Teaching and Teacher Education 20

achactds

StaEnglish Department, School of Education, Beit-Berl College, Doar Beit-Berl 44905, Israel

of grammar which constitutes an aspect of EFLteachers SMK (Richards, 1998; Spolsky et al.,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Corresponding author. Present address: 30/A Hasnunit St.,

2002). Specically, we tested the concept ofEnglish wh-constructions (e.g., wh-questions and

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.007

Raanana. Tel: +972 9 7476335; fax: +972 9 7476334.

E-mail address: haimorly@zahav.net.il (O. Haim).Keywords: Mental models; Subject matter knowledge; Language teaching; Grammar teaching; Wh-constructions; Teachers

knowledge; EFL-English as a foreign language

1. Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to explorethe relations between teachers subject matterknowledge (SMK) and their in-action mentalmodel (MM) of childrens minds and learning.The current study is based on the claim thatteachers MMs (e.g., teachers understandings of

aspects of the learner) and their SMK are twodistinct kinds of knowledge which are not neces-sarily intertwined, and moreover, the former haspriority over the latter. In this study, this claimwas put to empirical test.The teachers who participated in our study were

English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers. Thesubject matter we examined was formal knowledgeAbstract

We studied the relations between English as a foreign language teachers grammar knowledge and their in-action

mental models (MMs) of childrens minds and learning. The grammar knowledge we examined was English wh-

constructions. A total of 74 teachers completed an assessment task and were classied to have deep, intermediate or

shallow knowledge. Ten teachers (ve with deep and ve with shallow level) were videotaped teaching wh-questions.

The data were analysed qualitatively to determine the teachers MM, and then quantitatively to test similarities/

differences in their MMs expression. The ndings revealed an identical MM among all teachers that is expressed

differently as a function of knowledge level.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.bSchool of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelRelations between EFL tegrammar and their in-

childrens min

Orly Haima,, Sidney(2004) 861880

ers formal knowledge ofion mental models ofand learning

raussb, Dorit Ravidb

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

There is a distinction between kinds of MMs

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eachefound among teachers: espoused, in-action andon-action MMs. This distinction, made by Argyrisand Schon (1974) and Schon (1983), points todifferences between what teachers know when theyspeak about their profession (espoused), what theyknow when they practice it (in-action), and whatthey know when they talk about their actualwh-relatives). We now present the theory andempirical ndings relevant to the research para-digm of our study. In what follows, we discuss: (1)teachers MMs, (2) teachers SMK, (3) wh-constructions, and (4) the relations betweenteachers SMK and their MMs.

2. Mental models

MMs are powerful cognitive entities thatorganize how people interpret their world andhow they act on it (Johnson-Laird, 1983). We viewthe construct of MMs which developed from ascientic understanding of how the mind works(Johnson-Laird, 1983; Norman, 1983) as anheuristic device for thinking about teachersknowledge representation (Strauss, 1993, 1996,1999). A major purpose of an MM is to enable auser of that model to predict the operation of atarget system (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Norman,1983). Within the realm of teachers MMs, thetarget system is childrens minds and learning.Following Norman (1983), we describe the follow-ing primary functional features of MMs from theperspective of childrens minds and learning: (1)peoples MMs represent their beliefs concerningchildrens minds and learning; (2) parameters andstates of the MM correspond to the perceived orconceived aspects and states of childrens mindsand learning; and (3) the MM enables people tomake inferences and predict the behaviour ofchildrens minds and how learning takes place inthem. In addition, MMs are tacit, hidden andimplicit rather than explicit and self-conscious.Teachers MMs are, therefore, inferred from whatis explicit, observable and external, such asteachers actual instruction (Strauss & Mevorach,1996).

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and T862teaching (on-action). Thus far, research on therelations between MMs and SMK has addressedthe espoused and in-action MMs. Empirical workto describe and determine the nature of the on-action MM has begun only recently (Steiner,2002). In the present study, we examined teachersin-action MM.

2.1. Teachers in-action mental model

An implicit in-action MM refers to the MMteachers possess about childrens minds andlearning when they actually teach. The notion ofteachers in-action MMs is based on the funda-mental assumption that teachers instruction isguided by a psychological entity that describeslearning. In other words, the external, explicitteaching reveals teachers implicit MMs. Forinstance, when a teacher asks the students at thebeginning of the lesson, Do you remember whatwe did in our previous lesson? she/he is attempt-ing to help children identify the place in theirmemory where knowledge about the previouslesson is located. The teacher is presumablyinterested in the children searching for, locating,and retrieving the relevant knowledge. Thus, theteachers question is motivated by an implicit,powerful MM which guides classroom instruction.Work initiated by Mevorach (1994) and then

replicated and extended by Strauss and Mevorach(1996), Mevorach and Strauss (1996) describedand determined the in-action MM. In the Straussand Mevorach (1996), the participants were 24 rstgrade arithmetic teachers: eight pre-service, eightnovice, and eight experienced. The researchersvideotaped an arithmetic lesson given by eachteacher on the process of adding two numbers thatyield a third number. All the teachers taught thesame lesson in the normal course of teachingarithmetic, using the same curriculum unit.In order to infer teachers in-action MM, a two-

tier classication scheme was developed, each ofwhich includes four units (see Appendix A). Therst tiers four units are comprised of aspects ofteachers explicit teaching behaviours. These unitsare (1) the teachers and the pupils behaviours,e.g., the teacher asks a question. (2) An episode is acombination of several behaviours on the part of

r Education 20 (2004) 861880teacher and pupils, e.g., the teacher asks a

present a certain concept. (4) A lesson is composed

now turn to discuss English wh-constructions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eacheof a number of events, whereby the lesson has aparticular purpose, say, introducing the topic ofaddition.The second tiers four units were inferred from

the teaching and comprised the teachers MM. Thesecond tiers four units are (1) Cognitive Goals theteacher wants his pupils to accomplish (e.g., toconnect new material with pre-existing knowl-edge). (2) Cognitive Processes that the teacherthinks lead to the accomplishment of the cognitivegoals (e.g., retrieval of previously learned materialfrom memory). (3) Assumptions the teacher hasregarding the factors that enable the cognitiveprocesses to occur (e.g., reminding the students ofthe material dealt with in the previous lesson maylead to retrieval of learned material). And (4) themost comprehensive of all assumptions, Meta-Assumptions, a teacher has about the processes oflearning and teaching (e.g., knowledge is stored inthe childs mind). The study showed that the mostsignicant unit in teachers MM is their meta-assumption concerning childrens minds andlearning. These underlie the cognitive goals theteachers want to bring about in their pupils, andthe assumptions they have about how theirinstruction, which lead to the implementation ofthe cognitive processes that, in turn, induce thecognitive goals they set for their pupils.Indeed, recent studies that investigated the

nature of the in-action MM have revealed thesame MM among teachers who have taughtdifferent grade levels and various subject matter(e.g., Rauner, 2002; Wallenstein, 2002; Zimet,2002).

3. Teachers subject matter knowledge

Scholars and researchers have studied theconcept of subject knowledge and its relatedaspects from various psychological points of viewquestion, a pupil responds, and the teacher makesa remark about the pupils response. (3) An eventincludes several episodes (e.g., a series of episodesin which the teacher askspupil answersteacherresponds) whereby the aim of this event is to

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Tand with various assumptions since the beginning4. English wh-constructions

Wh-constructions refer to two main structures:wh-questions (e.g., What do you think? Who do youwant to speak to?) and wh-relative clauses (e.g.,The girl who speaks French is my cousin). Theformer constitutes a major subtype of interroga-tive clauses in English, and the latter refersprimarily to a dependent clause that modies anoun occurring in another clause.Wh-constructions cover a broad spectrum of

English grammatical knowledge, and carry im-portant pragmatic functions in spoken and writtendiscourse (Celce-Murcia & Freeman, 1999). Theyare considered important in linguistic theory aswell as in rst and in second/foreign languageacquisition research (e.g., Chomsky, 1986; Ellis,1996; Quintero, 1992; Stromswold, 1995).The various wh-questions, due to their impor-

tant communicative function, are generally taughtimplicitly in primary school and with differentdegrees of explicitness and complexity in second-of the century (see review in Shulman & Quinlan,1996). Among the most inuential contemporaryscholars who addressed the construct of teachersSMK is Shulman (1986), who argued that animportant omission in research on teaching andlearning to teach has been the study of teachersunderstanding of the subject matter and the role itplays in helping children develop their under-standing of the subject matter.Following Schwab (1962), Shulman emphasized

the distinction between substantive and syntacticstructures which according to Schwab comprisethe main aspects of a discipline. The formerpertain to the ways in which ideas, concepts, andfacts of a discipline are organized, and the latterrefer to ways of establishing new knowledge anddetermining the validity of claims within adiscipline.In the present study, we investigated English

teachers substantive knowledge. Teachers SMKwas examined from the point of view of how wh-constructions are represented in their minds. We

r Education 20 (2004) 861880 863ary school (IEC, 2001). They are also part of the

followers relate to the notions that teachers

teawaystanof tTha

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eacher Edpossessing deep SMK are more capable ofimplementing curricular content and deliveringinformation more effectively than those withinsufcient knowledge. Thus, adherents of thisapproach seem to believe that teachers with deepSMK will teach differently than teachers who haveshallow SMK.We propose a different approach to this con-

ventional view. Here the claims are not intuitiveand are not represented in the current literature.matriculation exams. The supercial similaritiesbetween the different wh-question types and thewh-relatives as well as the central role they play inEnglish grammar and discourse were the mainreasons they were selected to assess EFL teachersSMK. (For further description of wh-construc-tions, see Strauss, Ravid, Magen, & Berliner,1998.) We now turn to discuss the relationsbetween teachers SMK and their MMs.

5. Relations between teachers SMK and theirMMs

While teachers SMK and their MMs areconsidered important components in the knowl-edge base for teaching, the nature of the relationsbetween the two is rather complex and ambiguous.Teachers SMK and their MMs, e.g., their

knowledge about childrens minds and learning,are generally viewed as two interrelated types ofknowledge that teachers employ when teaching inthe classroom. According to traditional views, therst has precedence over and actually guides thelatter. Briey, the argument underpinning thisapproach is that teachers SMK is a crucial aspectof their knowledge that bears directly on theirteaching practice, i.e., teaching strategies, includ-ing posing questions, assessing childrens under-standing or, in short, how they make classroomdecisions (most notably, Ball & McDiarmid, 1990;Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; McDiarmidet al., 1989). Similar views were expressed byGudmundsdottir (1991), Even (1993), and Stodo-losky (1988).The claims offered by these scholars and their

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and T864We argue that teachers SMK and their MMs areof their SMK.The precedence of teachers MMs over their

SMK is argued to be the case for both espousedand in-action MMs. Whether teachers SMK baseis broad or narrow, and whether it is organized ina deep or shallow fashion, they will speak abouttheir instruction basically in similar ways, waysthat actually guide their espoused MM. Similarly,the instruction of teachers with varying levels ofSMK will be quite the same, as it is drivenprimarily by their in-action MM (Strauss, 1993,1996, 1999).Indeed, recent research supports the argument

of the precedence of teachers MMs over SMK(Strauss, Ravid, Zelcer, & Berliner, 1999; Strauss& Berliner, 1996; Strauss et al., 1998; Strauss &Rosenberg-Meltser, 1996; Strauss & Shilony,1994). As noted, the most relevant study here isStrauss et al. (1998) in which the relations betweenEFL teachers SMK and their espoused MMs ofchildrens minds and learning were investigated.Their ndings were that despite the differing levelsof SMK the teachers held the same espoused MM.

5.1. Research questions

The following research questions guided ourstudy:

(1) In light of the differences in the depth of SMKwill there be differences between the twogroups of teachers with respect to both theunits of analysis and the components of ourteachers in-action MM? In other words, willall units of analysis of the second tier be usedby the two groups of teachers?

(2) Will the two groups of teachers show differ-ences in the expression of the components ofanavidertwined. Hence, teachers with deep SMK andchers with shallow SMK will teach in the samesince the way they teach reects their under-ding of what learning is. However, the contenteachers instruction is inuenced by their SMK.t is, the kinds of explanations, examples,logies, demonstrations performed, etc. pro-d by the teachers are inuenced by the depthtwointeseparate entities that are not necessarily

ucation 20 (2004) 861880the in-action MM?

edge of wh-elements.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eache7 to 31 years. In terms of mother tongue, seventeachers were native speakers of English and three6. Method

6.1. Sample

The study included 10 seventh grade Englishteachers: ve with shallow and ve with deepgrammatical knowledge.

6.1.1. Teachers selection

A total of 74 teachers currently teaching Englishin seventh grade Israeli junior high schools wereadministered the classication task.Seventh grade was the level chosen for the study

for two reasons. First, in the Israeli schools, wh-questions, the grammatical subject matter, whichwas used to check teachers depth of SMK, is dealtwith more intensively and explicitly at grade 7 andabove. Second, the students at this level aredevelopmentally ready for formally learning thetopic of wh-questions (Ellis, 1996).Among the 74 teachers who completed the

assessment task, 12 teachers had shallow SMKand seven had deep SMK. The remaining 55teachers had intermediate SMK. Thus, ve tea-chers assessed as having deep SMK and veassessed as having shallow level were videotapedin the classroom.

6.1.2. Teachers academic background

The academic degrees of the teachers were asfollows: three teachers had an MA degree (one inlinguistics and two in TESOL education); six had aBA (in linguistics or in education); one teacher hada Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.); one teacher didnot have a university degree.All teachers were certied teachers with a

teaching diploma of teaching EFL. They receivedtheir teaching diploma in the following institu-tions: universities (six teachers), teacher trainingcolleges (four teachers).

6.1.3. Teaching experience, mother tongue, place of

work, classroom characteristics, and sex

The teaching experience of teachers ranged from

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Twere Israeli born but with native-like prociencyThe task was administered to the teachers intheir homes. A few teachers completed the task inthe school where they work. The researcher metwith all teachers individually in the teacherslounge or in a private study. It took the teachersbetween 20 and 30min to complete both parts ofthe task.

7.1.1. The wh-constructions assessment task

The classication task that was used as alevels, as they had lived a few years in an Englishspeaking country.The teachers taught in junior high schools in

cities located in the central area of Israel. Theteachers taught heterogeneous seventh gradeclasses. The size of each class was about 3037students. Each lesson lasted 45min. The teacherswere all female and their ages ranged between mid-thirties and mid-fties.

7. Procedure

The study had three phases: (1) assessinggrammar knowledge organization; (2) videotapingteachers teaching; and (3) assessing teachers in-action MM.

7.1. Phase 1: assessing grammar knowledge

organization

As mentioned, teachers were rst administered aclassication task to determine whether theirknowledge organization was deep or shallow.The instrument was used by Strauss et al. (1998)to assess depth of teachers grammar knowledgeand was found to be valid and highly reliable.The task involved sentence classication. It

consisted of two stages. In the rst stage, theteachers were given open-ended classicationinstructions (e.g., the teachers were asked by theresearcher to classify the sentences according toany category they wished). In the second stage, theteachers were asked to classify the sentencesaccording to wh element to make certain thatwe were assessing teachers grammatical knowl-

r Education 20 (2004) 861880 865measure of the depth of the teachers grammatical

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eacheknowledge, is comprised of a series of 12 wh-constructions of two types: wh-questions (e.g.,Which students do you like?) and wh-relativeclauses (e.g., The books which he recommendedwere boring.). (Dekeyser, Devriendt, Tops, &Geukens, 1984; Huddleston, 1984). The sentencesare presented in Appendix B.The wh-questions included 12 questions. There

are nine questions that are subclassied into sixdirect questions (e.g., Whose papers does healways steal?) and three indirect questions (Theywant to know whose book you prefer.). Directquestions are of two types: three subject questionsand three object questions. The rst replace thesubject NP (e.g., Who saw the murder?) and threeobject questions, replacing the object of thesentence (e.g., Who(m) did he see?). The ninequestions contain four wh-question words: who,whose, which, and how many. The three remainingsentences are wh-relative constructions whichinclude the following wh-words: who (I didntlike the man who spoke rst.), which (The bookswhich he recommended were boring.), andwhose (The man whose sister you married hasdisappeared.).Thus, the items of the task though bearing

supercial resemblance (e.g., the wh-element)differ grammatically, e.g., sentence structure andsyntactic complexity. They may thus serve as auseful tool to assess teachers depth of gramma-tical knowledge organization. English teachersteaching at this level are presumed to be highlyfamiliar with the organizational, syntactic, seman-tic, and pragmatic aspects of these structures.

7.1.2. Assessment criteria for levels of grammatical

knowledge organization

The task was designed to assess subjects depthof knowledge organization on the grammar topicof wh-constructions. Teachers were required toclassify the 12 sentences according to categories.The optimal level of classication (presented in

Appendix C.1) consisted of two categories (directwh-questions and wh-non-questions), each ofwhich was further differentiated into two cate-gories. The rst refers to two types of questions,e.g., subject and object questions. The latter refers

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and T866to indirect questions and wh-relatives. Thus, therewere two categories down and four subcategoriesacross.Criteria for assessment are presented as follows:Level 1Shallow grammatical knowledge orga-

nization: The criteria for shallow grammaticalknowledge (examples are presented in AppendixC.2) were that: (1) the teachers were not able tomake the rstlevel classications and (2) eitherdid not use wh-element as the content forclassication or used it incorrectly.

Level 2Intermediate grammatical knowledge

organization: The criteria for intermediate gram-matical knowledge (examples are presented inAppendix C.3) were a classication with the rstcategorization (indicating knowledge that thesentences are wh-elements) and either no furtherclassication or an incorrect classication.

Level 3Deep grammatical knowledge organiza-

tion: The criteria for deep grammatical knowledge(an example is presented in Appendix C.4) werefull classication and correct labels for each of thecategories.

7.2. Phase 2: assessing teachers in-action mental

model

To determine the teachers in-action MM, the 10teachers who had either deep (ve teachers) orshallow (ve teachers) grammatical knowledgewere videotaped in the classroom, teaching thetopic of wh-questions to seventh grade classes. Theteachers were asked to be videotaped in a lesson inwhich the pedagogic focus was wh-questions. Eachlesson included teacher frontal teaching in whichthe topic of wh-questions was dealt with explicitly(e.g., a presentation of the topic by the teacher,reviewing a homework assignment that focuses onwh-questions, etc.) as well as pair and group workactivities.

7.3. Phase 3: assessing teachers in-action mental

modelthe categorization system

The categorization system developed by Mevor-ach (1994) was used as our research tool to assessthe in-action MM of the two groups of teachers.The 10 videotaped lessons were described and

r Education 20 (2004) 861880analysed qualitatively in order to determine the

In order to decide if the teachers MMs were the

10 teachers, yet they get played out differently in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eachesame or different, we used the following criteria:

If both groups of teachers had the same fourunits of the MM, we could claim that they havethe same in-action MM. However, if thendings revealed that one group of teachershad at least one unit that was different thanthose of the other group (and also different thanthe ones found in Mevorachs (1994) and thesubsequent Strauss and Mevorachs (1996)models, we could claim that the two groups ofteachers had qualitatively different MMs.A second criterion we used to determine if theteachers from the two groups have the same in-action MM or not relates to the quantity of theunits, i.e., the existence of an equal number ofunits in the lessons of the two groups ofteachers. If we found that the teachers in bothgroups had the same units of analysis appearingin the original model, but one group of teachershad additional units than the other group, wecould claim that the groups were differentquantitatively in terms of their MMs.

7.4. Validity and reliability

The present study is based on the originalMevorachs (1994) study and subsequent studiesby Strauss and Mevorach (1996) and Mevorachand Strauss (1996), all of which were found tohave face and content validity and high reliability.In the current study, inter-rater reliability of thecategory system was checked. This was conductedby two independent raters. Both raters analysedthe same lesson using Mevorachs (1994) (ex-implicit MM the teachers hold. We added the unitone unit, Specic Assumptions, which is actuallyan extension of the unit Basic Assumptions of thesecond tier to the original categorization system toaccommodate the MM into the context of EFLgrammar teaching. The instrument combines theinterpretive research approach and quantitativeapproach. The interpretativequalitative aspect ofthe tool provides the data to test the similaritiesand differences in the MM of the two groups ofteachers.

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Ttended) category system. The analysis included allthe lessons of the two groups of teachers.Having observed similarities and differences in

the use and expression of the components betweencomponents of the rst and second tiers. The inter-rater reliability was found to be 0.73.

8. Results

The qualitative analysis of the lessons revealedthat there were no differences between the twogroups in-action MM. The criteria for establish-ing the existence of a common in-action MMamong the teachers were met: all teachers fromboth groups used all four units of the MM. Therewere no exceptions to this nding. Thus, bothgroups of teachers, despite their different depth ofknowledge organization, have the same in-actionMM.However, the quantitative analyses reveal differ-

ences in the expression of the in-action MM heldby the two groups of teachers. The statisticalanalyses were conducted in two main phases: (1)descriptive statistics and (2) inferential statistics.

8.1. Phase 1: descriptive statistics

The frequencies of occurrence and the percen-tages of the rst and second tiers units of analysisand the components of the MM obtained from thequalitative analysis of the 10 videotaped lessonswere computed. The frequencies and percentagesof occurrence of the components of the MM werecomputed on two levels: (1) the lessons of eachgroup of teachers: teachers with deep grammaticalknowledge organization and teachers with shallowlevel, and (for the sake of completeness only) (2)each lesson individually. Summaries of the fre-quencies of occurrence (f ) and percentages (%) ofmost prominent components of each unit ofanalysis of both the rst and second tiers used bythe teachers with deep grammar knowledgeorganization and those with shallow level aregiven in Appendix D.On the whole, the data suggest that more or less

the same components of the MM were used by the

r Education 20 (2004) 861880 867the two groups MM, we conducted further

statistical analyses. We now turn to our secondphase of statistical analyses.

8.2. Phase 2: inferential statistics

We statistically compared the proles of theMMs units in order to determine whether thereare signicant differences between the two groupsas to the use and expression of the MM. Below is adescription of the methods of analysis that wereperformed:First, we normalized the data due to differences

in lessons length. For example, we did not want to

scores of each unit were then combined accordingto Strube (1985). A signicance level of theteachers group differences was computed for eachunit (a 0:05). We found differences between thetwo groups with regard to their use of certainunits. Finally, we performed a binomial test toassess the signicance of the differences in relationto the MM as a whole. Here, we performed abinomial test in order to compute the signicancelevel across units and determine whether the twogroups of teachers have statistically signicantdifferent proles of their MMs use.The results of the signicance tests (sum of Z-

test and binomial test) which were computed are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

terna

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 861880868claim that one group of teachers used a particularcomponent more than the other group withoutnormalizing the data because those data might bedue to different lengths of lessons. Normalizationwas done by dividing the frequencies of thecomponents by the total number of Episodes ineach analysed lesson. For example, the frequencyof the item to apply language knowledge (acomponent of the unit Cognitive Goals) in acertain lesson was divided by the number ofEpisodes occurring in that lesson. The purpose ofthis procedure was to obtain a ratio of the use ofeach component of the MM in the teachersinstruction.After the normalization, as we had a relatively

small number of subjects, we performed a Man-nWhitney rank-order test for each componentacross teachers to test whether the two groups ofteachers differ signicantly from each other, e.g.,in their proles of use of the MMs units. The Z-

Table 1

Results of the sum of Z-test

Unit Sum of Z Sum of in

1. Events 3.747 3.690a2. Episodes 1.107 4.213a3. Behaviours 16.498 27.574

4. Cognitive goals 4.887 2.817a5. Cognitive Processes 7.517 4.737

6. General Assumptions 15.496 12.829

7. Specic Assumptions 1.319 10.66

8. Meta-Assumptions 0.073 2.107a

aNegative intercorrelations were regarded as zero correlation.bSignicance at a 0:05:

cBorderline signicance.found in Table 1, where we see that a statisticallysignicant difference was observed for the follow-ing units of analysis: rst tier, Behaviours; secondtier (the MM), Cognitive Processes; and GeneralAssumptions. The results of the unit of analysisCognitive Goals were borderline signicant(p 0:052). The use of the MM as a whole bythe two groups of teachers was also found to besignicantly different (p 0:0058). Thus, theresults indicate that the teachers from the twogroups express their common MM differently. Thedifference between the two groups may indicatethe inuence of the independent variable of depthof grammatical knowledge on the expression of theMM.Having found different proles of the use of the

teachers MM held by the two groups of teachersas a function of their depth of knowledge ofgrammar knowledge, we now turn to the nature of

l correlation Number of components P

12 0.14

13 0.38

33 0.039b

9 0.052c

9 0.040b

22 0.012b

12 0.41

10 0.51

examine it since it was found to be close in itsexplanatory power to factor 2 as is shown in Fig.1.In Fig. 1, we see the nine factors which emerged

from data (e.g., the factors with non-zero positiveeigenvalues). The factors are ordered in a steeplygraded series with respect to their relative expla-natory power of the variance in the data set, i.e.,the expression of the MM. The positions of factors1, 2, and 3 shows that they have the mostexplanatory power in comparison to the otherfactors as they have the highest eigenvalue. Theposition of factor 1 shows that it is the highest inthe hierarchy of factors and thus has the mostexplanatory power (e.g., as it has the highest

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Factor matrix showing proportion of loadings of the variable of

teachers depth of grammar knowledge organization

Factor Loading

1 0.681

2 0.4863 0.02

4 0.03

5 0.08

6 0.3847 0.187

8 0.255

9 0.21

eacher Education 20 (2004) 861880 869the differences between the two groups of teachersas to the expression of the components of the MM.

8.2.1. Nature of differences between the two groups

In this stage of our analysis, we ran a factoranalysis for the entire data set. The method weused was Principal Component Analysis.The interrelationships between and among the

units of analysis and their components wereexamined in an attempt to nd out how manyindependent factors could be identied in theteachers MM. The units and the components ofthe MM which had the highest loadings (above0.250) with the factors were used to dene thefactor. After these had been identied, the factorswere examined to nd out what they had incommon, and interpreted as to what feature theyrepresent. (High loadings in both positive and thenegative direction were considered. Factors withloadings in negative direction were considered asnot like the factor.)The factor analysis was run twice for the entire

data set. The rst time, the patterns of intercorre-lations among the units of the MM and theircomponents were analysed and isolated. Thesecond time, the variable of teachers depth ofgrammatical knowledge organization was addedto the analysis. The purpose of conducting twofactor analysis tests was to account for patterns ofcorrelations and to allow inferences concerning thenature of the construct represented by each factorin general and also in relation to teachers depth ofgrammatical knowledge. More specically, we ranthe second factor analysis in order to examine thecorrelations of the factors with the independentvariable of teachers depth of knowledge.The results of the factor analysis tests indicated

nine factors that underlie the teachers instructionin terms of the in-action MM. Among them threewere found to be most signicant. Factors 1 and 2related to teachers level of grammatical knowl-edge.In these two factors, the loading of the variable

of teachers depth of grammar knowledge orga-nization was the highest (above 0.300). The factorloadings on this variable are given in Table 2.Although factor 3 is not related to teachers level

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Tof grammatical knowledge it was decided to0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

11.0

12.0

Factor number

Fig. 1. Relative explanatory power of the factors. Approximateeigenvalue for relevant factors.

from these data. Factors 1, 2, and 3 are, therefore,factors of higher importance in the hierarchy of

facteation

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eacheorientation characterizes the teaching of tea-chers with deep and/or shallow level. As areminder, this factor was not related to teachergrammar knowledge organization.

As consequence of the above, we believe wehave an answer to the second research question ofour study, namely, that the two groups of teachersexhibit differences in their expression of the MMaccording to their level of grammatical knowledge.The factors identied suggest that the variable ofteachers depth of grammatical knowledge isrelated to teachers orientation to teaching.

9. Discussion

The results of the qualitative analysis of the data(3)shomar teaching. This orientation characterizesthe teaching of teachers with shallow knowl-edge.Holistic learner-cantered approach: language

use oriented towards grammar teaching. This(2)grammar teaching. This orientation charac-terizes teaching of teachers with deep grammarknowledge organization.Limited-analytic approach: goal oriented gram-(1)with evidence for the existence of three majortors which were interpreted as three types ofching orientations that characterize the instruc-of the teachers in our study:

In-depth analytic approach: inquiry orientedfactors and of much greater general interest.Factors 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are lower level minorfactors of limited importance in the hierarchy offactors.On the basis of the results obtained from factor

analyses the factors were interpreted to mean thefollowing in terms of the teachers instruction.The results of the factor analyses revealed

patterns of variation in the expression of theMMapproximate eigenvalue). The positions for factors2 and 3 treat them more or less as equals in termsof their importance in the hierarchy of factors

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and T870w that teachers with deep and shallow gram-mar knowledge organization had the same in-action MM about childrens minds and learning.All teachers participating in the study irrespectiveof their level of grammar knowledge used the sameunits of analysis (both in quality and in quantity)of the rst, as well as the second, tier of the in-action MM.These data support the view that teachers MMs

and SMK are two separate and independententities. Moreover, teachers MMs have precedenceover their SMK.The data are in general accord with previous

studies in the area of teachers MMs.We now turn to discuss similarities and/or

differences in the expression of the identical MMheld by the two groups of teachers.

9.1. Similarities and/or differences in the

expression of the in-action MM

According to the results, there are differences inthe expression of the two groups of teachers MM.The differences in the expression of the MM are afunction of their grammar knowledge organiza-tion. This nding is the studys main contribution.As already noted, previous studies revealed theexistence of a powerful general MM that iscommon to various teachers belonging to differentpopulations. The rst part of our researchreplicated these ndings. But we took those studiesone step further by attempting to determinewhether or not teachers can be similar and/ordifferent with respect to the expression of theircommon MM.As a reminder, the statistical comparisons

revealed two distinct proles of the two groupsexpression of the in-action MM. We found thatthe two groups of teachers differed substantiallywith respect to the expression of the MM as afunction of their grammar knowledge organiza-tion. The results of the factor analyses identiedthree underlying dimensions that were interpretedto represent three teaching orientations. A sum-mary of the main characteristics of the threeteaching orientations is presented in Appendix E.Two distinct differing teaching orientations

have been identied which reect the differences

r Education 20 (2004) 861880in level of the teachers knowledge. The teaching

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eacheorientation that characterizes teachers with deepgrammar knowledge organization emphasizes con-ceptual understanding, higher-order thinking andelaboration of the content of instruction. Theteacher shows a tendency to exploit a wide rangeof the MM components (e.g., different types ofquestions, analogies, examples, etc.) to enable thepupils to conceptually understand aspects of thetarget grammar forms. The learner is perceived asan active participant in the teachinglearningprocess.In contrast, the orientation of the teachers with

shallow grammatical knowledge places moreemphasis on rehearsing and practicing grammarforms through careful monitoring with relativelylimited, supercial analyses of language forms.The teacher makes use of fewer components of theMM. The main instructional goal seems to be totransmit knowledge to the pupils in a direct anduncomplicated way. Knowledge seems to beviewed as transferable, hence the tendency toimpart information directly to students, and toseek generalizations. The learner is perceivedprimarily as a receiver of information.These differences are manifest particularly with-

in the dimension of teacher-cantered type ofinstruction. The dimension of the learner-canteredtype of instruction in which the focus was holisticlanguage teaching (e.g., more implicit grammarinstruction) characterizes the instruction of theteachers irrespective of the grammar knowledgeorganization. (The relationship between the threeinstructional orientations identied in the presentstudy and teachers grammar knowledge organiza-tion is illustrated in Appendix F.)These ndings are signicant for two areas. The

rst area concerns MMs. The nding relating todifferences and similarities in the expression of theteachers MM is an important outcome of thestudy in that they may contribute to our under-standing of the variability in the frequency ofoccurrence of the components of the in-actionMM found in previous studies investigatingdifferences and similarities between the MM ofdifferent teacher populations (e.g., Mevorach,1994; Mevorach & Strauss, 1996).Second, from the perspective of theory and

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Tresearch concerning the relations between tea-chers SMK their MMs, our ndings stand incontrast to the contemporary views that postulatethat the former has precedence over the latter. Onthe surface, it could be argued that some of thedifferences between the two groups expression ofthe MM found in the present study are similar tothe claims made by traditional views, e.g., thatteachers SMK inuences their capacity to askquestions, their ability to give explanations, makeanalogies, etc.However, despite the apparent similarities, we

argue that the results of the present study areessentially and substantially different. In fact,what distinguishes the results of this studyfrom expectations from the traditional view istwo-fold. First, while the conventional viewand related studies show that SMK has priorityover teachers MMs (e.g., teachers knowledgehow to apply subject matter), the ndings ofthe present study demonstrate that teachersMMs have a greater inuence than their SMKon their classroom teaching. Our study has shownthat that despite the differences in the level ofknowledge, all teacherswith no exceptionhadthe same in-action MM in the 10 lessons weanalysed.Second, while most other studies concentrated

on the differences between the instruction ofteachers with different levels of subject matter,the ndings of the present study indicated aninstructional dimension in which teachers expres-sion of MM was different as a function of differentlevel of grammatical knowledge and an instruc-tional dimension in which the expression of theMM was similar despite the differences in level ofknowledge. In other words, unlike other studies,the ndings of the current study revealed that theorganization of teachers grammar knowledge hadan impact on the expression of their MM not inevery instructional context, but within the acertain instructional context, namely the teacher-cantered analytic mode.Thus, the ndings of the current study challenge

the traditional view relating to the role of SMK inteachers instruction and support the claim thatthe manner in which teachers teach is guided bytheir MM. However, the content of their instruc-

r Education 20 (2004) 861880 871tional practices.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

eache10. Implications for teacher education

This study suggests a number of implications forthe area of teacher education and continuingprofessional development. They relate to: (1)training teachers to develop meta-instructionalawareness of their in-action MM of childrensminds and learning; (2) the kind and amount ofsubject matter teachers need to know; and (3)acquiring knowledge relating to developmentalaspects of teachers subject matter.

10.1. Training teachers to develop meta-

instructional awareness of their in-action MM of

childrens minds and learning

As mentioned, teachers MMs are implicit(Strauss, 1993, 1996). Teachers are not aware ofthe existence of their MMs and the inuence theyexert on their classroom teaching. Implicit aspectsof teachers instruction cannot be studied untilthey are rst made explicit. Teachers are unawareof the existence of their MMs about childrens mindsand learning and do not use this kind of knowledgein classrooms not because teachers are unwilling touse it, but because they have not been given theopportunity to study their MM and relate it to theirown knowledge, personality, experience, methodo-logical approaches, and teaching contexts. There-fore, in the area of pre-service and in-serviceeducation recognition of the existence of teachersMMs and their inuence on the classroom practiceand learning to teach is recommended.Courses aimed at assisting student teachers and

teachers developing meta-instructional awarenessof their MMs in teacher education programmescould be helpful. By understanding their ownMMs student teachers, as well as practicingteachers, may in a better position to improve thequality of their professional actions. In acquiringmeta-instructional awareness teachers not onlybecome aware of their MMs and how their MMsaffect their classroom teaching, but they also gaincontrol over their MM, so that they can use theirMM in such a way as to distinguish betweenappropriate and inappropriate opportunities forapplying aspects of the model, and can adapt the

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and T872model to the needs and abilities of their learners.In order to help teachers acquire a deep persona-lized understanding of their MM it is recom-mended to consider an experiential approach thatincorporates methods of inquiry, e.g., usingstimulated recall, microteaching followed by re-ection and analysis, analysis of audio andvideotaped lessons, classroom observations, jour-nals, diaries, lesson reports, and action research. Itshould be noted that in pre-service education,student teachers could rst be introduced to theirown existing internal MMs about childrens mindsand learning prior to theories of learning ofpsychologists, such as the Piaget or Vygotsky.

10.2. The kind and amount of subject matter

teachers need to know

One point that emerges from this study is thatalthough teachers SMK is subordinate to theirMMs, it has a pervasive inuence on aspects of theirinstruction. As such, SMK constitutes a centralrequirement of teaching and learning to teach.Pre-service education programmes could be

designed in such a way as to help student teachersacquire deep well-organized knowledge of variousaspects and domains of their subject matter, aswell as how it informs classroom practice. It mustbe stressed that in addition to studying variousaspects of subject matter, student teachers shouldbe made aware of the instructional dimensions inwhich these aspects manifest themselves. In otherwords, teacher preparation programmes shouldhave to emphasize both: (1) an in-depth study ofsubject matter and (2) its potential use in variousclassroom contexts.As for teachers, one of the teachers most

important tasks must be to continuously exploreaspects relating to their knowledge of subjectmatter. In doing so, they promote their ownprofessional growth, as well as contribute to thedevelopment of their students.

10.3. Acquiring knowledge relating to

developmental aspects of teachers subject matter

As important as their knowledge about subjectmatter is teachers knowledge about its develop-

r Education 20 (2004) 861880mental aspects (Strauss et al., 1998). Teacher

of learning, the learner progresses from one level

ureher

potentiure

endds avora

Appendix B. Sentences given for classication task(Strauss et al., 1998)

1 Who(m) did he see?

5 Whose students drink coffee every

ARTICLE IN PRESS

hersdapt

Basic Assumptions Basic Assumptions

Cognitive Processes Cognitive Processes

Cognitive Goal Cognitive Goal

Event 1

Episode 1 Episode 2 teacher child teacher teacher child teacher

eacher Education 20 (2004) 861880 873to the next. For instance, as discussed in ourliterature review, in the area foreign languageteaching, it has been found that formal instructionis effective, regarding the teaching of certainlanguage forms, only if the learner is developmen-tally ready to acquire them (Ellis, 1996). In orderto facilitate the progression, the teacher shouldtake into account these developmental knowledgeacquisition processes.There is a great body of literature in educational

psychology related to developmental stages in-volved in knowledge acquisition in general as wellas a growing body of research specically con-cerned with developmental aspects pertaining tosecond/foreign language acquisition in which theteacher can draw upon when teaching the subjectmatter. This information may useful for theteachers in making classroom decisions, such assetting instructional goals, choice of classroomtasks and materials, the manner in which they giveexplanations, examples, corrective feedback, etc.In sum, we hold that if teachers were made

aware of their own MMs of childrens minds andlearning and were they to acquire deep well-organized SMK that also combines knowledgeabout its developmental aspects, the process ofsubject matter teaching would become moreeffective. Moreover, it would be helpful were theyto develop the ability to manage and regulateconsciously the use or expression of their MM insuch a way as to tailor their instruction to theneeds and abilities of their pupils. Thus, a dualpedagogy is recommended here. The rst, relatesto awareness of the teachers MM and the secondrefers to its actual implementation in relation tothe needs and abilities of the language learner.

11. Conclusions

The current study reveals the precedence ofteachers in-action MMs about childrens andeducation programmes need to ensure that knowl-edge of subject matter is combined with anunderstanding of the childs mind (e.g., the childscapacity to learn and absorb). During the process

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Tlearning over their SMK. It sheds light about themorning?6 The books which he recommended were

boring.7 Whose papers does he always steal?8 He always mentions how many stories he2 I didnt like the man who spoke rst.3 Who saw the murder?4 She told me which students she liked in that

class.Meta Assumption

Meta AssumptionTeac(A In-Action Mental Model of Childrens Minds and Learninged from Strauss & Mevorach, 1996)Me ch, 1996)

min nd learning (adapted from Strauss &

App ix A. Teachers in-action MM of childrensof classroom teaching.nat

al to help us better understand the complexteac s knowledge. This line of research has the

nat of the relations between these two kinds ofwrites every year.

9 Which students do you like?10 The man whose sister you married has

disappeared.11 They want to know whose books you

prefer.12 Which books belong to you?

Appendix C

C.1. Optimal classification of 12 wh-construction

sentences

C.2. Examples of shallow grammar knowledge

organization of wh-constructions

Wh-word

Who Which How Many Whose(5, 7, 10, 11) (8) (4, 6, 9, 10) (1, 3)

Sentence content

Law/crime Books/stories

Students Dis/likingpeople

Tenses

Incomplete an ive

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(1) Optimal Classification of 12 Wh-Construction Sentences

Wh-Constructions

Wh-Questions Wh-Relatives

(2,6,10)

Direct Indirect

(4,8,11)

Subject Object

)3,5,12) (1,7,9(

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 86188087410, 11, 12)

(1, 3, 4, 5, 7)sentences(2, 6, 8, 9,Wh-questionsd non-inclus

Wh-(2, 6, 8, 10) (4, 11)

Positive Negative

Positive or negative sentences6, 10)

(8)simple(1, 2, 3, 4,Past simple Present(2, 4, 9) (5, 9) (6, 8, 11, 12) (1, 3, 7, 10)

C.3. Examples of intermediate level grammar

knowledge organization of wh-constructions

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(4) Teachers Deepest Organization of Wh-Construction Sentences

Wh-Questions Wh-Non-Questions

(1,3,5,7,9,12) (2,4,6,8,10,11)

Subject Questions Object Questions Indirect Questions Wh- Relatives

) 3,5,12) (1,7,9) (4,8,11) (2,6,10 (

(3) Examples of Intermediate Level Grammar Knowledge Organization of Wh-

Constructions

(Direct) Wh- Questions Wh-Non- Questions

(1,3,5,7,9,12) (2,4,6,8, 10,11)

Which (9,12) Which (4,6)

Who (1,3) Whose (10,11)

Whose (5,7)

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 861880 875 Wh- Constructions C.3. Teachers deepest organization of wh-

construction sentences

ec p

446 17.0

4 16.0

i

2. To identify 467 22.4

228 46.0

7 29.2

ARTICLE IN PRESS

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 8618808763. To connect 354 17.04. To preserve 335 16.1

General Assumptions

1. Specic instruction,asking a question,clarication requests,

518 26.3guidance,knowledge

Cognitive Processes

1. To apply 513 24.6language concept2. To apply language 214 39.4connect a certain

1. To arrange and 223 41.1

Second tierthe mental model Cognit ve Goals2. Control3. Performance 4 16.0Events

1. Recall 4 16.03. Clarication 94 16.4language knowledge2. Leading 105 18.41. Application of 185 32.3

Episodeswith one or two pupils

5. Teacher interacts 191 7.3

comment, summary

4. Explanation, 191 7.33. Question about thecontent of the lesson

223 8.5First tier behaviours

1. Motor action2. Verbal feedback 254 9.7MMUnits of analysis andcomponents of the

Frequency Percentageknowledge organizationthe MM used by the tea hers with dee grammarpercentages of the most prominent components ofAppendix D

D.1. Summary of distribution of frequ ncies andpresenting/practicing acertain grammaticalconcept in a differentway) leads togeneralization3. Rehearsal activatesexisting languageknowledge andcontributes to itspreservation4 16.7Meta-Assumptions

1. Existing knowledgecan be activated/applied2. Introducing/ 5 20.8Specific assumptions

1. Using meta-language (e.g.,grammaticalterminology/concept/category) to connect/apply specic languageknowledgeknowledgedemonstrations,repetition, analysis,isolating parts ofsentences, etc. enablesidentication/application of therelevant languagematerial4. Use of examples, 200 10.2application ofknowledge and enablespreservation of2. Visual and auditorypresentation enablesidentication/preservation oflanguage knowledge3. Feedback maintains 263 13.4conrmation checks,etc. enablesapplication of pupilsknowledge278 14.1

bution of frequencies and

minent components of the

e

First tier behaviours

360 17.9154 7.6

9 37.5

l model Cognitive Goals

136 26.8

459 27.8

4. To connect 240 14.6

154 10.9

enables

153 10.8

112 40.0

6 26.1

ARTICLE IN PRESS

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 861880 877(e.g., asking aquestion, claricationknowledgeGeneral Assumptions

1. Specic instruction 450 31.73. To preserverequests, guidance,269 16.3Cognitive Processes

1. To apply2. To identify 341 20.7language concept2. To arrange andconnect a certainknowledgeSecond tierthe menta

1. To apply language 219 43.13. Performance 4 16.71. Recall2. Control 5 16.0Events2. Leading 77 14.2

language knowledge

1. Application of 175 32.2

Episodesanswer3. Verbal feedback4. Repeating an 131 6.51. Motor action2. Giving permissionto talk131 6.5MM

components of the

Units of analysis and Frequency Percentageknowledge organizationD.2. Summary of distri

percentages of most pro

MM used by the teach rs with shallow grammarknowledge can beactivated/applied2. Organizing andstating theconnection betweenthe points discussedduring an Eventfacilitates applicationand preservation ofcategory) to connect/apply grammaticalknowledge

Meta-Assumptions

1. Existing 8 34.8identication/application of therelevant languageknowledge

Specific assumptions

1. Using meta-language (e.g.,grammaticalterminology/concept/sentences, etc.enablesidentication/preservation oflanguage knowledge4. Use of examples,demonstrations,repetition, analysis,isolating parts ofauditory presentationenables preservationof material3. Visual and 153 10.8conrmation checks,etc.) enablesapplication of pupilsknowledge2. Feedbackmaintains applicationof knowledge and

Appendix E. Expression of the MMmaincharacteristics

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Expression of the MM Main Characteristics

In-DepthAnalytic Approach

Inquiry oriented grammar teaching Emphasis on conceptual understanding of language forms

Drawing on a wide range of the MM components

Grammar taught inductively Tendency to elaborate Sustained examination of language

forms Addressing aspects of

form/meaning/use Higher order thinking questioning Learner viewed as an equal participant

in the teaching learning process .

Limited Analytic - Approach Goal oriented type of instruction Use of fewer components of the MM Teacher led, practice activities that are

carefully monitored

Superficial analysis of language forms Tendency to focus primarily on

syntactic and/or morphological aspects

concise, superficial explanations Use of generalizations Use of lower level type of questions Rapid pace of classroom activities Tendency to impart knowledge

directly Learner is viewed as a recipient of

information

Holistic Learner Centered Approach Focus on actual language use and application ccontexts

Holistic language instruction Emphasis on the affective dimension

Teaching Orientations

Learner is given more autonomy

Gram

mar K

nowledge organization

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 861880878

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing

professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, W. (1990). The subject-matter

preparation of teachers. In Houston, R. W. (Ed.), Handbook

of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.

Celce-Murcia, M., Freeman, D.L., (Eds.). (1999). Wh-ques-

tions. In: The grammar book (2nd ed.) (pp. 241, 258).

Rowley, MA: Newbury House, Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin

and use. New York: Praeger.

Dekeyser, X., Devriendt, ., Tops, G. A. J., & Geukens, S.

(1984). Foundations of English grammar. Antwerp, Belgium:

function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 24, 94116.

Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989).

Teachers of substance: subject matter knowledge for

teaching. In Reynolds, M. C. (Ed.), Knowledge base for

the beginning teacher (pp. 2336). New York: Pergamon.

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Pedagogical models of subject

matter. In Brophy, J. (Ed.), Advances in research on

teaching, Vol. 2 (pp. 261304). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Huddleston, R. (1984). The contrast between interrogatives and

questions. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 411439.

IEC (2001). Principles and standards for learning English as a

foreign language for all grades. Jerusalem: Pedagogical

Secretariat, Ministry of Education.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive

science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ientat

Deep GKO

Shallow GKO Shallow GKO

Limited Analytic Approach

Hol

istic

Lea

rner

-Ce

App

roac

h

olistic Learn

er-Centered

Approach

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 861880 879INKA.

Ellis, R. (1996). The study of second language acquisition.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Even, R. (1993). Subject matter knowledge and pedagogicalAppendix F. The relationship between the threeteaching orientations and teachers grammaticalknowledge

The Relationship between the Three Teaching Or

Grammatical Knowledge

In Depth Analytic Approach

Deep GKO

nter

ed content knowledge: prospective secondary teachers and theions and Teachers

H(1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesnt really work:

subject-specic pedagogy. In Reynolds, M. C. (Ed.),

Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193205).

New York: Pergamon.

Mevorach, M. (1994). Teachers in-action mental model.

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

Mevorach, M., & Strauss, S. (1996). Teachers in-action mental

model of childrens learning: the case of teaching reading

comprehension. School of Education, Tel-Aviv University.

Norman, D. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In

Strauss, S. (1996). Confessions of a born-again structuralist.

Educational Psychologist, 31, 1121.

Strauss, S. (1999). Folk psychology, folk pedagogy and their

relations to subject matter knowledge. In Torff, B., &

Sternberg, R. (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the

intuitive mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Strauss, S., & Berliner, D. (1996). Teachers mental models of

childrens minds and learning. Final Report submitted to the

United StatesIsrael Binational Science Foundation,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

O. Haim et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 861880880(pp. 714). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Quintero, K. W. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of

extraction in relative clauses and Wh-questions. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 14, 3970.

Rauner, G. (2002). Informative, empathic and value-moral

aspects of history teachers in-action mental model of

childrens learning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tel-Aviv

University.

Richards, J. C. (1998). The scope of second language teacher

education. In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Beyond training

(pp. 131). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how profes-

sionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Schwab, J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline.

Educational Record, 43, 197205.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 414.

Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative

psychology of school subjects. In Berliner, D., & Calfee, R.

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399422).

New York: Macmillan.

Spolsky, D., Horvitz, N., Lifschitz, D., Milstein, E., Steiner, J.,

& Ur, P. (2002). Core requirements for teachers of English:

knowledge and performance. English Teachers Journal

(Israel), 54, 39.

Steiner, J. (2002). English teachers on-action mental model of

how pupils learn vocabulary and literature in the classroom.

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

Stodolosky, S. (1988). The subject matters: classroom activity in

math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Strauss, S. (1993). Teachers pedagogical content knowledge

about childrens minds and learning: implications for

teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 278290.Strauss, S, & Mevorach, M (1996). Teachers in-action mental

model of childrens learning. Research Report. Tel-Aviv: Tel-

Aviv University.

Strauss, S., Ravid, D., Magen, N., & Berliner, D. C. (1998).

Relations between teachers subject matter knowledge,

teaching experience and their, mental models of childrens

minds and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14,

179191.

Strauss, S., Ravid, D., Zelcer, H., & Berliner, D. C. (1999).

Teachers subject matter knowledge and their belief systems

about childrens learning. In Nunes, T. (Ed.), Integrating

research and practice in literacy (pp. 259285). London:

Kluwer.

Strauss, S., & Rosenberg-Meltser, H. (1996). Teachers and non-

teachers mental models of childrens minds and learning.

Unpublished manuscript, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.

Strauss, S., & Shilony, T. (1994). Teachers mental models of

childrens minds and learning. In Hirschfeld, L., & Gelman,

S. A. (Eds.), Mapping the mind: cognition and culture

(pp. 455473). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stromswold, K. (1995). The acquisition of subject and object

Wh-questions. Language Acquisition, 4, 548.

Strube, J. M. (1985). Combining and comparing signicance

levels from nonindependent hypothesis tests. Psychological

Bulletin, 97, 234341.

Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150

different ways of knowing: representations of knowledge in

teaching. In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Exploring teachers

thinking (pp. 104124). London: Cassell.

Wallenstein, N. (2002). An in-action mental model about learning

among school counselors in two situations: teaching and

guidance. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

Zimet, G. (2002). In-action mental model about learning: the case

of visual arts teachers who are artists. Unpublished Ph.D.

thesis, Tel-Aviv University.Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.), Mental models Jerusalem.

Relations between EFL teachers formal knowledge of grammar and their in-action mental models of childrenaposs minds and learningIntroductionMental modelsTeachers in-action mental model

Teachers subject matter knowledgeEnglish wh-constructionsRelations between teachers SMK and their MMsResearch questions

MethodSampleTeachers selection6.1.2. Teachers academic background6.1.3. Teaching experience, mother tongue, place of work, classroom characteristics, and sex

ProcedurePhase 1: assessing grammar knowledge organizationThe wh-constructions assessment task7.1.2. Assessment criteria for levels of grammatical knowledge organization

Phase 2: assessing teachers in-action mental modelPhase 3: assessing teachers in-action mental modelmdashthe categorization systemValidity and reliability

ResultsPhase 1: descriptive statisticsPhase 2: inferential statisticsNature of differences between the two groups

DiscussionSimilarities and/or differences in the expression of the in-action MM

Implications for teacher educationTraining teachers to develop meta-instructional awareness of their in-action MM of childrenaposs minds and learningThe kind and amount of subject matter teachers need to knowAcquiring knowledge relating to developmental aspects of teachers subject matter

ConclusionsTeachers in-action MM of childrenaposs minds and learning (adapted from Strauss & Mevorach, 1996)Sentences given for classification task (Strauss et al., 1998)Optimal classification of 12 wh-construction sentencesExamples of shallow grammar knowledge organization of wh-constructionsExamples of intermediate level grammar knowledge organization of wh-constructionsTeachers deepest organization of wh-construction sentencesSummary of distribution of frequencies and percentages of the most prominent components of the MM used by the teachers with deep grammar knowledge organizationD.2. Summary of distribution of frequencies and percentages of most prominent components of the MM used by the teachers with shallow grammar knowledge organization

Expression of the MMmdashmain characteristicsThe relationship between the three teaching orientations and teachers grammatical knowledgeReferences