This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Giessen]On: 22 October 2014, At: 08:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Education for Teaching:International research andpedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20
How US Preservice Teachers ‘Read’Classroom PerformancesDona M. Kagan a & Deborah J. Tippins ba University of Alabama , 207 Graves Hall, Box 870231,Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USAb Science Education Department , University of Georgia ,212 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USAPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Dona M. Kagan & Deborah J. Tippins (1992) How US Preservice Teachers‘Read’ Classroom Performances, Journal of Education for Teaching: International research andpedagogy, 18:2, 149-158, DOI: 10.1080/0260747920180204
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260747920180204
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1992 149
How US Preservice Teachers 'Read'Classroom PerformancesDONA M. KAGANUniversity of Alabama, 207 Graves Hall, Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
DEBORAH J. TIPPINSScience Education Department, University of Georgia, 212 Aderhold Hall, Athens,GA 30602, USA
ABSTRACT Thirty-seven preservice teachers viewed and evaluated three videotapes of actualclassroom lessons. To reveal macrostructures that may have guided perception, we asked thenovices to recall as much of a lesson as possible one week after evaluating a tape. Some of thenovices then evaluated a live classroom performance. As a comparative gauge, 19 inserviceteachers also evaluated the three videotaped lessons. Running notes (taken while viewing avideo) suggested that the inservice teachers were able to render spontaneous functionalinterpretations of teacher behavior (a 'deep' reading), while the preservice teachers invariablydescribed teacher behavior first, then only sometimes noted its function (a 'surface' reading).The preservice teachers defined good teaching from a student perspective in terms of fun andinvolvement, while the inservice teachers defined good teaching from a teacher perspective interms of clear lesson structure. The preservice teachers appeared to use major activity structuresas macrostructures to help interpret lessons. The task of evaluating a live classroom perform-ance appeared to be more difficult and ambiguous than that of evaluating a videotaped lesson.In sum, results contribute to a growing body of literature that documents differences in hownovice and experienced teachers process and interpret classroom stimuli.
INTRODUCTION
Educational psychologists have found that novices bring preconceptions to everylearning situation, and that those pre-existing beliefs serve as filters and buildingblocks of new knowledge (Posner et al., 1982). This appears to be equally true ofpreservice teachers, who enter their teaching programs with well-established beliefsabout students and classrooms (Book et al., 1983; Feiman-Nemser et al., 1988;Hollingsworth, 1989; Weinstein, 1989).
By extension, one can assume that the pre-existing beliefs held by preserviceteachers probably shape their perceptions of the classroom performances theyobserve as part of the field components traditionally included in programs ofpreservice teacher education (Howey & Zimpher, 1989). This has led severalteacher educators to speculate that much of the unsupervised classroom observation
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
150 D. M. Kagan &> D. J. Tippins
entailed in preservice programs could be described as miseducative, i.e. subject togross misinterpretation by novices (Zeichner, 1986; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann,1987; Calderhead, 1988; Koehler, 1988).
Beyerbach et al. (1989) recently conducted an experimental study that pro-vided direct evidence of the potentially counterproductive effect of unsupervisedobservation during preservice teacher education. In the context of a course on childdevelopment, the researchers asked students enrolled in a teacher education pro-gram to discuss and analyse video segments of two children playing in variouscontexts over a span of 18 months. Students were asked to describe the developmentof the children, noting strengths and weaknesses and speculating as to their familylives.
Beyerbach et al. (1989) found concrete evidence of students' selective attentionand inappropriate inferences. Although these preservice candidates attempted toapply the course content to the task, they lacked finely tuned observational skillsand tended to draw unsupported inferences. With no corrective feedback, one canimagine how incorrect inferences would simply tend to confirm students' precon-ceptions.
Our study was designed to explore the insights suggested by Beyerbach et al.(1989), by examining the ways in which preservice candidates interpret teachingperformances they are asked to evaluate. We chose to use three videotaped teachingepisodes as stimuli so that we could evaluate the variance in novices' interpretationsof the same performances.
Since we expected to find considerable variance in their interpretations, we alsosampled a population of inservice teachers in order to have a comparative standard.We were also interested in examining the degree to which classroom experiencemight affect consensus among teachers about the nature of 'good' instruction. Onthe basis of data obtained from preservice and inservice teachers, we hoped to drawinferences concerning the utility of unsupervised, unstructured classroom observa-tion as a part of preservice teacher education.
We also perceived this as a study of how novice and experienced teachersprocess classroom information. Here we assumed that the task of evaluating ateaching performance is analogous to that of comprehending a written text (Kagan,1989). That is, we assumed that teacher evaluators (a term we use generically)unconciously look for macrostructures: key components of a classroom lesson thatthey use to interpret incoming stimuli, just as readers use the components of storygrammar (or other macrostructures of connected discourse) to help them compre-hend narratives (Kagan, 1989). We used recall tasks to reveal the nature ofmacrostructures, since the structures individuals impose on sensory stimuli are usedto store, recall, and interpret events (Bransford et al., 1972).
A variety of empirical research has shown that novice and experienced teachersprocess and interpret classroom stimuli differently, e.g. experienced teachers aremore selective and chunk information, (Berliner, 1986) and approach classroomdiscipline problems differently (Swanson et al., 1990). Other studies have docu-mented differences in the way problems are represented and solved (Housner &Griffey, 1985; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Carter et al., 1988). We designed a task
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
Classroom Performances 151
that would allow us to examine several fundamental questions about the way noviceand experienced teachers may process and interpret a teaching performance:
(1) What scheme(s) do teachers use when taking running notes on a teachingperformance they have been asked to evaluate? What do these schemes suggestabout their ability to assign organization and meaning on-line to the behaviorsthey view?
(2) What elements of a lesson do teachers regard as good and poor teaching? Donovices and experienced teachers approach a performance with different as-sumptions? Is there consensus within either group?
(3) What macrostructures appear to guide the recall of lessons?(4) In what ways does the task of evaluating a live classroom lesson appear to differ
from that of evaluating a videotaped lesson?
METHODS
Participants
Two groups of teachers participated in this study: 37 preservice candidates and 19inservice elementary teachers. All the inservice teachers were enrolled in a course onmethods of teaching science. Their classroom experience ranged from 1 to 33 years.All but two were female, and 68% had been trained in the use of some formalobservational system of teacher evaluation.
The preservice candidates were enrolled in one of two undergraduate coursesin educational psychology: 22 were preparing to teach at the secondary level, 15 atthe elementary. All but eight were female, and none had had prior teachingexperience. None of the preservice teachers were trained in the use of a formalteacher evaluation system.
Procedure
The participants viewed three videotaped teaching episodes at one-week intervals.Each video, produced by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment, captured a 15-min lesson presented in a real classroom environment. Each isdescribed below:
Tenth-grade (15-16 yrs old) biology lesson on RNA: a highly structured, teacher-centered lesson containing obvious introduction, practice, and review segments.
Third-grade (7-8 yrs old) math lesson on symmetry: a highly inductive, conceptattainment approach in which the teacher shows her students examples and nonex-amples of symmetrical designs and asks them (the students) to infer the concept ofsymmetry.
Seventh-grade (12-13 yrs old) social studies lesson on crimes: the teacher definescrimes of omission and commission, then asks her students to brainstorm andanalyse examples of each.
Each of the videos included some element of peer teaching. That is, at some point in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
152 D. M. Kagan & D. J. Tippins
each lesson, students were asked to pair-off and help one another learn newmaterial.
These three videos were shown to the participants in different orders. Partici-pants were provided with an open-ended, structured evaluation form containing thefollowing sections: a place for listing running notes while viewing the video, sectionsfor listing good and poor aspects of the lesson after viewing, and a section whererespondents were asked to indicate advice they would give the teachers forimproving their lessons. After each video was viewed, participants were given 25minutes to complete the form. They were told they were not being graded on theirevaluations and were not expected to relate the content of the courses to theirevaluations. They were simply expected to indicate their own honest opinions.
Recall tasks were used with the preservice teachers only, since the structure ofthe inservice course did not permit use of a standard interval between viewing andrecalling a lesson. One week after viewing a video, the preservice teachers wereasked to recall in writing as much of the lesson as possible. Thus, at the end of 4weeks, each preservice teacher had completed three evaluations and three recalls.The videos were not discussed in class until all the data for this study werecollected.
Twenty-two of the preservice teachers were also asked to complete a fourthevaluation: a field observation of an actual class. This could be a 20-40 min lessonon any content and grade level. They completed the same evaluation form used toevaluate the videotaped lessons. The field observations were completed 3 weeksafter the third video was recalled.
At the end of the respective courses, the evaluations and recalls completed bythe participants were returned to them so they could analyse their own perform-ances and complete a structured questionnaire. Items on this self-analysis question-naire asked the participants to review and summarize the ways in which they (a)took running notes as they viewed a performance, (b) defined good and poorteaching, and (c) recalled a lesson (preservice teachers only).
Data Analysis
The evaluation forms and recall descriptions were regarded as primary data. Theself-analysis questionnaires were used as secondary data to complement our owninterpretation of the evaluations. These two sources of data were evaluated in termsof the research questions listed earlier.
Each of the researchers evaluated the data independently by completing threetasks: (1) reading through the entire set of protocols once; (2) rereading theprotocols and inducing categories of responses for each research question, using theconstant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967); and (3) writing interpretivesummaries for each research question (Erickson, 1986). In completing these tasks,each researcher looked for key linkages connecting similar instances of the samephenomenon and sought corroborative evidence from the primary and secondarydata sources (Goetz & LaCompte, 1984). After completing these tasks, the resear-chers met to compare results and to resolve differences in interpretation. To
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
Classroom Performances 153
validate inferences and categories, each researcher produced excerpts from the datarecords.
RESULTS
Inservice Teachers
Seventy percent of the evaluations completed by the inservice teachers indicatedthat they took running notes in a straight chronological fashion. Ninety percent ofthese chronological on-line notes were in a sort of shorthand that noted thefunctions of particular teacher behaviors without describing the behaviors them-selves. In this sense, the running notes taken by most of the inservice teachers werehighly parsimonious and rarely provided pictures of the lessons themselves. It wasas if the inservice teachers regarded the specifics of a lesson as irrelevant, focusinginstead on underlying function. This can be illustrated with examples of inserviceteachers' running notes taken while viewing the biology lesson and the lesson onsymmetry.
The biology lesson on RNA:helped studentsmonitored workdidn't allow for rate differencescalled time too earlychecked for understandinganalogies and comparisonsmodeled behaviorobjectivescorrected incorrect responsesreviewed materialrelated new to oldadmitted and corrected mistakesdivided lesson into small segmentsinterrupted and clarifiedexpectationswhat to expect in future
Third-grade lesson on symmetry:no objectivesstarted out by asking questionsattentionexamplesgroup learningdefending opinions
The remaing 30% of evaluations completed by inservice teachers contained runningnotes taken in an evaluative fashion, i.e. they included explicit labeling of teacher
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
154 D. M. Kagan & D. J. Tippins
behaviors as good or poor, often accompanied by observations about what theteacher should have done.
All of the aspects of lessons listed by inservice teachers in the good teachingsections of the protocol concerned lesson structure: stating objectives and definingterms at the beginning of a lesson, checking for understanding, using guidedpractice, summarizing, monitoring seatwork. Instruction that was strongly inductivewas criticized by all but two of the inservice teachers. Peer teaching was regardedequivocally. While acknowledging its intrinsically rewarding aspect, 90% of theinservice teachers felt that peer teaching could lead to misconceptions unless closelymonitored:
I do not like peer teaching. I think it is a good idea for later when studentshave a mastery of concepts. It was too early in the learning process forthem to have to reteach the material to one another. There is too muchroom for error and misinformation.
Poor teaching was defined by the inservice teachers as lack of clear lesson structureor too inductive an approach.
A final characteristic of the evaluations completed by the inservice teachers wasthe frequent citing of a teacher's varbatim dialogue. This was done by only one ofthe preservice teachers. This may indicate a sensitivity to the language teachers usewith students. Alternatively, it may be attributable to the inservice teachers' trainingin formal evaluation systems that require the scripting of lessons.
Preservice Teachers
Running notes found on 65% of the evaluations completedy by preservice teachersreflected a straight chronological strategy. However, in contrast to the chronologicalnotes taken by inservice teachers, the preservice teachers' notes consisted ofdescriptive phrases extensive enough to capture major activity structures in thelessons. Instead of noting underlying functions of teacher behaviors, these moreexpansive notes were descriptive only. Illustrations from preservice teachers' notestaken during the biology lesson and the lesson on symmetry are listed below.
The biology lesson on RNA:working crossword puzzles with open books while teacher assistsuses overhead projectordraws and demonstrates RNA processexplains results and sets up another questionstudents then work in twos with teacher assistanceteacher explains resultsstudents in twos againteacher explains againsets up next assignment
Third-grade lesson on symmetry:begins by using cards to demonstrate
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
Classroom Performances 155
makes lists of differencesasks students questionsdemonstrates symmetry by folding papertells students to think
Only 5% of the running notes taken by preservice teachers mentioned the underly-ing function of teacher behavior(s). Thirty-five percent of the evaluations com-pleted by the preservice teachers contained running notes taken in an evaluativerather than a chronological fashion. The evaluative notes were usually in the form oftwo columns labeled 'good' and 'poor'. As with the chronological notes, theevaluative notes were descriptive and more expansive than the type of shorthandused by the inservice teachers.
Like the inservice teachers, most of the preservice teachers disliked inductiveteaching. However, rather than citing its lack of structure, they described it asboring. Other characteristics listed in the poor teaching section of the evaluationform included: being condescending to students, lacking interaction, using toodifficult a vocabulary. Characteristics listed in the good teaching section included:good visual aids, active student participation, positive feedback, having fun, relatingmaterial to students' lives, peer teaching, games, allowing student opinion. Thepreservice teachers were split when it came to categorizing peer teaching as good(48%) or poor (52%). Some felt it was fun and motivating, others that it could bemisleading and cause pupils to 'learn the wrong stuff.
It is worth noting that only 2% of all participants employed the same note-taking strategy (chronological, evaluative) when evaluating all three videotapedlessons. This suggests the absence of a response set induced by using the sameevaluation form.
Preservice Teachers' Recall of Videotaped Lessons
When the preservice teachers attempted to recall and describe a videotaped lessonthey had viewed the week before, they inevitably listed key activity structures. If arespondent had originally taken notes on the lesson in an evaluative fashion, thenthese opinions were also recalled with the activities. For example:
gave the students a fun learning assignmentthen went over assignmentdiscussed new materialgave time for peer teachingagain discussed new materialagain gave time for peer teachingfinally talked about activities to be done tomorrow
Visual aids were also recalled. All of the preservice teachers remembered anddescribed transparencies, charts, and diagrams that had appeared in the lesson.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
156 D. M. Kagan & D. J. Tippins
Preservice Teachers' Evaluations of Live Lessons
The running notes taken by preservice teachers as they evaluated a live classroomlesson also reflected major activity structures. For example:
began new chapterstudents read aloudasked questions from back of bookgave out worksheetsstudents worked alone on questionsrest of period students in groups
Running notes were taken in straight chronological fashion. Only one preserviceteacher evaluated teacher behavior as she took running notes. Comments enteredunder the good and poor teaching sections of the evaluation form were brief andtentative e.g. 'I guess it was sort of boring'. None of the preservice teachers offeredsuggestions for making the lesson better.
One might infer that the stimuli in the live classrooms were so overwhelmingthat preservice teachers were not able to organize or interpret it on-line. Majoractivity structures appeared to function as macrostructures that helped the preser-vice teachers comprehend what they were watching.
DISCUSSION
Although the 37 preservice teachers who participated in this study viewed the sameteaching performances via videotape, there was only moderate consensus in theirevaluations of some of the instructional strategies entailed in those performances.This was particularly true in regard to the use of peer teaching. The preserviceteachers were nearly equally divided in their judgment of peer teaching.
In general, the preservice teachers defined good teaching from a studentperspective: in terms of fun, student involvement, positive reinforcement, andaffective elements of a teacher's personality. The inservice teachers defined goodteaching from a teacher perspective: in terms of clear lesson structure and readilyidentifiable components (explicit objectives, definition of terms, examples, guidedpractice). For example, preservice teachers described inductive teaching as 'boring',while inservice teachers observed that it 'lacked structure'.
The inservice teachers tended to be more critical of peer teaching and inductivestrategies than the preservice teachers, but both groups were clearly more comfort-able judging traditional, highly structured forms of classroom teaching. Notes takenwhile viewing the videotaped lessons indicated that the inservice teachers were ableto render spontaneous functional interpretations of teacher behaviors, often ignoringthe specifics of the behavior itself and citing only the underlying purpose. In thissense, the notes taken by inservice teachers suggested a 'deep' reading of teacherperformance.
In contrast, the preservice teachers invariably described specific teacher beha-viors and only occasionally noted their functions. This suggested a 'surface' reading
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
Classroom Performances 157
of teacher performance. This is consistent with many expert-novice studies indicat-ing that novices' representations of problems (in this case, evaluating a teachingperformance) are organized around literal events, whereas experts' representationsare organized around inferences and abstractions that subsume literal factors (Chi etal., 1988). A variety of studies has documented this principle with respect toteachers (Calderhead, 1981, 1983, 1987; Berliner, 1986; Kennedy, 1987).
Data generated by the recall tasks suggested that key activity structures func-tioned as macrostructures for the preservice teachers, perceptual markers that thenovices used to 'read', interpret, and remember teaching performances, this is con-sistent with studies that have described the prominent role played by activity structuresin teachers' planning for and perception of instruction (Doyle, 1983; Leinhardt, 1983;Blumenfeld et al., 1987; Clark & Yinger, 1987; Zumwalt, 1989). Hollingsworth (1989)also found evidence that major activity structures may be important in learning how toteach. Perhaps they transform the highly ill-structured and complex 'problem' ofclassroom instruction into smaller, less ill-structured problems.
Major activity structures also appeared to serve as macrostructures when thepreservice teachers evaluated live classroom lessons. In general, these novicesseemed to have a much more difficult time interpreting and evaluating live ratherthan taped lessons. Their on-line notes were briefer, and their evaluative judgmentswere sparse and tentative. Finally, the preservice teachers had a particularly difficulttime suggesting ways that lessons could be improved.
IMPLICATIONS
It may be wise for teacher educators not to assume that preservice candidatesinterpret field observations according to particular pedagogical principles or withany degree of consensus. The interpretation of non-direct forms of instruction bypreservice teachers may be puzzling at best, miseducative at worst.
Instead of relying on unstructured field observations, teacher educators mightstructure and supervise classroom observations via videotape or, in the case of liveobservations, via two-way mirrors. This would allow them to provide simultaneoussupervision. Findings also suggest that candidates may need assistance accomplish-ing several specific tasks: perceiving a teaching performance from a teacher, ratherthan a student perspective; understanding the functional significance of teacherbehavior; seeing where and how instruction can be improved.
REFERENCES
BERLINER, D.C. (1986) In pursuit of the expert pedagogue, Educational Researcher, 15(7), pp. 5-13.BEYERBACH, B.A., SMITH, J. & SWIFT, P.R. (1989) Exploring preservice and practice teachers' thinking
about children and teaching, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Francisco.
BLUMENFELD, P.C., MERGENDOLLER, T.R. & SWARTHOUT, D.E. (1987) Task as a heuristic forunderstanding student learning and motivation, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, pp. 135-148.
BOOK, C., BYERS, J. & FREEMAN, D. (1983) Student expectations and teacher education traditions withwhich we can and cannot live, Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), pp. 9-13.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
158 D. M. Kagan & D. J. Tippins
BRANSFORD, J.D., BARCLAY, J.R. & FRANKS, J.J. (1972) Sentence memory: a constructive versusinterpretive approach, Cognitive Psychology, 3, pp. 193-209.
CALDERHEAD, J. (1981) A psychological approach to research on teachers' classroom decision making,British Educational Research Journal, 7, pp. 51-57.
CALDERHEAD, J. (1983) Research into teachers' and student teachers' cognitions: exploring the natureof classroom practice, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Montreal, Canada.
CALDERHEAD, J. (Ed.) (1987) Exploring Teachers' Thinking (London, Cassell).CALDERHEAD, J. (1988) The contribution of field experience to primary student teachers' professional
learning, Research in Education, 40, pp. 33-49.CARTER, K., CUSHING, K., SABERS, D., STEIN, P. & BERLINER, D. (1988) Expert-novice differences in
perceiving and processing visual classroom stimuli, Journal of Teacher Education, 39, pp. 25-31.CHI, M.T.H., GLASER, R. & FARR, M. (1988) The Nature of Expertise (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum).CLARK, C.M. & YINGER, R.J. (1987) Teacher planning, in: D. C. BERLINER & B. V. ROSENSHINE (Eds)
Talks to Teachers (New York, Random House).DOYLE, W. (1983) Academic work, Review of Educational Research, 53, pp. 159-199.ERICKSON, F. (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching, in: M. C. WITTROCK (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn (New York, Macmillan).FEIMAN-NEMSER, S. & BUCHMANN, M. (1987) When is student teaching teacher education?, Teaching
and Teacher Education, 3, pp. 255-273.FEIMAN-NEMSER, S., MCDIARMID, G.W., MELNICK, S. & PARKER, M. (1988) Changing Beginning
Teachers' Conceptions: a study of an introductory teacher education course (East Lansing, MI,National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University).
GLASER, B.G. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitativeresearch (New York, Aldine).
GOETZ, J.P. & LACOMPTE, M.D. (1984) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research(New York, Academic Press).
HOLLINGSWORTH, S. (1989) Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach, AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26, pp. 160-189.
HOUSNER, L.D. & GRIFFEY, D.C. (1985) Teacher cognition: differences in planning and interactivedecision-making between experienced and inexperienced teachers, Research Quarterly for Exerciseand Sport, 56, pp. 45-53.
HOWEY, K.R. & ZIMPHER, N.L. (1989) Profiles of Preservice Teacher Education: inquiry into the natureof programs (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press).
KAGAN, D.M. (1989) The heuristic value of regarding classroom instruction as an aesthetic medium,Educational Researcher, 18(6), pp. 11-18.
KENNEDY, M.M. (1987) Inexact sciences: professional education and the development of expertise,Review of Research in Education, 14, pp. 133-168.
KOEHLER, V. (1988) Barriers to the effective supervision of student teaching, Journal of TeacherEducation, 39(2), pp. 28-35.
LEINHARDT, G. (1983) Routines in expert math teachers' thoughts and actions, paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
LEINDHARDT, G. & GREENO, J.G. (1986) The cognitive skill of teaching, Journal of EducationalPsychology, 78, pp. 75-95.
POSNER, G.J., STRIKE, K.A., HEWSON, P.W. & BERTZOG, W.A. (1982) Accommodation of a scientificconception: toward a theory of conceptual change, Scientific Education, 66(2), pp. 211-228.
SWANSON, H.L., O'CONNOR, J.E. & COONEY, J.B. (1990) An information processing analysis of expertand novice teachers' problem solving, American Educational Research Journal, 27, pp. 533-556.
WEINSTEIN, C.S. (1989) Teacher education students' preconceptions of teaching, Journal of TeacherEducation, 40(2), pp. 53-60.
ZEICHNER, K.M. (1986) The practicum as an occasion for learning to teach, South Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 14(2), pp. 11-28.
ZUMWALT, K. (1989) Beginning professional teachers: the need for a curricular vision of teaching, in:M. C. REYNOLDS (Ed.) Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher (New York, Pergamon).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
8:25
22
Oct
ober
201
4
