This article was downloaded by: [UTSA Libraries]On: 06 October 2014, At: 17:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of ExperimentalEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjxe20

Preservice Teachers' Value forLearning-Strategy InstructionDouglas Hamman aa Merrimack CollegePublished online: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Douglas Hamman (1998) Preservice Teachers' Value for Learning-Strategy Instruction, The Journal of Experimental Education, 66:3, 209-221, DOI:10.1080/00220979809604405

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220979809604405

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Journal of Experimental Education, 1998, 66(3), 209-221

Preservice Teachers’ Value for Learning-Strategy Instruction

DOUGLAS HAMMAN Merrimack College

~ ~~

ABSTRACT. Classroom teachers rarely instruct students on how to approach learn- ing tasks in a strategic manner. Teachers’ neglect of strategy training may be linked to several factors, including perceived lack of value for providing strategy instruc- tion. In 2 studies, 2 factors that may contribute to preservice teachers’ perceived value for learning-strategy training were investigated with self-report question- naires: (a) the extent to which preservice teachers use strategies during their own learning and (b) the inhence of undergraduate education courses. The results indi- cated that value for strategy instruction was (a) related significantly to the use of some learning (r = .41) and self-regulation strategies (r = .53) and (b) enhanced by course content in an educational psychology course. The results are discussed in terms of recommendations for college-level teacher-training programs.

ONE AREA OF TEACHERS’ RESPONSIBILITY that has received consis- tent, positive, albeit minor, attention for at least 2 decades has been the benefits of providing strategy training to enhance students’ learning outcomes (e.g., Rosenshine, 1997). Despite encouraging research findings, classroom teachers are not likely to provide learning-strategy training. My purpose in the present research was to examine preservice teachers’ value for providing learning-strate- gy training to their future pupils. In Study 1, I examined the relationship between preservice teachers’ own use of learning strategies and their value for providing learning-strategy training. In Study 2, I examined the influence of course content on preservice teachers’ value for providing leaming-strategy training.

Implementation of Learning-Strategy Training

The value of learning-strategy training has been widely recognized among education researchers since the mid- 1970s (e.g., McCormick, Miller, & Pressley, 1989; O’Neil & Spielberger, 1979; Rosenshine, 1997). Hundreds of studies have

209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

210 The Jourrial of Experimerital Education

been conducted and many books written that demonstrate the effectiveness of training students to use learning strategies (e.g., Levin & Allens, 1976; Moely et al., 1992; Weinstein, Goetz, & Alexander, 1988). Moreover, in current textbooks designed for courses in educational psychology, considerable text space is devot- ed to descriptions of learning strategies, strategic learners, and self-regulated learning (e.g., Mayer, 1987; Pressley & McCormick, 1995; Wakefield, 1996; Woolfolk, 1995). In addition, a growing number of practitioner-oriented publica- tions and studies highlight the importance of providing learning-strategy instruc- tion (e.g., Duffy & Roehler, 1987; Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995; Rafoth, Leal, & DeFabo, 1993).

Despite the strong endorsement of learning-strategy training by education researchers (e.g., McCombs, 1993; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986), classroom teach- ers are hesitant to embrace strategy training (Clift, Ghatala, Naus, & Poole, 1990; Duffy & Roehler, 1989; Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). The reasons for teachers’ reluctance are a matter of speculation. Time limitations and concentration on cur- ricular concerns, no doubt, are important reasons that teachers do not include more strategy training in their daily instruction. Other reasons may be that teach- ers are not convinced that strategy training is really effective or that they them- selves are able to provide instruction in this area because of a lack of knowledge or inadequate preparation at the preservice level.

In response to the perceived lag between research and practice, education researchers have suggested that greater emphasis be placed on training preservice teachers to incorporate effective methods for learning-strategy instruction (e.g., Clark, 1993; Duffy, 1993; McCombs, 1993; Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). To accomplish this goal, however, researchers and teacher educators must address a number of issues. First, preparation must include training that exposes preservice teachers to models of strategic learning. \Second, teacher-preparation courses must be organized in such a way as to infom preservice teachers about empiri- cally proven methods of delivering effective learning-strategy instruction (Press- ley & Woloshyn, 1995). Third, education researchers must identify factors that may contribute to preservice teachers’ value for, and eventual implementation of, learning-strategy instruction.

Factors Contributing to Implementation qf Learning-Strategy Instruction

Researchers have already examined a number of factors that may contribute to teachers’ implementation of learning-strategy instruction. For example, Clift et al. (1990) investigated teachers’ knowledge about the nature of learn- ing strategies and their perception of instruction that encouraged students’ strategy use. Others have examined the types of instructional activities teach- ers actually use to foster students’ strategic learning (e.g., Duffy, 1993; Moely et al., 1992). The results from these studies suggest that many teachers are ill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hamman 21 I

informed about the nature of learning strategies and rarely provide explicit strategy instruction.

Another factor that may contribute to teachers’ implementation of learning- strategy instruction is the degree to which teachers are themselves strategic, self- regulated learners (e.g., Archer & Isaacson, 1990; Clark, 1993; McCombs, 1993; Ridley, McCombs, & Taylor, 1994). Classroom teachers’ own approach to learn- ing may influence the degree to which they value and, therefore, teach students to approach academic tasks in a strategic manner. If teachers regularly approach their own learning tasks in a strategic, self-regulated manner, they are more like- ly to encourage their students to approach academic tasks in a similar way. Con- versely, if teachers are not strategic learners, they are less likely to engender strategic behavior in their students. Although it is reasonable to assume that teachers’ own strategic-learning activity would be related to their value for pro- viding learning-strategy instruction, this relationship has not been demonstrated.

Curricular Context for Training Preservice Teachers About Learning-Strategy Instruction

Coursework in educational psychology seems to be an appropriate context in which to provide preservice teachers with knowledge of learning-strategy in- struction (e.g., Ashton, 1996). Historically, preservice teachers’ coursework in educational psychology has served a variety of curricular agendas ranging from child development to techniques for classroom management (Walberg & Haertel, 1992). Currently, educational psychology coursework does not appear to be stan- dardized, either in content or as a required course for teachers, and few under- graduate teacher-training programs have courses specifically devoted to learning- strategy instruction (see Introduction in Pressky & Woloshyn, 1995). The lack of specific focus on learning strategies makes it especially important to consider the most appropriate context for providing preservice teachers with training about learning-strategy instruction.

College-level training, however, may have only a limited influence on new teachers’ knowledge and actions in the classroom (Smylie, 1988). New and pre- service teachers’ undue optimism about their teaching abilities and concerns about classroom management may overshadow thinking about more theoretical issues such as student learning (Carter, 1990). These concerns may limit the impact that college-level education courses have on preservice teachers’ knowl- edge and beliefs about teaching. In a recent study, Jones and Vesilind (1996) examined the influence of the student-teaching experience on novice teachers’ organizations of pedagogical knowledge. The results from that study suggest that a theoretical understanding of student learning comprises a very limited portion of the type of knowledge new teachers perceive as important for functioning in the classroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

212 The Jounicil of E.meriineritcil Educution

The timing and sequence of coursework may be one reason learning theories are not more salient to preservice teachers. Pintrich (1990) suggested that con- ceptualizations about teaching change from declarative to procedural and condi- tional knowledge and depend a great deal on the experience of the individual learner. Much of the presentation of learning theories (e.g., educational psychol- ogy courses) occurs early in the preservice teacher’s training (and may consist mainly of declarative knowledge), whereas upper level preparation focuses more on teaching methods (and consists mainly of procedural knowledge). Early expo- sure to educational psychology, and other theoretical issues, may limit preservice teachers’ awareness of student learning to isolated bits of declarative knowledge about learning theories. Furthermore, convincing preservice teachers about the importance of learning-strategy instruction may be complicated by their beliefs about the nature of knowledge (which have been shown to change over the course of college education) and their perceived importance of the content of education courses (which is an important component of conceptual change; see review of epistemological theories by Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).

This situation seems suboptimal for effecting changes related to teachers’ learning-strategy instruction. Therefore, it is important that college faculty involved in the training of future teachers consider the manner and the context in which knowledge about learning-strategy instruction is provided. If, as Pintrich ( 1990) suggested, pedagogical knowledge progresses along a continuum from declarative to procedural knowledge, it seems particularly important, at an early stage, to convince preservice teachers that learning-strategy instruction is a crit- ical component of their teaching responsibilities and, later, provide them with examples of how this type of instruction might be carried out in a typical class- room. This approach may enhance the likelihood that preservice teachers will attempt to integrate more theoretical issues‘,with traditional teaching methodolo- gy courses and continue the difficult task of applying theoretical constructs once they reach the classroom (cf. Duffy, 1993, regarding the difficulty that experi- enced teachers have in applying learning-strategy research in the classroom).

Purpose of the research. In the present study, I examined two questions related to factors that may contribute to preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction. In Study 1, I examined the relationship between value for learning- strategy instruction and preservice teachers’ own level of self-regulation and use of learning strategies. In Study 2, I examined the influence of course topic on preservice teachers’ value for providing learning-strategy training. I hypothe- sized that (a) preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction would be positively related to their own level of strategic learning activity and that (b) preservice teachers enrolled in an educational psychology course would more strongly endorse learning-strategy instruction than those enrolled in an adoles- cent development course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hamman 213

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

The participants in this research study were 45 preservice education students (34 women and 11 men), in their sophomore or junior year, enrolled in an under- graduate educational psychology course at a small northeastern college. The stu- dents in this class were predominantly White. All students were preparing for state teacher certification. The students received class credit for participating in the research project.

Mate ria Is

In Study 1, I used three self-report instruments. The first instrument was an experimenter-developed instrument, called the Teaching About Learning Questionnaire (TALQ; see the Appendix for sample items). This 20-item, 5- point, Likert-type questionnaire (a = .9 1) was intended to assess preservice teachers’ attitudes toward implementing strategy training in their (future) classrooms. Individual scores were derived by summing responses across all 20 items.

The second instrument was the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987). I used five subscales, consisting of 29 Likert-type items, in the present analysis: Information Processing (INP), Selecting Main Ideas (SMI), Support Strategies (STA), Self-Testing (SFT), and Test-Taking Strategies (TST). Each subscale possesses an alpha coefficient ranging from .68 to 33. Individual scores for each subscale were derived by summing across all items on the subscale. The LASSI questionnaire was intended to assess preservice teachers’ typical level of strategy use. Items on the LASSI can reflect strategy use in a variety of academic contexts, so stu- dents’ responses represent a general perception of strategic activity across mul- tiple domains.

The third instrument was the Students’ Perception of Classroom Knowledge- Building (SPOCK; Shell et al., 1995). I used four subscales, consisting of 24 Lik- ert-type items, in the present analysis: Knowledge Building (KB), Self-Regulat- ed Learning (SRL), Question-Asking (QUEST), and Lack of Initiative (LKINI). Each subscale possesses an alpha coefficient ranging from .65 to .9 1. Individual scores for each subscale were derived by summing across all items on the sub- scale. The SPOCK was intended to reflect students’ initiative and control of learning (similar to the LASSI), but within the context of a specific course. Because strategy use might vary across settings, the SPOCK provided a measure of activity specific to the interests of the present study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

214 The Journal of Experimental Education

Procedure

During one class meeting, approximately three quarters into the semester, the students completed the TALQ and the SPOCK. Before the next class meeting, they completed the LASSI outside of class as part of a homework assignment.

Results and Discussion

I hypothesized that preservice teachers’ value of learning-strategy instruction would be related to their own use of learning strategies and to the degree to which they regulate their own learning. The results were generally as predicted. Table 1 contains the zero-order correlations among the participants’ scores on the TALQ, LASSI, and SPOCK. The TALQ was related to one category of strategy use on the LASSI-Support Strategies ( r = .41)-and to two categories on the SPOCK- Knowledge Building ( r = .40) and Self-Regulated Learning ( r = S3). The TALQ was negatively related to the SPOCK subscale Lack of Initiative ( r = -.38). Both the LASSI and the SPOCK seemed to reflect similar perceptions of strategy use among the participants. Of particular interest, scores on the Knowledge Building subscale of the SPOCK were moderately correlated with three of the LASSI sub- scales: Information Processing ( r = .53), Selecting Main Ideas ( r = .36), and Sup- port Strategies ( r = .42). Self-Regulated Learning was somewhat related to Sup- port Strategies ( r = .32) and Self-Testing ( r = .37). The subscales on the SPOCK, in general, seemed to reflect individual scales measured by the LASSI.

The results from Study 1 provide empirical support for a link between preser- vice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction and their own degree of strategy use and self-regulation. Items on the Support Strategies subscale of the LASSI provide information about whethe or not students generate their own study aids (e.g., diagrams, text markings, summary sheets, note taking, group learning activities) to assist them in learning course material (Weinstein, 1987). Preservice teachers’ use of these types of strategies may provide them with important procedural and conditional knowledge that could facilitate their deliv- ery of classroom instruction.

The Knowledge Building and Self-Regulated Learning subscales on the SPOCK (Shell et al., 1995) provide information about the degree to which stu- dents, in the context of a specific course, use deeper processing strategies to con- struct their own understanding of material and the extent to which they set goals and monitor their learning progress. As in the previous case, it appears that pre- service teachers who used these types of strategies also valued learning-strategy instruction and likewise seemed more likely to provide this type of instruction for their (future) pupils.

In addition, the students’ perceptions of typical strategy use (i.e., LASSI; Weinstein et al., 1987) and their perceptions of strategy use in a particular setting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E 1

Z

ero-

Ord

er C

orre

latio

ns B

etw

een

the

Tea

chin

g A

bout

Lea

rnin

g Q

uest

ionn

aire

and

Stra

tegi

c Lea

rnin

g It

ems (

N =

45)

LASS

1 SP

OC

K

Lear

ner-

cont

rol m

ode

I 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

1. T

ALQ

2.

IN

P 3.

SM

I 4.

STA

5.

SFT

6.

TST

7.

KB

8.

SR

L

9. Q

UES

T 10

. LK

INI

M

SD

1 .oo

.26

.20

.41*

* .3

0 .3

0 1 .o

o .5

4**

.35*

.5

8**

.43*

* 1 .o

o .4

1**

.57*

* .4

1**

1 .oo

.5 1 *

* .I

1

1 .oo

I .oo

.38*

82.0

8 27

.47

18.9

7 24

.75

26.2

5 3 1

.07

7.64

4.

43

2.62

4.

18

4.20

3.

75

.40*

* .5

3**

.36*

.4

2**

.27

.20

I .oo

32.8

8 6.

57

.53**

.28

.22

.32*

.3

7*

.20

.56*

* 1 .o

o

24.2

2 4.

89

.16

.22

-.44*

* .2

2 .0

6 .2

0 .3

5*

.20

I .oo

17.7

3 6.

44

-.38*

-.3

6*

-.26

-.15

-.

15

-.43*

* -.3

0*

-.34*

-.

18

1 .oo

17.0

2 4.

20

Not

e. T

ALQ

=T

each

ing

Abo

ut L

earn

ing

Que

stio

nnai

re; I

NP

= In

form

atio

n Pr

oces

sing

: SM

I = S

elec

ting

Mai

n Id

eas;

STA

= S

uppo

rt St

rate

gies

; SIT

= S

elf-

Test

ing;

TST

=T

est-

Ta

king

Str

ateg

ies;

KB

= K

now

ledg

e B

uild

ing:

SR

L =

Sel

f-R

egul

ated

Lea

rnin

g; Q

UE

ST =

Que

stio

n-A

skin

g; L

KIN

I = L

ack

of I

nitia

tive.

*p

<.0

5.**

p<.O

l.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

216 The Jourticil of Esnerimenrul Educnriori

(Le., SPOCK; Shell et al., 1995) were fairly consistent. The students perceived themselves to be as strategically active in the specific course as they did for school in general.

STUDY 2

Method

Participants

The participants in this research were 50 education students in their sopho- more or junior year at a small northeastern college. The students were enrolled in either an undergraduate educational psychology course ( n = 23) during the spring semester or an undergraduate adolescent development course (n = 27) dur- ing the following fall semester. The same instructor taught both courses. The par- ticipants were predominantly White and were all preparing for state teacher cer- tification. The students received class credit for participating in the research.

I eliminated 8 students from the analysis because of concerns about a possible confounding effect of having been enrolled in both courses. I also eliminated 6 participants from the educational psychology course and 2 participants from the adolescent development course because of incomplete responses to the self-report questionnaires. The final sample used in analyses consisted of 26 participants (9 educational psychology students and 17 adolescent development students).

Materials

The research instruments used in this study were identical to those described in Study 1.

Procedure

Procedures for data collection were identical to those described in Study 1.

Content of the educational psychology course. The primary focus of this course was on theories of learning, student motivation, and classroom management. As part of the educational psychology course, the instructor included foundational instruction about learning strategies. For example, lecture material included descriptions of learning strategies, the information-processing metaphor, and the strategic-learner model (Pressley & McCormick, 1995). The students were instructed about the distinction between learning strategies (i.e., activities of stu- dents intended to enhance learning) and teaching strategies (i.e., activities of the teacher intended to enhance learning). Both textbooks required for the course featured extensive materials about learning strategies and strategic learning. Two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hamman 217

take-home examinations were concerned with questions about providing learn- ing-strategy instruction.

Methods for strategy instruction were also explicitly modeled for the students in several ways. The students were given demonstrations of effective mnemonic devices. The instructor made suggestions for setting goals to complete reading assignments, time management, and test preparation. The students were also given think-aloud demonstrations of reading strategies that could be effective for studying educational psychology and demonstrations of writing strategies that could be helpful for completing the research assignment.

Content of the adolescent development c5ui-s~~. The primary emphasis of this course was on biological, cognitive, and social development of adolescents. Because of this emphasis, inclusion of information about learning strategies was necessarily limited. As part of the lecture presentations on cognitive develop- ment, however, the students were taught about self-regulated learning and read one journal article (i.e., Paris & Newman, 1990) on this subject. The course text- book did not include any references to learning strategies or self-regulated learn- ing. The instructor also modeled strategy-instruction methods by making sug- gestions for time management, test preparation, and writing assignments. The students completed a weekly log concerned with goal setting and monitoring of reading-assignment completion.

Results and Discussion

I compared the value for learning-strategy instruction of the students enrolled in an educational psychology course with that of students enrolled in an adoles- cent development course (see Table 2). Beca4se of uneven sample sizes, I used separate variance estimates in this and subsequent t tests (Hays, 1988). A signif- icant difference, t( 18.45) = 3.12, p = .006, was found between the responses of students in the two courses. This finding suggests that the course focus of edu- cational psychology may have provided an appropriate vehicle for convincing preservice teachers about the importance of learning-strategy instruction. As an alternative, the students may simply have been repeating the emphasis placed on the content in the course.

Based on the correlational results from Study 1, I conducted three additional t tests to analyze other possible differences among the students’ use of Support Strategies, Self-Regulated Learning, and Knowledge Building. No statistically significant difference existed between the students on these variables (see Table 3). Although course content may have influenced the students’ value for learn- ing-strategy instruction, the context of a specific course (i.e., educational psy- chology vs. adolescent development) apparently did not affect their use of learn- ing strategies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

218 The Journal of Experimenlal Education

TABLE 2 Influence of Course Focus on Value for Learning-Strategy Instruction ( N = 26)

Educational Adolescent Variable psychology development Effect size I

TALQ M 88.22 78.17 1.07 3. I2** SD 7.42 8.48

Note. TALQ =Teaching About Learning Questionnaire. **P<.Ol.

TABLE 3 Course Focus Differences Between Preservice Teachers’ Self-Regulation and Strategy Use (N = 26)

Educational Adolescent Variable psychology development Effect size t

STA M 25.66 24.47 .22 .57 SD 4.69 5.80

M 21.11 19.35 .38 3 9 SD 5.06 4.27

M 28.88 28.53 .04 . I 1 SD 7.30 8.29

SRL

KB

Note. STA = Support Strategies; SRL = Self-Regulated Learning; KB = Knowledge Building. *p < .05. I

The results from Study 2 indicate that course focus may influence preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction beyond the effects of their own learning activities. This result points to the benefit of teacher-preparation pro- grams that provide a more concentrated focus on learning-strategy training. In addition to specific teaching-methods courses (e.g., teaching language arts), educational psychology (and courses concerned with theoretical treatment of learning) seems to be an appropriate curricular context in which to focus on strategy instruction.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Recommendations for implementing learning-strategy instruction have met with little positive, systematic response from educational practitioners. One rea- son for practitioners’ reluctance to implement strategy instruction may stem from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hamman 219

their own preservice preparation. Recommendations to include learning-strategy instruction within the curriculum of teacher-preparation courses might be reeval- uated in light of (a) how preservice teachers will be taught to implement training, (b) the course focus in which training might occur, and (c) the preservice teach- ers’ own motivation and metacognitive knowledge about the use and self-regula- tion of learning strategies.

The findings from the present research suggest that teachers’ value for learn- ing-strategy instruction is associated with their own level of strategic, self-regu- lated learning and that appropriate course focus may enhance preservice teach- ers’ value for strategy instruction. The durability of this influence and how this value is implemented in the classroom, however, has yet to be determined.

These findings also seem to imply that a greater emphasis on learning-strate- gy instruction at the preservice level might be more productive if it were accom- panied by (a) activities that heighten awareness of teachers’ own strategic pro- cessing, (b) coursework that provides instruction for increasing teachers’ degree of strategic learning, and (c) procedural knowledge of how to transfer teachers’ own knowledge about strategic learning into their daily classroom instruction.

The current research represents an initial step toward identifying effective means of increasing the quality and frequency of learning-strategy instruction in the K-12 classroom. Future research is obviously needed in this area. Specifi- cally, future investigations should focus on (a) the relationship between teach- ers’ value for learning-strategy instruction and the actual occurrence of strategy instruction in real classrooms (Hamman, Berthelot, Sain, & Crowley, 1998); (b) whether teacher-preparation courses can actually increase not only teachers’ value but their implementation of learning-strategy instruction; (c) what hap- pens, in the real classroom setting, to either enhance or diminish preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction; and (d) the broader effects of teacher-implemented learning-strategy instruction on students’ strategy use and achievement (e.g., Hamman, Shell, Droesch, Husman, & Handwerk, 1997; Moely et al., 1992).

NOTE

Address correspondence to Douglas Hamman, Department of Education, Menimack College. 3 I5 Turnpike Street, North Andover, MA 01 845. E-mail: dhamman@memmack.edu.

REFERENCES

Archer, A. L., & Isaacson, S. L. (1990). Teaching others how to teach strategies. Teacher Education

Ashton, P. T. (1996). Improving the preparation of teachers. Educational Researcher; 25, 21-22. Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J .

Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher educafion (pp. 291-3 10). New York: Macmillan.

and Special Education, 13, 63-72.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

220 The Jourritrl cf €xperitnerircrl Education

Clark, F. L. ( I 993). Preparing teachers to implement strategy instruction. Pretwitirrg School Fcrilure. 38, 50-52.

Clift, R. T., Ghatala, E. S., Naus, M. M., & Poole, J. (1990). Exploring teachers knowledge of strate- gic study activity. The Journal of E.rperiinentcr1 Educution. 58, 253-263.

Duffy, G. G. ( 1993). Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elernmrcrn School Journal. 94, 109- 120.

Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1989). Why strategy instruction is so difticult and what we need to do about it. In C. B. McCormick, G. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cogiiitive strcrtegy research: From basic research to educational appliccitions (pp. 133-1 54). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987). Improving reading instruction through the use of responsive elaboration. The Reading Teache,: 40, 5 14-521.

Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Sain, J. & Crowley, E. (1998, April). The value. practice. und effects of learning-strategy instruction in the middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Hamman, D., Shell, D. F., Droesch, D. M., Human, J., & Handwerk, M. (1997). €,rariiiiiiiig the real- time efects of cognitive reading strategy training. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hays, W. ( I 988). Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about

knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educcrtiortal Resenrch. 67, 88-140.

Jones, M. G., & Vesilind, E. M. (1996). Putting practice into theory: Changes in the organization of preservice teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Americcrri Educational Resrurch Joitrrial. 33. 91-1 17.

Levin, J. R., & Allens, V. L. (Eds.). (1996). Cognitive learnirig in childreri. New York: Academic Press.

Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cogriitive approach. New York: Harper Collins. McCombs, B. L. ( I 993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guideliries,fi)r school redesigri

and reform. Washington, DC: Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education, American Psy- chological Association.

McCormick, C. B., Miller, G., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (1989). Cogriirive srrcrtegy resetrrch: From htrsic resecirch to educational applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Moely, B. E., Hart, S. S., Leal, L., Santulli, K. A., Rao, N., Johnson, T., & Hamilton. L. B. (1992). The teacher’s role in facilitating memory and study strategy development in the elementary school classroom. Child Development. 63, 653-672.

O’Neil, H. E, & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (1979). Cognitive and ufective lecrrniiig strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. €duccitiori- a1 Pyschologist, 25, 87-102.

Pintrich, P. R. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college teach- ing for teacher education. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.). Hundbook of research on teacher education (pp. 826-857). New York: Macmillan.

Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Cognition, tecrching. arid insrrucriori. New York: Harper Collins.

Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improvr.s childreri ‘s ncademic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Rafoth, M. A,, Leal, L., & DeFabo, L. (1993). Strategies for learnirig crrid remembering: Study skills across the curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association Professional Library Pub- lication.

Ridley, D. S., McCombs, B. L., & Taylor, K. (1994). Walking the talk: Fostering self-regulated learn- ing in the classroom. Middle School Journal, 26, 52-57.

Rosenshine, B. (1997, March). The casefor explicit, teucher-led, cognitive strategy iristrimion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Shell, D. F., Human, J. E., Droesch, D. M., Nath, I. , Wall, N., & Turner, J . (1995). Project CIRCLE: First year evaluation report. Washington, DC: Secretary’s Fund for Innovation in Education, U.S. Department of Education and College of Education, Learning Technology Center, University of Texas.

L

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Smylie, M. A. (1988). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The EL- nientani School Journal, 89. 543-558.

Wakefield, J. F. (1996). Educational psychology: Leurning fo he ci problem solver Boston: Houghton Miftlin.

Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, G. D. (1992). Educational psychology’s first century Journd of Educci-

Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASS1 user’s manual. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing. Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (1988). Learning cind stucl~ .srrtrregies: I.s.sues in

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),

Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and Study Srrciregies Inventor?:

Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

rional Psychology, 84, 61 9.

assessment, insrrucfion, and evaluation. New York: Academic Press.

The handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.

Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing.

APPENDIX Sample Items From the Teaching About Learning Questionnaire (TALQ)

1. Thinking about how students learn is as important as thinking about what students learn. 2. Students don’t really need to be aware of how they learn just so long as they learn. [Item is

3. Teachers who are strategic learners help their students to become strategic learners. 4. Effective teaching should include strategy instruction. 5. As a teacher, it is important that I include learning-strategy instruction in my classes. 6. My students will learn more if I include strategy training in the classroom. 7. I can think of several good reasons to tell my students regarding the importance of becoming

8. For the teacher, strategy training is more work than it is worth. [Item is reverse scored.] 9. Effective teachers are almost always effective learners.

10. Students can always be taught better ways of learning.

reverse scored.]

strategic learners.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UT

SA L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

37 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014