Self How I See tlyself (HIV),Elementary

.4

Grade Level

c

1

0

r

%a

.ort L

Tests of kadewiV4

progress,- !oral- (TAP) ,

- ReadingArithivettc Both Tests.of kademic Progress,

*, . :-: Form; (TAP). Natheaviti-cs .

tliude, -School -4unior ,Index? er Motivation ,(41/14)Sel f-COncept Self How I See:,11 4self. (141SM),

7

Sectondri

-'_,Grade, Lev IX-XII'xTotarof. classroaal of High, and Low SES used

la the

ri

,

t4

-1

APPENDIX' B

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Masi IL -F. "An Examination of the RelatitwIS ip Between Teacher Use of Higher,. Level Cognitive Questioning arid the Dowel` t of:Crittcal Thinking In-

Intermediate,Eleis:entarY Students." Unpubliatied.-PhD dissertation; FloridaState. Universil*,-1974.

, \

Adams, dit Ronald-D.,--.anAL T. Sandefur'. Factors Influencing the Perceived'Problems-of-First Year Teachers. Bowling Green: Teacher Educefion "Deja-a on . iwir"--1Wla-Wil t c University, September -1970. -i

z.

Allee,Grahem. Teaching Behaviour and Pupils' theber Developed. Hewthorn,-, Victoria:: ir.allan.Council 1.-=for Educational Research, 1973.

..,., ....

ruinAllsup,*E., L * rtein Teacher and Teaching. Factors Related to Pupil Successin Reading ,in the--Second and Third Grades." 'Unpublished PhD- dissertation,.University, of Cal i fornii; 1971.

Alpent, Judith "The Effect of ai Change in Teacher Behavior on Pupil 'Per;formance." Unpublished -PhD dissertation', Columbia University;-1973.',

Isidon, E. J., .Andli. A. Flinders. "The Effects of,Direct and IndirectTeacher Influence op Dependent=PrOne Students Learning .Geometry." Journalof Educational Psycholoay 52; no.- 6 (1961):.- 286-91.; Reprintalint7:AMER and a. B. Rough, eds...InteraCtion Analysis,: Theory, Research,an_daplication. Reading; Pass.: Addison-Wesley, '1967.

and .M. disraiatteo;',---"The,Yerbal-- Behliior Of Superior. Teachers."tary School:-"Joarnal 65 '(1965)r_.283-85..'

and J..- B. HoUgh; eds. Interaction' Anil'-w-Viication.-t Reading,- Mass.: son7.

,-t.=

Anderson, Ge;J., ',"Cliisroom Climate and Group Learning."' InternationalJournal of Educational -Sciences 211968): .175-80.

Anderson, Harry E.,. and rJahn-C. 'Stevens: "StudententCreativity, Intel 1 igiince, :Achievement, and Teacher ClastrOqm Behavior."110011:91LbsiiJUILiol :.,78 -(1959): 997107.*

Appel, GeorgePennii. "A Study-,of, the Relationships ,Of Stedent Ratings 'OfTeachers. ;Achievement Geinsan&thrDogmatism of Teachers ant.Students."Unpublished PhD dissertation; 'UnIversity- Ot eittsburgh 1973

Armen, to; Beierly-4eaime. "leacher Behaviors Related toStudentAchievement on-- a Social: Sciencikoncept Test." Paper presented at,the sleeting -of the.keerican Educational Research Association,, San FranciacO, 1976.

nivel Functioningmeeting, of the

savior, Pupilrt foyer, eds;:

and Affectivet the meeting of574

Madge inv- I, San

I bevelopment,

:haracteristics

rtetionsjini-

Ls. Universitypommy

PoSitive Self-ipubl ishe6 PhD F

11 IMMO b000. 1 -To me aro ,..5000 clic 'or...rat:mon wal

let ottd Procedurest VOIS eats_ A a; SearC amint -Center forJeachr2fducation,'iPctober1970. il!RIC.Document ,

154). :- ' -.. -, - . '!, , '1;.,-,.-11:e., --.. 4 ''' 1-4,-- ,i...4' - 'i" .1.4: i ag.:.:,.._:, -

_,

C1assrOdm Behavior.- rt Series No. 27.-,.-Univorsify of Texas4 Thomas Good. -,ToadtloChi gang go Anterm. .Boni 4., Minn g rs 1014 :

in: Research and -Bevelorment Center for Teadier Educatiph, Decetober(ERIC Document ;ED 042 688). ."' .''. ''..''- -,- -:

94/1;4_ 150

Thomes-Good. Teadher. tudsit RelationshiMolto-Rinehar

es.

. ... ,,*VS Themes. 0o0d. "The Bropk4Oed Dyadic Interaction SYstem.'t 'In. A.

mmii4nd E. Boyer, ea: Mirrors for Behavior: An Anthol of Observationis Contiou ,19 ps a searc

S. 70:

trey J. "A.Studyie the;Relationship of 'Classroom Questions and1- Studies Achievement of Second-Grade-Children," Unpublished PhD

_diSsertition.':thy.tvers: itt of Washington, - ''3....''. '.'.., ,,,, - ! s : , t. : ,

1::,i1: !The Effeit of iessen.Yerbal Structure,on Student Affective.'it

.0t

Jou : tof It.....m.....2serc.......ain S...sience 1...AL _ithin 11, nO. 4 0974): 361--. 4: '4

CaltsietiRobeit and Kathryn' fiver Calfee. iteedi 'and-Mathematics Oliservat:....Descri tien a .Anal is:Of Time !VIM-A% .w.

Is as on se9 _

na, 01,4 III.2. , Princeton,-J.t, Ethicational Testing-Servia '1697.

r . , , - -,

t ,

Cardareyli, A. F. "An Investigation. of the. Effect Achievement WhenTeachers Are Assigned and Trained in the..Use,,of .Behavioral .Objectives," 1Unpublished Ph0'dissertation, Syracuse UniVersitYi.1971. ''':,. '. , --:--- I '''..s., .

Online, J. L., "An Investigation of Vie .Relationships Between'YariOus Yetlal,; .

Strategies of Teaching Behavior and Achievement Of Elementary, School Children.*Unpublished ',PhD' dissertation, Syracuse Unlversity; 1969. ' '

... , , , ,. , , . ,..

,,, ''.'' "in-Service Training--Re-eximined." journal of Research_ and Develop-tin Education ,43,4no. 1 {Fall 1970):,,1,!3715. .;-, "*- ,ic: ,4,

fr

z 'Ca' i:tsi:::.RO'nelii.:M "L'oc_ji.'1"0eoliti4f and Teacher Expectaney as Related ,to

*,,'

.Achievement`1969. ,,, ., ' ,

,AChievement Of Young Sehoor-"ildrens."1 Unpu,klished. iEdDsdissertation,

, , I .,,,, , i. ,

jj,,i\'I -i

Challl'lleanhe end Shirley Feldman. '''.First GradeAeiding; An Analysis of them ,Interaction of,Professed Methods, Teacher Implementation, and Child .Back-,, '.

, .ground'," The, Readinglreather, 19 (May. 1,966):, 669-76. ., .,, ,,,,,. . . 'I

,

Chang' Alice F, "The Relationship of,to Academic Achievement_ and CourseLiniVersity of Southern California,

Teacher Empathy and Student PersonalityEvaluation. Unpulpished PhD dissertation,1973.

Se-S:, and J. 'P. Raths. "The- Schools' 'Contribution to the Cumulating?"- -Deficit." Journal of Educational...Research, 64 (February 1971'): 272-76.

*.etensen, C. M. "Relationships Between Pupils' ,Ac6ievement; Pupil AffeCt-.;-Teacherlarmth, and Teacher PermiisiVeness." Journal' of Educational

* 4

- 51 (1960):-

C1;4;C:14.;indi.iiucent Pero

teStudent AchievTint

KJ <";_

-, --,1-

tioni:Of Teacher _Behavior as RelatedStanford Confer for ResearchIfenford;

ti. etching, n.d.s

.111111110.101111.111.11411

15195 -'5;s

Clatii'R4hard M.Schoolswith Hi

rating of the'1975.

, .

hA,Study,of 'Teitther'BehaVior and AttitUdes in Elementarygh ind LOw PU041 Achievement." .Paper preiented'at theAmerican Educational Research Association;Washington D.C.

1

Coatsi D. "Investigait On end Simulation of the RelatiOnshipi Among SelectedClastroom npublshed PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, .

1966: .....b..,-, ,,.., 1

.

and U. Smidchens. diente Recall 4ts,:jt 'unction of Speaker*Dynamiim:1ranal of Educational Ps chology.57 0966): 189-91.

4

- Kia " O ,t / .

.p..

Cobb, J. A. "Relationship of ,Oiscrete °Classroom BehOlors,t6 Fourth-Grade.,..., b

Acadeatic Achievement. ..-Journal of Education I ,Psychology 63, no. 1 0972):1 .1 74-80. '-. - -; \ . , ,

- , . , , .

\,

.Cogan, ..M: "L. "Research on the liehaiior. of-Tea ens :, A--New-Phase-.--!--Journal, of Teacher Education 141.(1963): .138-43. `r.- '"4 ' . : 1

Coker, Hamer, Jeffrey L. Lorentz-, nd Joan Coker. Intirinlleportii, Carroll-.County CBTC Project) Fall; 1976 Geo is State Departafent of tducatfon,

-'1576. --, - -. . Ie.., .. ,

,..r

.'i . ,. ,4

Rtibert Earl. 'The, Effett of Teetheti of Students, in Secondary School B.. , . ,.:.

versity'of Iowa, 1947.>,

W., di "An lndivid,ualiztive teaming 'in Seventhed.PhD dissertation-9.

, .,_.,.:-.4,--:-.77.4...,',.t.,:,-..

''teaching',

Bert NA: "The Rel fonship Between Task4etting 'Teaching Behavior1 :Achievement. Paper. presented at the meeting ,of the American' -- .-

al- Research.AssOciationi San, Francisco; -.1976: .14-- -- ',.°, ,,, ...,

i

7i 4 0;

hodoi ogr UPOns Certain Achieie-."' Unpubl i shed PhD dissertation,

s f

, 4.4

Approisch:, -i.AniEVtluati on' of togni tive andand Eighth,GradeMathanatici?.Class." .Un-

niier_sitY. of ,..0:1411e..714"ctliifornit,:1974..

- 1,Cronbach,'-,L. J., and R. E.. Snow. Final Report:' Individual Differences! inteaming ility as a Function of Instructional Va0ables. -EducationalResources formation; Center, 196f. Mic Document,0,0f9,001):

-

Davis, C. 'R.-, lected Teaching-Learning Factors Contributing to Achievementin Chemistry nd Physics.", Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of .

North Carolina; 1964.. Wf, -4?4)

% . \' .;-: ... _;Denny,,.. David A. A:Preliminary Analysis Of.an`Observation ScOeclule DeSigned ,.

to Identify, ill ,Teacher-ClassrOom Variables.,Which Facilitate, Pupil:Creative Gras ." ;Paper restd at the meeting of the American Educational

....,Research Assotiation, New York9'1967.. - ,4. : ,. .`

1 '' ' , ''. * "",* 4 e'''

andl. Turner. "leacher Characteristics, 'Cassroom 'Behavior :and.

rowth- in Pupil Creativity." Ptper read at the meeting of the AmericanEducational -Reseed! Association, New York, l967.f.,.,,,.il . _ .., .

... 1 , , ..:DiMeolo, J. R. ,' "An Experimerital.StUdy Relating EleMentarY Classroom Teaching

"..' .lehaVior' to/Student Achievement." Unpublished Ed! dissertation, Case Western,,. 'Reserve Up ersity, 1968. ',

, , '.

.,,. '-:.,. .

,.., ....,

% 4-44,..

no,-G. ".Interactive Effects of Achievement Orientation and Teaching StyleeliC,Ac:hievement." Journal of Educational Piicholopy,62-, no. 5

42741.,

eliean;1 _E. "Levels of Teaching Riading4noWledge.ind Init1a1=Siatuaing Achievement: Their Relation to Levels of Pupil, Residual-Reading,

kideveient- Gain.' Unpublished PhD'dissertation University

ti$

Pratila,.RutiO3. Pu and Teacher Tests. Beginning Teacher' Evaluation Stu,phati., !IL 1973- na

Serwicei-1976._ .::The 'Re &tic of Teacher titudes to Inc

acher va ua ask_Princeton, N. ucational Jesting Service, .197

414

o ..IV. 'Princeton, N. J.:1 Education&-,fi,4.,:,' ' k

i Behavior:- 43eginicifigepos p V. 1.

..

Eliass.Patricia,And Ga'ta Test of Teacher

I

Hare: S. lel S ReadiDia nostic

Difficult4es: Vi enz. . nn ng,, eac va ua

se Mt po Vol. V. 4. -POPO ,:, pucational_..

Testinglervicek 1976. '- ,... ,. , , ,...z, :.,. .._ -....... _

Gail Wire,`and Patricia Wheeler..` The Re rts Of Teacher About4Their- ..,i

matins and Readits Instructional Activities. Beginnin - eactier.Eyalif.afionrStudy: Phase a, 1973-74. Final Report: Vol. V. 5 Ka n;,..i.44741'-;,Educational Testing Service, 1976. ... ; ;,,. ,

-.I

Enner,'Ederund Thais.. ''The Effect'of Teacher Use and Acceptance Of'itude"Ideas on Student Verbal Initiation.* Unpublished PhD dissertations-Uniier-sity of-Michigan, 1967.,

on

1

r

4

Evertioni. Carolyn M., and J. Brophy. ."High-Inference Behavioral Ratings as.Correlates of Teacher Effectiveness." Expanded version of "a paper presentedat the, meeting of the American Educational -Research Association, New Orleans,

s

;;4;

.and.V. BroPhy:-,';'The Texas Teacher Effectivenesi 'PrO ect: estionnatreare-- Interview Data. IT heThniversity,of Texa3 at Austin: esearch and '

Development Center fOr,Teacher 'Education,-NOv4mber 1974. (ERIC DocumentED 099 346). .:, ,

1 -. s..

,Feldhusen,John, John Thurston, and James Benning. "Longitudinal Analyses of, Classroom Behavior and School Achievement." The Journal of Experimental*

Education 38, no: 4 (Sumer 1970)..

Firestohe, G., and M.d'Brody. "Longitudinil' Investigation of Teacher-Student-Interactions., and Their Relationship to Academic Performance." Journal of. Educational Psychology '67, no. 4 (August 1975): 544-50.

Flinders,A. A. "PeriOnal-SoCial Anxiety as a Factor in Experimental Learning,,Situations." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University,,of Chicago, 1949.

Teacher Influence Pu VI^ Attitudes and sAchievemen Washington, D.C.:"Department o ea uca on, and *Ware, OffFce of Education,

1965. rx

'4

97.1535 3

, ,leactir lbfluence Patterns and Pupil Achievement in the Second, Fourth,

7-rdSixth 'track. Levels. Qs. -I and II. Ann Arbor: School of Education,University of--Michigan, 1965, ,

t,.

P 4-

.'",ilie.Wse of ',Intent Ction,Anatiisis to Study Pupil AttitudesiTowardearning." in-Richart_A., Weinberg and Frank H. Wood,: orts,, , Observation 'A -

of; Pups and- Teachers .'ffifilliffistream'AriFSpeCiatEduCrition Settinosl -,

-:,='Ait.ernative strategies: Minneapolis: Leadership: Training Institute/Special,-,EducatiOn, -University; of,MinnesotWoi0t ,=, ,, z° = ,,,i,,,,,:,..._ -

..,,,,,,,.....,-.-._ , . ,-,,, . .",,,-.,,,.,"4. = . ; ",

AMG. Nuthall. "The Classroom Behavior of Teacilers." International.. 4.- . ,

view of -EduCation- 18 '0972) '42749; -4' ---,-.,.. . .... .. ..,,

_.

, ..,

2, 8-...'M Noritionr. and t'l.::,Brode. 'Changes- in Pupi1 Attitules During77ff',School Year." Journal of -Educational Psychology 59 -(1960); 334-38.

; ,

, and others. ,ifelping Teichers Chinge"Their Bdhivior. Mn 'Arbor:-772Teol of Educiatibn; University, oltllichigan21963., , - .FloWers,-

of Standard1974.

G. -"TN* Effects of 'Teacher. Behavior on Alia Stud nab44001*rEngl Unpublished PhD_ dissertation Temple .Universityt,,,

PoWler, Beverly:Davis.° "Relation of .Teacher Personality Charact4istics and, r

Attitudes to Teacher-Pupil Rapport and -Notional Climate in the EiementaryCl assraom." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University -.of--Souths Carolinas,

1962;.4

:Fowler. T. W. "An Investigation of Teacher:Behivior of WitIt-qime." UnpublishedPhD dissertation, University of -Houston,'1974:

Francke,,E°. L. "Pupi AchieYeinent and, Teacher Behavior.- A Formative Evalitationof an. Undergraduat Program in Teacher Preparation.'', Unpublished, PhD ,

-disiertati Gqi Univ rsitr of Nebraska, 1971. .

Friectilans Philip. "Comparisons of Teacher:I-AO nforc,ement, Schedules for Studentswith Different Social Class Backgrounds." Journal of Educational Psychology68,,no. 3 (1976) :. 286-92.

. "Relationship,,of Teacherzation within the Classroom."(1973): $9 -64.

rr

Reinforcement to Spontaneous Student Verbali,/Journal of Educational Psychology 65, no. 1

.4=

c

"Student Imitation of a Teacher's Verbal Style as a Function ofl}'fa oral Classroom Reinforcement." Journal of Educational Psychology 64311973): 267-73. .

(

, and Norman D. Bowers. " "Student} Imitation Of aVaal Style as a Function of SeX 074 Grade Leyel."

Psychology 62, no. 6 (197T): 487-91.

Furst, Norma Fields. "The Multiple Language of the. Classroom: A FurtherAnalysis and a Synthesis of Meanings Communicated in High School Teething."Unpublished,EdD dissertation, Temple University, 1967./

no.

Rewarding Teacher'i,Journal of Educational

98 154

.; ,_

Galt*, A. J. H. **Teacher Expectations and Pupil Performance." Instructor 84,,no.'12' '( 0ctober' 1974)1 38. ''. . .

, .I1, , , _

George,_ T. W.: "An, Investigation of Teacher-vs. Learner-Control of Learning .

Activities on Ininediate Achievement Progress^'Rate, Delayed Recall, and.P,-*,--;-Attitudes." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Uniyersity:ofienneSsee, 1973. -_ ,

- ----="---2'.-----1 ..N I r". '? ' '^', - -''" ^ '-''''' i,. '- PtF!,rtisf ,, -,,,.!..r-:. -,,,q....0....k.

Glick, -Oren. "Person -Group Relationships' andSomeo j?f,:itieir.,torre'tatwfp the'Elementary School - Classroom." ' Paper presented at :the- meetiti(tof.the f's''-*ricers _Educational. Research_ ?Asociatiolh, New ,Yo'rk; .1 967...--- - ... -7N

,-v' Goldberg, Gale. "Effects of Non - Verbal Tedcher Behavior-on Student Performance."

'Unpublished°PhD,diSsertation,.

... Temp U n i..v.ersity,"197-1. _ -

-_A

. .

, and K. Mayerberg. "Effectiof Three.Types Of Affective Teacher Behavior'7"irri Student Perfrirmance." Child Study Journal 5, no. 2, (1979,: _99_ -105.

...GOod, I:A. "Student Achievement Level and Differential Opportunity for

'Classroom Participation." Paper drawn from .,"Student_Achievement-itt-Differential" tiportunity_fOf 'Classroom Respone.."- Offpubl ished PhD- disser- -tatior; University 6f -Texas-; 1968'; --..- -,,..

.,, , . ,

_and J. - Brophy. "Changing Teacher And Student Behavior: An EmpiricaltTrive%tigation." Journal of Educational Psychology 66, no. 3 (1974): 390-- 405. :: 4 k

S.^

: .

and Douglas A. Grows. Process-Product Relationship in Fourth Grade-,--71-114at*ematics Classrooms. Columbia: University of Missouri, October 1971.

. . ,

Gosenpud, J. J. "Learning' Accomplishment and Satisfaction with Three Different', Teething 'Approaches." UnPublislitiii PhD dissertation, Case Western Reserve

University, 1974:-.^,,,,

Greene, D. L. "The. Effects of Tangible and Intangible Reinforcement Upon thePerformance of Normal-and Low-Achieving, Lower -Class Children." Unpublished

- . , PhD dissertation, University.of Southern California, 1973.-.-

Grieve, T. D., and J. K. Davis. The Relationship of Cognitive Style andMethod of Instruction to Performance in 9th Grade Geography." Journalof Educational Research 5, n6., 3 (November 1971 }: 137-41.

Gunnison, John Pierre. "An F.Xperiment to Determine the Effects of Changing,. .

Teacher Classroom`' ehavior Through Training of Student-Teachers in the Useof Flanders' Interaction Analysis System."., Unpublished EdD dissertation,Arizona -State .University, .1968. ., . .

.,

. :,.. . . .

.Gusza4 F. J. "Reading Comprehension Development as. Viewed from the Stand-pointof Teacher Questioning Strategies." Paper presented at the meetingof. the American Educational Research Association,, New York,. 1967.

...., ,. ,

Hansen, V. P. "Elementary Algebra Achievement as Related to Class Length and/Teaching Method." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Univeriity of Minnesota,.

J 1962'; .,, '

. .,

9155

`Hardy, C. ;'and 4. F. Bohren4 f ec _on. Teac er Effectiveness:_,_Test of the -Contingency Model." Journal of Psychology, 89 (January 1976):

1.59-63.--, 4

liTtriTklbei±darldB-1-anche-1. Serwer-:!C arisen Of. Readin App proaches,infirst-Grade-Teething_ WitfuDi sddifantabecf Children The CRAFT ect).Artk, btvlsicin;:of Teacper Education, The City University of tiew,,York,1966:-.,

vaindrBlinche L. Serwer. "lte7CILAFT--ProieCtr" Instructional 'fime ,

771Vidi ng Research." `Reading Research _Quarterly 2 ono. 1 (Fal 1_ 1906) 27-56.

and others-. A"Continuation of thepoaches with Disa vantag_! Ir.an

Ork: Division of Teacher -Education,January .1966.

CR1FT'Pro ect: Concerning Readi

ro ren n r mary ra es. ewe City University of--New fork,

Hartlage, L. C., and J. Schl:agel. "Teacher Characteristics Associated withStudent Classroom Behaviors." Journal ofPsychology 86, no. 2 {March 1974):191-95.

'

Hastings, H. I. Jr. of Iteh-t-ibtightp-Between- u il VerbalInteraction and Pupil Achievement inllementary School Science. Unpu 1-shed------.1-2---EdD dissertation, University of Oregbn, 1970.

Hayesi Robert B.; and JOSeph S. Nemeth. An "Attempt to 'Secure Additional 'EvidenceConcernin Factors Affectin Learni to Read. Washington, D.C.: U. S.

partment of a t on an are, Office of Education, 19.64 - 1965.]\

and Richard C. Wuest. "A Three Year Look, at i. t. a., Lippincott,Phonics and Word Power, and Scott, Foresman." Reprinted from The Reading.

Teacher, January-1969, 04.363-70.

Heil, t. -M. PoWell , and I. Feifer. Characteristics of -Teacher BehaviorRelated to the Achievement of Children in Several Elementary Grades. nu-

. cational Resources Information Center, I960. (rI4cDocuaient ED OE:843).

, and C. Washburne. "BroOklyn :College Research in TeacherEffectiveness.",=olirnal of Educational Research 51 (February 1960): , 34Z -51.

Hennen, M. A. "The Administrationief Positlie Stimuli to Children of VaryingAchievement Levels." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Georgia,1973.

12, ,,

,

Herman, W. L., and others. "The Relationship of Teacher-Centered Ao,efyi tiesand Pupil-Centered Activities to Pupil Achievement and Interest in Fifth ,

Grade- Social Studies Classes." American Educational Research Journal'6,no..2 (1969): 227-39., . I

Hice, Jean E. "The Relationship Between TeachO'CharacteristicGrade Achievement." Unpublished EdD dissertation, UniVersi1970. . .

Hill, Betty .E. "A Study of the Factors Relating to the Teachers' Self-Concept Effect on the Students' Academic Aohievglent,- Unpublished PhD-dissertation, University of Tennessee91973.

and Firstof Georgia,

-

_10Q 5 6.:

, ,

Imes,. ,Ernest Alfred. "An. Analysis of InterrelatiOttirips -Betiveen 'Student.

Teachers' Verbal Interaction in cerpetency-Based :Teacher-Education Programsand .Traditional Teacher= Educatio. Programs Based 'Upon the Flairders' Inter--actiowNialysis Categories:" Mi riphed4aper.-t_-_n.d..------ ----------'" -=

, .

tdianflibbolas. "Tea cherlett tori Influencing Pupil Achieverneht in. ---

eatentary School English."-e'lhipublished EeD dissertation', University of, .. .

_44, 1 c,4-

Wive; Robert Wilton. -"The Relationship of Learning Outcomes to' SelectedTeacher Factors and teaching_ Methods in tenth Grade Siology.,Classes in

77-7-Orego*L-Unpubltibec17-EdD,dissertolionUniversity, 1964.

Hidggins,, Bry e B., and L. Iannaccone. "Teacher Behavior Related to Classroom.-

_,Efficiency and Effectiveness, A Research Model." Washington University.,Ilimedgra0 PaPare,n.d.

- --Hudson; -V. "A Study of the itelationship.RetWeenthe Social-StudiesStbdenta-,Teacher's D vergent Thinking and,His Success in Promo_ting DiVergent fhinking-in Class D scusston." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Arkansas;1912. .

"An Experimental Investigation rif, the Effects of Pupil .

Respondi. g and Teacher Reacpthg-on-Pupil Achievilment." American Educational'Research Journal 10, no. lArder 1974.1k 2l;;;38:------------

..q.--.. , ''gs->siicl, _ -r *- tfr''.1-- -1

Hunkinse F P. "The Influende,orkatVtisland Evilbation Questions on AchieVe-mint i 6th Grade Social Studies.," -Paper_presented at.the meeting, of the -Americ n Educational Research Association,- New Yorke-1967. ,..

- *,.. -.

Hunter, . P. "Classroom Climate and P4ft -Characteristics in Special Claiseifor e Educationally Handicapped."' nPublished PhD dingdetion, Universityof S uthern.California,, 1964::;,,,,,-/i: -- T .

. , , ..,st /

Hunter D. S. "Thejlelati ip of1

'Selected Teacher Behaviors to StudentAchievement and to St en Attitude in the United States Dependent Schools,Ea opean. Area." Unpu PhD dissertation,: University of SouthernCa ifornta, 1974.

Hurst, D. "The Relationihip Between Certain Teacher-RelatedVariables and.Student Achievement in Third Grade Arithmetic." Unp littped EdD dissertation, .

Oklahoma State University, 1967. .

Jabker, E. H. "Extra-Task Determinates of Classroom Man ement Effectiveness:An Experimental Investigation." Paper presented at t e meeting. of the

t American Educational Research Association,, New York, 967. ,

Jackson, Jim. "An Assessment of an Inservi-Ce Program in, Earth Science for-Producing-Changes in Teacher Behavior and Pupil Achievement." .UnpublishedPhD dissertation, Ohio State University, 1970.

Johns, J. P. "The Relationship Between Teacher Gehaviors and the IncidenceOf Thought-Provoking Questions by Students in Secondary Schools.", Unpub-lished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966.

1011 5 7

fr

. _

Johnsoi.;,k. A. "Differential Effects of Inniediate--V,ersus_.Delayed RewardInttrifctions on the Creative Thinking of Two ..Egonomic, Levels of Elementary

.,,-.School Uhpublished PhDdisserta.tion; University of Georgia,-a . " .. . , ,..,-

',Instil 'T. B. '"A Method for Identifying the Effective Teacher. Paper .pre-N

-edit the meeting of the-American Educational Research Aisociation, -

,:4-:...-, -;--,. I . *---.Los Angeles, 1969. , ..' Kaplan, S. J. "The *Effects of Verbal Reprimands on High School Students!. Incorrect Responses- in Grammatical Exercises.", Unpublished PhD dissertation, -'.

Southern Illinois University, 1973. -

,-Kftefi,..,P. H. "A Study of the Relationship of Indirect Teaching Behavior tothe =Self-Concept and Reading Achievement of Third-, Fourth-, and 'Fifth-,

. and _Sixth-Grade Pupils." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of_1974.

Kees% E. E. ."A Study of-the Creative Thinking Ability and Student Achievementin Mathematics Using Discovery and Expository Methods of Teaching." Unpuh-

.lishetPhD dissertation, George Peabody College or Teachers, 1972.

--c.,.0, - Kelle .,E,,, "Effects of Two Types of Teacher Rei nse to Essays. Upon..:,

. . welfth-Grade Students.' Growth in Writing Perfo nce." Unpublished PhD-.... .: . -dissertation, Michigan State-University., 1973.

,'7,:.., .,-;

's s .4.4

Achievement in Urban-lchools." 1.1iiiiii Tisched-LPW-dissertation. UniversitY' Ke rs ch ci, C:11-.---"SS eleete d_leach e r Characteristics as They Affect Student f

_......._:........

A ._ .°.

,.

e Delaware, 102. -..,,., .

., . .

. 1

Kilinski,-'D. M. "A Study to Measure the. Attitude-of Sixth-Grade Teachers .. :

Toward Their Students and the Relationship of These. Attitudes Toward the ...,;Achievement of Sixth Grade Students in Acquiring Reading Skills." Unpub-

. , - . 11010 PhD 'dissertation, University of,Michigan, 1P71.. : -. ,

Kleinfeld, J. S. "Effects of Non-Verbal Warmth on the :Learning of Eskimo and '- ,White Students." Journal of Social Psychology, 92 (Febrnary 1974): 3-9.

...!

.---': Kleinman, G. "General Science Teacher e Questions, PUpil and Teachers Behaviors,and Pupils' UnderstandIng)otScience." .Unpublished PhD dissertation,. -

'University of Virgitita;-.064-:- ,, : - ih"----r --i"

Knaffle, June- D. "The Relationship of Behavior Ratings to Grades Earned by'- --Female High School Students." Journal of Educational Research 66, no. 3

Itiovember 1972): 106-1O.,... . , . ,.

. . %

Knight,- john. "The Effect of Programed Achievemon Student Performance:": ., lupe'. of Educational Research 66, no. 7 (1973) . 29,44.. s4

, .

,

Kohut,, Sylvester, Jr. "A Comparison of Student AchievementIncUtetentio7

n onkt$ Subjective Versus Objective Social Studies Examinations as fluenced by

Different Instructional Patterns." Journal of Educational Research 66,° .no. -9 (May-June 1973): 394-99.

.,..N.-

..:1414aona,;'J..:B:, Jr.. "The Effict of Teicher Verbal Behaviiir_on Pupil Acbieve.r-_.. ilentffin :Problem, Solytng: in4th Grade iiathematics." Unpubl i shed EC di ssera.- :talon; St.',JohAs Oniversity,-1960:i, il::- -.' -

__,

,

-----,--,.., 4..

6::,'S. "Teacher. Verbal dies arid Pupil Performanccon .a Group,Reading.t.'"''' Paper presented at the meeting of the AliteritanEdgcrationat_lesearch__,4;Alsociationtew York, -1967. -`;

.

Larkerti :Nadine, and CarOlyn S. HartsOugh.-::.APPLE`ObterVitiOOAhiria6les andTheir Relitionshii) to Reading-and Mathematics,Achievement. BeginningTeacher Evaluation Study: , Phase ix, 1973-74. Ffnal Report: Vol ;--1II.1.-Princeton, N. J.:S EducatiOnalJesting Serviee;,1976:t -

, I64,' ,

Shier,' W; S. "An AnalYsis of pertain Aspects of the Verbal--Behavior of...-Student Teachers of Eighth' Grade Students ,ParticiPating- in a ascs, Laboratory.Block." Unpublished PhD dissertation; U.niveriity.of Texas, 1965.

, and P, Westmeyer. "The lite,Of rnterietio-lionysfs-itiliSCS-Latinratory---7"'Block Classrooms. " Journal of--Teacher_Ectiation 18. (1967).< 439-46.-- .

o

,.Lea, H. M. H. "A Study, --or(ome Characteristics- of the Variability of Teacher.

Activities in the-Social Studies and Pupil Response 'and Achievement."eUnpublished, PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1964.

Lieberman, r. D. "The Effect of Locus-of=diritiol, Student Expectancy, and,Teacherfeedback on School Performance." Unpublished PhD dissertation,., Wayne State University, 1973.

Lipsitz, S. g. "An Evaluation of the Nebraska Project in Elementary Educationand the Effect of Teacher 'Characteristics on Social and _Cognitive Develop-

, me ti; Students" Unpublished PhD dissertations University ofNebraska, 1971.

,Lockheed, Marlaine E.: Some Detvminates and doniequences of Teacher

,Expec-

tations Concerning- Pu_pil Performance. Beginning -leacher Evaluation Study:-,Phase,II, 1973-74. Final Repot: Vol. V.2. Princeton, N."-,..41._: EducationalTesting Service, 1976.

'Lohman, E., R. Ober, and J. B. Dough. "A Study of the Effect of 'Pre-Service

In' E. J. Amidon- and J. B. Hough, eds. Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research'Training in Interaction Analysis 9n the-Verbal, Behavior of Student Teachers

%and Application. Reading, Mass.: : Addison-Wes1 ey, 1967-.'

, .

V. \ Loucks; Susan F. "An Exploration of Levels of UseAof an Innovation and thei Relationship to Student Achievement." Paper ire

the American Educational Res a on, San. Francisco,. 1976.e-meettntre

loch,,i4s. :W., and others. "Effecis*of.Teachers' Cognitive Demand 7ty;es4'.onPupil' Learning." Paper presented at the meeting of the American EducationalResearch Assodation, New Orleans, 1973.

4

McCandless, Roberti' W. "Some Relationships 3etween Teacher, Needs, StUdent Needs,and Academic AChievement." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of'Michigan, 1972;

'1139

V

, , ._ .

.-i'-- ..,..;(-,J.,---:?MCCardle.,:i-11...3 .AnInvesti.-ation. of _the Relationships Between Pupil Achieve- .

F",:-.-.:,?'"' ' -! , , :...ment.4n,firit=.:Year Algebra. and Some Teacher Characteristics." U ublished--PhD r.7dissertatifinkihiiii.e4Ity. of. Miateteta 1959.

-,.. ......

-.c. , .

I*. ..,-

--..,---,.. _ . *McDinial--,T-Erneit: "Some RelitimiShipi :10nopg Teacher ObserVation.Data and .4

Measures of Self Concept and,Attitudeloward School." Paper presentedat' the-meeting of the Paiericin- Psyckollgical Association, Washington, D.C.,

.,,.,,. ....,.....7.-7T ,.._ i976., "---. T , `I ,:r

'

McDonald; F. J. Smeary Report: inning',Teacher*Evaluation S Phase.

II 1973-74.. Princetonoli.. J.- ducational Testing Service, 1, r ,, , : . . .

:s - arid Patricia Elias. The-Effects of _Teaching Performance on Pupil'TeTrni. .. Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: 'Phase TT, T973-74. Final

Port: Vol. I. Princeton., N. J.::Educational Teiting Service, 1976.,. ,. ,., . .----, .r. ,. . r .

MacDOnald,' J. B. , and Esther Zara. . "k Study of_Openness in Classroom5.

-".-:------ ------- Interactions." --Paper- presented--at the-Meeting of the,imerican EducationalResearch Association, New Yoric,1967.. , ..F' ,..'.

Mahan, '5). M. "The Effeats of Instructionliy Teachers and Teacher Aides Upon'- 41 the Performance of Pupils in' a Direct-Instructional Program.", Unpublished

2,,/ PhD dissertation, University of Illinoil-, Urba,na 1971.7.- ,--1----------: .... .

Manatt, Richard P., Ross Engel, and :Antee'lietiSil. -Validation of a Teacher ,-Performance Evaluation S ten via ttude t Gain 'Scores On Criterfon-leferenced .

_

tto

,

es1.

n vers y 0 ence4 t, ', s't

Manes, P: G. "Relationships Ping Class, Size,'..Selected School and Teacher.:...

Characteristics and Reading, Improvement Made2r-iii,,LoW-AchleY,ing Grade Four ..

,

.,'_":.... '.Pupils." Unpublished. PhD dissertation, Wayne- State' UniVersity,. 1974.

. ...,

,..

Marliave, Richlird.k Observable Classroom Variahleig' .TechniCal;Report 14,-Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. .San7rancitco:--. Far West Laboratory .1` :

' for Educational 'Research_ and Development, July 1976. ..'' --::. -;,-',.,'-. ;- I.., ..,.',.' .-

, , , '. . " . '. .. ,'.'-'-': -.:: . , . ,

Marsh,, David D. and Margaret F. Lyons: i(Stuil of thesEffectiventis of. .. . .,--

Sixth-Cycle W.Cycle Teacher Corps Graduates. PW1i..: Final ,ReportBerIeleY. , ..- UM.: Pacific Training and-Technical Assistance.CorOtation,',October .,

. 1974. .. .. , . *,41 A

a ec no ogy,".,

et al. A Stud Teacher' Traini at Sixth-C' le Teacher Cor sFiro" ects. Yo' s. na epor r e ey,

acific Iralning anTechnica1 Assistance Corperationi-July 1974......

. r_Martinez, D. H. "A Comparison of-the Behavior During Reading-Instruction

of Teachers of High and Low Achieving First Grade Classes."- Unpublished.PhD dissertation, University-of Oregon, 1973. -.*

..Mastin, V. E. "Teacher Enthusiasm." Journal of Educational, Research

-,(1963): 385-86. :

.Meyersen, Paul S. "The Effectiveness of Individualized Instruction as aFactor in Increased Competence in-Reading Comprehenslen in Ugandan. PrimarySchools." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University 'of Connecticut, 1970.

104160-

.0

a

.a

A ",

40 Reletti;i4hip Bet ;;-

ThinktngAt,Secood7Grade Teachers-andta`tion Veral 1967.

Teacher Influence and:Levels .ofPuPi1s." -Unpublished PhD disser-

.

Mood. ..."Teacher yekiai Behavior$and Teacher. Pupil thinkinglementary Schoot." Journal of Ethicationat Research 66, no. 3 (November

> . ....., . ,... ' ''

Marion:. Meinkotti,*

R. "Teachers o f Ec onomic Pr,nci. pl es: Effect on Stu de,,nt*tkhievenent and Attitudes."Journat of Experimental Education,40;.no.. 2

----- (Winter' 1971),: 66-72.-:,n . w.9 : ..

MelograhO;.1%*'J.; 'Am." "Effects of Teacher Personality, Teacher Choice of"Educational* Objectives, and Teacher Behavior on Student AchieveMent."publish_ed` EdD.dissertation; Temple University, 1971.

I P

JAe. .1

Miller; G. L. "An Investigation- of Teaching Behaviors and Pupil Thinking."-Unpublished PhD dissertation, -University of tItah-1964.-

. .

1Collaborattve Teaching and Pupil ThinklOg . Journal of Teachereducation 17 (1966):- 337-58.

Morrison, B. M.' "The Reactions of Internal and External Children to-PatternsOf. Teaching Behavior." Unpublished PhD dissertation,, University of Michi--_gan;.1966;

Morsh, J. B. Develo ment Re ortv S itemaiic ObservationBehaviCi. an non o, exas: orce ate.-

Wiliiili-Research'Centre,4956.-

Munn, H. E., and.K. Griffin. "Relationships Between Teachert' Task-OrientedBehavior, Interpersonal MaintenanceBehavior, Student Achievement, andStudent Satitfaction." Bch Teacher 22, no. 4 (November 1973): 304-09..

=-. i

Neltoni Lois Wei. "The Effect of4lassi%.1noo Interaction on Pupil LinguisticPerforrance. Unpublished EdD dissertation, University of California,

,-.Los-Angeies; 1964.'rt

,

Nikoloff, S. E. B. "The Relationship of Teacher Standards teethe WrittenExpression of Fifth and Sixth-Gt4de Children." Unpublished PhD dissertation,State-University of New York, Buffalov1965.

7-ztP

Norris, B. E. "A Study of the Self-Concept of Secondary1

fiotogY Teathereand,the Relationship to-Student Achievement and Other Teacher Characteristics."

-Unpublished EdD dissertation, Ball State University, 1570.

Nuthalt,'G. A. "An Experimental Comparison otAlternatiVe Strategies forTeechihg Concepts." American Educational Research Journal 5, no. 4 (1968)1'

',Ober, S. L. "The Relationship Between Teachert' Characteristics and Students'Academic Achievement in a Middle Class Community." Unpublished PhD disser-

Itation,-University of Wisconsin; 1973.

105 '161

I

-,!Differential Effectiveness_ of ;Direct and Indirect* Praise and

aproOrOtv the Pert &nonce:: of,,Firit -Grade Children,.!'-^,:-:Unpu41:1shed PhDlissertatiOn;Tniipli.UeiVerSity;-,,1973. *.4

"A study ofilultiple--Relationships Am Ong-,,Teacher-Cheractiristics;eacIti -BithiViors, -and Criterion-Referenced-ltudent Per.formancOn ?lathe-,

Unpublished-PhD dieseftatiOnt-HortietesternUniYersity;:197.3.

lipS;;.,,R,-.B.; Jr. "Teacher Attitude'as Related to Stedetit-Attitiandchievetient in Elementarylchool Mathematics." School Scienc&and ?lathe-

ice 73,4no. '6.1.June 1973):: 501-074,.

E. "Presehtational Behaviors Relatedto, Suicees. ire,Teaching.!`ipublished -PhD dissertation, Stanford University,Y1969.

, --;

r"Teachi ng,Ski 1 1 Under- Scrutiny. ": 'XiipPitiSa, no. 10. .; .

.1971): 599-602.,

her, Nancy Bland. "A_Study ofinfordment,SChedtiling on--the

rade Classrooms." Unpublished

the Pilationship,Of-TiMe Utilization andTeathtttg gf..Reading...lit Second and ThIrd-,-EdD dissertation., 'University: of Geergiai,

e' ,. . . , .

11, E. R. "Teacher Behavior and Pupil AChieyenient.'":Unpublihed.PhD:issertation, Temple'University,-.1968.. .3- ;

2' :."

hawa,- Bikkar, and Dennis Hunt. !Factors in Classroonis Environment Variables--.

O

rnal of Educational Ps cholo. (,1976):: 546-49...

--GeOrge L. "Can Inseryice Valtie Clarification Training-Contribtite tonness of Teacher Assessing BehaVior?' Hamlfne. University. Unpublished MS n.df;

Is, R. J. "Relitionshipi of `Cognate Contplexity to 'Specific Behavioral!.

kearch-Association;,Chicago, 1968.r ables." Paper presentediat the ting of the American Educational ,

Carl L. "The EffeCti_ of Pupil- Teacher Verbal Interaction onal- Language Develomintin isadvantaged First-Grade Children." Unpub-shed. PhD disiertatiOn; University:: of Florida, 1969.

,.,Carol Ann. "The Effeit of Indirect Teacher Behavior on Achievement bydents iniForeign Language Skills." "Unpublished- EdD dissertition Rutgers

iversity, The State Universfity_of .Hew.Jersey, 1972. .

<

II's; Virginia M., and- 6:1. Davis, Jr. "Varying the Cognitive Levels ofassroom QueWons:- An 'Analysis of Student Teachers' ptiestions and Pupilhievement in Elementary Social Studies." Paper presented at to 'meetingthe Educational` Research Association, Minneapolis, 1970;

the R., andNothers. "Teacher Behavior,_Teacjher Expectations;:tind.GainsPupi s.' Rated ',Creativity." Journal,,of -Genetic- Psychology 124-;--no. 17,, .

rch 974):. 115 -22... le

.. -n, I. ,Welch, -and H. J, Walberg.,_ "Physics 'Nether ,CheraCteriitSt ng." Journal of Research in-Science Tetching 6 (1969):

106 162'

,4 -. ..'4 s...av, .f s 4 G. 3:,' -;$ " ..

. ,e.00.. 4 . .4.Z.4:. 4. . .. . . ...: tf,.

!bins,- D. G. "Inventory of Estimeved.teicher.chiracteristies. as Covariates ofCGserver *messed Pupil Behavior.". 'JoUrnal.of-Educational Psychology 52,no: ( . ...; . . -,-

. - = -. e.

. !SomtRelationships ,Between Pupil. Behiiv or. and CettAin Techer Char--ieriatics." oUrnal of Edudtional 'Pt chol 52 -.no t (196 ) 82-90. <,,

''' ` .. . . . ,U*4- T. "observer -Effects on.Teecher Bebe40K" ,thiPUblished PhD dissertation,

UniVersity of Michigan, 1968.- =.'''.*-- .-' . --. -..--

Sandoval,-Jonathan: The Evalbation. Of leicher, Behavior Th:Videota Recordi

h 06servatio 0nn ng ea r va ua on ase

nil por : ol. III4... _Princeton,- 1. J.: Educational TestingServiei);- 1976. .. c. .., !...,,, !; ., ,...

.,. . \ ....

--.'-Siviige -T. W. 4:- "A Studlof,the Relationship of Classroom Questioeit and-... Social Studies, Achieved of Fifth -Grade Children."... Unpublish PhD

',.

.

.d itesir.ta t'.,ions.; University'..,lt.i..ashingt, on:, 1 97S2 .-1.- 1 --- 4:Schaefer,

. .

fir A:"-` "Tie RelatiOnship of Teaching Methods to Self-Esteem` and -

,. ) Achievement .in Mathematics:" Unpublished EdD di isertation, Northern'Illinbisi; University, 1972. ', *.: 7 % %

.

`::Schantz, B. M. B. "An Experimental Study Comparing the Effects Of Verbal 'Recallby Children in Direct and Indirect Teaching Methodi as a Toot of Measurement."Unpubliihed PhD dissertation,,Pennsylvapia State University,1963. ,. :,4 . . .

; 'Schramm,: Charles, F. "Relating Teacher -Threat to Acideitic Achievement in2i.,:: Educationally Deprived -Children.", Paper. presented at the meeting of the

. Amerirn'Educ-atonal Research AssoCiation, San FranciscO; 1976.-1 --- . i-

i. . ..-

4cott, A. T. "A"Study of the Effects of. Planned Classroom Teacher Verbal:,ehavior--and Resulting Classroom Pupil Verbal Behavior on the Achievemene-

' 1973: ''

of Classroom Pupils." Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee;, : .

.. ,-4', 1 , : '. , .,i , r. N --r , _./

.- Sears; -Pauline S. The Effect-of 'Classroom conditions on the Stren th of Achieve-ment. Motive an n or

-...i (

.iSharp, C. S. "A Study of Certain Teather Characteristics =and Behavior asFactors Affecting Pupil Achievement in Higtrichool Biology., Unpublished.PhD dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1966.- -, .,

,t.

Shaver, J. P., and D. W. Oliver. "F.ffectof, Student Characteristic-Teaching j.-.- Method Interactions on Le8rning to Think- Creatively." 'Paper presented at

the meeting of the American Educational. Research Association,iChicago, 1968.:,7 , '

Shgit, R. A. "The Relationship-of Teachers' Classroom, Behavior to the'Achieve-aFientboacfkJounni?.eracHtilisSclgaolssSrtudtaBgeNcolrthie Enfpfect;ogitinggagsiosenrittligis

u up"University of Washington, 1968 ".". .-.,- A

Shutes, R. E. "Verbal Behavidirs and Instructional Effectiveness." Unpublished

. ,.- c

'..P.hDAistertation,__Stanfordt.University,*.1969.. -......, it- 9 . ,...- -I

Doesisky,,Jemes'A., and Charles C. Nleptiliill:Vl!t"

o; "e"ftrl:SZIh t"rs lr:rlcitf ea

of r: Fifth Grade Research in Science Teach-,1411, nO.. 3 (1974): 157 -68.

. .

.,_ .

StemirCok, Linda A. *A Study of Pupil Achievement in Mathematics and Teacher.,COmpetence in Mathematics." Unpublished. PhD dissertation, University of.Kansas, 1970.

0,

,

a

;

= ,Slaughter; -C. K. "The Effects of TeaCheW.Structurd Introductory Remarks ,

. on the Subsequent Achievement and Interest DeVelopment of Pupils." Unpub-_lisbad-EdD dissertation, Stanford University, 1964. -- _

,

Sloan, J. L. ''11Multiveriate Study ofleacher Behavior and Pupil Achievement."',,

University of Wisconsin-Mllwaykee, n.d.

little Robert Williarlr. " Relationships

of Teachers:-, cf South- Dakota, 1960.

Oetween4upil Mean Gains in Arithmetic-Unpublished phD,dissirtpti90.9_University

'-- smiths Bruce D., and R. L. Van Sickle. "Focusing on Inquiry TeaChing Behaviors."Mb School Journal 58, no. 7 (Ap011,1975): 285-94. , ,, ' .4

,

, .;

Smith, D. E., and otheii. 'Reading Improvement as, a Function Of Student Person-f, ality and Teaching Method." Journal ofEducationalEducational, 47 (1956): ."-t

47 -59. : -. .- , :'-, .

)- ;r

-,

:' ,

Smith, O. W. "The Development of an Instrument 'to RecOrd the InteractionBetween Teacher and Pupil in the Classroom and thetorielation,Of Certain,Factors with Achievement." Unpublished EdD dissertation, University.oiMaryland, 1971. ,

1 .._-

Smithman, Harold W. "itudent aAchievement as MeasureofTeacher-ferforiance.,Unpublished Ed8-dissertation, -Of California, Los Angeles, 970.

_.

Snider, A. M. N. "Some Relationships Between Pupil-Growth in CertainBisic.'.,--SkillsAnd Pupils' Perception of Behaviae.of Their Teachers." Unpublished..

PhD dissertation, Universip of Michigan 965:

)1

r

tnidei., R. M. "A Project tO=Study the Nature of Effective Physics Teaching."Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 1966.

Snyder, W. R.,,and ML Kellogg. iPreliminary Analysis of Teacher Factorswith ISCI,Student Achievement." Unpublished PhD dissertation, FloridaState University, 1970.

Soar, R.-S.,..-"AO Analysis, -of Non- Replication in Predicting Teacher Effective -

ness."laken from Multivariate Statistical Procedure in Predicti Teacher

-Effectiveness. _Pro ect s ng n, . . , ooperatu: -S: Office of Education, 1962: ,

-An Integrative roach to Classroom Learning. ,:Philadelphiat Temple--Ut--f;-;iers

1

,1`-.4k4.xsi(-::

108

10'1

-!

r

h Classroom Process Measurement and PUP11 Growth

11 tl,!

, ..

1970-71Institate'for Development o esources,

Editcation, University of June .1973.

- . Teachere.Pupil interaction. for Pupil Growth." EducationalReseaiely Sti lement26 (1968):. '276-80.

. -,......i,-,... ':, '..- Teacher' Behavior Related to Pupil Growth." Internatiatial Review of

ttott1B,: no.-4 (1972): .' 8250-8.,'_ :.'f::-(___,.,, ,, .2,,,,,f.,,,,,,,,,\.i,-

. - , , - ,..''and

1 ...,2,,,,,,,

eftd--...ROtilil. Soar. Classeoim Behailioi,, Pupil Characterlitics and Piton _ ,.;-9.:

t, the. SchoOl Year and the:tamer. ..Gainesville: institute for .' ', -.:,..;

t of Japan lresources, 'College of Education, University of Florida,: ='!!:,'.

r1913. . ',. : ) ' f . ., -,. . , , .

S. and Ruth M. >Soar., "An Empirical Analysis- of Selected Follow:,Program: An Example 'of a Process Approach loEyaluation;." In

tit . Gordon* ed. Earty Childhood Education. .Partll.' The SeVenfy-first,--;YYMarblot of the National today for the Study -Of Education. 'Chicago .

NSSE,1972:. .

gut* K. Soar., "Pupil Subject Matter ,Growth During Summer Vacation."foram Interactlon,NeWsletter4, no. 1---(1969): j ; e

li,'Sigf,ried D., and Vernont Devine. "Behavioral Correlates of ich vomit:-' -A.look.at High and Low Achievers:" Jourhal of Educational 'Psycholegy 6..14'

=._no.' 3 (1,976): -,,335-41. ..

. .

-.: , Solomon, Daniel. "Teacher Behaviour .Dimensions, Course Chaied et.isiOic,:,,and.., . .

-',Student Evaluations pf Teachers." American Educational Researdh Journal 3,.no. 1, '(1966): -35-04 /.

.e . + ,.

___, and Arthur J. kendall. Final Re it. Individual. Characteristics -antH-7.-ChT, Ideenis Performance in Varied op v Ill ei. Md ..

sy og ca ry ces on gomery y u ic Scho:Ols, May 1976...

ana Arthui. J. Kendall.; -"Indikidual :Characteristics end: Childreh's ,.. -erformance in 'OPen' aild "rraditionals Classroom Settings." Journal of

.4

'Educational Psychology 68, no. 5(1976); 613-25.:;-4, f .

414 E. Bezdek, and L. Rosenberg. "DiMensions of Teacher Behavior."..

1 of EaAti c Educaticm,33, (1964):\

q't

Rosenbeig and W. EBezdek. "Teacher Behavior an Student Learning.",ournal:of EdUcational Psychology 55, no. 1 (1964)::

-Soretikip, F. "Teacher :KnottEffect on Pupil I. Q. and,stern Reserve, 1973.

.

ledge-of Standardizalett Information and ItsAchievement." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Case

. 4

(Sitaulding,;R. L. Achievement; 'Creativity, and Self-Concept 'Correlates ofTitcher-Puipi 1 Transactions in'nenentary school Classrooms Hempstead,

Nostra University, 1965.._ .

- 1.65169

4

4'

t ,

2,

'"

,.,Stallingi,,Jankf. "A Study of IMplementatien in Seven Follow Through Educational

,,ModelsAnd How Instructional PrOCesses Relate to ,Child Outcomes,. 4/ ',Paper pre-sented at the Austin Conference on'Research on Teacher Effects sponsored by the

'National Institute of Education, AtheriCan Association of Colleges for Teacher,iducatien, College of Education' of the University of 'Texas at Austin, and-the" R D for Teacher,.Eduatietrat Austin, *Weibel; 1975.,

\ Follow Through Program Classroom 'Ob ervation Evaluation, 1971-72.71:reTio Park, Calif.:, Stanford Research In titute, 197S.

c' . .:.

A , s , ' , , N:'

4 ^

--ITT 1=73. A Study.of 2:rnpiementat1on.;, Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford. Research ,

ilirte, 1974., fl ' , ''.. .. .,

,

and D . Kaskowitz . Follow -throu9h 'Classroom Obser tion Evaluation'

Stinfordnter for Reseireh.arid Development Tecirrng. A factoriallyDesign Experiment' on' Teacher Structuring', Soliciting, and Iteactfa.Research 'and Development Memorandum.No. 1147, Program on. Teaching, Effective-Mess. S \ ford, Cal if. : g'SCRDT, Noiember 1976.

State Departnien BUreau of 4School Trogisins" Evaitiation,, Al banY, NeW. York.'Which School ctors Relate 'to Learning,? 1976..

,,... Steiner, H. E. "A tudy of the Relationships 'Between Teacher Products' and 0,Student Performance, of Selected Inquiry,Process Behaviors in the AffectiveDomain in High Scho Biology Classes. ", Unpublished PhD. dissertation, .

--.University of Tess,. 70. ,. : :1\ -.;, ,

Stone, Meredith K. Correia s of Teacher and Student Coiniffve Style. Princeton,...,,,,,,,. .:,.., . .. N. J.: Educational TestiN, Service, 1976... ., r,

Y

, , , ,

Strickler, D. j. ' "Teacher Benovior.iiidI)upil Performance Related- to ,a TrainingProgram for .Ihservi,ce and Pre- Service Teachers Based Upon MinicoUrse 18: ..t'Teaching Reading as Decodtg'." Unpublished -EdD ,dissertatioo, State Uni-versity of.New York, Buffal \e,1973.,'`, ,i ,' -,' :

01 4,,, ., ,,,,

.,

Swank, E. W. "A Comparison of Selected Strategies for the'Teaching of Mathematical Concepts." Unpublished PhkdissertatiOn,,University of Georgia)

... .. .

1973. 1

, -.

Tallmodge, G. K. "Relationthips ietween.Tra Ong Met:hods:it'd Learning charoit-terfstics." Journal of °Educational PiSicholosr.59, no; 1 :096: 32-36.

''. , .:,.h, , , '''N_,-, '; :'.'',.,-, ,,,, 1

, and J,. W. Shearer. "Interactive Relationships:Among-Learner Charac-terfstics, Type of Learning,. Instructional,,Methods 40S tblect Matter-Variables.Educationaltol Ps tholo gx62, no c1971): 31 -38.

'6 --HTierney,*R". J.' "Ttacher and Pupil haracteristics in Selecte kistralion and. Atherican Classroomsi" Unpublished PhD diissertation, University- of Georgia,.1974.

Tisher, R. P. "A Study of Verbal Interaction in Science Classes and ItsAssociation with Pupils! Understanding ',in Science." University of Queens-land Papers,' Faculty,of Education 1, nO,.9. St. Lucia, Australia: Univer- "sity of Queensland Press, ifuTy 5, 1970.

.0

110166'

4

And C. N. Power. "The Effects_of Classroom-Activities4 Pupils'7-70idOtiont, and Educational Values in Lessons .Where. Self,Paced Curricula

-JireAsed,"- .Clayton`;-. Australia: Monash UniVerSitY,4975._ ,

and C. N. Power. "The'Learning,Environment'A*Ciated With anustralian Curri6lum Innovation.": iimedgraphed report,''Clayton; Australia:

Monash University, 1976. , ..', ''.:,

,

owl% ti. J. "The Effects of Teacher 'Knowledge rediCtion on ActualPupil Performance." Unpublished PhD 'dissertation, Uniitersity of Oregon,

i' 1973. ,,--, :f, )),

J.1 , Townsend, J. W. "A Comparison,of Teacher Style..and pupil Attitlide andVs AchieveMent in Contracting Schools --:Open Space,,DepartMentalized and

`,= Self-Contained." Unpublished EdD edissert Lion, niversity of Kansas,1971'.

1VarLWageneN, R. K.,, 'and R. M. V. Travers. "Learning' Under Conditions ofDirect and VicariouS Reinforcement. "', Journal of Educational Psychology,

'54 (1563):`'356 -62. , .

,,.

.

rlieldinan, D., and J. Brophy., 'Measuring Teacher Effects on Pupil. Achievement."Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 'no. '3 (1974): 319 -24.

,Vorreyer, b. F. "An Analysis of Teacher Classroom Behavior and Role." Unpub-°lished PhD dissertation,University of Maryland,. 1965.

Walberg,-H. J. "Teacher Personality and'Classroom Climate." Psycholoox nthe Schools 5, no: 2 (1968): 163-69.

G. J. Anderson. "The Achievement-Creativity Dimension and Classroom:-.7--CliMate." Journal of Creative Behavior 2, no.'1 (Fall 1968): 281-91.

And Arthur I. RoihMan. "Teacher Achievement and Student Learning."Sc'ience Education 53, no: 3, (April 1969) : 253-57.- .

,Wats,,L, D. PA Correlation Analysis Between Level.of Achievement and Certain,TeacherCharacteristics in Selected School Systems." Unpublished PhDdissertation, Ohia,State University, 1964.

04-john G. "The Relation of Student and Teacher Traits of Authoritarianismto Student Achievement in'Englisn." Journal of Psychology, 35 (NoVember-1973): .229-34. ,

Neter, W. A." "RelattOnships Between Teacher Behavior and Pupil Creativity in,,the Elementary School." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Temple University,1968.

Welis,'R. L. "Openness of Classroomand bpenness of Pupil Personality

"r- Learning and Pupil Achievement."of Michigan, 1071.

..'.

Wich, . W., and R. G. Bridgham. "Physics Achievement Gains as a Function ofTeac ing Duration." School Science and Mathematics, May 1968 pp. 449-54.

,

Climate, Openness of Teacher Personality,as Determinates of Pupil Feelings AboutUnpublished PhD' dissertation, University

167

Patricia, Description of the Field of Study and Sample. Beginningleacher EvalUatiOn.Study: Phase if, 197T-74. 'final Report: Vol. II.

Educational Testing Service,-,1976..

'and Patricia Elias. Historical Data Study. Beginning Teacher Eval-,

u--la fon Stucky: Phase II: Final Report: Vol. V.3. Princeton, N. -,J.:Edfitational Testing SerVice,':1976. . .. -- ', -;','"---

,,, . --.,White; 14-..F., and O.. T. Dekle*, "Effect of Teacher's ,Motivattonal Cues on

Achievement in Elementary Grades." Ps ct.y_jological Reert,18 (1966):151-56:

,. . .. .. .

.. ,

1 . .

Wightmant L. E. "Achievement as a Function of Interaction, Between StudentCharacteristics and Teacher Behavior. Unpubliihed PhD \dissertation,rornell, 'Ifni Vers ity` 1970. -,.., . e .

:.) ,.:

.Wightman, M'. B. "Implementing Psychological turriculurn: An Examinatiipn ofTeacher Behavior and Student Self-Concept." .0npubliihed PhD, dissertation-,1fUniversity. of Massachuietts; 1973: .

Wiley,. D. E., and 'A.:HarniSchberger. *Explosion of a Myth: Quality ofSchooling and Exposure-to Instruction,'.Major Educational ,Vehicles."

...,-; -;:jducational Researcher -3.,t no. 4 (1974): .7-12. ' : ., .: : -. ,;,,.

Willson, Irwin. "Changes in Mean Levels ,Of 'tanking in Grades 1.-8, 'ThroughUse of an-Instruction Analysis, System Baied on Bloom's Taxonomy:" Journal'of Educational; Research 66; no. 9,0973); ,.421'429.

Wolf,:Willavene, and Bernice Ellinger. "The Teaching- of Critical Reading:An Observational Study." Paper-PresenteCit the meeting' :of the/AmericanEducational` Research,Association,:chicago,,1966'.

Wolfson, M. L....,'''' ''A Consideration of Diricf.and, Indirect Teaching Styles withRespect to Achievement anCRetentiOn of. Learning in'.Stience Classes."

. Journal of Research'in:Science'fieaching 109-no: 4' (1973): 285790.. .

Wright, C. J. "Verbal- Teaching -Behaviors' and Thei Relationship,. to PupilAchievement." Paper presented, at the meeting 0 the `.,American Educational

.

Research Association,- Los.Angtles, 1969: .,,.:- ,,., , '. ,6

. r.

Yamamoto, Kaoru. "Relationships Between Creative Thinking Ability of Teachersand Adjustments of Pupils." .Journal of EX erimerital Education 32 (1963):2 -25. -

Zahorik, john A.. "Teacher Verbal Feedback_ and Conte t Development." Paperpresented at the meeting of the American Educatio al Retearch'Association,

.1.Os Angeles, l969.,,'

"The-Nature and Value of Teacher Verbal 'Feed ack:" Paper. presented'at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los

Angeles, 1969. f;r.

,,"04=t- _

APPENDIX C

LETTERS AND COMMENTS

PBTE Committee commissioned thii study, it also setup a'review panel ofAresearch experts .whose function was to read the first draft-of-the report and make comments or suggestAgns which were to be published withthe report." ,THe se -draft was circulated to the principal investigators.of,.thosest4d104hoseliedings were used in the report. and their reactions werealso solicited un* the same terms. The responses are reprodUced in this:appendix, With theltiteful acknowledgments of the author. Ne.found themmostusefutin preparing the final version of the report, which includeschanges *de in response to some of these suggestions and Comments.

,e-

.,

"- .7 ,-

COMMents by The American-Federation of Teachers, AFL -CIOMarilyn'ilauth

,,^Asiistint Directors, Education ,

'Educational RevarckDept.) AFTWashihgton, D.C. 20036

.°The.American,Federation of Teachers has long insisted that we need serious

research,on the "technolegy of teaching" to discover, if possible. what makes_a

competent teacher. We are in agreement with AACTE and many others that educa- -

_Mop would benefit from,a knowledge of demonstrable skills and behaviors requiredof'a competent ,teacher.

.

Of all the- research studies examined, it is,significant that only 12 werethought to have the validity required to-be-generalized among the teacher popu--lation in terms of assessment of teacher competencies. We are not sure whether-

-these stydiei are truly comparable or why.others have been left out. We are,

unconvinced that literature surveys of independently developed studies reallytell,us-anything conclusive. ,

We would also argue that even-the studies DF. Medley does look at areflawed because of reliance on the.prodess7product method. 'Dr. Medley statesin his report that4e---infers-Athat-ia4eacher who is effective is competent and

that the one who is not is incompeteht."- Effectiveness is judged,on the baiisof student achievement on standardized tests. If the teacher were the sole.--N

influence on a.child's learning, we could more easily accept these findings.But, obviously, this is not the case.. The AFT has peen. arguing foryears thatstudies which omit home backgrOund.and many, many school-related variablesare seriously deficientand basically worthless.

4.

We recognize that Dr. Medley acknowledges thatiesearch on teacher ,

effectiveness is still quite-limited since he uses manfgualifiers when talkingabout teacher competencies. We wonder if .such extensive use of qualification

is not simply one more indication of thehhereht weakneiqf literature,surveys.

.

.If we are truly interested in ascertaining what constitutes effettiVe

teaching, we must continue to pursue honest research that will look at allvariables involved, including such things as-teacher performance, societaland economic effedts, available resources, and_environmental settings. Because.-,

of the expense and time involved in using such comprehensive;approaches, theyare generally rejected) and education, moves forward in ignorance.

In our opinion, research on teacher competencies WIll hotvield Valuable

results until all those involved in education, whether teachers, administrators,.or politicians, admit that we cannot find solutions overnight_and that all

parties, including teachers and their unions, must be involved in the,search .

.

for answers.5

0- p-114

17

March 28, 1977

.FAR-WEST-LA8ORATORYFor Educational' Research and, Development

1855 Folsomr5t., San Francisco, Calif. 94103

Dr. earl Massanari

American Association oollegeslorTeacherlducation -

One Dupont Circle h,

Washington; D.C. 20936 ,

Dear Karl:

-.I.thank yOu for letting me comment on the Medley Review.. I admire Dr. Medley's

stamina and agree with the- premise...someone should turn these "findings" into"usable ideas for teacher educators. In that spirit, Italie no comments -and'congratulate ynuon,the good sense to pick Dr. Medley, and 'I congratulate him(your a job weyhdone.--

-

My,concerns are not with the need for a review like this or the product,_butwith the problems in the field of research that any review worth the. effortseems-to raise. ,For example, the subtitle of the review is "A Compilation_ -

ofIlependable Findings of Research in Teacher Education.", I find little in-* :this'field that would lead me to call these findings dependableAThe kinds

of studies, done by some of the investigators whose work met the standards ofsiedley,'' and I might add's, my own present work, do mot lead -me ta believe we

.have dependable-results. We. have some names and measurementinstrsome'variables which should be thought about seriously very affectingstudent achievement. That's about as_stronve-statement as I would ever make.See'for example the discouraging-reView of behavioral stability by Shavelson

DemOsey in RER this year. -

Reviewing is an art that is starting to becerlt technical and methodological.Gene Glass' work on statistical methodology for conducting meta-analysis ofresearch in an, area is an example of such new and sophisticated approaches; toreviewing research. I think, were I you, I would continue to fund such reviews,

,-;eyery few years, because neither Medley's. nor Rosenshine's, nor Heath's, nor

9unkin_and Biddle's, etc., can capture the full knowledgein a field like this.-And,none of the above used the systematic_ approach of Glass for the accumulationof data.' Somebody' should:

J-am-Also a little bothered by some of the criteria used by Dr. Medlex, The

criterion of .a linear correlation of .39 in this review.isquite sensible but'Certainly opens the review up to certain criticisms.' These have to do withthe sample size necessary to have a correlation of .39 be significant. At

the .05- level this is, I think, about 18 cases. Since many, many interesting

studies of teaching have low N's., Ow may never. get into, the "acceptable-for-review" category. This argument about size is made best by my friend and j

colleague N. L. Gage in his paper "four cheers for research on teaching.",

Minch,; 28 1977'lags `2% -"

,Another' problem is in the gain criterion, listed as criterion III.--- Gains are

defined very-differently in these studies. In:at least one study, sed in this

-.revieW, the "gain" is actually a loss of pOints between an easy pretest and apost. test. Residualization is used in some but not all the studies,

think;' and this too 'has unique Oroblems.4

toould nit -pick my way through 10 or more other areas ; all of which are wellknown by Dr. ,Medley and the researchers whom he reviews._

Myspoint in' this brief critique is only to expreis.iw concern that you are notfooled. -These are ideas to be thought about, propositions, if you will."-,Butthey-are not "dependable" findings. Moreover, these studies will probablyznOtbeloplicated or validated in anywhere like their original fora: So someoneneeds to' design mini-implementation Studies to see If the'Variables seem to.,hold up -on closer.sscrutiny. After those implementation, types:of studies,:-Oder different conditions,. I might begin 'to use.teris like "dependable." Tillthen;-caution, cautions But if you will stay cautious, by all :Means ereview as a-take off for the design of programs' in teacher edUcatio . Thereviewls certainly worth-serious- attention.

Sincerely yours,

David C. Berliner - ,

-AssOciate Laboratory Director.for Research

'DCB:er

'cc: Don Medley-

'P.S. Don--Can I keep my copy of the review and share it with the CaliforniaCosiaission for Teacher. Preparation and Licensing, even in its draft, firm?,

.-'They should-read it soon..

Thanks,

- , Comments by Jene_BrophyAssociate Professor of Educational Psychology

Onftersity-of Texas at Austin_1.;';.

.Directot* theinorreletes of-Effective Teaching" Project,.Research and Development Center for Teacher Education in Austin,.

-I:, Dr. Medley has prodUced a useful;- thought- provoking compilation and

,clearly

research On teacher effects. The.rationaleand procedures Are,clearlY describedi.along with their implicationso.maing it easy,to understandand, evaluate what was dom Also, the data are presented in alarm that makesthat easy to comprehend, something. that is difficult to accomplish in,a review'of thielleghltude. In general, the document is well done and as a-'valuable contribution. Having said this, I wish to offer a few criticisms'and-suggestions.'.

First, although the combined criteria of size of correlation (.39 orbettr)-and probability value (.05 or below) highlight strong findings andeliminate borderline ones, Illould not,place too much stress on the sizes of

correlations. In itudies with,miny subjects; correlations-lowerlhan_.39Still can be not only statistically significant but worth considering. Olore.generally, replication across studies is moreimportant.than the correlationkin any, single study, so that I would nominate replication and consistency as/"the primary criteria for *ging findings:, , T-,

Similarly, I share Medley's-concern-with'epecific, describable behavior,but I would not rule out high-inference process measures from consideration.

-*Melly aspects of teaching are best measured with high-inference methods, Evenif it is-true that these measures are not very-useful for teacher educationuntil or unless broken.into-specifics, it still seems .useful to take note ofConsistent findings concerning high-inference-measures as a way to indicateareas likely to be worth finer analyses to lead to more specific; low-inferencedesCriptions..

fly- major concern about the review is that so much emphasis has'been placedon long-term outcomes and normative:test data, even to the point of dismissingshort-4,1rm outcomes (attention, task engagement, short-term rates or-levels ofachievJnent). Short-term outcomes_are convincing in their own right,,whether _

or not they correlate with long-term outcomes. .In fact, they provide thelinkages to explain why teacher behavior_influences long- term outcomes,

--44pecially test performance that is not. related in any direct way to theteaching behaviors of interest. Data on long-term outcomes are needed to showthat the teacher behaviors, haye important effects,-but short-termoutcomeslead us towards explanation of how the processes work and provide evidencethat correlational relationships reflect causal ones. Linkages between teaching,behaviors and short-term outcomes are useful even in the absence of informationabout long-term outcomes, and linkages between teacher behaviors and long-term,

-'- outcomes are, incomplete.

. The tES-date'discussed in th4 review come from my research; and I hastento pcdnt_out that SES was used as a proxy standing for some combination of

--ability,-achievement level, and motivation. SES per se is not the basic variable,and overemphasizing it might lead to unfortunate fixation-on methodkend/or toincreased-stereotyping according to SES. Also, our data do not support theconsent made about integratiOn in any direct way, and I do not interpret them

110selt. It way be true that integration (across race, social class,..ps,, or other classifiCations) alone doei not help, but investigations_

ng *insistently reveal that segregation does net help,- either. TheCininOtbe'settled_with data discussed in this, report. It resolves to a

-1*.k.trade=off, between the benefits and disadvantages of homogeneous ,vs.eneous. classroom composition..

A final point about Interpretation. should be made in reference toitile;'studies -;by the Soars and by Stallings andKaskowitz. These uterPrbject,,FolloW11004k classrooms. Follow 'Through sponsors have specific program models thatdiffer considerably from one:another, and teachers within programsjend to.teach Siiilarly. Therefore, Process-product data froM the studies in- questiondo, not tOnuch reflect teaoher, effects as prom= effects. Saietiales,_ thisleads to confusion., In particular; 'these Studies are icited.aS'SUpporting- the -,.idea..that low SES children in the early grader Yearn ,best when taught in, large,rather than, small, groups. It happens that group size is., inextritably- confoundedwith' program sponsorship in Follow Through classrooms: the. programs that ,get;,the best, learning gains use large groups, and .certaiirothersiscimall' groups.

possible that group size did have dtrect.effects,;.but`itAS)hore likelythat:differences .in. effects resulted from -differencesi.in:rcurridult;.and that

,,these'l-Correlated. group- size variables do, not: have any; -causal -effects? In any,case; iti:shOuld be kept in mind that correlational '-data -can suggest, causality

in fact, certain variables are just correlates of othert that are the.._. real-causes, and that this danger is compounded in studies using FolloW Through:OlistrOoms'.

West :Georgia. CollegeDivision of the' University S tal of Gokorgia

Carrollton, 'Georgia 30117 ,

5, 1977

-_

1Di iicfir, :Ina-P1410j!Ct r':11ineriait,,Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Washington, D.C. ,200367. _.

.Thank; you for thecopportunity,tO review and react :to Dr. Donald Nedley!s The .-

Research Base for'Teacher.-Education., .

,Because of the way the, study }is 'organized and presented, it is surely the moststra4ght fonterd Study_ of- proCessiproduct.relationships which has

been done to.date. The four criteria used in the tseliction o research studiesto beincluded cannot be faulted... One mightwish_to alter anY or all of then'in Some minor', pecific waY(i)`lipt they should stand. the test of time and'

. become the basis for identifying teacher behaviors whiCh lead to: -imPortant/ student growth.- These important.criteria could be 'expanded in..eitherior both.4:dire:Ai/oft 'for. future -research on teacher effectitieness.

.

It seems unlikely, that anything less than long-terin direct observation.in thenatural setting will yield'the _real relationships essential to the formulation;Of an mpirically based teacher education program.!' Onlretearch which attemptsto study all the variables in their natural, setting can possibly reveal insightsinto the progressive interactions which are present in classrooms: Additionally,Cohen's Statistical Power,of.Analysis provides evidence that increasing the sizeof,n's is needed to- .yield the mailmen number of rea*, relationshiPs which exist. :'.It-light be useful If this aspect of research could be reported,-

The "folklore"' definitions of teacher effectiveness, bf which Medley speaks "still ,abound and'-must be dispelled. Since we 'do not" have a definition of competent:and /or incompetent teaching,,the use of the terms' "more'effective" 'end,effective" appear to be-more appropriate .and more acceptable.

All.of the "Introduction" is extremelyiuiid; but powerful "Rationale ofthe Study" should be requiredyeading for every:tacher-educator inthe nation.-

Tilts:study it a landmark whtch,ii so desperately needed at this time.

Sincerely,

,119 175

,Homer Coker-Director of the Competency-Based Teacher CertificationProject-

Harris":*

Cosmentk_bYlaberev. a. Professor of ;Education, Emeritus

NeriROchelle;;New York --

:

Despite of -effort, and hundreds of. ,s es, -the-training of -;------.--teachers is sti/11 based are on tradition and:pirsonal belief. than on hard

: research evident.. Dr: Medley: has '0 .formed -a great service in his effort .

;.:... "' to-separate the wheatsfrOm. the chaff in teacher effectiveness studies. Thecriteria .he has. sed in-deciding Whic results to include are stringent:aunt research design; 'relationships 'Mich are practically as well as statis--ttcally_significant; merisured.pupil gains as) the criterions results_atich can .

. be generalized to -other groups. of teachers; and specifit destription of process -,,maki the study repeatable. It' is a pity` that so few of the studies hesearched metAhesercriteria:.,1.'...

( .. . ...-

By grouping together the results of different studies..he-has Uncoveredmaw interesting trends, some of-which ru ;contrary td conventional wisdom.He has, identified areas in which there is ubstantial consensus- of evidencealready, and Other areas in whith' the ilvfd els meagre. r Inconsistent, thusProviding direction for fn" re.1,res !arch. l""-------

4.

-....,_,..

_T ; However, loathing is Jost...when the islts-of a complex study are boil i''

down to entries in'a few fables:i -The,destii tie labels in the tables may noslims- convey enough detillAbOuethe Variab e as it was defined in the studybeing cited. For example; thir.entriet.conc ing the CRAFT-Project, which Idirected, are accurate ,as they go', but they do not include some essentialinformation.- In Medley's Table 7,-a,CRAFT ult showing a negative relationshipbetween total reading, timeindgreading improv tin second grade is cited: -,,.This is correct;_. but lit-Applied to 'only one ,of the_,four *thing_ methods. studied

. in that project (the:PhonoviSual Method), and t-it-means isthat 'in second

grade the teacheri who spent.most time on phoiri drills achieved-less improve-/ sent in reading than the :teachers who' spent les time on, such drills, in that' 1

particular Method. Some,:ef.theAther'discrepant results may alsO be based on 1

incomplete descriptions; of4.111,021r:;') s.% *,...., ,-- ,

..Dr. Medley's finding that wi.po,,iometmportint variables what works well

with middle-class children works poorly with low SES children, and vice virsaorgives much food for thotight.---' Hopefully, teacher educators will-'pay attentionto -this, and to other significant findings' such at' the poor, results associated

with small group ,work, and theoositive relationship between time spent on ,reading instruction, and reading- results in first-grade.. -

I

176'120

/Comments-by W. Robert Wooi

Associate DeanSchool of .Education

tat _of HoustonHoustorts Texas

. ..A.,.. -1-.:. .,- ---

ii t: ehc ii' I tudythe. -..,This mohographmakes several contribu ons o a ona s . First,

S.,

u millibgrePh provides 'a model- fcr summarizing the findings of research studies.. In his procedures, Medley sOeCified a set of stringent criteria,' then appliedthem,to teacher effects research, reporting only findings meeting. these sten-dierds: These findings have been reported using a common 'format; thus,;notonly the 'author's conclusions but also his. data base are made: known to theruder. .

. :.'$ecoitcle the tables and. conclusions dramatically detonStrate the seriouslack:of empirical tudies in this area, and they need for ''Concerted effort

_systematically to investigite the effects of te,aching:behavtor. to date there. ere io unifying .theories in teachinc' as in the sciences; but neither tre.there

.SubitAnt-lated findings:upon which such theories could be built. .10 ancientGreece, for example, Thales' monumental. Conception of Atm universe'was based

,,on 500 years of obiervations by astronomers of the movement of the sun, planets,-:----and-stars,';LikewiSe, the theories of ,Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and others .

were-based on advancing technology_ in_ 'the measurement of phenomena and previousresearch in related' fields.; .

9'.071#:.--- / 4? -

st- ,.. - \

? While the patterns of findingi-in, teacher editati on reported herein arefarefrom. clear, they provide a succinct basis for identifying needed areas forfurther study, stimulating research hypotheses, and understanding the relation-,'Ships among-studies. The interaction between increased precision in measuring-%.instructional processes and learning outcomes and systemic research studies.in teacher efftEtivenesS encourage longrange:.study and thcoriet based onampirial evidence. .---- -- 7-----____ _ , .,-... .

I--.!. , _

, Third, findings provide cautious cues.for educating teachers today, 4- ,... :/",. cautious because the populations studied were primarily in the elementary

school, cautious .because the number of studies was small, cautious becauseof several seeMingly contradictory findings, anccautious because studieswere concerned only with reading and mathematics and may not apply to less

'skill related subjects'. However meager and inconclusive, :tizh bases .could be', superior to typical practites based on lore which do not 1 themselves to

further refinement and study.-'S.-,

4,7-

fr 1217

f.

-

.1

Commentsy Virginia Koehler`Acting Chi 9 Teaching DivisionNational ;listitute on Education

D.C.

t

_This is an extremely interesting document. Don Medley has produced a'rePortwhiCh-provides a well organized and easily understood coiptlition of-lrawsamiyical findings" from a large numbet.of complex studies. It will,

jam-sure, be utilized for its tubstanci4vid as a model for*organizing and-peeseiting,this type of data. 1-

2k:critique of a research.synthetisioctaneni inevitably begins with a

comment on criteria utilized einclusion. Actually, I have few probTemsWith-the criteria, exceptf the one which excludes short-term relati4nshipsAmideCH ion III.. I ca understand excluding-such findings for the -sake

of mil ,or lackdf rability. Beat to state 'that short-term learning

gains,"a not the kinds of tcomes . . ;that teachers are hired to-accom-pliths mplies that one-year achievement gains on standardized tests aee.' Asa ma rcher, as a parent, and as an ex-teacher, 'I-Would havc,to secy.-withthit'conclusion.,-

I would also hive included a few more caveats in- he descriptiont-of.

the studies. For example, there is a major problem with construcaliditY:in the category systems of the Multitude of observation measures representedin'thit-paper.- This means,,among other things, that 'teacher lectUres" inone observation measure may not-be the same as- "teacher lectures" in another

measure. (See Borich and Malitz, "Convergent and Discriminant Validation ofThree 'Classroom Observation Systems:, A Proposed Model", UTR&D, 1976).Another methodological problem is that many of the greater than .39 correlationtlisted in the tables were found in studies with many variables -and many non- .

significant correlations, making the "significant" ones possibly random -----

occurrences. (See Godbout, "The Problem of Change: Significant Findings in

(Educational Research," UTR&D, 1975.) Both of these problems may explain some

Of the'contradiCtory findings.

_ But without a doubt, the most important caveat *hich needs to be-emphasized throughout the report (aod in fairness to Medley, he did make, it

at.the beginning is that these relationships are, in large part, correlational.*sal directions should not be inferred from these findings. Examine,-for

example, -the following Medley conclusion: ",..the effective teacher maintainsan'environment that is supportive,. and if not always quiet, free from ditruptive P

pupil behavior. He maintains this environment with little apparent effort-oreexpression-of negative affect." The tricky word here is "maintains". Is k:not just -as possible that the "effective" teacher happens to have few behavioralproblem students in his/her class,. and therefore does not need to exert effort--thatOnlect an "ineffective" teacher may be One with an excess;number of'behavioral problem children in his/her class? Reality irprobahly somewhere'between these two interpretations. But the data have been interpreted for us r

'in a model -which suggetts that teacher behaviors affect student behaviors whichin tuen affect. achievement gains. Experience, and some preliminary _findings

(e.g. Brophy, et al, "The Student Attributes Study: Preliiinary Report'',

WRAP, 1976) inUare that there is n.interactive process. It Work: that

certain student behaviors affect teathembehaviors and therefore outcomes, as-weWasIthe:other way around.

4

= 122

4

!,t,.. f-,. 1-

,also Pekes seie provocative. stitemunts - statements which

-.4tiOn-iesked: "If re are mow strategies which-hive opposite-obtl.:aiillysis4tzi the Scope 'of;this,project. The r7r4,)st pro-

_;`,01,,Peipflt.f.of these two types lor av others), is it fair to the 'pupils< AiroilSchers:)' to mix/Ahem togethee3n. the same classroom?"' The. conflict

iin,,,".question it between notiois, of 'equal educational opportunity,i -';i.e. ',treating:all kids the same, and equal 'educatienal.

irt(tcoile-9-side - 1...., taking,cogni_zance of and acting ;upon,

t,-"1,nt.eraction researeh-flpdfilit. But this,' I believe,/t S

ieport-is/extremely, important in thatit attempts to /.

intred Al) gimlet set of ,findings without ,completely digesting_

the teader. Medley is to be congratulated for developing. nd,lizi s ht 1 ta . s: 0V .

',, ec'N', / ' Z1 /.4,,, ,r,

\ '\\ lirrh' ,7, : r' . '4:

. ... ,I. .;

,, . -,.. -,

%,,,,, ,4.4, I. ,*'

s..4,2, 4.4"i .. p... ': ,

' ; \ '"5,%1' .-..''' ..., , l ..-

Y,At. _ .'

.1''. \'':*' : ... t k'' It ,4 4 . ''''' /0

h , .-.c.,,,,k1 '.' .......

;,. , ^:t;1, ,, ,I >a,..

.r" .. !.: . -' s : ,- ...,..- _ ,

v

,40 . - F.-.

r.

r.

/,

i 0

we.

"....s-

,..., ;7.44 ' :-..1 s ta

1%

t. v,....

. A 's.'..0 if , err4 1 .'

SI , o. :V , :

''4.

144:

4P

4,'

-10 '179 4

t

4

if

9

r.

120977

c

a

lionald,Metilai .

.Prfesser of fducition ...,,:...

School of Education N''

.thOiersity OfVirginia'rlOttesville Virginia' 22903,"

.DearDonr... ,,

:, 2 .

i' 2 ' '

. . , , , ' ,1 2

I have reviewed your compilationof interim reslarch findings on research in,.teacher iducation. It is a superior piece Of work, the best I have seen to.'date."Your choice of criteria for selecting studies to be included is excel-

lent. andsyou, have done Justice to the' studiei which are included. The approach_,....,

',' for-integrating the studies is excellent'. , ,

.

i ' . ...._.

-, .. .

This'research review is a significant additidn to the literature on teacher.,effeCiiveness. .

, .'' .

Sincerely yours,i 0

f0'.

0

Frederick J. McDonaldExecutive'`DirectorNational .Comission 'of

Performance-Based EducationEducational Testing ServiceRosedale Road '1

Prihceton, Nev Jerseys 08540

1, ,

.20

4 51'.

555.5".55554.

. .

InstituteCollege of

Cements by R. S.'.SoarProfessor of Educationfor Division of Italian "RefourcesEdUcation, University of Florida

:thou* doubt, this review is potentially one of the most important thingsthit-h s.- happened in teacher behavior research. Thee selection on an eminently

batis Of the studies to be reviewed reduces the volume of material tobe,:clealtWittr, to one which is manageable. But the major advance is, the method

"---of:presenting results, in which findings which would have "leaked inconsistent.'underenY'other review method can be seen to be consistent instead. The fact'that this procedure the reader from the frame of reference of the reviewer,int-YetOrovidet the data in manageable, form, is a major advance over other7rtylmit1ncluding thoierof this authar.

success Of the review, ha/revers suggests further Steps whichwoultbe.usefUl. The easiest would be to include resulti:Of specific tests .

cot Piteractions of teacher behavior with .pupil socioeconomic 'status as they,relate:to ohtcome. If; for example, positive affect 'expression related to-in,t.30-for low SE pupils, and -.30 for high SES pupils, this differencen-direCtion of relationships would be an interaction 'which would 'account for

mieUghlWariance to meet' the review criteria, if explicitly tested; but theseparate relationships as,Ithey are now reviewed rivould not. The.impOrtince. of.SEVas a moderating variable in the review argues- for the usefulness of _

reportinythese explicit tests, even though ,they do not fit the organizationof that current review.

,

The imposing volume orresults in the review' stipports the decision to 7,--use. a cutoff of 15% of variance. Larger amount, of data would probably place

greater deiand on the reader than many wouldaccept. Bu:: the 'success ofthis procedure suggests the usefulness of repeating the review using ,a lower

-4 1,'4- cutoff; perhaps-one of 10% variance. In our data, about half of the corre-

fferent mefrures 6 achi ve-,Ikely that 'teacher behav orthan anotIer means e,ofeal relat onsh4s,; have tleen

lations between cla sroom regressed mean gain for dment are'less than 1.39 (15% variance'). It seems u

- will often 'relate re strongly to achievement galachievement gain does, so that probably numbers of

,screened- out.. :4' .,4

-, - Ultimately, it seems useful examine this et of studies i more 4e ail,,\ I either averaging effect-size for v iable,s identified in the revs , or poo ing

1 the independent probabilities free hi,various studies. The Inclusion, ofspecific tests of interactions might be ddne in the present review,: but probablythe inClusion'of relationships with a cutoff of .3, or the more intensive

--- , ,

analyses f should .be made in idditional -studies. -' ( - . i ,

.--,--,,,.-- 1 -- I ,_.

..,

,

,_ .

There s an additional MethodOlogi el problem which affects"the results of-,-._.- the,-Lstudies evi (as Ruth Soar bring to my attention). In calculating

----j i -kregresSed gain, most studies only adjustl the effect of pretest out of thePosttest score, Mitch typically holds co stant about two-thirds 01 the 'Variance-(1essi0,-the interval is more than a yea ). In contrast, holding IIQ and socio-

if economic'' status -constant, as well, typically holds 8040% of the variance7,---;.- I, :, '"1,!,constant. -This Orbcedural difference has ..two probable effects: (a) adjusting-. -',1- onlyjor,preteit leaves a greater* amount of reliable variance avails le to

-...- -I'I 0 !,.' V i'itt

.., y \ I

V ,

125.4

relotAo-clasirOom behavior,, but, unfortunately, (b) it probably,

biases thelilting relationships. The relations between pupil IQ and SP at the beginningthe-year and teacher, behavior at mid-Year are often stronger than thosetvietvbehivior and gain. As a consequence, if these pupil characteristics are

AloltbalOLCOnstant, a spurious degree of relationship between teacher behavior.and-.pupil post -score may be created. This problem is obviously not under thetOhtra,ifithe reviewer, but it does seem worth pointing out, since,the moretarefUlly:460e studies rre likely to produce fewer significant relationshipsAmd-smalletones. Perhaps this characteristic of each study Could be cited

risialvannotation in the reference list. This also seems important to.pointout since review will probably have continuing influence on.,the research ,'doneln 'the future`.

. .., . ..,.. ,

2-t.--

But iheie suggestions should not be seen as detracting from the review.-Itlt atontribUtion whose importance would be hard to overestimate. It will,nolonger be possible for reviewers or teacher educators to denigrate teacherbehavior research as having nothing to contribute without their pOOr scholar-,ship being evident; and this is doubly important, since the review makes clearthat some of teacher education's most dearly held,beiiefS are. ,irrelevant- or

..s

Western Kentucky, Uni versity

Office of theDeanCollege of- Education,

Bowling Green, Kentucky

Dr...--.Doni144010,, Professor

011egei:of-Educatien .

-AiniVersity Of-Virginia

2-1hirlottesville, Virginia 22901 /

IDear-Don:

.0

,, .

Please-forgive the.long delay in my reaction to your excellent study of the:-research'findings in teacher education. I think the work you, have done is:Methodologically sound and your analyses, of the findings ate-outstanding.Taerdisappointed, however, although no fault Ofyour_study, that the existing '-'

research was so limited that the results of your studyAtill be limited inAeneralizabtlity, i.e., generalizable Ortmarity:to gradesir.III-and ip the:.. . .SUbjectsof -reading and math-. The implications will be poverfUl, however,-lor, other grades and subject areas and should stimulate greatAmounts ofresearch and new data.

. ... ..-

, ,. , ; . :. , ve

I am POtttiffifly-iiffiii74 with the finding'that successful teacher behaviors ,

differ so markedly between low SES and high SES groups. Theimplications for.-. , .

teacher ,education are startling.- I wonder ifthese differences. continuethroughthe upper elementary grades and into high school? Your.question as --40 whether we should.mix SES's in the same classroom is truly-meaningful inthe light of your findings. -

,- .

-.,

Ll..

..,,- . .

'Eq ty 4resst4e,_ and contrary to most ople's opinion, was t11 finding

. ....

th t productive tea ers do less individu 1 work with students but.when workingin ividualty, they so/different techniqu s.' Again, here is much. food forthought in'teacher education. i , ,, i- .

..

...

. .

, - .

Perhap one of my major concerns can be fund on page 30 of the draft. I hopethat readers will not overgeneralize the findings that the effective teacherof lc* SES's "does not encourage - pupils to,analyze, synthesiie, evaluate, orindeed-do a thing bolt answer rather narrow questions asked by-the,teacher.Theleache who encourages such pupils to express themselves freely, to think,

..10 quests ota 0 scuss is not effective in teaching then'to read-or do..arithmetic. You have carefully pojnted outjhat these findings apply only toreading and arit tic, and presumably in loWer elementary grades. Obviously,-therewill be hoe Who will quote thes

/

e findings and apply them to -all areasof,study,,inclUdi g the humanistic and social studies.

Although there ariiany impressive findings in the study that are worthyof Comment, 'T want to mention only two more. First, I was pleased that your-findingsAndicated that effeCtive teachers used more praise, encouragement, .

and-reinforcement than did more ineffective` eachers. I have read. some recent. .....

,

1 21 1 8 3

4,reitearch that denied this finding. I happen to believe that, they dd use more

praise. Second, your findings suggest that effective teachers may ,be more

_authoritarian than_ the less effective. This is the 'first concrete evidence

-to s rt our data from the Teacher Preparation Evaluation Program at Western

Kentunivers y.,

n summary, the more .1 read your paper, the more impressed I became with it.

My, first impressions were` not nearly so supportive. I became "hung up" ion

the:ett that the studies examined were so limited in number, dealt primarilywith-loiter grade levels, and assessed progress in reading and MathimatiCs. I

,bilii.tve that these limitations should be pointed out; The _beauty of

your technique "grew" on me and your _caution in interpreting the resulti ispnwandable. I support your work enthusiasticaLly_,but with the expectation

-..7-thatAt will be misquoted and used out. of context. Despite these_ probabilities,it'is a highly val-uable_plece of work: Congratulations on a Job well done.

Si ncereli yours,

J. ,T.' :Sandefur;, DeanCol lege,. of_ Edicatioti

ti

128 184

Co silents by Hero idle K. Spriggs, Ed.;D.-EduationalAhoogram Spedialitt

DREW --- :Office: Of Education .

-,TeaCher Corps

report is designed to provide the teacher educatot= With actess.to-'meaningful findings of research in teacher effectiveness. That such access

;ISTAinqUestionable..__That this report does the job, outlined alsoUesti enable.: What is questionabre is the impact ,-this report ant others likem1004' in the field of teacher education. In the hands_.-of the' "wrong-

,

:'1 ":::Supt information have an_ impact which may be so,negative that it

*Clears to5.-undO, as in the- case of studies which purport that at of our population is ge____Jetically inferior, _to other:segments of the

uliition:

It appears that the author' has reviewed, and apalyzed the findings withMete objectivity. There appears to be no. indication_pf:anyr,valUe judge-

MentS.-OrtAhe girt of the writer. This- must be emphasized- because, the. study,ken_444.- of Context, or, without-a thorough-:analysiS of 'each, .of= the=

resented,: can -lead to erroneous-concepts about Students free eloW socie-400°0'1er-status' (SES),. Further, other-factors Aick\can- be -attributed to low

--.SES ifthOUld be carefully considered before .drawing' hny'condlusions ,from ,,theStudy-or-the findings _presented. These -factors are the very essence oflowSES---inadequate housing,, medical factlities, pOor nutrition. etc. ,ElaboratiOw.,here hopefully91s not

:-For specifics, _one look_ at a couple of the areas presented,:

Organizing_ fo nStructiog

Or conclude that low SES students are unable to work independently -.

they lac iscipline, cannot foil* directions and must be guided step, by stepr attempts-to_learn.

.:"{ .4.

of Instruction

/,One.mikit conclude hat low SES students are unable to respond to h gher

'level Oestions - their innate ability is limited, they are Hintellectuwhatever that means, infer or to high. SES students. Moreover, low SES tudentsdon't ask

thata even when they do the "effective" teacher is no likely_

torespolid to tud nt.

"-.They re other areas from which negative conclusions can ,be dr Whaicoritrib s to these conclusions is the fact that comparisons are made it1i

S students. Why the negativeness? While not the majority,-ma loWE students in our society a e minorities - Black, Mexican Americ n and

fve,,American. There are ltural and langbage differences' among th se, groUps:which are not often r ognized as as ets among the majority pop lation;thus because of students', b kgrounds, the uality, of theirjeducation, saffected: . /.

Consider the MO nts used by the researchers to measure teacher'effectivenets. Do this tests take' into consideration the cultural and languagedifferences among a nt of the student population which is low SES?

729 '185

.01th.e hinds ot sensitive.teacher educators; studies of this nature caw

-vertusefeT edirtors will recognize, analyzeand-present those causal factors underlying the differences- in teaching lowSES'students and high SES students.-

.

O'er those teacher educators' who are insensitive, this study and other,laicen,init-of context, can be damaging. Teachers _trained- by such people may.exit, the training program reviewing low- SES students in a negative manner,

and May teach in a manner which assumes that.SUch.studenti are, limited in theirability 'to learn. It can lead to further segregation within the classroom:

Any study has. the postibiTiti of being..misconstrued orliisused. Thus

crucial that to the extent possible Oy cautions, or limitations of the---study be in_readerss/users' minds as they proceed. It is with this statement'in mind that it is recommended that the sponsors of this compilation continue,kith the, study.

COWITTEE

torrin-Kannamer, Chairman-.Dean; College:of EducationUniversity of " Texas at Austin'Auatin Texas .78712

....

PrOfestor of Education-Departnierrt of Curriculum and

nstructionCollege--of Education.Uniifersity of Florida'Gainetiille Florida- 32601

...Patricia M. 'Kayi.Director

Coalietenc*-Based..Teacher.. Education Project'

,Bernard Baruch College'School of Education''17 ,Lexington henue

New York2 'NY 10010

zibeth Koontz-

sistarrt- Superintendent for

. State Dept; of -PublicInstruction

N: C. 27611.

Sandefur; Dean.::College of Education

Weitern Kentucky University-Bowling Gt4en, Kentucky 42101

-LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES' f.

Gwendolyn Austin

etionTeacher Corps

U.S. Office of. Edu400,6thSt., S.W. oom1651DWashington, D.C. 20202

James.. Collins, Director

NCSIE 1. --150 Huntington HC1Syracuse University

---'Syracute,,NY .13210

EdWard.Darnbruch

Direetdr,Rhode Island TeacherEdacation tenter

,'.Rhode.ISland Department of'Education

Providence, RI ,02908

'.John Favors, DirectorBay: Area Leerning Center

y. T025 '2nd Avenue.,.'lloom 107Oakland, California 94619

Helen Hartle, Director

Interstate Certification ProjectNew York State -Dept. of Education.Room '1941

Twin ToWers

Ila.,hington AvenueAlbanyt NV,: 12210

Kyle Killough Di rectorTexas Teather Center ProjectTexas Education Agency'201 E.-11th Street'Austin; TeSes -78701.

Frederick MCOOnaldExecutive Director,

National Commission.of.PerformanceBased Education

Educational Testing ServiceRosedale RoadPrinceton, New Jersey I$540

Donaid N. Medle.Y.

Chairman- and -Proltessor

-----Wirtinent-of-Reseirch MethodologySchool of EducationUniversity of Virginia

Charlottesville, .Virginia 22903

Allen 5chinfeder. ,Chiefi Support ProgranisU.S. ffice of Education-7th and D. Street, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20202

Carl Grant

Director, 'Teacher, CorpsUniversity of Witconsin - MadisonMadison, Wisconsin 53706

James Hamilton; Director

Professional Development in VocationalEddcation

The Center for Vocational ,EducationOh:icyState _University

1960 Kenny. RoadCol ulbus Ohid. 43210.

Bob SterensonExecuAtt011

ion of Teacher EducationSecretary

i7or, st.,f1,31; Suite 1201-Washington, D.C. 20006 .

187

Ilernaki-lartho101iewResearch,-Speciefist

-- Surveys -Program ..,Rationat-,Education Association1201' 16th- 'Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20Q36

`Jere'Brophy/-

Coll:ego of EducationMichigan State UniversityTest Lansing, Michigan 48823

.- Robert' HoustonsoCiOttalean.,

School of EdOcation /University of Houston-

Boulevrrd-Houston, TexaS, 77004

Virginia Koeh,lerActing Chief -TeachingNationit.Inttitute.on

ducation19th Street, N.W.

h tfgton, 4.C. 20036I '

Reid ricklAl. McDonald'Senior Research:PsychologiStEducational Testi ns 'ServicePrinceton; New Jersey '08540

_RESEARCHER'S PANEL

Rauth..istant Director; Education

ducational Research Dept.,-...AFTWashington,, D.C. 20036 .

Y

J.T. Sandefur.-Dean, ..Collegep,Educa_tiOn'Western,Kdntu ky;Univekity x.&Wiling Green; Kentucky 42101

Dr, Haroldie Spriggs:. .

Educational PrOgram .Speci al ist-DHEV- Office of,EducatfonTeacher Corps.,400-Maryland_Avenue, &W.Washington,.. D.C. 20202

RoherV,Soar,

1,

Profetsor of Education",. fI Divisionfor Di i0h Huinati..Resources

. College of EducationUnIversity Of Florida

°Gann:0149 Flprida :32601/-

Jim Steffensen/ 'Actin's Chief

1

Program Pevelopmen Branch -

Teach* Corps r300-7th-Streetc_S-. _

Washi ngton, D.C. :720202-

1.*8 8

Marilyn

4, -

,. y

-.;pr.y1

, r

1.