a review of research on teacher beliefs and practices1996 fang a review of research on teacher...

7/25/2019 A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices1996 Fang a Review of Research on Teacher Beliefs and Prac

1/19

Educational Research Volume38 Number 1 Spring 1996

A review of research on teacherbeliefs and practices

4 7

Zhihui Fang, Division of Literacy and Language, Department of Curriculumand Instruction, 1442 Liberal Arts and Education Building, Schoo of Education,Purdue University, West La yette, Indiana 47906, USA

Summary

During the past 15 years or o, teacher education research has made signi cantstrides in studying the complex relationships between teacher belie and practices.This new line of research has generated important ndings that are of practicalimplications r teacher education. This article reviews this smal body of researchand, in so doing, elucidates the two competing theses (i.e. 'consistency vs

inconsistency ) that are recurring in the literature on the relationships betweenteacher belief and practices. t begins with an overview of traditional research onteaching in general, lowed by a discussion of teacher cognition under whichteacher be ief /theories are subsumed A er introducing the notion of 'the MissingParadigm in the mainstream teacher education research, the artic e examines thetheoretica ameworks underlying teacher beliefs and practices research. Next itprovides a synthesis of recent research on teacher be ie and practices, addressingcritical issues germane to the esearch ndings. After a brief discussion of several

critical methodological issues the article outlines six possible directions r tureresearch.

Keywords: teacher education, teacher beliefs and practices, educational researchmethodo ogy, literacy research, teacher s thought processes, teacher cognition,teacher decision-making

Introduc ion

In uenced by the advances in cognitive psychology, the popularity of ethnographicand qualitative methodo ogy and the conception of teaching as a thought ulprofession, teacher education researchers have, in the past decade or so, demonstrated an unprecedented interest in and enthusiasm about certain aspects of teachercognition and their relationship to sound pedagogical practices in the classroom(Ashton, 1990; Fang, 1995 . This signals that research on teaching and earning hasshifted om a unidirectional emphasis on correlates of observable teacher behaviourwith student achievement to a cus on teachers thinking, beliefs, planning anddecision making processes. This new line of research has generated important

ndings that are of practical implications r teacher education. The purpose of thispaper is to review recent teacher education research on teacher beliefs and practicesIn so do ng, I hope to elucidate the recurring themes of 'consistency vs

inconsistency between teacher beliefs and practices in this limited body of


2/19

48 Educational Research Volume 38 umber 1 Spring 1996

literature. I also discuss pertinent methodological issues and outline several possibledirections for future teacher education research.

historical glimpse o research on teaching

According to Clark and Peterson (1986), the process of teaching involves two majordomains: 1) teachers thought processes (i.e. teacher cognition), and 2) teachersactions and their observable effects. Teachers thought processes occur insideteachers heads and are unobservable. The phenomena involved in the teacher actiondomain include teacher behaviour, student behaviour and student achievementscores, all readily measurable and more easily subjected to empirical researchmethods than the phenomena involved in the teacher s thought domain. Centring onteachers actions and their observable effects, traditional research on teachingexamined how teacher behaviour influences student achievement. Its major goal wasto determine the criteria for excellence in teaching by estimating the effects ofteachers actions or teaching performances on student learning (Beattie, 1995;McDonald and Elias, 1976). As such, it has been classified under the rubric ofteaching effectiveness , process-product studies or teaching behavior (Brophyand Good, 1986; Shulman, 1986a, 1986b). The basic tenet of the research wasdescribed by Anderson, Evertson and Brody (1979) as to define relationshipsbetween what teachers do in the classroom ( he process of teaching) and whathappens to their students (the products oflearning) (p. 193). One such product thathas received much attention is achievement in the basic skills. Research in thistradition assumes that more knowledge of such relationships will lead to enhancedinstruction, that is, once effective instruction is described,. then supposedlyprogrammes can be designed to promote those effective practices.

Process-product research was concerned primarily with the relationship betweenteachers classroom behaviour, students classroom behaviour and student achievements. t was often conducted under laboratory or contrived conditions and datawere collected using categorical observation scales (Beattie, 1995). It typicallyassumed that causality is unidirectional, with teachers classroom behaviouraffecting students classroom behaviour, which ultimately affects students achievement (e.g. Doyle, 1977; Dunkin and Biddle, 1974). Further, the research assumedthat the relationship between teachers actions and their observable effects is linearand unidirectional. Data analysis was relatively decontextualized and objectified in asearch for positive, generalizable principles which can be used to formulate teachingand learning theories. Statistical procedures used in these studies were oftencorrelations and analysis of variance. Recently, however, researchers have begun torepresent the direction of causality (i.e. teachers actions and their observable effectson student learning) as cyclical or circular, suggesting that teacher behaviour affectsstudents behaviour, which in turn affects teacher behaviour and, ultimately,students academic performance (Brophy and Good, 1986).

With the advent of cognitive psychology and diversification of research paradigms(Fang, 1995), researchers have become increasingly interested in teachers thinking.Since Philip Jackson s (1968) initial attempt in ife in lassrooms to describe andunderstand the mental constructs and processes that underlie teacher behaviour, thestudy of teacher cognition is receiving added attention in the li terature on teaching ingeneral and on the subject area of reading/literacy in particular. Searching to find outwhat teachers thought as opposed to how they behaved, the research focus hasshifted from studies on teacher behaviour to an investigation of teachers thought


3/19

Review: teacher beliefs and practices 49

processes. This new line of research is purported to enhance our understanding ofhow and why the process of teaching looks and works the way it does (Clark andPeterson, 1986). Its underlying assumptions are twofold: first, teachers areprofessionals who make reasonable judgements and decisions within a complex anduncertain community, school and classroom environments; and second, teachersthoughts, judgements and decisions guide their classroom behaviour (Stern andShavelson, 1983).

Towards defining teachers thought pro esses

Teachers thought processes have been categorized into three fundamental types: (1)teacher planning, (2) teachers interactive thoughts and decisions and (3) teacherstheories and beliefs (Clark and Peterson, 1986). These categories derived fromJackson s (1968) conceptual distinction between the preactive, interactive andpostactive phases of teaching. They reflect more of the researchers conceptualization of the domain of teacher cognition tha n an empirically derived categorization ofthe domain. The first category represents a temporal distinction between whetherthe thought processes occur before (i.e. preactive thoughts) or after (i.e. postactivethoughts) classroom interactions.

More specifically, teachers planning includes the thought processes that teachersengage in prior to classroom interactions, s well s the thought processes orreflections that they engage in after classroom interactions that guide their thinkingand projections for further classroom interaction. Teachers theories and beliefsrepresent the rich store of general knowledge of objects, people, events and theircharacteristic relationships that teachers have that affects their planning and theirinteractive thoughts and decision, s well s their classroom behaviour (Nisbe tt and

Ross, 1980). According to Shulman (1986b ), three dimensions of teachers generalknowledge are importantly involved in the process of teaching: subject-mattercontent knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge.Subject matter content knowledge includes both the substantive and the syntacticstructures. Substantive structures are the variety of ways in which the basic conceptsand principles of the discipline are organized to incorporate its facts. Syntacticstructures of a discipline are the grammar in which truth/falsehood and validity/invalidity are established. Pedagogical knowledge has to do with the dimension ofteaching such s how ideas are best presented and formulated in order to make itcomprehensible to others. Curricular knowledge includes knowledge of alternativecurriculum materials for a given subject/topic within a grade level, as well s

knowledge of the curriculum materials simultaneously under study by his/herstudents in other subjects. To these, Beattie (1995) added a fourth dimension,personal practical knowledge , which was defined s teachers experiential know

ledge of students learning styles, interests, needs, strengths and difficulties and arepertoire of instructional techniques and class management skills. Elbaz (1983)pointed out that the practical knowledge is, however, informed by teacherstheoretical knowledge of subject matter and of areas such s child development,learning and social theory (p. 5).

Theories and beliefs make up an important part of teachers general knowledgethrough which teachers perceive, process and act upon information in the classroom(Clark and Peterson, 1986; Munby, 1982). They are a set of conceptual representations which signify to its holder a reality or given state of affairs of sufficientvalidity, truth or trustworthiness to warrant reliance upon it s a guide to personal


4/19

50 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 1996

thought and action (Harvey, 1986, p. 660). A teacher s beliefs are shaped by manyfactors. Among them are the influence of discipline subculture, the quality ofpreservice experience in the classroom and the opportunity for reflection on thepreservice experience (Bean and Zulich, 1992; Brousseau, Book and Byers, 1988;Cherland, 1989; Richards, Gipe and Thompson, 1987). In practice, these beliefs cantake many forms. They can be embodied, among others, in the teacher sexpectations of his/her students performance or in the teacher s theories about aparticular subject area s learning and teaching. Regardless of the forms they take, ateacher s beliefs or philosophy can affect teaching and learning in one way or theother. For example, studies have shown that a teacher s expectations can havesignificant impacts on students behaviour and academic performance (see Good,1987, for review). On the other hand , a teacher s implicit theory about the nature ofknowledge acquisition can also affect his/her behaviours and, ultimately, his/herstuden ts learning (e.g. Anders and Evans, 1994; Hollingsworth, 1989; Schommer.,1994; Stoddert, 1994).

he missing paradigm

Prior to the mid-l 970s and early 1980s, most of the studies on teachers thoughtprocesses focused on how teachers manage their classrooms, organize activities,allocate time and turns, make structure assignments, ascribe praise and blame,formulate the levels of their questions, plan lessons and judge general studentunderstanding (McDonald and Elias, 1976; Shulman, 1986a). Their emphasis hasbeen upon teachers decision-making, with little reference to the knowledge ofsubject-matter upon which these decisions are based (Meloth t al. 1989). What ismissing in this new line of research are issues with respect to teachers such as:

Where do teacher explanations come from? How do teachers decide what to teach,how to represent it, how to question students about it and how to deal with problemsof misunderstanding? These neglected domains constitute what Shulman (1986b)referred to as the missing paradigm in the research on teaching. Although thecognitive psychology of learning has focused almost exclusively on such questions inrecent years, it is invariably from the learner s perspective, ra ther than the teacher s(Shulman, 1986a, 1986b . In a most recent review of the relationship betweenteacher thoughts and actions, Clark and Peterson (1986) stated that understandingteachers thoughts and actions should give us a better understanding of how thesetwo components interact to increase or inhibit students academic performance. Yetalmost no mention is made of teachers concepts of subject-mat ter or the role theseconcepts may play in planning, interactive decision-making and student learning(Meloth t al. 1989).

Brophy and Good (1974) stated that a better understanding of teachers beliefsystem or conceptual base will significantly contribute to enhancing educationaleffectiveness. Heeding this assertion, researchers have in the recent past devotedincreased attention to teachers beliefs and their effects on teaching and learning.This emerging, albeit small, body of research is the focus o f this review.

heoretical frameworks

According to Sedlak (1987), many people including educators hold a simplisticbright-person model of teaching. They see instruction as the delivery of


5/19


information and the decoding of that information as the responsibility of students.Thus the teacher s responsibility basically ends when they have told students whatthey must remember to know and do ibid., p. 320). That is, teachers are viewed asmasters of subject-matter content knowledge. The issue of how t translate thisknowledge for students seems to rest outside the scope of teachers responsibility.Others (e.g. Jackson, 1986; Lortie, 1975) have suggested that many teachersproceed on impulse and intui tion in teaching, relying on personal experience ratherthan on reflective thought and professional education. In reality, O Brien andStewart (1990) also found that many preservice teachers expressed the feeling thatmuch of content reading instruction, or for that matter teaching in general, iscommon sense and common practice. Pinnegar and Carter ( 1990) cited a high schoolEnglish teacher as saying:

A lot of teaching is intuition and instinc t, if you allow the in tuition to come forthand operate. But then a lot of other stuff which is doing it wrong and doing it adifferent way until you find something that works A lot of intuitive thingsthat you do - and questioning and answering - take a lot of experience to knowresponses: a lot of verbal and non-verbal responses in the classroom and how tohandle the kids differently (p. 21).

However, there has been substantive evidence to the contrary. According to theNational Institute of Education s (1975) report, teachers behaviour is directed in nosmall measure by what they think (p. 5). Similarly, Paris, Wasik and Turner (1991)noted that different views of reading and teachers expectations for studentslearning are apparen t in the classroom. For example, teachers who regard reading asrules for decoding and interpreting text emphasize mastery and application ofphonic rules and promote activities in which children read silently for comprehen

sion (Richards, Gipe and Thompson, 1987), whereas others who stress creative,aesthetic and strategic aspects of reading emphasize diverse reading experience suchas storytelling, writing, drama and sharing of ideas (Nist and Mealey, 1991;Sturtevant and Spor, 1990; Winograd and Johnston, 1987). Along the same vein,Eccles and Wigfield (1985) reported that teachers who believe that all children canlearn will promote literacy development, while those who believe that lack of abilityis a stable state will produce a debilitating environment. In partial summary,classroom teachers possess theoretical orientations that in effect organize and triggertheir instructional behaviours (Duffy and Anderson, 1984; Borko, Shavelson andStern , 1981).

Educators are now beginning to realize that teachers (preservice, beginning orexperienced) do hold implicit theories about students, the subjects they teach andtheir teaching responsibilities, and that these implicit theories influence teachersreactions to teacher education and to their teaching practice (Ashton, 1990). Putmanand Duffy (1984) indicated that teacher practice does not rely solely on impulse, butis directed towards certain preplanned outcomes. Others have argued tha t teachersbeliefs act as a filter through which a host of instructional judgements and decisionsare made (Nisbett and Ross, 1980; Shavelson, 1983; Shavelson and Stern, 1981). InDeford s (1985) words, Knowledge forms a system of beliefs and attitudeswhich direct perceptions and behaviors (pp. 352-3). As Blanton and Moorman(1987) concluded, there is clear relationship between [teachers ] knowledge andinstructional behaviors . An accurate portrayal of this relationship will, it follows,contribute to a more complete picture of teachers cognitive activity (Johnson, 1992)and, ultimately, improve teaching effectiveness (Casey et al. 1988).


6/19


Research synthesis consistency vs inconsistency

The most significant contribut ions to our understanding of the relationship betweenteachers' beliefs and practices have, in recent years, taken place in the field ofreading/literacy. Harste and Burke (1977) defined reading teachers' theoreticalbeliefs as the philosophical principles, or belief systems, that guide teachers'expectations about student behaviour and the decisions they make during readinglessons. Attempts to characterize reading teachers' beliefs have used the theoretically derived notions of how reading takes place such as top-down (i.e. readerbased), bottom-up (i.e. text-based) and interactive/transactional (Kinzer, 1988;Kinzer and Carrick, 1986; Konopak, Wilson and Readence, 1994; Leu and Kinzer,1991; Mitchell, Konopak and Readence, 1991; Wilson, Konopak and Readence,1991), as well as the methodological divisions of phonics, skills and whole-languageapproaches to reading instruction (Deford, 1985; Duffy and Anderson, 1982).

Reading research has examined how teachers' personal beliefs about teaching andlearning affect thei r decision-making and behaviours. A substantial number of such

studies support the notion that teachers do possess theoretical beliefs towardsreading and that such beliefs tend to shape the nature of their instructional practices(Blanton and Moorman, 1987; Brophy and Good, 1974; Haste and Burk, 1977;Kami and Pearson, 1977; Leu and Misulis, 1986; Longberger, 1992; Mangano andAllen, 1986; Rupley and Logan, 1984). For example, Rupley and Logan (1984)reported that elementary teachers' beliefs about reading affected their instructionaldecision-making. Working with teachers from Grades 4, 5 and 6, Richardson t al(1991) found that teachers' beliefs relate to their classroom practice. Specifically,they reported that teachers who believed that the subskills of reading must belearned before the meaning of text can be determined generally used a skills/wordapproach. On the other hand, those who believed that learning to read is

accomplished by reading employed a literary structuralist approach. Those whoadopted the whole-language philosophy used authentic literature as a vehiclethrough which students construct meaning. These findings support Haste andBurke's (1977) claim that 'teachers are theoretical in their instructional approach toreading' (p. 32).

The consistency thesis between beliefs and practices has also been supported bylimited research in other areas of literacy instruction. For example, Mangano andAllen ( 1986) found that teachers approach language arts instruction differentlydepending on their beliefs about writing. Not only were instructional practicesfound to be consistent with teachers' theoretical beliefs, but the interactions betweenteachers and students were found to differ according to teachers' theoretical beliefsabout writing instruction. Johnson's study (1992) indicated that the majority ofEnglish as a Second Language (ESL) teachers possess clearly defined theoreticalbeliefs which consistently reflect one particular methodological approach. Furtherthe study showed that ESL teachers who possess clearly defined theoretical beliefsprovide literacy ins truction which is consistent with their theoretical orientation andthat teachers with different dominant theoretical orientations provide strikinglydifferent literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. n the earlychildhood context, Wing (1989) found that preschool teachers' theoretical beliefsabout literacy development not only influenced their instructional practices, but alsoshaped preschool children's perceptions of the nature and uses of reading andwriting. These findings were further confirmed by Fang (in preparation) whoinvestigated a fourth-grade language arts teacher's belief about literacy and its effectson her pupils' perception of literacy (i.e. reading and writing) processes.


7/19


Taken together, this small body of research substantiates Kamil and Pearson s( 1979) claim that every teacher operates with at least an implicit model of reading. Italso supports the notion that teachers thinking abou t their roles and the beliefs andvalues they hold help shape their pedagogy. Specifically, it indicates that teachersteach in accordance with their theoretical beliefs. It further suggests that teacherstheoretical beliefs not only shape the nature of classroom interactions, but have acritical impact on studen ts perceptions of literacy processes as well.

Other studies have, however, led to mixed results. n a study that identified andcompared elementary preservice and inservice teachers beliefs and instructionaldecision-making, Kinzer (1988) showed that although both preservice teachers andinservice teachers shared similar theoretical orientations towards how reading takesplace and develops, the inservice teachers tended to be more inconsistent in theirchoice of instructional lessons. These results were reinforced by a later replication(Readence, Konopak and Wilson, 1991) which indicated that, as far as elementaryand secondary teachers are concerned, the relationship between beliefs andinstructional practices varies from very consistent to very inconsistent. This echoes

Duffy and Anderson s (1984) repor t that, although there is some congruencebetween teacher practices and thei r belief systems about reading, the relationship isnot altogether strong.

Many of these studies (e.g. Johnson, 1992; Kinzer, 1988; Readance, Konopakand Wilson, 1991) focused on hypothetical written tasks and did not include actualclassroom observations of the teachers in action (i.e. actual teaching). It must benoted that teachers writ ten responses in these studies may reflect what should bedone rather than what is actually done in class. Recently a number of studies haveattempted to overcome these limitations by using multiple measures includingclassroom observation, stimulated recalls, think-aloud protocols and focusedinterviews, whereby teachers beliefs and practices were examined in actual

classroom contexts. Findings from these studies have generally supported theinconsistency thesis. Wilson, Konopak and Readence (1991) examined in-depth,through interviews, classroom observations and written responses, an Englishteacher s beliefs about reading and her instructional decision-making as she plannedinstruction and during actual teaching. These researchers reported that although theteacher s reader-based beliefs were largely consistent with her choice of hypotheticallesson plans, the relationship between the teacher s beliefs and her actualinstructional practices lacked consistency. Subsequent in-depth research on twoChapter 1 teachers (Davis, Konopak and Readence, 1993) and one secondary socialstudies teacher (Konopak, Wilson and Readence, 1994) revealed comparableresults.

The inconsistency between teachers beliefs and their practices is not unexpected.Earlier researchers have noted that the complexities of classroom life can constrainteachers abilities to attend to their beliefs and provide instruction which aligns withtheir theoretical beliefs (Duffy, 1982; Duffy and Anderson, 1984; Duffy and Ball,1986; Paris, Wasik and Turner 1991; Roehler and Duffy, 1991). This suggests thatcontextual factors can have powerful influences on teachers beliefs and, in effect,affect their classroom practice. Duffy and Anderson (1984) found that, althoughreading teachers were able to articulate their beliefs about reading outside theclassroom, their actual instructional practices were governed by the nature ofinstruction and classroom life. For example, it was found that many teachers baseinstructional decisions on classroom realities such as mutual teacher-studentrespect, classroom management and routine, the amount of assistance needed bylow- or high-ability students, the way students learn, social and emotional


8/19


characteristics and textbooks (Ashton, 1990). Pinnegar and Carter (1990) whocompared theories in educational psychology textbooks with teachers implicittheories suggested that one reason prospective teachers theories are resistant toinfluencing their instruction is that they represent a moral vision of teaching thatconflicts with the technical theories presented in textbooks and teacher education

programmes.On

the other hand, Kilgore, Ross and Zbikowski (1990) suggestedthat administrator and collegial attitudes can support or diminish the effectiveness ofbeginning teachers by influencing their beliefs about themselves and their students.

This proposition is furthe r supported by Mealey (1992, 1994), who suggested thatnon-professionalization of remedial programme instructors in higher education ingeneral, and in research-oriented universities in particular, have affected teachermorale and undermined undergraduate preparation. t is also confirmed bySapon-Shevin (1990), who found that district evaluation and grouping policies canaffect teachers self-perceptions, expectations for students and classroom practices.As Davis and her associates (1993) noted, individual teachers agendas, schoolclimate, resources and beliefs shaped their understanding of the instructional task

that they faced each day. More specifically, these authors indicated that teachersinstructional decision-making was influenced by the principal s and cooperating/mentoring teacher s discretionary decision-making and their perceived need tofollow state and local district mandates. They further suggested that the differencesin the degree of inconsistency between beliefs and practices could also stem fromvarying psychological, social and environmental realities of the participantsrespective schools that either created an opportunity for or constrained teachersfrom implementing their beliefs in their instructional decision-making.

It is in this context that Margaret Lampert, a former elementary mathematicsteacher, aptly portrayed the teacher as a dilemma manager, a broker of contradictoryinterests, who builds a working identity that is constructively ambiguous (1985,p. 190). Because classroom teachers are often faced with making choices amongdichotomous choices such as to promote equality or excellence, to build curr iculumaround children s interests or around subject-matter, to foster independence andcreativity or maintain standards and expect everyone to meet them ibid.), to helpstudents become learners or knowers (Gayle, 1992), to adopt an explicit andskills-based approach or a process-oriented approach to instruction (Deplit, 1988;Martin, 1989), to foster productive skills and generalized abilities or to instil subjectarea content knowledge (Fang, 1994; Perfetti, 1989), and to centre the discourse ofclassroom on technique or on substance in this computer-assisted instruction era(Apple, 1988), they have to come up with coping strategies, by calling upon theconflicted self as a tool of her trade and building a working identity that isconstructively ambiguous, in order to combat these pedagogical dilemmas. Thisidentity crisis is vividly depicted in Taubman s Achieving the right distance (1992),in which teachers, confronted with a world of classroom hubbub, troubled kids,poor pay, too much work, and too little love (p. 233), are perplexed regarding howto achieve the right distance in teacher-s tudent interactions. Montero-Sieburthand Perez ( 1987) described a similar si tuation in which Puerto-Rican bilingualteachers negotiated between the dominant culture s requirements and minoritystudents predicaments and aspirations. Furthermore, many teacher educationprogrammes seem to have played a part in entrenching these current dilemmas.According to Cherland (1989), teacher educators (i.e. university professors) often

create in student teachers a sentiment of dissatisfaction with the instructionalpractice they see in school. Cooperating teachers, in turn, undermine the work of theteacher educators. This leaves many student teachers bewildered as to whose theory


9/19

Review: teacher beliefs and practices

(the cooperating teacher s or the university professor s) they should embrace andbe committed to application.

In the light of these dilemmas, it is not difficult to imagine why Hoffman andKugle (1992) found no significant relationship between teachers beliefs aboutreading and their verbal feedback during reading instruction. Teachers theoreticalbeliefs are situational and are transferred into instructional practices only in relation to the complexities of the classroom. Duffy (1982) has described life in theclassroom as a place where teachers are consumed with maintaining a productiveflow of activities while faced with a variety of implicit and explicit mandates thatdefine and limit their instructional options. In such environments, Duffy suggested, it is difficult for teachers to remember that they are supposed to be cognitive information processors who make differential instructional decisions on thebasis of rationally developed hypotheses (p. 361).

Another source of inconsistency reported in these studies may be attributed tothe measures used in the research. Central to this is the issue of construct validity.Most of these studies used researcher-determined statements or categories, which

may be different from those of the participants involved in the studies. For instance, the distinctions among the so-called text-based, reader-based and interactive approaches are not clear-cut and thus are not by themselves mutuallyexclusive. This may put the subjects in a position of choosing either one statementor the other as belonging to a particular instructional approach or learningteaching theory, when such dichotomies do not in fact exist in their belief systems.Further, different teachers might have different conceptions of, for example, whatthe buzz-word whole language means to them (McIntyre and Freppon, 1994;Newman, 1991) because of its somewhat fuzzy and elusive nature, at least in mostteachers minds. It is possible that one who adopts what she considers to be awhole-language approach to teaching may believe in the importance of readers

schemata or prior knowledge in comprehension to the relative exclusion of readerslinguistic skills such as phonics. On the other hand, another teacher may considerwhole-language approach to be the one that emphasizes both readers linguisticknowledge and culturally relevant knowledge. t is true, albeit surprising, that in arecent graduate literacy seminar course a number of inservice teachers who received their undergraduate degree from small state universities confessed that theyhad, until recently, never heard of such terms as whole language and portfolioassessment .

Furthermore, the instructional techniques utilized in the classroom are notmutual ly exclusive (Diller, 1978). Asking participants to choose one lesson plan asopposed to others is imposing the researcher s categories on them who do not normally do so. For example, a true whole-language programme does not excludephonics (McIntyre and Freppon, 1994). Similarly, skill-based approaches do notsolely espouse mimicry and drill, but also advocate instruction in the culture of thelanguage, as well as some simulated social contexts within which language patternsare practised (Johnson, 1992). Trying to avoid this inherent difficulty, Johnsonibid.) attempted to characterize teachers classroom practice by examining when

and how often certain teacher behaviours occur. These behaviours were then categorized into corresponding instructional practices. Such an approach is reminiscent of behaviourism and traditional teacher education research where teachingand learning were reduced into countable behaviours. Recently, however, these

problems have, inpart,

been avoided by in-depth case studies using multiplemeasures and triangulation that examine more closely teachers thought processesin the actual classroom settings.


10/19


ethodological issues

The recognition that teachers' thought processes influence the judgements,decisions and, eventually, practices has given rise to various forms of self-reportprocedures that focus on how teachers search for, select and represent information inmemory (Armour-Thomas, 1989). These methods purportedly produce data onmental processes by using more or less direct probes of teachers' thoughts,judgements and decisions. A major methodological problem with self-reported data,though, concerns the extent to which these methods yield reliable and validinformation about teachers' beliefs. This section summarizes the most commonlyemployed methods for eliciting teachers' cognitive processes. These tools are policycapturing, repertory grid technique and process tracing (e.g. think-aloud, stimulated recall and journal keeping). An extensive and in-depth discussion of thesemethods is available in Shavelson, Webb and Burstein (1986).

olicy c pturing

As a method borrowed from laboratory psychology, policy capturing uses simulatedcases or vignettes of students, curriculum materials or teaching episodes to studyteachers' judgement processes. n a typical case, certain features or cues arehighlighted in segments of the material, and the teacher is asked to make judgementsabout each feature. These judgements are then recorded on a Liker t scale and latertransformed into linear regression equations whereby the relative weighing theteacher assigns to the features in the segments is described. The resulting multipleregression equation is interpreted as a model of the teacher's policy about the featuresfrom which judgements are given. The major reliability question with this procedureconcerns the consistency with which generalizations can be made from a particular

score based on a sample judgement or decision task to a broader domain that thesample judgement is supposed to represent (Armour-Thomas, 1989). Possiblesources of error associated with teacher judgements include: observer/experimenterdrift, error of leniency, halo-effect, personal bias, reliability decay, contaminationand error of central tendency (Borg and Gall, 1989). According to Payne ( 1982), thesesources of error can be classified into three types: variation of eacher judgement on thesame vignette on different occasions; inconsistencies in judgement due to slightchanges in the wording on equivalent vignettes; and variation in teacher judgementdue to changes in judgement strategy, fatigue or boredom.

n addition, there are other ecological validity problems associated with policycapturing procedures (Armour-Thomas, 1989). First, the data reflect a simulation ofteachers' judgements about selected variables relevant to teaching and may not be anisomorphic representation of teachers' actual thought processes. That is, theregression equation might be a useful technique for predicting key variables thataffect teachers' judgements, but may be limited in describing precisely teachers'cognitive processes in a decision-making situation. Secondly, many of the policycapturing studies were conducted in laboratory settings and thus may not provide avalid portrayal of teachers' judgements and decision-making in a real-life classroom(Lave, 1989). The classroom is a highly dynamic and interactive environment whereunexpected cues can spontaneously trigger teachers' decisions and judgements, andthese decisions may be very different from those made in an artificial setting. AsShavelson, Webb and Burstein (1986) have pointed out, 'Teachers' classroomdecisions usually are not once and for all . Rather, they are made incrementally andadjusted on the basis of subsequent information' (p. 77).


11/19


epertory grid technique

The repertory grid technique recently has been quite often used in the studies ofteachers beliefs and practices (e.g. Johnson, 1992; Kinzer, 1988; Wilson, Konopakand Readence, 1991). This technique was developed to discover the personalconstructs that influence individual behaviour. Typically, an individual is presentedwith a series of statements or scenarios about the domain of interest to theinvestigator. The subject is asked to indicate which statement(s) or scenario(s) bestcharacterize( s or correspond( s to his/her beliefs about a particular subject-matter inquestion. The resulting groupings and their associated rationales are the n labelled asconstructs by the investigator. The constructs and their component elements are

then arrayed in a grid format to show the relationships among construc ts (Clark andPeterson, 1986). One problem with this method is that it produces data whichrepresent hypothetical situations. That is, the written responses collected via thismethod reflect what would be done rather than what is actually done in actualinstructional settings.

Process tracing

Process tracing is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of verbal reportmethods in which teachers are asked to make decisions and judgements about aninstructional task. Four most commonly used procedures are think-aloud, retrospective interview, stimulated recall and journal keeping. In a typical think-aloudprocedure, a teacher is asked to verbalize his/her thoughts while actually doing aninstructional task. The retrospective interview elicits the teacher s thought processesat or after the completion of an instruction task. The stimulated recall elicitsteacher s verbalizations whiles/he looks at a replay of herself/himself performing a

task. In journal keeping the teacher is required to keep a written record of whats/hethought and did in the process of teaching from planning to actual classroominstruction. Each method produces typewritten protocols of the teacher s verbiagewhich is then used to characterize his/her thought processes or to infer the mentaloperations the teacher used to make judgements and solve problems (ArmourThomas, 1989).

Process tracing procedures pose some measurement challenges for researchersmainly because of the introspective nature of the self-reported data. At a theoreticallevel, there are different conceptions with regard to the validity of process tracingdata (Armour-Thomas, 1989). For example, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) have harshlycriticized the use of verbal reports as legitimate data. They contended that there maybe little or no introspective access to high-order cognitiv:.e processes. They furtherargued that verbal reports are based on a priori implicit causal theories orjudgements about the extent t which a stimulus of interest is a plausible cause of agiven response. They identified three possible explanations of why individualsexperience difficulty when they attempt to report on their cognitive processes:unawareness of the existence of a stimulus, unawareness of the existence of aresponse and unawareness of the fact that the stimulus influences the response in ameaningful way.

Nisbet t and Wilson s positions have been challenged, however. Bloom ( 1953), forinstance, insisted that the inference that the recall of one s own private, consciousthoughts approximates the recall of the overt, observable events has led to theanticipation that the accuracy of the recall of conscious thought is high enough formost studies f interviews are made within a short time after the event (p. 162).


12/19


Ericcson and Simon ( 1980) claimed that the t ime of verbal reports, the form of theinformation being processed, the demands placed on the information and thebreadth of the event reported are relevant factors in judging the legitimacy ofprocess-tracing data. According to their information-processing model, newlyacquired information is stored in the short-term memory and readily available forimmediate retrieval and further processing. In contrast, information stored in thelong-term memory is not directly available for processing; and the data retrievedretrospectively may be incomplete, reconstructed, even invented. Furthermore, thequantity and quality of information retrieved may depend on the adequacy of search.

According to Armour-Thomas (1989), in generalizing these ideas to processtracing methods, it may be hypothesized that think-aloud probes elicit reasonablyvalid information from short-term memory since it is directly available and isbelieved to be closely connected to ongoing cognitive processes. In contrast,retrospective interviews and stimulated recall procedures place greater constraintson the person s efforts to retrieve information from long-term memory, particularlyif the probes are unrelated to ongoing cognitive processes. Under such conditions,

the individual is forced to search for information not readily available and as suchmay have to reconstruct or invent the missing information. Shavelson, Webb andBurstein (1986) pointed out that the greater the constraints placed on an individualby methods that probe for specific information, the greater the risk for interruptingongoing cognitive activities. This may, in turn, lead to distortion of the structure andcourse of events, production of incomplete data and increase in processing time.

More recently, Baldwin and Vaughn (1993) reacted to a call for methodologicalrigidity by arguing that adherence to one methodology and a rigidity of thought aresomething that the education profession can ill-afford. They suggested that what ismore important is the issue of relevance, that is: How relevant are the questionsbeing investigated to the problems in school? While acknowledging the theoretical

possibility of methodological perfection, they contended that such a remotepossibility cannot be pursued a t the sacrifice of abandoning the notion of relevance.As Neilson (1993) pointed out, The recognition that openness, plurality, diversity,and differences are not threats to be controlled, but opportunities to make significantdifferences (p. 353).

irections for future research

Although research on teachers implicit knowledge or theoretical beliefs is on theincrease in the past five years (Baldwin t al. 1990), it is still in its infancy (Bean andZulich, 1992). As Anderson and Mitchener (1994) noted, The big advances inunderstanding about student learning have not been matched by equivalentadvances in understanding about teaching. How to teach under real-worldconditions in such a manner as to foster this kind oflearning is not well understood aslearning per se (p. 36). Sustained efforts are therefore needed because inquiry intothis topic is, according to Munby (1982), central to a more complete and usefulunderstanding of thought processes in teaching. In Armour-Thomas swords (1989),the investigation of teachers thought processes is an exciting new area in research onteaching, in that the field promises to yield information that may revolutionize theway we traditionally conceived the teaching-learning process (p. 35). Researchersmay need to direct their attention to the following areas.

First and foremost, although the growing body of research on teachers thoughtprocesses continues to question whether teachers are able to provide instruction


13/19


which is consistent with their theoretical beliefs, few have explicitly addressed apractically more impor tant concern, tha t is how teachers can apply their theoreticalbeliefs within the constraints imposed by the complexities of the classroom life.Rather than simply providing teachers with more theories, educators must helpteachers understand how to cope with the complexities of classroom life and how toapply theory within the constraints imposed by those realities. As Duffy and Anderson ( 1984) noted,

The issue is not whether teachers should possess theoretical knowledge .They should. Instead, the issue is how teachers can apply theoretical knowledgein real classrooms where the relationship between theory and practice is complex and where numerous constraints and pressures influence teacher thinking(p. 103).

In this connection, narrative studies of the construction and reconstruction of teachers personal practical knowledge is especially helpful. As Beattie (1995) observed,involvement in narrative inquiry allows for the critical, emancipatory, selfempowering experiences and can provide new ways for thinking abou t pre-serviceand in-service education for teachers and for school improvement and educationalreform (p. 65).

Secondly, the focus of this emerging body of research has been on the elementaryand, more recently, secondary levels. Few studies have extended this research to thepost-secondary level. As Professor William Kyle Jr (1994), current editorof]ournalo f Research in Science Teaching acutely pointed out, while much has been writtenregarding our understanding of teaching and learning as it applies to K-12 learners ,there is an unfortunate dearth of teacher education research at the college level.Future research should therefore further explore this territory.

Thirdly, while research continues to quest ion teachers beliefs about certain subject areas, little attention has been paid to their beliefs about particular componentsof a subject area. For example, whereas many studies have investigated readingteachers beliefs about what reading is and how it develops, few have examinedteachers beliefs about particular components of reading such as vocabulary development (Konopak and Williams, 1994), reading strategies (Davinroy etal. 1994) ortext (Chambliss, 1994; Cox, 1989; Gillingham, Kulikowich and Young, 1994;Thompson, Wade and Watk ins, 1994). As Konopak and Williams (1994) pointedout, while the natu re of vocabulary learning changes as subjects become more diversified and specialized, there is a decline in vocabulary instruct ion as students advancein school. Further, while there is an expectation that students will become increasingly independent, this learning is made problematic by factors such as studentsreading ability, limitations in text information and incidental learning conditions.

Fourthly, given the consistency thesis reported in some of the studies reviewedabove, it may be beneficial to investigate whether inservice teachers beliefs or theories are aligned with successful learning and teaching. As for preservice teachers, thequestion then is: How can teacher educators equip them with a coherent, soundteaching and learning theory? Rather than feeding them with a plethora of theories,teacher educators should perhaps make more conscious efforts to help them realizewhat theory, or combination of theories, is most effective in enhancing studentlearning. Once they are equipped with sound learning and teaching theories, teachereducators will then need to look for ways (i.e. pedagogical knowledge) that will helpthem translate their beliefs and theories into effective instructional practice, so thatthe outcome of student learning is maximized.


14/19


Fifthly, while most studies were concerned with the subject areas of reading per sefew (e.g. Muth, 1993) have incorporated reading in a content area such as maths andscience (i.e. biology, chemistry or physics). O Brien and Stewart (1990) pointed outthat content reading is not universally embraced by content teachers and that manyof them often resist the tenets and pedagogy associated with content reading instruction. The need for investigation in science education becomes more acute, given theNational Science Board s (1989) and National Science Foundation s (1987) reportsthat US students are lacking behind their peers in other industrialized nations instandardized test scores. At the national level, for example, Dini (1992) reported thatthe final average grade of students ranged from a high D to C , with nearly 40 percent of the students earning a final grade of D , F or W (withdraw). These statistics suggest a sense of urgency and sombre challenge for further research on science/maths teacher education, particularly at the college level.

Finally, and equally importantly, it is apparent from this review that in studyingteacher cognition, research has depended on various paper-pencil instruments,stimulated recall, think-aloud protocols or focused interviews in order to capture beliefs about literacy and classroom instruction. While important in determining beliefs, such methods do not really address the personal experiences of teachers andtheir influence on shaping these beliefs. Given the social constructivist view of literacy as context-dependent and responsive to factors within a particular socioculturalenvironment, beliefs and subsequent practices will vary according to the interpretative needs of an individual (Duchein et al. 1994 . Future research may use alternative methods such as life history (Langness and Frank, 1981), narrative (Beattie,1995) or autobiography (Pinar, 1988) to examine teachers thought processes. Thesemethods focus on the participants own narratives (i.e. the so-called emic perspective) and are a good basis to reflect on and envision the intricate interrelationshipsbetween personal experiences and intent ions for preservice and inservice classroom

teachers (Duchein et al. 1994 ). Such studies should lead to improved understandingof the complex and interrelated processes of personal experiences, beliefs and practices. More importantly, they have the potential to bring new meaning to teachereducation and to the continuous experiences of change, of growth and of professionaldevelopment in a teacher s life (Beattie, 1995, p. 65).

eferences

ANDERS, P. and EVANS, K. (1994). Teacher beliefs and reading instruction in elementaryschool. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., USA, April.

ANDERSON, L M., EVERTSON, C. M. andBROPHY,J. (1979). An experimental studyof effective teaching in first grade reading group , Elementary School Journal 79, 4,193-223.

ANDERSON, R. C. and MITCHENER, C P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In: GABEL, D. C. (Ed) Handbook o Research on Science Teaching and Learning.New York: Macmillan, pp. 3-44.

APPLE, M. (1988). Teaching and technology: the hidden effects of computers on teachersand students. In: BEYER, L E. and APPLE, M. (Eds) The Curriculum. New York:SUNY Press, pp . 289-314.

ARMOUR-THOMAS, E. (1989). The application of teacher cognition in the classroom: anew teaching competency , Journal o Research and Development in Education 22, 3,29-37.

ASHTON, P. T. (1990). Editorial Journal o Teacher Education 41 1


15/19


BALDWIN, R. S., READENCE, J. E., SCHUMM, J. S. and KONOPAK, J. P.(1990). 'The NRC yearbooks database.' In: ZUTELL, J. t al. (Eds) Literacy Theory andResearch: Analyses from Multiple Paradigms. Chicago: NRC, pp. 73-8.

BALDWIN, R. and VAUGHN, S. (1993). 'Response to Ridgeway, Dunston and Qian:On methodological rigor : has rigor mortis set in?', Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 4,

354-5.

BEAN, T. W. and ZULICH, J. (]992). 'A case study of three preservice teachers' beliefsabout content area reading through the window of student-professor dialogue journals.'In: KINZER, C. and LEU, D. J. (Eds) Literacy Research, Theory, and Practice: Viewsfrom Many Perspectives. Chicago: National Reading Conference, pp. 463-74.

BEATTIE, M. (1995). 'New prospects for teacher education: narrative ways of knowingteaching and teacher learning', Educational Research, 37, 1, 53-70.

BLANTON, W. E. and MOORMAN, G. B. (1987). The Effects of Knowledge on thInstructional Behavior of Classroom Reading Teachers. Research Report No. 7. Boone,NC: Appalachian State University, Center on Excellence in Teacher Education.

BLOOM, B. S. (1953). 'Thought processes in lectures and discussions',Journal of GeneralEducation, 7, 160-70.

BOLIN, F. S. (1990). 'Helping student teachers think about teaching: another look at Lou',Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 10-19.

BORG, W. R. and GALL, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th edn).London: Longman.

BORKO, H., SHAVELSON, R. and STERN, P. (1981). 'Teachers' decisions in planningof reading instruction', Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 449-66.

BROPHY, J. E. and GOOD, T. L. (1974). Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes andConsequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

BROPHY, J. and GOOD, T. (1986). 'Teacher behavior and student achievement.' In:WITTROCK, M. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan,pp. 328-375.

BROUSSEAU, B. A., BOOK, C. and BYERS, J. (1988). 'Teacher beliefs and the culturesof teaching', Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 6, 33-9.

CASEY, A. eta . (1988). 'Experimental teaching: changing beliefs about effective instructional practices', Teacher Education and Special Education, 1, 3, 123-31.

CHAMBLISS, M. (1994). Why does persuasive text fail to persuade? Paper presented atAnnual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.,USA, April.

CHERLAND, M. (1989). 'The teacher educator and the teacher: when theory and practiceconflict' Journal of Reading, 32, 409-13.

CLARK, C. M. and PETERSON, P. L. (1986). 'Teachers' thought processes.' In:WITTROCK, M. C. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan,pp. 255-96.

COX, B. (1989). 'The effects of structural factors of expository texts on teachers'

judgements of writing quality.' In: ZUTELL, J. and McCORMICK, S. (Eds) LiteracyTheory and Research: Analyses from Multiple Paradigms. Chicago: NRC, pp. 137 43.DAVINROY, K., BORKO, H., FLORY, M. and HIEBERT, E. (1994). Teachers'

knowledge and beliefs about summary as a component of reading. Paper presented atAnnual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.,USA, April.

DAVIS, M. M., KONOPAK, B. C. and READENCE, J .E. (1993). 'An investigation oftwo chapter 1 teachers' beliefs about reading and instructional practices', ReadingResearch and Instruction, 33, 2, 105-33.

DEFORD, D. (1985). 'Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in readinginstruction', Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351-67.

DEPLIT, L. D. (1988). 'The silenced dialogue: power and pedagogy in educating other

people's children', Harvard Educational Rev iew, 38, 3, 280-97.DILLER, K. C. (1978). The Language of Teaching Controversy. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury

House.


16/19

62 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 1 Spr ing 1996

DINI, M. (1992). Improvi ng chances for student success in high enrollment courses ,For Faculty 41, 1, 2-8.

DOYLE, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness , Review of Research inEducation 5, 16--198.

DUCHEIN, M., FRAZIER, D., KONOPAK, B. and PALMER, P. (1994). Preserviceteachers literacy life histories: exploring the influence of personal experience on beliefs

about reading and instruction. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of National ReadingConference, San Diego, Calif., USA, December.

DUFFY, G. (1982). Fighti ng off the alligators: what research in real classrooms has to sayabout reading instruction Journal o f Reading Behavior 14, 357-73.

DUFFY, G. and ANDERSON, L. (1982). Conceptions of Reading: Final Report. Researchseries No. 111. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Institute for Research unTeaching.

DUFFY, G. and ANDERSON, L. (1984). Tea chers theoretical orientat ions and the realclassroom , Reading Psychology 5 1-2, 97-104.

DUFFY, G. and BALL, D. (1986). Instructional decision making and reading teachereffectiveness. In: HOFFMAN, J. (Ed) Effective Teaching of Reading: Research andPractice. Newark, Del.: IRA, pp. 163-60.

DUNKIN, M. J. and BIDDLE, B. J. (1974). The Study o f Teaching. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

DURKIN, D. (1978-9). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehensioninstruction , Reading Research Quarterly 14, 481-533.

ECCLES, J. and WIGFIELD, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In:DUSAK, J .B. (Ed) Teaching Expectations. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum, pp. 185-217.

ELBAZ, F. (1983). Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. London: Croom Helm.ERICCSON, K. A. and SIMON, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data , Psychological

Reviews 87, 215-51.FANG, Z. (1994). Priority of reading instruction revisited: evidence from a regression

analysis of adult ESL learners reading ability , Reading Horizons 35, 2, 151-60.FANG, Z. (1995). On paradigm shift in reading/literacy research , Reading Psychology 16, 2,

215-60.FANG, Z. (in preparation). Relationships between a language arts teacher s beliefs and her

pupils perception of literacy.GAYLE, M. (1992). Guest Lecture delivered at Louisiana State University-Baton Rouge;

reported in LSU Today July, Futurist calls for new thinking in education .GILLINGHAM, M., KULIKOWICH, J. and YOUNG, M. (1994). Is nonlinear text really

text? Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Educat ional Research Association,New Orleans, La., USA, April.

GOOD, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: findings and futuredirections Journal o f Teacher Education 38, 4, 32-47.

HARVEY, 0 . (1986). Beliefs systems and atti tudes toward the death penalty and other

punishments Journal of Personality 54, 143-59.HARSTE, J.C. and BURKE, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research:

both the teaching and learning of reading is theoretically based. In: PEARSON, P. D.(Ed) Reading: Theory Research and Practice. New York: National Research Conference,pp. 32-40.

HOFFMAN, J. V. and K UGLE, C L. (1982). A study of theoretical orientation to readingand its relationship to teacher verbal feedback during reading instructi on , Journal ofClassroom Instruction 18, 2-7.

HOLLINGSWORTH, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teac h ,American Educational Research Journal 26, 2, 160-89.

JACKSON, P. W. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.JACKSON, P.A. (1986). The Practice o f Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

JOHNSON, J 1988). The relationship between preservice teachers instruction of readingand their emerging conceptions of reading. In: READ ENCE, J. and BALDWIN, R. S.(Eds) Dialogues n Literacy Research. Chicago: National Reading Conference, pp. 355-61.


17/19


JOHNSON, K E. (1992). The relationship between teachers beliefs and practicesduring literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English , Journal of ReadingBehavior 24, 1, 83-108.

KAMIL, M. and PEARSON, P. (1979). Theory and practice in teaching reading , New YorkUniversity Education Quarterly Winter, 10-16.

KILGORE, K., ROSS, D. and ZBIKOWSKI, J. (1990). Understanding the teaching

perspectives of first-year teachers Journal of Teacher Education 41, 1 28-38.KINZER, C K. (1988). Instructional frameworks and instructional choices: comparisons

between preservice and inservice teachers Journal of Reading Behavior 20, 4, 357-77.KINZER, C. K. and CARRICK, D. A. (1987). Teacher beliefs as instructional influences.

In: NILES, J. and LALIK, R. (Eds) Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners Teachers andResearchers. New York: National Reading Conference, pp. 127-34.

KONOPAK, B., READENCE, J. and WILSON, E. (1994). Comparing prescrvice andinservice secondary teachers beliefs and decisions about content area reading Journal ofEducational Research 87, 220-7.

KONOPAK, B. and WILLIAMS, N. (1994). Vocabulary development in fourth grade:examining teachers beliefs and practices Paper presented at the annual meeting ofAmerican Educational Research Association. New Orleans. La., USA, April.

KONOPAK, B., WILSON, E. and READENCE, J. (1994). Examining teachers beliefs,decisions, and practices about content-area reading in secondary social studies. In:KINZER, C. and LEU, D. (Eds) Multidimensional Aspects of Literacy Research Theoryand Practice. Chicago: NRC, pp. 127-36.

KYLE, W. C., Jr (1994). Editorial : school reform and the reform of teacher education: canwe orchestrate harmony? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31, 8, 785-6.

LAMPERT, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach?: perspectives on problems inpractice , Harvard Educational Review 55, 178-94.

LANGNESS, L L and FRANK, G. (1981). Lives: An Anthropological Approach toBiography. Novato, Calif.: Chandler and Sharp.

LA VE, J. ( 1989). Cognition in Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.LEU, D. and KINZER, C. (1991). Effective Reading Instruction K-8 (2nd edn). New York:

Macmillan.LEU, D. and MISULIS, K. (1986). Prior knowledge and the comprehension of basal

teacher s guides. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of National Reading Conference,Austin, Texas, USA, December.

LONGBERGER, R. (1992). The belief systems and instructional choices of preserviceteachers. In: PADAK, N., RASINSKI, T. and LOGAN, J. (Eds) Literacy Research andPractice: Foundations for the Year 2000. Pittsburg, Kans.: College Reading Association,pp. 71-8.

LORTIE, D. (1975). School Teacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McDONALD, F. and ELIAS, P. (1976). The Effects of Teacher Performance o Pupil

Learning: Beginning Teacher E1;aluation Study: Phase II Final Report Vol. I. Princeton,

NJ: Educational Testing Service.McINTYRE, E. and FREPPON, P.A. (1994). A comparison of children s development ofalphabetic knowledge in a skills-based and a whole language classroom , Research in theTeaching o f English 18 4, 391-A-l 7.

MANGANO, N. and ALLEN, J (1986). Teachers beliefs about language arts and theireffects on students beliefs and instruc tion. In: NILES, J. and LALIK, R. (Eds) SolvingProblems in Literacy: Learners Teachers and Researchers. Rochester, NY: NationalReading Conference, pp. 136-42.

MARSHALL, H. and WEINSTEIN, R. (1984). Classroom factors affecting studentsself-evaluations: an interactional model , Review of Educational Research 54, 301-25.

MAR TIN, J. R. (1989). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reali ty. New York:Oxford University Press.

MEALEY, D. (1992). Towards professionalization in post-secondary education. Paperpresented at Annual Meeting of International Reading Association, San Antonio, Texas,USA,May.


18/19

64 Educat ional Research Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 1996

MEALEY, D. (1994). Rethinking college remedial education. Paper presented at AnnualMeeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., USA, April.

MELOTH, M. S., BOOK, C., PUTNAM, J and SIVAN, E. (1989). 'Teachers' concepts ofreading, reading instruction, and students' concepts of reading', Journal of TeacherEducation, September/October, 33-9.

MITCHELL, M., KONOPAK, B. and READENCE, J. (1991). 'The consistency between

chapter I teachers' beliefs about reading and their instructional decision-making andinteractions.' In: ZUTELL, J. and McCORMICK, S. (Eds) Learner Factor/TeacherFactors: Issues in Literacy Research and Instruction. Chicago, Ill.: National ReadingConference, pp. 377-84.

MONTERO-SIEBURTH, M. and PEREZ, M. (1987). 'Echar pa'lante'', moving onward:the dilemmas and strategies of a bilingual teacher', Anthropology and Education Quarterlv,18, 3, 180-9.

M UNBY, H. (1982). 'The place of eachers' beliefs in research on teacherthi nking and decisionmaking, and an alternative methodology', Instructional Science, 11, 201-25.

MUTH, K. D. (1993). 'Reading in mathematics: middle school mathematics teachers' beliefsand practices', Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 2, 76-83.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION (1975). Teaching s Clinical /nfonnationProcessing. Report of Panel 6, National Conference on Studies of Teaching. Washington,DC: National Institute of Education.

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD (NSB) (1989). Science and Engineering Indicators.Washington, DC: NSB.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) (1987). Science and Technology Data Book.ERIC No. 2990635. Washington, DC: NSF.

NEILSON,L. (1993). 'Response to Ridgeway, Dunston,andQian: Authoring the questions:research as an ethical enterprise ', Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 4, 350-3.

NEWMAN, J.M. (1991). 'Whole language: a changed universe ', Contemporary Education, 62,2, 70-5.

NISBETT, R. E. and ROSS, L. (1980). Human Interferences: Strategies and Shortcomings ofSocia/Judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

NISBETT, R. E. and WILSON, T. D. (1977). (1977). 'Tell ing more than we can know: verbalreports on mental processes', Psychological Review 84, 231-59.

NIST, S. and MEALEY, D. (1991). 'Teacher-directed comprehension strategies.' In:FLIPPO, R. and CAVERLY, D. (Eds) Teaching Reading and Study Strategies. Newark,DE: IRA, pp. 42-85.

O'BRIEN, D. and STEWART, R. (1990). 'Preservice teachers' perspectives on why everyteacher is not a teacher ofreading: a qualitative analysis' Journal of Reading Behavior, 22,101-29.

PARIS, S. G., WASIK, B. A. and TURNER, J .C. (1991). 'The development of strategicreaders.' In: BARR, R. etal. (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman,pp. 609-40.

PAYNE , J. W. (1982). 'Contingent decision behavior', Psychological Bulle tin, 92, 382-402.PERFETTI, C. A. (1989). 'There an; generalized abilities and one of them is reading.' In:

RES:-JICK, L.B. Ed)Knowing,Learningandinstruction. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA,pp. 307-35.PINAR, W. (1988). 'Whole, bright, deep with understanding: issues in qualitative research

and autobiographic method .' In: PIN AR, W. (Ed) Contemporary Curriculum Discourse. AZ:Gorsuch Scarisbrick, pp. 134 53.

PINNEGAR, S. and CARTER, K. ( 1990). 'Comparing theories from textbooks and practicingteachers' Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 1, 20-7.

PUTNAM, J and DUFFY, G. (1984). A Descriptive Study o f the Preactlve and InteractiveDecisionmaking o f an Expert Classroom Teacher. Research series No. 148. East Lansing,Mich.: Michigan State University, Insti tute for Research in Teaching.

READENCE, J .E. , KONOPAK, B. C and WILSON, E. K. (1991). An examination of

content teachers' beliefs and instructional choices and their actual planning and practices.Paper presented at Annual Meeting of National Reading Conference, Palm Springs, Calif.USA, December.


19/19


RICHARDS, J . C . , GIPE, J. and THOMPSON, B. (1987). Teachers beliefs about goodreading instruct ion , Reading Psychology, 8, 1 1-6.

RICHARDSON, V., ANDERS, P., TIDWELL, D. and LLOYD, C. (1991). Therelationship between teachers beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction , American Educational Research Journal, 28, 3, 559-86.

ROEHLER, L and DUFFY, G. (1991). Teachers instructional action. In: BARR, R. et al.

(Eds) Handbook o f Read ing Research. New York: Longman, pp. 861-84.RUPLEY, W. H. and LOGAN, J. W. (1984). Elementary Teachers Beliefs about Reading and

Knowledge of Reading Content: Relationships to Decisions about Reading Outcomes, ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 285162.

SAPON-SHEVIN, M. ( 1990). Gifted Education and the deskilling of classroom teachers ,Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 1, 39-48.

SCHOMMER, M. (1994). Beliefs about knowledge and learning. Paper presented at AnnualMeeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., USA, April.

SEDLAK, M. (1987). Tomorrow s teachers: the essential arguments of the Holmes GroupReport , Teacher College Record, 88, 314-26.

SHA VELSON, R. ( 1983). Review of research on teachers pedagogical judgement, plans,and decisions , Elementary School Journal, 83, 392-413.

SHAVELSON, R. J. and STERN, P. (1981). Research on teachers pedagogical thoughts,judgements, decisions, and behavior , Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-98.

SHAVELSON, R. J., WEBB, N. M. and BURSTEIN, L (1986). Measurement ofteaching. In: WITTROCK, M. C. (Ed) Handbook o f Research on Teaching. New York:Macmillan, pp. 50-91.

SHULMAN, L S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In:WITTROCK, M. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan,pp. 1-36.

SHULMAN, L S. (1986b). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching ,Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.

STANOVICH, K. E. (1990). A call for an end to the paradigm wars in reading research ,Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 3, 221-31.

STERN, P. and SHAVELSON, R. (1983). Reading teachers judgements, plans, anddecision making , Reading Teacher, 37, 280-6.

STODDER T, T. (1994). The role of teachers personal learning experience in changing theirmathematics instruction. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, La., USA, April.

STURTEVANT, E. and SPOR, M. (1990). Student teacher use of content area readingstrategies. In: PADAK, N., RASINSKI, T. and LOGAN, J. (Eds) Challenges inReading. Pittsburgh, Kans.: College Reading Association, pp. 25-30.

TAUBMAN, P. M. (1992). Achieving the right distance. In: PINAR, W. andREYNOLDS, W. (Eds) Understanding Curriculum s Phenomenological and DeconstructedText. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 216-33.

THOMPSON, A., WADE, S. and WATKINS, W. (1994). The role of authors and readersbelief systems in construction of meaning. Paper presented at Annual Meeting ofAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., USA, April.

WILSON, E. K., KONOPAK, B C. and READENCE, J .E . (1991). Examining contentarea reading beliefs, decisions, and instruction: a case study of an English teacher. In:KINZER, C. K. et al. (Eds) Literacy Research, Theory, and Practice: Views from anyPerspectives. Chicago: NRC, pp. 475-82.

WING, L (1989). The influence of preschool teachers beliefs on young children sconceptions of reading and writing , Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 61-74.

WINOGRAD, P. and JOHNSTON, P. (1987). Some considerations for advancing theteaching of reading comprehension , Educational Psychologist, 22, 333-56.

a review of research on teacher beliefs and practices1996 fang a review of research on teacher...

Documents