repetition of lesson presentation as a tool for improving teaching efficiency
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 08 September 2014, At: 06:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
Repetition of lesson presentation as atool for improving teaching efficiencyJoseph Klein aa Division of Educational, Leadership & Administration, School ofEducation , Bar-Ilan University , Ramat-Gan , IsraelPublished online: 20 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: Joseph Klein (2012) Repetition of lesson presentation as a tool forimproving teaching efficiency, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 18:6, 733-746, DOI:10.1080/13540602.2012.746508
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.746508
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Repetition of lesson presentation as a tool for improving teachingefficiency
Joseph Klein*
Division of Educational, Leadership & Administration, School of Education, Bar-IlanUniversity, Ramat-Gan, Israel
(Received 7 February 2011; final version received 8 July 2012)
Studies in industry link routine in work to efficiency level. Routine may contrib-ute to boredom and decline in efficiency for some workers; others cope wellwith repetitive tasks and improve output. This study was conducted to determinewhether repetition of a lesson by the same teacher to a second class within aweek increases or decreases efficacy. Seventy-nine teachers completed a ques-tionnaire after presenting a lesson once, and again later that week after giving itto a parallel class. The findings show that the repeated lesson was better thanthe first by 6–9% with respect to three of the five dimensions of successfulteaching. The contribution of reflective insights to the improvement of repeatedlessons and the implications for planning school programs are discussed.
Keywords: repeated lessons; repetitive work; effective teaching
The question of the desirability of standardized and unchanging tasks has drawn theattention of researchers since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Opinionsare divided about the effectiveness of repetitive work. Some perceive it as harmfulbecause of the boredom it creates, with a concomitant decrease in alertness and pro-duction (Hill & Perkins, 1985; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985; Rahman,1986). In certain circumstances, it might even cause physiological problems (Poulet al., 2002; Rissén, Melin, Sandsjö, Dohns, & Lundberg, 2002, Smith, 1985).Opposing this view, others emphasize the advantages of repetition, such as newinsights engendered, that improve performance of the repeated tasks and the feelingof greater mastery and confidence in the work being done (Feldman & Refaeli,2002; Isaksen, 2000; Karasek, 1979). They recommend examining which work styleis the most effective in a given situation and avoiding an a priori preference for aspecific style.
In education, repetition is generally understood to involve assigning teachers toteach a specific subject year after year or to work with the same pupils duringconsecutive terms. Opinions are far from homogeneous on this subject; hence,deliberations with respect to the suitability of repetitive instruction in its variousforms are of practical importance in planning school schedules. Those who negateroutine teaching maintain that it produces boredom among teachers and studentsand, as a result, a decline in effectiveness. Moreover, they say that it also entailsthe automatic application of one teaching pattern in more than one class without
*Email: [email protected]
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practiceVol. 18, No. 6, December 2012, 733–746
ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.746508http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
adapting it to suit each class’s unique fabric (Cohen, 1987; Robinson, 1988).Luyten and De Jong (1998) note that many internal school factors, such as variedresponses to individual teachers by different classes, require flexibility in the face ofchanging demands and influence the degree to which lessons may be reproduced.
According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), Klein and Wasserstein (2006), andNobles (1995), repetition of a lesson, that is, teaching the exact same lesson morethan once, offers an advantage; the first lesson serves as a basis for discerningerrors to be corrected on repetition. The question should be investigated in all of itsramifications. To date, however, no empirical comparison has been made of thebenefit, if any, of a lesson repeated by a teacher shortly after its first presentation toanother class. This study examined the possibility of improving teaching quality byutilizing the experience gained from repetitive teaching, that is, the presentation ofa lesson by the same teacher to two different classes within a week. An inquirysuch as this requires an understanding of the various ways in which effective teach-ing is judged.
Effective teaching
The literature offers many similar and synonymous terms in dealing with teachingquality. This paper makes use of the word ‘effectiveness,’ focusing on its manyaspects. Effective teaching has multiple definitions, many of them incompatible.This lack of correspondence can be ascribed to the dependence of the term on mul-titudinous social and cultural judgments and values that vary from place to placeand from one period to another (Berliner, 2005).
Taken together, the many definitions represent two educational philosophies.One emphasizes scholastic progress in the school, while the other sees the pupils’personal and social development as the most important element. The first approachdetermines teaching effectiveness by examination of academic accomplishment inreliable standard achievement tests. It views curricula and teaching methods asprimary tools. This instrumental course is supported in the USA by the Movementto improve School Effectiveness, Improvement and Culture. Much criticism wasaimed at this approach. Educational reforms inspired by this method were said toanalyze complex educational processes superficially (Mortimore, 1998; Nichols &Berliner, 2007). Others are referred to the omission of qualitative, value-oriented,psychological, and ethical measures in its evaluations. Despite the criticism, laterreforms have also focused on standardized criteria that emphasize achievement. Forexample, in 2002, as part of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ law, a number of domainswere defined requiring excellence in teaching, and most of them stressed improve-ment of behaviors and strategies that would lead to higher academic attainment(Danielson, 1996; Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Marshall (2003) surveyed 20 yearsof educational reforms in the USA and concluded that standards-oriented teachingbrought about significant improvement in achievement and in school climate.
During the same period, another approach was formulated that assigns centralimportance to the pedagogical processes that pupils undergo in schools as well astheir personal and social development (Levi, 2001). Under the influence of behav-iorist psychology, a systematic concept was designed according to which teacherswere judged relative to the quality of their performance and their ability to planlessons based on defined and measurable behavioral objectives. The prevalentapproach today regards education as the effort to nurture the learner
734 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
multidimensionally in discipline-specific and interdisciplinary subjects and in foster-ing life skills (Hativa, 2003).
An additional typology of effective teaching was proposed even earlier by Har-ris (1998), who surveyed a large number of studies in the field and then categorizedeffectiveness into three categories: (a) teaching effects; (b) models of teaching; and(c) artistry. Teaching effects, the first category, encompasses sets of teachingbehaviors or skills. A high degree of correlation has been found between teachingbehavior and student achievement. The second category, models of teaching, refersto different types of learning environments and approaches to teaching. The thirdcategory, artistry, refers to those aspects of creativity and personality that set certainteachers apart in their work. Harris includes in this category the ability to reflectupon practice.
The variety of effective teaching typologies and the diverse and often overlap-ping terminologies used to describe them led Levi (2001) to examine the main inde-pendent characteristics of effective teaching during lesson preparation andsubsequent presentation in class. This specification conforms to the findings ofScheerens (2001), who noted that process indicators at the micro-class level betterexplain school effectiveness than do product and output indicators at the macro-level. After questioning teachers and pupils and analyzing factors in their reports,Levi listed five main domains in which differences are evident between effectiveand ineffective teaching: (a) lesson planning and organization; (b) adapting teachinglevel and content explanation to the pupils’ ability; (c) developing pupils’ abilitiesand skills; (d) personal attitude towards the pupil; and (e) evaluation of teachingand achievements, including self-reflection. The areas of teaching identified by Leviemphasize excellence in both achievement and personal development, thus incorpo-rating characteristics of the two approaches.
Table 1 describes the five components identified by Levi and their connectionto other studies of effective teaching in the classroom. This issue has been thesubject of extensive discussion by a large number of researchers in recent decadesand the table describes only some of them. Also included are reports issued byprofessional organizations based on studies describing characteristics of excellencein teaching.
Categorization of the theoretical studies underscores their common denominator.This prepares the foundation for elucidating the unique contribution of each studyand identifying issues that have not yet been examined and that warrant investiga-tion. In her paper, Levi (2001) noted additional systemic aspects of effective teach-ing beyond those mentioned in Table 1 – factors that relate to time outside of class.Among these are integration into the professional community and the environment(Helms, 2001; NBPTS, 2001), teachers’ commitment to academic learning andspecialization, and cooperative peer learning and accruing work experience. Someresearchers included these indicators in their measures of teaching effectiveness,and, indeed, a connection has been found between the level of education and workexperience of teachers and the achievements of their pupils (Heck, 2009; Knoeppel,Verstegen, & Rinehart, 2007; Ladd & Walsh, 2002; Wayne & Youngs, 2003).
By defining effective classroom teaching and developing tools for evaluatingteacher effectiveness, it is possible to examine empirically the hypothesis thatteachers presenting the same content in parallel classes will improve from lesson tolesson. The hypothesis is based on the reflection in which teachers engage toimprove their work (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nobles, 1995). Failures and
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 735
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Table1.
Characteristicsof
effectiveteaching.
Effectiv
eteaching
characteristicsaccordingto
Levi(2001)
Professionalstudiesandreports
Lessonplanning
andorganizatio
nCom
petencein
managingthelearning
process(Echevarria,
Vogt,&
Short,2008
⁄ ;Helms,2001;Mitra,
2004
⁄ ;NBPTS,2001;Seidel&
Shavelson,2007
⁄ )
Adaptingteaching
levelandcontent
explanationto
pupils’ability
Clarity
ofteaching
aims,mastery
ofmaterial,andmannerof
itspresentatio
n(Borman
&Kim
ball,
2005
⁄ ;Darlin
g-Ham
mond,
Berry
&Thoreston,2001
⁄ ;Illin
oisProfessional
TeachingStandards,2001;North
CarolinaProfessionalTeaching
Standards,2007;Wayne
&Youngs,
2003).
Understanding
ofthesubjectandhow
toteachiteffectively(H
elms,2001;NBPTS,2001),
Mastery
ofmethodical,intelligent,fair,andcreativ
eworkmethods,andtheability
toprofi
tfrom
experience
(Helms,2001;NBPTS,2001)
Diversity
(IllinoisProfessionalTeaching
Standards,2001)
Establisharespectful
environm
entforadiversepopulatio
nof
students(N
orth
CarolinaProfessional
TeachingStandards,2007),
Strategies(Echevarriaet
al.,2008)
Developingpupils’abilitiesandskills
Developingpersonal
abilities(M
itra,
2004
⁄ ;Illin
oisProfessionalTeachingStandards,2001)
Developingsocial
skills(M
itra,
2004
⁄ )Divisionof
timefordeveloping
thevariousabilities(M
itra,
2004
⁄ )Com
mitm
entto
pupilsandtheireducation(H
elms,2001;NBPTS,(2001),
Strategies(Echevarriaet
al.,2008
⁄ )
Personalattitudetowards
thepupil
Developingconstructiv
eandpersonal
relatio
nsbetweenteachers
andpupils(M
itra,
2004
⁄ )Illin
oisProfessionalTeaching
Standards,2001;Seidel&
Shavelson,2007
⁄ )Interaction(Echevarriaet
al.,2008
⁄ )
Evaluationof
teaching
andachievem
ent,
includingself-reflectio
nMonito
ring
thelearning
process(Echevarriaet
al.,2008
⁄ ;Helms,2001;Illin
oisProfessionalTeaching
Standards,2001;NBPTS,2001)
Reflectin
gon
theirpractice(H
attie
&Tim
perley,2007
⁄ ;Nobles,1995;North
CarolinaProfessional
TeachingStandards,2007)
Key:Empiricalstud
iesaremarkedby
⁄ .
736 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
successes in the first presentation enable them to draw conclusions before teachingthe material to other classes. It is clear that success is not ensured simply becauseof the repetition; each class has its own unique variables and characteristics (Luyten& DeJong, 1998). Teaching the same lessons to different classes means that at leastwith regard to one variable, the teaching plan and class conditions are similar, thusreducing, ever so slightly, the adjustment teachers must make to the later classes.Using the measures identified by Levi (2001), this hypothesis will be examined bycomparing teaching effectiveness in an identical lesson given by the same teachertwo times during a week.
A number of specific questions will be investigated: (a) In which of the fivecomponents of excellence presented by Levi is an improvement reported in therepetitive teaching, and in which is there none? (b) Does the short interval betweenthe first and the repetition of the lesson contribute mainly to the teacher’s personalconfidence and feeling of competency or do teachers think that it leads, directly, tobetter activation of the pupils? (c) How many of the teachers improved their abili-ties in the various components, how many did not change, and how many regressedas a result of boredom engendered by giving the same subject twice in a relativelyshort time period?
In order to examine the actual contribution of repeated instruction toimproved effectiveness above and beyond the influence of other factors, suchas level of education and teaching experience, the latter were included as con-trolled variables. Although the personality of teachers is part and parcel of thequality of their work (Rushton, Morgan, & Richard, 2007), this variable isneutralized because the comparison of teaching effectiveness in two proximaltimes focuses on changes in each teacher and not on a comparison amongteachers.
Method
Sample
Seventy-nine teachers were participated; each gave the same lesson to two differentclasses during the same week. Of the 79 teachers, 60 (75.9%) were women and 19(24.1%) were men. Thirty-eight of them (48.1%) taught in elementary school, 24(30.4%) in junior high, and 17 (21.5%) in high school. Seniority ranged from 1 to30 years. Their education ranged from BA to PhD studies.
In order to limit the effect of other factors on the study, the teachers whowere selected taught in 40 different schools with similar profiles, to the extentthat this was possible. All were public schools, located in cities and not in smallcommunities and in areas serving populations of middle-class socioeconomic sta-tus. The preference for a small number of teachers from many schools, abouttwo instructors per school rather than a large number of teachers from a fewinstitutions, was intended to ensure that the results were not attributable tounique teaching functions in specific schools. The reason that pupils were notasked their opinion of the effectiveness of the lesson was that the original pre-sentation and the repetition were given to different classes. The purpose of theexercise was to compare the quality of the two sessions. This could be accom-plished only by having the same evaluators, in this case the teachers, for bothlessons.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 737
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Instrument
A questionnaire designed to examine the instructor’s competence with respect todifferent aspects of lesson presentation (Levi, 2001) was used. This specific ques-tionnaire was selected for the characteristics described in the literature review andbecause its validity and reliability were tested in the country in which this studywas conducted. These dimensions are included in definitions of educational effi-ciency proposed by many researchers, among them Day, Sammons, Stobart, andKington (2006).
The questionnaire, requiring estimation of the degree of success in coping witheach dimension, was distributed to every teacher at the end of the first lesson andagain after presentation to a parallel class during the same week.
Process
The first two research questions were examined by means of ANOVA with repeatmeasures in order to test for significant differences in the teachers’ functioning inthe first lesson and the repetitive lesson, in each of the five dimensions of teachereffectiveness. The educational background and work experience of participants werecontrolled for because of the association that was reported between these variablesand teaching effectiveness. The third research question was examined by calculatingthe relative frequency of teachers whose performance in class improved, did notchange, or regressed from the first to the repetitive lesson.
Results were processed in two stages. The first stage dealt with those items onthe questionnaire that examined the nature of the changes that occurred during therepeated lesson. The second considered the number of teachers whose performancechanged during the second presentation.
Differences in teaching effectiveness as measured by five dimensions
Examination of differences was performed by means of a Mancova with repeatedmeasurements for each of the teaching dimensions, where the factors such as educa-tional background of teachers, seniority, subject taught (sciences and humanities),and school level (elementary, junior high, or high school) served as covariates. Pro-cessing was done in a 5 ⁄ 2 design in which 2 represents the time factor (first lessonor repetitive session) and 5 represents the five dimensions.
Factor analysis of the questionnaire yielded five dimensions: (a) the lesson plan(a= .84), for the first lesson and (a= .79) for the repetitive lesson; (b) adaptation ofthe teaching level to pupils’ abilities (a= .88) for the first lesson and (a= .78) forthe repetitive lesson; (c) development of pupils’ abilities and skills (a= .92) for thefirst lesson and (a= .92) for the repetitive lesson; (d) personal attitude of teachertowards the pupil (a= .89) for the first lesson and (a= .88) for the repetitive lesson;and (e) the ability of educators to monitor their achievements and to assess theirown efficacy (a= .87) for the first lesson and (a= .82) for the repetitive lesson. Totalpercentage of variance explained by the five factors is 58.79%. Means and standarddeviations are presented in Figure 1.
Seniority in education, subject of study, and school level were found to be insig-nificant in all the analyses. The factor ‘educational background’ was found to besignificant in a few cases. The findings indicate significant differences in the timefactor, F(1,77) = 9.42, p< .01, ŋ² = .11. The interaction between the teaching
738 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
dimensions and the time factor was found to be significant F (1,77) = 5.88, p< .01,ŋ² = .07. Univariate analysis of each teaching category individually, while control-ling for educational background of teachers, yielded the following findings.
In the dimension ‘planning of lesson,’ no difference was found in the time fac-tor (first and repetitive lesson). The repetitive lesson contributed to improvementwith respect to the dimension ‘adaptation of teaching method to level of class.’ Asignificant difference was found in the time factor F(1,77) = 8.27, p< .01, ŋ² = .10.A similar finding was obtained for ‘development of abilities and skills of pupils,’although in this category ‘educational background of the teacher’ also helped toexplain the difference between the quality of the two lessons F(1,77) = 9.12, p< .01,ŋ² = .10. In the dimension ‘personal attitude of teacher to pupils,’ the time factorplayed a part but teacher’s educational background did not F(1,77) = 5.91, p< .01,ŋ² = .07.
In the dimension ‘the ability of educators to monitor their achievements and toassess their own efficacy,’ which was characterized by high standard deviations, nosignificant difference was found in either the time or the educational backgroundfactors. Thus, in three of the five dimensions a significant difference was foundbetween the first and the repetitive lesson. Of the three categories, effectiveness roseby about 6% in two of them and by less in the third. Examination of individual
Key: Dimensions:
1. Planning of lesson 2. Adaptation of teaching method to the class level 3. Development of pupils’ abilities and skills 4. Personal attitude of teachers to pupils 5. The ability of educators to monitor their achievements and to assess their own effectiveness
First presentation
Repetition
S.d = 1.13 1.41 0.96 0.93 1.22
S.d = 0.93 1.37 0.73 0.82 1.06
Figure 1. Rating of lesson quality.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 739
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
differences between instructors sheds additional light on the advantages and limita-tions of repetitive lessons.
Individual differences in teaching effectiveness
The third research question was intended to clarify how many teachers improvedtheir skills in the various components, how many did not change and how manyregressed, whether as a result of boredom, engendered by teaching the same subjecta number of times in a short period of time period, or other factors.
Figure 2 depicts the response of three groups of teachers (those who sensedimprovement in the repeated lesson, participants who reported no change, andinstructors whose performance declined) to the three dimensions in which improve-ment was recorded. Participants were divided into three groups on the basis of theresults in each of the five teaching components. For each component, the teacherswho reported an improvement when teaching the repetitive lesson were identifiedand included in one group. The second category included those who reported nochange and the third was made up of those teachers who reported a regression intheir repetitive teaching.
Key: The three dimensions in which some change was reported
1. Adaptation of teaching method to level of class 2. Development of abilities and skills of pupils 3. Personal attitude of teacher to pupils
Figure 2. Trends in performance during repetitive lesson.
740 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Lesson quality rose among most of the teachers in two of the categories. Forexample, in dimension 1: adaptation of teaching method to level of class, 56 of the79 teachers improved in the repetitive lesson by an average of almost 9%. Fourteendid not change, and, among 9, there was a slight decline. In all three dimensions,the number of teachers whose second session scored higher exceeded the numberof those whose first presentation was more successful.
A more detailed examination of the findings shows that the few who declined intheir efficiency in the repetitive lesson registered relatively higher for effectivenessin the first lesson. This negates the possibility that all more effective teachers in thefirst lesson maintained their advantage in the repetitive lesson as well.
Discussion
Improvement of educational technique frequently entails changing work habits andis often accompanied in the first stages by feelings of unease or even opposition.However, the transition from teaching a lesson once a week to two times does notrequire adjustment to unfamiliar work arrangements that tend to undermine self-con-fidence. It does not involve attending in-service courses and changing work patternsnor does its implementation demand additional financial allocations. For these rea-sons, repetitive teaching in the sense that it is used throughout this study should notarouse opposition among teachers and school administrations. Hattie and Timperley(2007) and Klein and Wasserstein (2006) noted that reflection on errors and otheraspects of one’s own experience contributes positively to drawing conclusions andimproving educational work. Our findings show concrete areas of teaching in whichrepetition facilitates learning from both successes and failures.
Our findings stand in contrast to those of Robinson (1998), who reported a lackof success in giving the identical subject to a parallel class because of the teacher’stendency to transfer the entire teaching plan, initially successful, to another classwithout adapting it to the unique characteristics and traits in the second group.There is no doubt that such results may be encountered. In our study, however,there are strong indications that the participants were helped in teaching the secondlesson by the insights gained from teaching the first lesson. They also adjusted thepresentation to the special nature of the pupils in each of the classes.
However, it seems that teachers who considered their first lesson successful alsobenefited from the repetition. Informal responses that were received from these par-ticipants indicated that increased self-confidence derived from the original successencouraged them to expand their subject during the second round and to discussrelated topics not included in the official study program. In addition, they had morepatience for helping pupils who found the topic difficult.
Improvement in teaching
The trend of significant improvement in the repetition of the lesson is seen in thefollowing three dimensions that focused on teacher–pupil interactions: (a) adaptationof teaching method to level of class; (b) development of abilities and skills ofpupils; and (c) personal attitude of teacher to pupils. Considerable progress wasobserved in the adaptation of the teaching level to pupils’ ability and in the per-sonal attitudes of teachers towards their students. The attention level manifested bypupils in the first lesson helped teachers to detect the elements in the lesson plan
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 741
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
and the teaching methods that required revision. The inferences drawn by teachersfrom the feedback seem to have enhanced their professional confidence. As a resultthey were more flexible and prepared for personal interactions with pupils duringrepetition of the lesson.
Limited insight can be obtained from the feedback regarding the possibility ofdeveloping the skills of pupils by repeating the lesson. Success in coping with thefirst two dimensions may often be observed during the course of a session, but theacquisition of skills may not be discerned so quickly unless the lesson plan involvesintensive pupil activity, such as a laboratory or a problem-solving session. There-fore, a more modest improvement was detected in the third dimension. The statisti-cally significant results are due to the fact that nearly a third of the teachers sensedsome change for the better. The internal differences in the level of improvement inthe repetitive teaching for the three dimensions and the fact that only they – andnot all five – improved confirms Levi’s (2001) contention that the dimensions areindependent or, in other words, that they reflect different aspects of teaching effec-tiveness.
In the repetition of the lesson, improved effectiveness in instruction in thehumanities and sciences was observed with respect to the three dimensions, amongnew teachers and veterans, and among women and men. This does not by itselfcontradict the contention that the veterans are more effective than new teachers(Ladd & Walsh, 2002; Wayne & Youngs, 2003); each group of teachers improvedas a whole. If the capacity for professional development is characteristic of mosteducators, it follows that workshops and other activities dedicated to pedagogicalproficiency should include more than the new and inexperienced segment of thepopulation. This impression should be examined in similar experiments involvinglarger groups of the various categories of teachers.
Lack of improvement
Repeated teaching of the same lesson failed to bring about improvement intwo dimensions of lesson planning and the motivation, work satisfaction, andcompetence self-assessment around efficiency. The planning aspect refers to defin-ing lesson aims and content and the principles underlying their implementation. Itindicates basic directions of action with flexibility in carrying them out. Lack ofchange in this dimension during the second session may indicate that what teacherslearn from the first lesson focuses mainly on operative elements rather than on goalsand content. This might reflect the pragmatic thinking of overburdened teacherswho strive to improve their work within the limited time at their disposal, and,thereby, avoid examining more basic questions that might emerge from the feedbackas to the actual validity of the lesson plan. The matter should be examined.
Discussion
Variance among the teachers with regard to evaluation of their own competencewas broad in both lessons. The findings are insufficient to indicate reasons for dis-parities, and in any case they blur differences in effectiveness in the two lessons. Itshould be noted, however, that the mean rating of perceived self-efficacy in therepetitive session rose by about 7% above that of the first lesson. As discussedearlier, this dimension was regarded as less pupil-related. On one hand, that during
742 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
the study, most of the teachers who were found to improve in three categoriesshould be considered as an acknowledgment of competence. It is entirely possible,however, for conscientious instructors to recognize limited improvement in certainaspects and, at the same time, to be dissatisfied with themselves, feeling that theyshould have coped even better. In this respect, the challenge is internal, personal,and not class-oriented.
Not everyone derives benefit from repeating a lesson. A minority manifested adecline or no change in the second lesson. This is consistent with the findings ofstudies conducted in industry indicating individual differences with respect to repeti-tive functioning (Isaksen, 2000; Phillips, Bedeian, & Molstad, 1991). Robinson(1998) ascribes the slump in the repetitive lesson to the tendency of teachers to seekfaithful reproduction of their modes of action from the first lesson in the second,thus, ignoring differences between the two classes. Diversity in class make-up andin situational circumstances requires adjustments in teaching patterns, and inatten-tion to these elements will contribute to failure.
The literature provides a foundation on which additional explanations for thedownward trend can be based. O’Hanlon (1981) reported that monotony in workcontributes to diminishment in efficiency. Cohen (1987) noted that repetitive teach-ing plays a part in generating teacher boredom. It might be that this causes teachersto invest less effort in the repeated lessons. Nevertheless, the fact that an absolutemajority of teachers in the study sensed an improvement in repeating the lessonindicates that the power of the factors contributing to improved teaching out-weighed that of the elements that helped to bring about a decline.
Conclusion
The benefits of teaching the same lesson more than once can be examined througha variety of information sources, among them teachers, pupils, and reliable tests.This study was based on evaluation by teachers. As essential as self-evaluation byteachers is, it is also subjective and does not always correspond to what the pupilsthink. At times teachers may believe that they have succeeded in their teaching, buttheir pupils feel otherwise. It may also happen that teachers are not aware of themagnitude of their success until pupils express their appreciation.
Appraisal of achievement might have been done by means of observers ratherthan by the questionnaire. However, because of the large number of participants inthis study and the need for comparative evaluation of two teaching sessions perinstructor, the logistics of organizing outside observers were complex and impracti-cal. Moreover, the ability of educators for self-assessment of accomplishment isessential. In classrooms, no other professionals are present to provide teachers withfeedback on the quality of their work. Daily self-criticism is the principal tool bywhich instructors can learn from their successes and failures.
Under some conditions, self-evaluation may be biased and this could haveoccurred in the present study. When teachers expressed their support for repeat les-sons, they might have been motivated by the fact that less preparation time isrequired. However, in a pre-test, teachers cited those facets of teaching that areimproved by repetition and others that do not exhibit change for the better. Thisresponse suggests reflective and critical cognitive activity, rather than considerationof personal advantages.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 743
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Because the lessons were given to two different classes, it was not possible toobtain accurate comparative feedback from pupils. Long-term monitoring of firstand repeated lessons may facilitate a comparison of scholastic achievement in thetwo. At this time, despite the limited scope of available data, the very fact thatteachers felt an improvement in the repeated lesson is of significance. Deeperresearch would facilitate the investigation of other product-related measures notexamined in this paper, such as teacher stress and motivation, extent of pupil initia-tive in the lesson, pupils’ willingness to ask for clarifications when subjects are notclear to them, and their desire to learn even more about the subjects being taught.
The request of instructors to teach the same subject in parallel classes issometimes regarded with disfavor by principals, who believe that this approach ismotivated by the desire to limit the time spent on lesson planning. However, attimes a brief and bright solution is more successful than a long and arduous one.Although there are situations in which non-repetitive scheduling is more advanta-geous, the basic expectation of efficiency is to obtain better results using existing –or fewer – resources. Repetitive teaching is one way to improve output and at thesame time to ease a heavy workload that could lead to burnout.
In some comprehensive schools, where there are six or more classes at eachgrade level, a teacher may be asked to present the same topic three or more times.There are those who claim that teaching the same lesson more than twice a weekwill not be helpful and may actually lead to a decline in quality as a result ofboredom, but opinions are divided.
Although the subject treated here requires more study, one tentative suggestionmight be made. From the responses of participants, it would appear that repetitionof a lesson elicits reflection and reevaluation of its content or presentation. The con-clusions reached could well exert their effect on the teacher’s performance in gen-eral. Individual differences in coping with routine tasks, seen among both industrialworkers and teachers, indicate that no single work style suits all teachers. Somefunction well in repetitive teaching and others do not. Tools to diagnose personaltendencies would enable schedule planners to include this parameter for the effec-tive assigning of instructors to classes. Application of systematic deliberations tothis undertaking may enhance the functional ties between organizational and educa-tional considerations in school management.
ReferencesBerliner, D.C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Tea-
cher Education, 56, 205–213.Borman, G.D., & Kimball, S.M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teach-
ers with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? TheElementary School Journal, 106(1), 3–22.
Cohen, M.C. (1987). Expanding the Role of Community College Professors: Teaching Creditand Noncredit Courses to Fulfill the Contract. Paper presented at the Annual meeting ofthe Speech Communication Association, Boston, MA.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter?Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57–77.
744 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Day, C.W., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., & Kington, A. (2006). Variations in the work and livesof teachers: Relative and relational effectiveness. Teachers and Teaching: Theory andPractice, 12(2), 169–192.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for Englishlearners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Feldman, M.S., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections andunderstandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.
Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership & Man-agement, 18(2), 169–183.
Hativa, N. (2003). Teaching processes in the classroom. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Aca-demic Publishing for Developing the Teaching Faculty.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,77(1), 81–112.
Heck, R.H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevelcross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 227–249.
Helms, R.G. (2001). NBPTS: The highest form of certification. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(1), 20–23.
Hill, A.B., & Perkins, R.E. (1985). Toward a model of boredom. British Journal ofPsychology, 76(2), 235–240.
Illinois Professional Teaching Standards 2 (2nd ed.). (2001). http://www.isbe.state.il.us/prof-prep/PDFs/ipts.pdf
Isaksen, J. (2000). Constructing meaning despite the drudgery of repetitive work. Journal ofHumanistic Psychology, 40(3), 84–107.
Karasek, A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications forjob redesign. Administration Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
Klein, J., & Wasserstein, M. (2006). Repetitive teaching as a tool for increased effectivenessin lesson presentation. Educational Practice and Theory, 28(2), 75–82.
Knoeppel, R.C., Verstegen, D.A., & Rinehart, J.S. (2007). What is the relationship betweenresources and student achievement? A canonical analysis. Journal of EducationalFinance, 33(2), 183–202.
Ladd, H.F., & Walsh, R.P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effective-ness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21(1), 1–17.
Levi, L. (2001). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective teaching behaviors ofoutstanding school teachers: Age and gender differences (Master’s thesis). Tel AvivUniversity.
Loher, B.T., Noe, R.A., Moeller, N.L., & Fitzgerald, M.P. (1985). A meta-analysis of therelation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2),280–289.
Luyten, H., & De Jong, R. (1998). Parallel classes: Differences and similarities, teachereffects and school effects in secondary schools. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement, 9(4), 437–473.
Marshall, K. (2003). A principal looks back: Standards matter. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2),104–113.
Mitra, D. (2004). Students: Can increasing ‘students’ voice in schools lead to gains in youthdevelopment? Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688.
Mortimore, P. (1998). The road to improvement: Reflection on school effectiveness. Lisse:Swets & Zeitilinger.
NBPTS: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). The five propositionsof accomplished teaching. Available: http://www.nbpts.org
Nichols, S.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corruptsAmerican’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Nobles, S.L. (1995). Molding a class: Why didn’t somebody warn me? English Journal, 84(6), 122–123.
North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards. (2007). http://www.ncptsc.org/O’Hanlon, J.F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologica,
49(1), 53–82.Phillips, C.R., Bedeian, A.G., & Molstad, C. (1991). Repetitive work: Contrast and conflict.
The Journal of Socio-Economics, 20(1), 73–82.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 745
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Poul, F., Bonde, J.P.E., Mikkelsen, S., Andersen, J.H., Fallentin, N., Kaergaard, A., &Thomsen, J.F. (2002). Risk of shoulder tendonitis in relation to shoulder loads inmonotonous repetitive work. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(1), 11–18.
Rahman, M. (1986). Performance, stress and self-paced repetitive work. Journal of HumanErgology, 15(2), 123–130.
Rissén, D., Melin, B., Sandsjö, L., Dohns, I., & Lundberg, U. (2002). Psychophysiologicalstress reactions, trapezius muscle activity, and neck and shoulder pain among femalecashiers before and after introduction of job rotation. Work & Stress, 16(2), 127–137.
Robinson, R.J. (1998). Groundhog day: Teach it again and again. Negotiation, 14(1), 87–91.Rushton, S., Morgan, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs personality profiles:
Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 23(4), 432–441.
Scheerens, J. (2001). Monitoring school effectiveness in developing countries. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement, 12(4), 359–384.
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R.J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: Therole of theory and research in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of EducationalResearch, 77(4), 454–499.
Smith, M.J. (1985). Machine-paced work and stress. In C.L. Cooper & M.J. Smith (Eds.),Job stress and blue collar work (pp. 51–64). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wayne, A.J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: Areview. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.
746 J. Klein
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 06:
25 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2014