Teaching teachers: An investigation of beliefs in teachereducation students
Karee E. Dunn • Glenda C. Rakes
Received: 15 October 2008 / Accepted: 20 March 2009 / Published online: 21 April 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Influenced by work on learner-centred education, teacher efficacy and teachers’
concerns, we conducted an investigation of the influence of 185 preservice teachers’
teacher efficacy and concerns on their learner-centred beliefs. Learner-centred beliefs were
selected for the purposes of this study as the best indicator of future teaching actions
because these preservice teachers had not yet entered the classroom or engaged in teaching
practices. Preservice teacher efficacy and concerns, individually and collectively, signifi-
cantly influenced learner-centred beliefs. These findings indicate that teacher education can
facilitate the development of learner-centred beliefs by addressing these trainable char-
acteristics and demonstrate the need to further explore both teacher efficacy and concerns
as they relate to learner-centred education within teacher education programs.
Keywords Learner-centred � Teacher concerns � Teacher education � Teacher efficacy
Introduction
Currently, students in the USA have fallen and continue to fall behind their international
counterparts (Darling-Hammond 2001). As a result, a number of national teaching agencies
have called for learner-centred reform in USA schools for more than 10 years (e.g. Dar-
ling-Hammond 2001; INTASC 1992; McCombs and Whisler 1997; Weimer 2002).
Learner-centred education is based on the American Psychological Association’s 14
learner-centred principles (see Table 1). Furthermore, learner-centred educational practices
K. E. Dunn (&)Educational Statistics and Research Methods, 248 Graduate Education Building,The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USAe-mail: [email protected]
G. C. RakesEducational Studies, 205F Gooch Hall, The University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, TN 38238,USAe-mail: [email protected]
123
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58DOI 10.1007/s10984-011-9083-1
Table 1 American Psychological Association’s (1997) learner-centred principles
Cognitive and metacognitive factors
Principle 1: Nature of the learning process
The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process of constructingmeaning from information and experience.
Principle 2: Goals of the learning process
The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional guidance, can create meaningful,coherent representations of knowledge.
Principle 3: Construction of knowledge
The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways.
Principle 4: Strategic thinking
The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achievecomplex learning goals.
Principle 5: Thinking about thinking
Higher-order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and criticalthinking.
Principle 6: Context of learning
Learning is influenced by environmental factors, including culture, technology and instructional practices.
Motivational and affective factors
Principle 7: Motivational and emotional influences on learning
What and how much is learned is influenced by the learner’s motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, isinfluenced by the individual’s emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals, and habits of thinking.
Principle 8: Intrinsic motivation to learn
The learner’s creativity, higher order thinking, and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn.Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to personalinterests, and providing for personal choice and control.
Principle 9: Effects of motivation on effort
Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice.Without learners’ motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion.
Developmental and social factors
Principle 10: Developmental influence on learning
As individuals develop, they encounter different opportunities and experience different constraints forlearning. Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical,intellectual, emotional and social domains is taken into account.
Principle 11: Social influences on learning
Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations and communication with others.
Individual differences factors
Principle 12: Individual differences in learning
Learners have different strategies, approaches and capabilities for learning that are a function of priorexperience and heredity.
Principle 13: Learning and diversity
Learning is most effective when differences in learners’ linguistic, cultural and social backgrounds aretaken into account.
Principle 14: Standards and assessment
Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner and learning progress—including diagnostic, process and outcome assessment—are integral parts of the learning process.
40 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
have been recommended because of the positive impact that these practices have been
found to have on student motivation and achievement (McCombs and Quiat 1999).
Although the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) both
advocate that teacher education programs produce more learner-centred teachers (INTASC
1992; NCATE Unit Standards 2006), little learner-centred change has been seen over the
course of the last 10 years in USA classrooms (Cuban 2007). The question then becomes:
Why are USA classrooms not becoming more learner-centred?
Barr (1998) suggests that the lack of substantial learner-centred change in classrooms is
in part because of the resistance of preservice teachers to learner-centred pedagogy. This
resistance is partially a result of their beliefs based on past teacher-centred educational
experiences. For example, many preservice teachers hold the view that teaching is a
process of transmitting knowledge and of dispensing information (Pajares 1992), which is
in direct contradiction with learner-centred pedagogy. Because many teacher education
students enter higher education classrooms with a unique set of beliefs about teaching and
learning based on prior experience in more teacher-oriented classrooms, it can be a
daunting task to convince preservice teachers of the value of learner-centred practices
(Vogler 2006).
Vogler’s (2006) suggestion highlights the importance of investigating and addressing
preservice teachers’ beliefs. If preservice teachers leave their teacher education classrooms
and become inservice teachers without any change in these beliefs, little learner-centred
change will continue to be seen in the future. The importance of preservice teachers’
beliefs is further rooted in both social cognitive theory and conceptual change theory,
which form the theoretical framework for this research.
In social cognitive theory, both cognitive and affective variables influence an individ-
ual’s likelihood of engaging in target behaviours (Bandura 1986, 1997). Accordingly, what
one believes and feels about learner-centred education affects the likelihood of engaging in
learner-centred action. Research supports that beliefs are the best predictor of future action
(Ajzen 1996, 2002). Thus, a better understanding of beliefs related to learner-centred
education can help to predict learner-centred action and inform the framework of teacher
education.
Conceptual change theory is also a valuable resource in answering the question of why
there are so few learner-centred classrooms. Conceptual change theory emphasises that
learning involves more than cold absorption of facts and more than only addressing hot
cognition driven by personal interests (Pintrich et al. 1993). Instead, a warming trend must
be applied to training that addresses both cold facts and hot emotions (Sinatra 2005).
Proponents of this theory assert that what one believes can either interfere with or facilitate
learning and must be addressed to lead to change. This theory also highlights the impor-
tance of investigating the influence of various teacher beliefs on learner-centredness that
must be addressed during teacher education programs to lead to more learner-centred
change.
In order to better understand preservice teachers’ learner-centredness, learner-centred
beliefs were examined. Because preservice teachers have not entered the classroom and
because beliefs are the best indicator of future action (Ajzen 2002; Bandura 1986), learner-
centred beliefs were examined as a proxy for preservice teachers’ learner-centredness. The
influence of preservice teacher efficacy and concerns on these learner-centred beliefs was
examined. By better understanding both cognitive and affective preservice teacher vari-
ables and their influence on preservice teachers’ learner-centredness, teacher educators can
be better equipped to move preservice teachers towards more learner-centred beliefs.
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 41
123
According to both social cognitive theory and conceptual change theory, addressing these
cognitive and affective influences, as well as beliefs in teacher education, can lead to more
learner-centred teachers in the classroom. Therefore, this research focused on the following
research questions: What is the concerns profile for this sample? Are teacher education
undergraduate preservice concerns regarding learner-centred practices and teacher efficacy
predictors of preservice teachers’ learner-centred beliefs?
Learner-centred beliefs
Learner-centred beliefs reflect a learner-centred or non-learner-centred orientation on a
spectrum of related beliefs about teaching and learning. Learner-centred education is based
on the American Psychological Association’s (1997) 14 learner-centred principles and
reflects a paradigm shift from more traditional content or teacher-centric classrooms. In
learner-centred classrooms, teachers are responsive to and respectful of the diverse needs
that students present in the classroom. From this perspective, teaching and learning must
incorporate strategies that support success for all learners, time for critical reflection, and
student-shared responsibility for the selection of learning activities (Darling-Hammond
1996; McCombs and Whisler 1997).
Preservice teachers’ pedagogical beliefs play an integral role in the selection of future
instructional practices (e.g. Cummins 1998; Lehman et al. 1990; Maxson 1995; Richardson
et al. 1991). An inservice teacher who believes that teacher-centred practices (e.g. direct
lecture, rote memorisation) are most effective is unlikely to implement learner-centred
practices (e.g. jigsaw groups, constructivist approaches) suggested by reform advocates
(Anderson et al. 1991).
McCombs’ (1997, 1999, 2002a, b, 2003) research about teacher beliefs and practices
has confirmed that, by better understanding teacher beliefs, instructional practices can
improve and move towards more learner-centred practices. For example, McCombs and
Lauer (1997) found that teachers who believe that they engage in learner-centred practices
held more learner-centred beliefs than those who held more non-learner centred beliefs.
This finding reflects the relationship between learner-centred beliefs and learner-centred
action.
Research supports the idea that learner-centred beliefs are important predictors of
inservice teachers’ use of learner-centred instruction (McCombs 1999, 2003). However,
little research has investigated these beliefs among preservice teachers. Because teacher
education provides a readily available forum for addressing these beliefs, it is important for
researchers and teacher educators to take into account preservice teachers’ learner-centred
beliefs as well as the variables that influence learner-centred beliefs, such as efficacy and
concerns.
Teacher efficacy
‘‘Teachers’ sense of efficacy is a little idea with big impact’’ (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
2002, p. 7) that has become a cornerstone in the investigation of teacher beliefs and behaviour
(Fives 2003). For the purposes of this study, teacher efficacy was defined as the self-reflective
judgement of one’s ability to influence or bring about valued student outcomes, engagement
and learning, regardless of student or environmental attributes (Pajares 1996; Tschannen-
Moran and Hoy 2001). Teacher efficacy is important to the understanding of teacher moti-
vation and behaviour because it leads individuals from knowledge to action (Fives 2003), or,
as Bandura (1986) asserts, efficacy is the primary mediator of effort.
42 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
Undoubtedly, pedagogical decision-making is influenced by teacher efficacy (e.g.
Cousins and Walker 2000; Woolfolk et al. 1990). Teacher efficacy informs these choices in
a variety of ways. For example, people tend to engage in behaviours that they believe will
lead to success, avoiding activities in which they lack confidence (Pajares and Schunk
2002). Individuals also engage in activities that they find interesting and tend to be
interested in activities in which they believe they will succeed (Schraw et al. 2001).
Additionally, the greater one’s self-efficacy, the more likely one is to persist in the face
of adversity (Pajares and Schunk 2002; Zimmerman 2000). Teachers with more positive
teacher efficacy might be more likely to implement learner-centred practices and persist
when faced with students’ initial resistance to learner-centred practices. However, there
has been little research into the relationship between teacher efficacy and learner-centred
beliefs among preservice teachers. By better understanding this relationship, teacher
educators effectively can equip future teachers to implement learner-centred pedagogy.
Because efficacy is a trainable characteristic (Burton et al. 2005) that plays a central role in
behavioural choices, it is important to further explore the role that teacher efficacy plays in
changing teacher behaviour, such as encouraging engagement in learner-centred practices.
Teacher concerns
Preservice teacher concerns related to learner-centred innovations are another possible
predictor of learner-centred beliefs (Lotter 2004; Zielinski and Preston 1992). Concern-
based theory originated from the work of Frances Fuller and her research with preservice
teachers in the late 1960s. She proposed that one’s feelings towards any type of change or
innovation could be addressed as concerns (Fuller 1969). She further asserted that concerns
follow a developmental, predictable pattern in individuals faced with all types of change
and innovation (Conway and Clark 2003; Fuller and Brown 1975; Hall and Hord 2001).
Preservice teachers’ concerns are important in teacher education programs and in
persuading preservice teachers of the value of learner-centred reform (Amit and Fried
2002; Piggie and Marso 1997). As educators attempt to fully prepare teachers for the
classroom, an understanding of preservice teacher concerns can help them to more closely
identify the needs of preservice teachers (Fuller et al. 1973). Armed with this under-
standing, teacher educators can develop learning activities to target and diminish preser-
vice teacher concerns related to learner-centred education reform (Barone et al. 1996;
Lotter 2004).
Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)
Building on Fuller’s work, Hall and Hord (1987) developed the CBAM, an empirically
based conceptual framework that describes, explains and predicts probable teacher
behaviour as he or she implements an innovation and participates in developmental
activities. CBAM is an example of what Rogers (1983) refers to as a diffusion model (Hall
et al. 1973; Hord et al. 2005). Rogers (1983) described diffusion as a sequential process
through which some type of innovation is communicated over time among members of a
social system. The framework consists of three main diagnostic dimensions: Stages of
Concern that describe teacher reaction to innovations; Levels of Use that describe
behavioural profiles that occur as changes are adopted; and Innovation Configuration that
describes different ways in which innovations can be implemented (Hall et al. 2006).
A better understanding of preservice and beginning teacher concerns can assist teacher
educators in preparing teachers to deal with a variety of situations (Barone et al. 1996;
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 43
123
Piggie and Marso 1997). It is important to identify and assess teacher concerns, because
early self and task concerns must be resolved before individuals can move to later, more-
mature concerns that are related to more learner-centred orientations (Rakes and Dunn
2008; Rakes et al. 2006). The identification of concerns allows for targeted, properly
designed training to facilitate advancement to higher concern levels (Fuller and Brown
1975).
Stages of Concern (SoC)
The SoC section of the CBAM model defines concerns as groups of feelings, perceptions,
preoccupations, thoughts, considerations, motivations, satisfactions and frustrations that
collectively describe an individual’s stage in the affective response to an educational
innovation and the change process. These concerns are related to his or her experience with
or perception of the innovation. This portion of the model analyses one’s feelings,
observations, problems, successes and failures while learning about an innovation and
progressing through a seven-stage change process related to adopting an innovation. The
SoCQ was developed as a tool for identifying the intensity of teacher concerns about such
innovations identified in the SoC section of the CBAM (George et al. 2006). The infor-
mation gleaned from this questionnaire helps in identifying an individual’s willingness to
adopt and use an innovation.
The SoCQ consists of seven stages of concern that fall into the three categories of self,
task and impact concerns (Hall and Hord 1987; Hord and Huling-Austin 1986). Self
concerns include the first three stages of Unconcerned, Informational and Personal. In
Stage 0 (Unconcerned), the individual’s concerns might be unrelated to the innovation. The
individual can be unaware of the innovation, or the teacher might be aware of the inno-
vation but unconcerned with it. In Stage 1 (Informational), the individual expresses general
awareness of and interest in the innovation. In Stage 2 (Personal), the individual expresses
concerns about how the innovation will affect him or her and manifests concerns related to
personal ability, adequacy, demands and role.
Task concerns include one level of concern. In Stage 3 (Management), the individual
expresses concerns about a task such as logistics and efficient resource use. The more
mature or impact concerns include three stages. In Stage 4 (Consequence), the individual
expresses concerns related to student outcomes. In Stage 5 (Collaboration), the individual
expresses concerns related to working with others in order to implement the innovation. In
Stage 6 (Refocusing), the individual expresses concerns about modifying or improving the
innovation and assisting others to use it.
Few studies have focused specifically to self-efficacy and concerns (McKinney et al.
1999; Newman et al. 1998; Zielinski and Preston 1992). When an individual’s stage of
concern is examined with regard to his or her level of self-efficacy, one can better
understand the effects of and facilitate the change process (Ghaith and Shaaban 1999;
McKinney et al. 1999; Newman et al. 1998). McKinney et al. (1999) found that self-
efficacy is related to expressed concerns, and that individuals with higher efficacy reported
higher stages of concern.
Concerns exert an influence on the ways in which teachers implement any kind of
change in the classroom environment (Hord et al. 2005). The identification of the stages of
concern regarding a teaching strategy, such as the use of learner-centred practices, can help
to make interventions designed to encourage such behaviour more effective by using
specific techniques based on specific levels of concerns. Evaluation of concerns can pro-
vide a highly effective guide to assist with implementation of any change. Awareness of
44 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
specific, intense concerns can further help teacher educators to prescribe activities that are
more likely to produce the desired effect (Hord et al. 2005). Additional exploration is
needed to better understand the influence of preservice teachers’ concerns specifically
related to their adoption of learner-centred innovations, which is an unexplored area.
Method
This study utilised a quantitative research design to examine the influence of preservice
teachers’ efficacy and concerns regarding the implementation of learner-centred practices
on preservice teachers’ learner-centred beliefs. To address the first research question, the
SoCQ profile was developed with the raw score for each of the seven subscales on the
SoCQ being the sum of the responses to the five statements on that scale. The raw scores
for each respondent were computed. To illustrate the relative intensity of each stage of
concern for the entire sample, mean scores for each item were converted to percentile
scores in order to interpret the results. The percentiles were represented numerically and
graphically and analysed based on guidelines outlined by George et al. (2006).
To address the second research question, the relationship between the score on the TBS
and scores on the TSES and SoCQ scales was analysed using multiple regression analysis.
The TBS scores were the dependent variable and TSES scores and the SoCQ scores were
the independent or predictor variables. Thus, the significance and size of the coefficient of
determination were examined to determine if the set of independent variables (teacher
efficacy and teacher stage of concern) had a significant influence on learner-centred beliefs.
Further, the magnitude of impact for each independent variable was examined and inter-
preted. Partial correlations were also examined.
Instruments
This study used three survey instruments to explore relationships among preservice teacher
beliefs and concerns regarding learner-centred practices and teacher efficacy. The first part
of the questionnaire consisted of the learner-centred beliefs about learners, learning and
teaching subscale from the Teacher Beliefs Survey (TBS; McCombs and Lauer 1997). The
second part of the questionnaire included the SoCQ (George et al. 2006). The third part of
the questionnaire included the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy 2001).
Teacher Beliefs Survey
The TBS was used in this study to assess the degree to which preservice teachers’ beliefs
were learner-centred. The TBS was specifically designed to measure teachers’ learner-
centred beliefs. The learner-centred scale from the TBS is based on the American Psy-
chological Association’s (1997) 14 learner-centred psychological principles and employs a
four-point Likert scale consisting of 14 statements. Respondents answered each of the 14
statements based on the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item
(McCombs and Whisler 1997). The validation sample means for the learner-centred beliefs
about learners, learning and teaching scale was 0.40. This measure has been validated in a
study with more than 1,707 college students (McCombs 2002a). The reliability coefficient
for this measure was 0.86.
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 45
123
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
Teacher efficacy was assessed with the TSES developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
(2001). In this study, the 12-item short form of the TSES was used to prevent participant
fatigue and to encourage higher completion rates (Stanton et al. 2002). In addition, the
short form of the TSES has similar reliability to the longer 24-item measure, namely, 0.90
and 0.94, respectively (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2001). The TSES consists of a nine-
point Likert scale, with respondents giving their opinion about how much they can
influence a given situation for each item. All nine responses range from nothing, very little,
some influence, quite a bit, or to a great deal.
Other studies that have examined the reliability of the TSES have found similarly high
reliabilities. In her online survey research examining the relationship of Teacher Efficacy,
Collective Inclusion Efficacy and Technology, Benton-Borghi (2006) reported a high
reliability for the total scale of alpha = 0.951. Knoblauch (2004) also used the TSES to
examine preservice teacher efficacy and reported a similarly high reliability for the total
teaching efficacy scale of alpha = 0.92.
Stages of Concern Questionnaire
Participants’ stages of concern were assessed with Hall et al.’s (1979) SoCQ, which
assesses individual or group concerns by providing a snapshot of the individual or group’s
level of practice or development regarding the use of an innovation (Sweeney 2003). The
questionnaire is a 35-item Likert scale developed using K–12 and university instructors.
Each of the seven stages has five statements to which the respondents indicate their degree
of concern based on an eight-point scale. The statements were selected to represent varying
types of concerns that preservice and inservice teachers have when they are initially
introduced to an educational innovation, begin to use it, and then move to more seasoned
and mature perspectives along with increased confidence in the use of the innovation
(Negrete 2004).
The SoCQ was originally validated in 1979 with a group of teachers involved in team
teaching and professors concerned about innovation (n = 830) and a subsample (n = 132)
of this group who participated in a test–retest of the instrument over a 2-week period (Hall
et al. 1979). When Cronbach’s alpha was used to establish internal reliability, alpha
coefficients ranged from 0.64 to 0.83. The test–retest subsample correlation ranged from
0.65 to 0.84. These results suggest satisfactory internal consistency and stability for each of
the seven stages (Hall et al. 1979). The SoCQ has been further validated in a number of
studies over the course of the last two decades (James et al. 2000; O’Sullivan and Zielinski
1988; Rakes and Casey 2002; van den Berg 1993).
Each respondent was assigned a raw score for each level of the stages of concern—
Unconcerned, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration and
Refocusing. Using the mean score for each item, percentiles for each level of concern were
computed, graphed and analysed to create a profile for the group that illustrates the relative
intensity of each stage of concern (George et al. 2006).
Participants
The purposive sample for this study consisted of 185 juniors and seniors who were fully
admitted into the Teacher Education Program (TEP) and who were enrolled in education
courses required for licensure. The sample of preservice teachers were enrolled in an
46 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
NCATE-accredited teacher education program at a large, urban, mid-southern university
with an enrolment of approximately 20,000 students. The teacher education program at this
university had approximately 370 students and it promotes INTASC (1992) standards and
curriculum that are founded on learner-centred principles.
Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP) is required before students can
enrol in TEP courses. To be admitted to the program, students must have completed at least
45 semester hours, maintained a grade point average of no less than 2.5 on a 4.0 scale, and
successfully completed an interview with college staff and P–12 teachers and/or admin-
istrators. This population was selected because the TEP curriculum claims to promote the
learner-centred INTASC principles and, therefore, these students should have been
exposed to theory and concepts related to learner-centred education.
A total of 185 questionnaires were returned. An initial examination of the demographic
data indicated that, of the 185 participants, 90.3% were female (n = 167), 9.7% were male
(n = 18), 24.9% were juniors (n = 139) and 75.1% were seniors (n = 46). Table 2 pro-
vides a summary of the demographic information.
Results
Our results are organised using our research questions. First, we present reliability results
for the instruments. Next, we present the participants’ concerns profile. Finally, we present
the results of our synergistic examination of the influence of preservice teacher efficacy
and concerns on learner-centred beliefs.
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha was used as a measure of the internal consistency of items in the scales
used in this study. For this study, because all of the scales were highly reliable, the scales
remained intact. The alpha reliability for the learner-centred scale on the Teacher Beliefs
Survey (TBS) for this sample was 0.76. The alpha reliability for the Teacher Sense of
Efficacy Scale (TSES) for this sample was 0.94. The subscales of the TSES, instructional
strategies, classroom management and student engagement, were also reliable (0.88, 0.89
and 0.85, respectively). The alpha reliability for each of the seven SoCQ subscales are
shown in Table 3.
SoC profile
The sum of the five responses that correspond to each of the seven subscales on the SoCQ
were calculated to provide a raw score for each of the seven subscales. The raw scores for
each participant were computed. Mean scores for each item were converted to percentile
scores in order to illustrate the relative intensity of each stage of concern for the entire
sample. The percentiles were represented numerically and graphically and analysed based
on guidelines outlined by George et al. (2006). A summary of these results is presented in
Table 4.
One way of analysing group concerns is to aggregate individual data by developing a
profile that provides the average scores for each stage of the individuals in a group.
Typically, the group averages will reflect the dominant high and low stages of concern of
the entire group. Raw scores were converted to percentiles following the procedures
outlined by George et al. (2006) and are represented graphically in Fig. 1.
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 47
123
The profile in Fig. 1 represents a description of the sample of preservice teachers who have
not yet begun to contemplate the use of learner-centred practices. Self-concerns (Stages 0:
Unconcerned, 1: Informational, and 2: Personal) were high and the impact concerns (Stages 4:
Consequence, 5: Collaboration, and 6: Refocusing) were much lower (George et al. 2006).
Regression results
Multiple linear regression was used to determine whether the combination of teacher
efficacy and concerns influence learner-centred beliefs. The sample size for the analyses
Table 2 Demographics for thesample
Variable n %
Licensure area
Early childhood education (PreK–3) 44 23.8
Early and middle grades (K–6) 109 58.9
Middle school (4–8) 8 4.3
Special education K–12 modified/comprehensive 11 5.9
Special education K–12 modified/elementary 13 7.0
Intended teaching grade level
Kindergarten or Pre–K 52 28.1
Elementary (grades 1–4) 90 48.6
Middle school (grades 5–8) 29 15.7
Junior high school (grades 7–9) 4 2.2
High school (grades 10–12) 10 5.4
Intended curriculum area
English/Language arts 11 5.9
Mathematics 6 3.2
Science 2 1.1
Social studies 5 2.7
Foreign languages 1 0.5
Special education 12 6.5
Vocational/Technical education 2 1.1
All curriculum areas (elementary classroom) 146 78.9
Age (years)
19–23 89 48.1
24–26 38 20.5
27–30 26 14.1
31–35 14 7.6
36–40 8 4.3
41–53 9 4.9
65? 1 0.5
Classification
Senior 139 75.1
Junior 46 24.9
Sex
Female 167 90.3
Male 18 9.7
48 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
was 185, representing all teacher education program (TEP) students who had a complete
report for all of the variables used in the analyses. The means, standard deviations and
correlations among all the variables are shown in Table 5.
The eight independent variables were entered into the regression equation simulta-
neously. Preliminary examination of the results indicated there was no extreme multi-
collinearity in the data (all variance inflation factors were less than 4). Exploratory analysis
also indicated that the assumptions underlying the application of multiple linear regression
(independence, normality, heteroschedasticity and linearity) were met. The regression
results indicated that the set of independent variables significantly influenced 18.5% of the
variance in learner-centred beliefs (F[8, 176] = 4.99, p \ 0.001). The effect size was large
at 0.23. Two of the eight variables had a significant unique influence on learner-centred
Table 3 Alpha reliability forthe SoCQ subscales for thissample
Stage of concern a reliability
0 Unconcerned 0.75
1 Informational 0.74
2 Personal 0.80
3 Management 0.75
4 Consequence 0.67
5 Collaboration 0.88
6 Refocusing 0.70
Table 4 Mean and percentilefor each SoC stage
Stage of concern M Percentiles
0 Unconcerned 15.90 93
1 Informational 25.45 90
2 Personal 22.81 85
3 Management 22.07 80
4 Consequence 25.54 63
5 Collaboration 27.09 68
6 Refocusing 23.57 69
Fig. 1 Stages of Concern profile
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 49
123
beliefs. In order of importance, they were teacher efficacy (t = 4.08, p \ 0.001) and Stage
1 (Informational) concerns (t = -1.96, p \ 0.05).
Partial correlations were examined to determine the unique relationship of teacher
efficacy and Stage 1 (Informational) concerns with learner-centred beliefs when controlling
for the other seven independent variables of total efficacy (t), Informational (i), Uncon-
cerned (u), Personal (p), Management (m), Consequence (c), Collaboration (b) and
Refocusing (r). For total efficacy, the original bivariate correlation with learner-centred
beliefs was rtl = 0.32 (t = 4.08; p \ 0.001). When the other eight independent variables
were controlled, the partial correlation was rtl.iupmcbr = 0.29. This slight decrease in the
magnitude of the relationship between teacher efficacy and learner-centred beliefs indi-
cates a partial intervening explanation provided by the other seven independent variables.
Thus, part of the positive relationship between teacher efficacy and learner-centred beliefs
was attributable to the control variables.
For Stage 1 (Informational) concerns, the original bivariate correlation of Stage 1
(Informational) concerns and learner-centred beliefs was ril = 0.12 (t = -1.96; p \ 0.05).
When controlling for the influence of the other seven independent variables, the
partial correlation for Stage 1 (Informational) concerns and learner-centred beliefs was
ril.tupmcbr = -0.15. Thus, when the other eight variables were controlled, the correlation of
Stage 1 (Informational) concerns was actually negative and larger in magnitude than the
original bivariate correlation. This indicates that the other eight independent variables,
now control variables, were suppressing the influence of Stage 1 (Informational) concerns.
Beta weights and partial correlations are presented in Table 6.
Discussion
Our discussion of the results is organised by our research questions. First, the concerns
profile is discussed. Finally, the synergistic influence of preservice teacher efficacy and
concerns on learner-centred beliefs is discussed.
Table 5 Means, standard deviations, and correlations for regression of learner-centred beliefs and teacherefficacy, as well as Unconcerned, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration andRefocusing concerns (n = 185)
Variable Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Learner-centred beliefs 1.00
2. Stage 0: Unconcerned -0.09 1.00
3. Stage 1: Informational 0.12 0.08 1.00
4. Stage 2: Personal 0.24 0.04 0.74 1.00
5. Stage 3: Management 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.43 1.00
6. Stage 4: Consequence 0.28 -0.10 0.56 0.66 0.35 1.00
7. Stage 5: Collaboration 0.24 -0.89 -0.58 0.66 0.28 0.69 1.00
8. Stage 6: Refocusing 0.19 0.02 -0.36 -0.51 0.36 0.67 0.66 1.00
9. Teacher efficacy 0.32 -0.28 0.14 0.16 -0.12 0.19 0.23 0.15 1.00
Mean 46.09 15.91 27.72 26.75 21.34 27.42 25.21 21.26 89.65
Standard deviation 5.55 5.72 6.39 7.55 6.13 6.88 8.16 7.33 12.03
50 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
Concerns profile
In this sample’s profile, respondents were neither concerned with nor interested in learner-
centred practices and were more concerned about other things as indicated by a high Stage 0
(Unconcerned). Because Stages 1 and 2 concerns were also high, it can be inferred that
respondents felt that they lacked a sufficient learner-centred knowledge base and needed
more information about learner-centred practices. This finding is interesting in light of the
fact that all of the teacher education staff whose students participated in this study stated with
certainty that their students should have been familiar with what constitutes learner-centred
education. This indicates that formative assessment, used throughout a teacher education
program of studies, may help teacher educators to better monitor student knowledge.
Management concerns (Stage 3) were of lesser intensity, as might be expected from
preservice teachers who have not yet directly faced classroom management issues directly.
However, classroom management is an important aspect of teaching and is a particularly
difficult part of new teachers’ experiences. Discussing management issues that teachers
face in the classroom can benefit preservice teachers when they enter the classroom, as
well as better preparing them to engage in learner-centred practices. When discussing the
implementation of learner-centred practices in the classroom, it is important that teacher
educators discuss management issues in a realistic, rather than a theoretical, fashion.
Furthermore, respondents in this study who demonstrated lower-level concerns were not
very concerned about the consequences of learner-centred practices for students or for
collaborating with others, as indicated by a relatively low intensity on Stage 4 (Consequence)
and Stage 5 (Collaboration). Although low concerns relative to how an innovation affects
students are disconcerting, this finding unfortunately is not unusual in preservice or inservice
teachers. This finding highlights the importance of teacher educators helping preservice
teachers to understand the positive influences of learner-centred practices on student
achievement.
Although small, the tailing-up of the profile at Stage 6 (Refocusing) is an important
finding. Tailing-up refers to a profile in which the relative intensity of Stage 6 (Refocusing)
is greater than the relative intensity of Stage 5 (Collaboration) concerns. This characteristic
in a non-user profile (George et al. 2006; Hall et al. 1986) indicates a resistance to learner-
centred practices, a somewhat negative view of learner-centred practices, or possibly a
desire to redirect or modify the use of learner-centred practices. When Stage 6 tails up, it
can be inferred that group members have ideas that they see as having more merit than
learner-centred practices. ‘‘Any tailing up of the Stage 6 concerns on a nonuser profile is a
Table 6 Regression analysis oflearner-centred beliefs on teacherefficacy and concerns related tolearner-centred practices
* p \ 0.001; ** p \ 0.05;R2 = 0.185; R2 change = 0.148
Variable b b Partial t
Efficacy
Total 0.14 0.30 0.29 4.03*
SoCQ
Unconcerned -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.26
Informational -0.18 -0.21 -0.15 -1.97**
Personal 0.11 0.15 0.09 1.22
Management 0.13 0.14 0.13 1.67
Consequence 0.15 0.19 0.13 1.67
Collaboration 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.70
Refocusing -0.07 -0.09 -0.06 -0.83
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 51
123
warning that the respondent(s) might be resistant to the innovation. A more severe tailing-
up should be heeded as an alarm’’ (George et al. 2006, p. 42). The participants’ profile
indicates that these preservice teachers were not only uninformed about learner-centred
innovations, but that they also were resistant to and likely to undermine learner-centred
reform attempts in their future classrooms.
Efficacy, concerns and learner-centred beliefs
The focus of the second research question was the collective influence of preservice
teacher efficacy and concerns related to learner-centred education on preservice teacher
learner-centred beliefs. Preservice teacher efficacy and concerns related to learner-centred
education explained a significant portion of the variance in learner-centred beliefs.
Together, teacher efficacy and concerns related to learner-centred education explained
more variance than they did alone.
Additionally, two variables exerted a significant and unique influence on learner-centred
beliefs. In order of importance, they were teacher efficacy and Informational Concerns.
Teacher efficacy was positively related with learner-centred beliefs, indicating that, as
participants’ teacher efficacy increased, so too did their learner-centred beliefs. However,
Information concerns shared an inverse relationship with learner-centred beliefs in this
study. As participants’ concerns related to needing more information related to learner-
centred education increased, learner-centred beliefs decreased.
These results suggest that teacher efficacy and concerns related to learner-centred
education collectively influenced preservice teachers’ learner-centred beliefs. Moreover,
preservice teacher efficacy and a desire to obtain more information related to learner-
centred education most strongly influenced their learner-centred beliefs. By better under-
standing and addressing what students believe, know and do not know, teacher educators
more effectively can move preservice towards more learner-centred beliefs. However,
more research is needed.
Implications
The results of this study have implications for future research related to teacher education.
Because beliefs are one of the best indicators of future behaviour (Bandura 1997), it is
important that teacher educators understand the influence of teacher efficacy and concerns
on preservice teachers’ learner-centred beliefs that can lead them to more learner-centred
practices. The results of this study confirm previous findings that teacher efficacy (Dunn
2007; McCombs and Lauer 1997; Ross et al. 1996) and teacher concerns (Zielinski and
Preston 1992) are related to the adoption of learner-centred beliefs.
The results of this study extend the understanding of this relationship to preservice
teachers, which is important because both efficacy and concerns can be addressed during
teacher education training. This section describes the implications for future research
related to the finding that preservice teacher efficacy and concerns did influence learner-
centred beliefs. This section also identifies implications of the results of this study for
teacher education and beyond.
Teacher efficacy implications
The finding that preservice teacher efficacy significantly influenced preservice teacher
learner-centred beliefs is important because efficacy training can be provided in many
52 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
forms, with research providing strong support for both peer and teacher modelling as
highly effective techniques (Bandura 1997; Gist 1989; Latham et al. 1998). Other research
indicates that efficacy also can be addressed through peer coaching (Bruce and Ross 2008).
Future research should investigate the implementation of both peer and teacher educator
learner-centred modelling, as well as the effects of other interventions on both preservice
teacher efficacy and learner-centred beliefs. By modelling learner-centred education in
teacher education classrooms, teacher educators can help to improve teacher efficacy, as
well as to improve the learner-centred beliefs of their students.
Furthermore, by increasing teacher efficacy in preservice teachers, teacher educators
can help their students to overcome future inservice obstacles to learner-centred practices
because individuals with greater efficacy are more likely to persevere in the face of
resistance (Bouffard-Bouchard 1990). Thus, future research should investigate the long-
term influence of preservice teacher efficacy both on the likelihood that inservice teachers
engage in learner-centred practices and on inservice teacher efficacy.
Teacher concerns implications
The finding that preservice teacher concerns with regard to learner-centred education
significantly influenced preservice teacher learner-centred beliefs is important because
concerns exert an influence on the future implementation of any kind of teaching strategy
in the classroom environment (Hord et al. 2005). The identification of stages of concern
regarding a teaching strategy, in this case learner-centred education, can aid in the design
of more effective interventions that encourage the use of learner-centred education. By
identifying preservice teachers’ dominant stages of concern related to learner-centred
education, teacher educators can better promote the use of learner-centred education
through the selection of specific techniques based on particular levels of concerns. The
evaluation of concerns can provide a highly effective guide to assist with the implemen-
tation of change. Awareness of specific, intense concerns can help teacher educators to
prescribe activities that are more likely to produce the desired effect (Hord et al. 2005).
Future research should investigate means of addressing specific concerns related to the
implementation of learner-centred practices.
For example, because Stage 1 (Informational) exerted the second greatest unique
influence on learner-centred beliefs, future research should investigate the influence that
providing preservice teachers with more information about learner-centred education
might have on both their initial concerns and learner-centred beliefs. Furthermore, the non-
user profile provided by the SoCQ profile indicates that this group of preservice teachers
knows little about learner-centred education, and that they are not particularly interested in
using learner-centred practices. As a result, it could be important in future research to
evaluate what is currently being taught and modelled in teacher education programs
regarding learner-centred instructional practices.
Moreover, future research also could need to focus on specific means of addressing
individuals’ concerns within a non-user profile that tails up to reduce resistance to learner-
centred education. For example, non-user profiles that tail up indicate that the group
believes that they know of more effective teaching innovations for the classroom. Thus,
future research could identify, examine and address these beliefs in an attempt to persuade
these individuals that learner-centred practices are more effective. Future research should
also investigate the long-term influence of addressing preservice teacher concerns related
to learner-centred education on their inservice learner-centred practices. This type of
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 53
123
research could involve whether and how addressing preservice teacher concerns influences
inservice learner-centred practices.
Additional implications for future research
In addition, future research should also focus on other variables that could influence
preservice teachers’ learner-centred beliefs, such as experiences in participating in and
observing learner-centred classrooms. Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs also can
provide further insight into misconceptions that this group might hold about how indi-
viduals learn that might interfere with the adoption of learner-centred beliefs.
Because the scope of this study was limited, its results might not be generalisable to the
greater teacher education student population. Also there is a lack of standardisation in
training practices in teacher education programs across the country. Therefore the com-
pletion of similar studies in other NCATE-accredited teacher education programs could
prove useful in establishing the influence of teacher efficacy and concerns on the adoption
of learner-centred beliefs. Such a large-scale replication of this study could also assist in
assessing how effective the integration of learner-centred curriculum is in NCATE-
accredited teacher education programs across the country that assert the promotion of the
INTASC principles that are learner-centred education.
The scope of this study was also limited because the small percentage of men who
participated (9.7%). Thus, future research should also focus on collecting more information
about male preservice teachers, and how they might be similar to or different from female
preservice teachers. However, it is important to note that, within the context of teacher
education, females are dominant.
This study was also limited in its assessment of teacher efficacy. The Teacher Sense of
Efficacy Scale (TSES) used in this study was developed to assess general teaching efficacy.
This scale identifies how effectively individuals believe that they are or will be with regard
to classroom management and the facilitation of student learning. The TSES does not
explore an individual’s efficacy related to the implementation of any specific teaching
paradigm, such as learner-centred instruction. By developing a more specific learner-
centred teacher efficacy scale, the relationship of efficacy and learner-centred beliefs might
be better understood.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate both the specific and collective influence of
teacher efficacy and concerns on preservice teachers’ learner-centred beliefs. By providing
teacher educators with a better understanding of variables that influence learner-centred
beliefs, instruments that assess these beliefs (i.e. TSES, TBS and SoCQ), and ways of
addressing these beliefs, researchers might find a productive path for better equipping
teacher educators with the tools that they need to produce learner-centred teachers and
promote learner-centred educational reform.
This study serves to highlight the importance of addressing preservice teachers’ efficacy
and concerns related to learner-centred practices in the attempt to persuade preservice
teachers to adopt learner-centred beliefs. Thus, this study provides insight into variables
that need to be better understood and addressed in teacher education programs in the
pursuit of producing more learner-centred teachers. To achieve a learner-centred paradigm
shift in schools, future research should investigate means of addressing preservice teacher
54 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
efficacy and concerns through specific training interventions that align with conceptual
change theory. By attending to the results of this study and engaging in these suggestions
for future research, teacher educators could come closer to achieving the goal of providing
a caring and qualified learner-centred teacher for every child.
References
Ajzen, I. (1996). The directive influence of attitudes on behavior. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (pp. 385–403). New York:Guilford Press.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of plannedbehavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665–683.
American Psychological Association (APA). (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A frame-work for school reform and redesign (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2002). Research, reform and times of change. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook ofinternational research in mathematics education (pp. 355–381). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Anderson, L. M., Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Stevens, D. (1991, April). Teaching writing with a newinstructional model: Variations in teachers’ practices and students’ performance. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Barone, T., Berliner, D. C., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U., & McGowan, T. (1996). A future for teacher
education: Developing a strong sense of professionalism. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators(pp. 1108–1149). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Barr, R. B. (1998). Obstacles to implementing the learning paradigm: What it takes to overcome them.About Campus, 3(4), 18–25.
Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2006). Teaching every student in the 21st century: Teacher efficacy and technology(Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International,67(07A), 2540.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 130, 353–363.
Bruce, C. D., & Ross, J. A. (2008). A model for increasing reform implementation and teacher efficacy:Teacher peer coaching in grades 3 and 6 mathematics. Canadian Journal of Education, 31, 346–371.
Burton, J. P., Bamberry, N. J., & Harris-Boundy, J. (2005). Developing personal teaching efficacy in newteachers in university settings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 160–173.
Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-examination of Fuller’sconcerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 465–482.
Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in schools[Special edition]. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 15, 25–52.
Cuban, L. (2007). Hugging the middle: Teaching in an era of testing and accountability, 1980–2005.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(1), 33–57.
Cummins, C. L. (1998). An investigation of the relationship between teachers’ orientations in reading—Process and instruction: Four case studies (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1998).Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(06A), 1965.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Lead-ership, 53(6), 4–10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dunn, K. E. (2007). Teacher beliefs: An exploration of the relationship of teacher efficacy and yearsteaching to teachers’ learner-centered beliefs. National Forum of Applied Educational Research, 20(3),1–18.
Fives, H. (2003). Exploring the relationships of teachers’ efficacy, knowledge, and pedagogical beliefs: Amultimethod study (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Maryland, 2003). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 64, 3188.
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 55
123
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American EducationalResearch Journal, 6, 207–226.
Fuller, F. F., & Brown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: Part II.Seventy-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 25–52). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Fuller, F. F., Parsons, J. S., & Watkins, J. E. (1973, April). Concerns of teachers: Research and recon-ceptualization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, Chicago.
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The Stagesof Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacherefficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487–496.
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers.Personnel Psychology, 43, 789–805.
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring stages of concerns about the innovation:A manual for use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1986). Measuring the Stages of Concern about theinnovation: A manual for use of the SoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State Universityof New York Press.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights,MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M., George, A. A., Stiegelbauer, S., & Dirksen, D. (2006). Measuring implementationin schools: The concerns based adoption model. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoptionprocess within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for TeacherEducation, The University of Texas.
Hord, S. M., & Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Effective curriculum implementation: Some promising newinsights. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 97–115.
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (2005). Taking charge of change. Austin,TX: Southeast Educational Development Laboratory.
INTASC. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for statedialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
James, R. K., Lamb, C. E., Householder, D. L., & Bailey, M. A. (2000). Integrating science, mathematics,and technology in middle school technology-rich environments: A study of implementation andchange. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 27–35.
Knoblauch, D. E. (2004). Contextual factors and the development of student teachers’ sense of efficacy(Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International,65(09A), 3343.
Latham, G. P., Millman, Z., & Miedema, H. (1998). Theoretical, practical and organizational issuesaffecting training. In C. J. De Wolff, P. J. D. Drenth, & H. Thierry (Eds.), A handbook of work andorganizational psychology: Personnel psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 185–207). East Sussex, UK: PsychologyPress, Ltd.
Lehman, B., Allen, V., & Freeman, E. (1990). Teacher perceptions and practices for using children’sliterature in elementary reading instruction. ERIC document reproduction no. ED 329 937.
Lotter, C. (2004). Pre-service science teachers’ concerns through classroom observations and studentteaching: Special focus on inquiry teaching. Science Educator, 13(1), 29–38.
Maxson, S. (1995). At-risk learners: The influence of teacher beliefs on classroom practices. Reading:Exploration and Discovery, 16(2), 31–37.
McCombs, B. L. (1997). Self-assessment and reflection: Tools for promoting teacher changes towardlearner-centered practices. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 1–14.
McCombs, B. L. (1999). The Assessment of Learner-Centered Practices (ALCP): Tools for teacherreflection, learning, and change. Denver, CO: University of Denver Research Institute.
McCombs, B. L. (2002a, February). The learner-centered framework: A research-validated rationalfor defining healthy educational environments. University of Denver Research Institute: Talkingpaper for education committee hearing, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved November 5, 2007, fromhttp://www.amersports.org/library/reports/9.html.
McCombs, B. L. (2002b, April). How can we define teacher quality? The learner-centered framework. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
56 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
McCombs, B. L. (2003, April). Defining tools for teacher reflection: The Assessment of Learner-CenteredPractices (ALCP). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago.
McCombs, B. L., & Lauer, P. A. (1997). Development and validation of the learner-centered battery: Self-assessment tools for teacher reflection and professional development. The Professional Educator,20(1), 1–21.
McCombs, B. L., & Quiat, M. A. (1999). A study of the learner-centeredness of the Community for Learning(CFL) Program. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development inEducation. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.temple.edu/Lss/pdf/spotlights/500/spot500.pdf.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies forincreasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model.Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 477–485.
NCATE Unit Standards. (2006). National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Retrieved April16, 2007, from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/tabid/476/Default.aspx.
Negrete, E. G. (2004). Faculty concerns and perceptions of mandated educational change: An exploratorystudy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 11A, 4127.
Newman, C., Moss, B., Lenarz, M., & Newman, I. (1998, October). The impact of a PDS internship/studentteaching program on the self-efficacy, stages of concern and role perceptions of preservice teaching:The evaluation of a goals 2000 project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidwesternEducational Research Association, Chicago.
O’Sullivan, K. A., & Zielinski, E. J. (1988, April). Development of a stages of concern questionnaire forpre-service teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, Lake Ozark, MO.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-belief in psychology and education: A historical per-
spective. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement impact of psychological factors oneducation (pp. 3–20). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62, 307–332.
Piggie, F. L., & Marso, R. N. (1997). A seven year longitudinal multi-factor assessment of teaching concernsdevelopment through preparation and early years of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13,225–235.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of moti-vational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review ofEducational Research, 63, 167–199.
Rakes, G. C., & Casey, H. B. (2002). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional technology.International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1). Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v3n1/Author2/.
Rakes, G. C., & Dunn, K. (2008, March). Exploring relationships between teacher technology concerns andclassroom practices. Paper presented at the nineteenth annual international conference for the Societyfor Information Technology and Teacher Education, Las Vegas, NV.
Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. F., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructionalpractices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 411–426.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs andpractices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559–586.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 12, 385–400.Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 13, 211–224.Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The ‘‘warming trend’’ in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.
Educational Psychologist, 40, 107–115.Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the
length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–194.
Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58 57
123
Sweeney, B. (2003). The CBAM: A model of the people development process. International MentoringAssociation. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://www.mentoring-association.org/membersonly/CBAM.html.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teachingand Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2002, April). What is the value of understanding beliefs? Anexploration of beliefs related to academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
van den Berg, R. (1993). The concerns-based model in the Netherlands, Flanders, and the United Kingdom:State of the art and perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(1), 51–63.
Vogler, K. E. (2006). Impact of high school graduation examination on Tennessee science teachers’instructional practices. American Secondary Education, 35(1), 33–57.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Woolfolk, A. E., Rossoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.Zielinski, E. J., & Preston, D. (1992, March). The evolution of pre-service science teachers’ concerns about
teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in ScienceTeaching, Boston, MA.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psy-chology, 25(1), 82–91.
58 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:39–58
123
