Relationship Between Reflective Disposition Toward Teaching and Effective Teaching

This article was downloaded by: [University of Oklahoma Libraries]On: 24 August 2013, At: 01:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Relationship Between Reflective Disposition Toward Teachingand Effective TeachingMarietta Giovannelli aa University of Illinois at ChicagoPublished online: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Marietta Giovannelli (2003) Relationship Between Reflective Disposition Toward Teaching and Effective Teaching,The Journal of Educational Research, 96:5, 293-309

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670309597642

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the 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 endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670309597642

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Relationship Between Reflective Disposition Toward Teaching and Effective Teaching MARIETTA GIOVANNELLI University of Illinois at Chicago

ABSTRACT The author demonstrated that a reflective disposition toward teaching was related to effective teaching especially in the domains of instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectation. Data used to test the hypothesis were composed of reflective disposition scores earned by teacher candidates (N = 55) and effective teaching scores given teacher candidates by their field instructors. Reflective disposition consisted of 6 components: the composite of reflective disposition and the composite of effective teaching, reflection on what teachers should know and be able to do, reflection on teaching, reflection on learning, reflection on the relationship between learning and teaching, and reflection on what it would be like to be a teacher in the classroom. Effective teaching consisted of 5 components: the composite of effective teaching, classroom management, instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectations. Key words: effective teaching, reflective dispositon, teacher candidates

he purpose of this study, conducted in Chicago, Illi- T nois, was to determine if a relationship exists between teacher candidates’ reflective disposition toward teaching and the extent to which they exhibited effective teaching behaviors in the classroom. The study is significant in that the importance of a reflective disposition toward teaching has been stressed in literally hundreds of articles and books on teacher preparation written in the last 2 decades. Simi- larly, attention to the quality of reflection has been included in lists of professional teaching standards developed by national and state-level organizations. Yet, a careful search of the literature revealed only one study in which the researcher has attempted to link empirically a teacher’s reflective stance toward teaching with the demonstration of effective classroom teaching behaviors. Hence, the main research question untderlying this study was: Do elementary education undergraduate teacher candidates who exhibit a reflective disposition toward teaching also exhibit effective teaching behaviors .as perceived by their university field

instructors? The working hypothesis of this study then is that teacher candidates who use a reflective disposition toward teaching are considered to be effective teachers by their university supervisors.

This investigation provides research in an area which, to date, has not been sufficiently explored. With reference to reflectivity and its position in teacher preparation programs, this study among teacher educators promotes thought and discussion revolving around the notion of measuring prospective teacher candidates’ disposition to be reflective toward teaching. Teacher educators’ thoughts and discus- sions also will question whether reflection toward teaching can be taught. This investigation promotes the study of reflective disposition toward teaching by experienced teachers. This study will promote replication of this research.

Theoretical Framework

Historically rooted in a tradition of experiential learning that is “dependent on the integration of experience with reflection, and of theory with practice” (Osterman, 1990, p. 135). the term reflective pracrice was coined and popu- larized by Schon (1983, 1987). Schon depicted reflective practice as a “dialogue of thinking and doing through which I become more skillful” (1987, p. 31). He introduced the concepts of refection in action and reflection on action. Schon (1983) described reflection in action as the process of criticizing one’s initial understanding of a phenomenon, constructing a new description of it, and testing the new description by an on-the-spot experiment. When the practitioner has left the playing field and mentally reconstructs that playing field to analyze actions and events, reflection on action takes place.

The opposite of routine, reflective practice can be described as a spontaneous and deliberate reaction to a

Address correspondence to Marietta Giovannelli, University qf Illinois at Chicago, College of Education M/C 147. I040 W Har- rison Street, Chicago, IL 60607. (E-mail: mgioval @uic.edu)

293

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

294 The Journal of Educational Research

unique set of circumstances. It is thoughtful consideration of an idea or event. Such thoughtful consideration or reflection is the careful analysis not only of actions or decisions but also of the processes followed in accomplishing them (Newman, 1991).

In How We Think, Dewey (1933) laid the foundations for reflective practice with his concept of reflective action. For Dewey, reflection was “behavior which involves active, per- sistent, and careful consideration of any belief or practice in light of the grounds that support it and the further conse- quences to which it leads” (Grant & Zeichner, 1984, p. 4). Dewey argued that experience is the basis for learning, that learning is a sequential process, and that learning involves reflection. He believed “that learning is dependent on the integration of experience with reflection, and of theory with practice” (Osterman, 1990, p. 135).

Reflective practice in this sense goes beyond what is commonly thought of as reflection, the “leisurely specula- tion on one’s own successes and failures, and far more than the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake” (Osterman, 1990, p. 134). Reflective practice is much more “a challenging, focused, and critical assessment of one’s own behavior as a means towards developing one’s own crafts- manship. While reflection is essential . . . reflective practice is a dialectic process in which thought is integrally linked with action” (Osterman, 1990, p. 134).

Since Dewey (1904, 1910), educators have suggested that teacher candidates should be encouraged to become thoughtful and alert students of education (p. 151). Among arguments for this practice, Dewey (1904, p. 15 1) stated, “Unless a teacher is [such] a student, he may continue to improve in the mechanics of school management, but he cannot grow as a teacher, an inspirer, and director of soul- life.” Teachers must be able to think for themselves and to understand those thought processes in order to teach their students how to think. In their argument in favor of reflective teacher education programs, Hullfish and Smith (1961) asserted, “It is but to state the obvious to note that those who intend to foster thought on the part of others must understand, first, the nature of thought, and second, how their own thought has been developed” (p. 216).

Review of the Literature

In the field of education, there is no clear consensus on what qualities of professionalism are, but there is a fairly strong consensus that one of those qualities is the ability to solve problems of practice through reflection (Clarke, 1995; Copeland, Birmingham, De La Cruz, & Lewin, 1993; Hat- ton & Smith, 1995; Kelsay, 1989; Osterman, 1990). Exam- ples of the types of exercises that reflection would include are (a) reflection on possible sources of a given problem, (b) reflection on multiple ways of interpreting a problem, and (c) reflection on multiple possible solutions.

Researchers have reported a scant number of studies that investigate the relationship between a reflective disposition

and effective teaching. Killen (1989, 1990) and Aoki (1984) reported that reflective teaching was a very effective and efficient means of producing statistically significant changes in teachers’ classroom behavior. Specifically, Killen investigated teacher clarity (clear oral and written communication) in preservice and inservice classroom lessons. He chose teacher clarity as the aspect of teacher effectiveness to study because of its prominence in the literature in recent years. His study suggests that those teacher candidates who participated in an intensive reflective teaching program achieved mastery of clarity behaviors equiva- lent to that of much more experienced teachers.

Reports of teacher education programs instilling reflective practices in their students precede the literature on reflective thinking and teaching. In 1989, Brigham Young University developed a program to improve reflective thinking skills in teacher candidates. Observations and student surveys revealed that nearly all teacher candidates reported finding reflection useful in improving their teaching. Teacher candidates further reported that they implemented plans made during reflection.

Kinchloe (1990) and Yinger (1986) noted that systematic and rational decision making lies at the very heart of professionalism. This would explain the popularity of reflective thinking in teacher education programs. However, there are many different conceptualizations of reflection, reflective thinking, and reflective teaching (Calderhead, 1989; Gore, 1987; Noffke & Brennan, 1988). The terms used in the literature vary, and there is variance in the definition of any one term (Copeland et al., 1993). It is certain, however, that most of the concepts used to describe reflection in teaching share the underlying assumptions that teachers should use logical, rational, step-by-step analyses of their own teaching and the contexts in which that teaching takes place (Kinchloe).

Derived in part from Dewey’s notion of reflection, the operational definition of reflective disposition toward teaching, for the purposes of this study, was drawn from LaBoskey’s (1994) definition of reflection. Her concept of constant reconsideration, which replaces unsubstantiated opinion, demands “thoughtful, caring decision making wherein educators are able to move beyond the tendencies of their own biographies and the apparent mandates of their current circumstances to envision and consider alternative interpretations and possibilities” (p. 9). Such a view suggests that although decisions and formulations may be reached in collaboration with others or alone, may be systematic and rational or primarily intuitive, and may be made in quiet contemplation or in the heat of the moment, what matters most is that they are never conclusive (LaBoskey). These concepts constitute the definition of the term reflection as it is used in this study.

Because teaching as well as preservice teaching is full of problematic situations+lassroom management, individual differences, relationships with colleagues and administrators, instructional issues, societal pressures, and moral dilemmas,

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. 96(No. 5)] 295

it is suggested that the goal of teacher education programs should be to make teacher candidates as well as experienced teachers technically competent, reflective, and self-critical.

The review of the literature on effective teaching is limited to empirical studies and reviews of empirical studies on effective teaching. Although nearly 150 sources were reviewed, a careful reading of each of these produced a final 38 empirical studies. Although the research in this area lacks a clear consensus regarding the qualities of effective teaching, to develop an operational definition of effective teaching, I noted teaching behaviors that were studied repeatedly. From this observation, I noted that four behaviors were examined consistently in the literature: classroom management, instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectation. I decided to use these behaviors as variables in the measurement of effective teaching.

The body of literature in which effective teaching research is examined is divers(: and extensive. The focus is (a) on the details of the classroom as the environment in which learning and instruction most directly take place and (b) on student and teacher interactions that define and influence learning tasks and outcomes. Studies done in this area yield lists of teaching behaviors that can be assessed by trained classroom observers using performance-based evaluation. Although many researchers agree that effective teaching is defined as that which causes stuldents to learn and grow, there is no uni- versal agreement about what effective teaching is (Tbckman, 1995). Hofmeister and Lubke (1990) asserted that effective teachers are needed: ‘The teacher is the final arbiter of what happens in the classroom” (p. 2). They further stated that, “Recent analyses of the effective teaching literature affirms the importance of the teacher as a professional who can make a difference” (p. 5). Ornstein (1986) noted that “Because we are not able to define precisely what a good teacher is, we can define good teaching any way we like-so long as it makes sense” (p. 176). For h e purposes of this study, the research reviewed examined teacher behaviors in effective instruction.

Good ( 1984) reported findings that associate teacher behavior with student achievement. For example, extensive study on teacher effectiveness established correlations between student achievement scores and teacher behavior patterns. Teachers who were successful at producing high student achievement gains were identified as those who were more active in presenting, explaining, illustrating, and rein- forcing concepts than less successful teachers, whereas those teachers with lower student achievement gains relied on seatwork more than the successful teachers did. Behets ( 1 997) found that effective teachers spent more time in active ways, less time in actual instruction, and significant time in the observation of students. In a summary of empirical studies examining teacher effectiveness, Good (1983) described effective teachers as those who adopt managerial strategies that complement the instructional activities they plan, maximize pupil task engagement during seatwork, and are businesslike (have task-oriented approach to instruction). In a year-long study, Crocker (1986) suggested that student

achievement is maximized when teachers use (a) substantial emphasis on academic instruction and student engagement in academic tasks, (b) whole-class instruction, (c) effective question-answer and seatwork practices, (d) minimal disruptive behavior, and (e) prompt feedback to students.

There are two replies to the critics of research on effective teaching who have pointed out that statistical correlations between most individual teaching variables and mea- surements of student achievement are low (e.g., Dunkin & Biddle, 1984). Gage (1978, 1985) has explained that even weak relationships can make important differences (Davis & Thomas, 1989). “Correlations . . . do not need to be large in order to be important . . . we are influencing dropout rates, literacy, placement in special classes, love of learning, self-esteem, and the holistic ability to integrate, many facts and concepts in a complex way” (p. 116). Also true, and as a second reply, effects of variables known to improve achievement are additive. Improvements in attitudes and behaviors can accompany many small improvements that add up to a worthwhile total change in student achievement (Davis & Thomas).

Research on classroom management, instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectations suggests a high correlation between each of these teaching behaviors and increased student achievement (Borich, 1992; Brophy, 1986; Crocker, 1986; Davis, 1998; Davis & Thomas, 1989; Doyle, 1985, 1990a; Emans & Milburn, 1989; Evertson, 1986; Evertson & Smylie, 1987; Evertson & Weade, 1989; Good, 1979,1983; Hawley & Evertson, 1985; Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990; Jirovec, Ramanathan, & Alvarez, 1998; Lowman, 1996; Patrick & Smart, 1998; Reavis, 1988; Reynolds, 1992; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Tang, 1997; Ysseldyke, 1987). Teachers who use time as effectively as possible (Everston & Harris, 1992), are interactive in their teaching (Berliner, 1984; Borich; Brophy & Good; Crocker, 1986; Davis & Thomas; Doyle, 1986; Emans & Milburn; Emmer, Evertson, Sanford, Clements, & Worsham, 1982; Evertson; Evertson & Smylie; Good, 1983; Hofmeister & Lubke; Palincsar & Brown, 1989; Reynolds; Rohrkemper & Corno, 1988; Ross, 1992; Ysseldyke), carefully introduce new material in small steps “integrated with guided practice and followed by carefully managed independent practice” (Hofmeister & Lubke, p. 5 ) , and commu- nicate high expectations to all students (Lowman; U.S. Department of Education, 1986), consistently produce high student achievement.

An increasing number of researchers point out that teachers make a difference and that the magnitude of that difference on students can be determined. These same researchers affirm that the appropriate teaching strategies can be defined and can be learned by teachers, and that good or effective teachers can be distinguished from poor or ineffective teachers (Brophy & Good, 1985; Evertson, 1986; Evertson, Hawley, & Zlotnik, 1985; Gage, 1985; Behets, 1997). Each day we learn more about classroom conditions that promote student achievement.

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

2% The Journal of Educational Research

Classroom management, instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectations are four behaviors that have been examined consistently in studies on effective teaching. For this study, they formed the operational definition of the outcome variable measured.

Method

Selection of Sample

The sample for this study comprised elementary education undergraduates (from a major urban public midwestern university) who were teacher candidates completing their last semester of work prior to receiving their bachelor of arts degree in elementary education and becoming certified teachers. The program represented a 2-year commitment. The initial sample consisted of 69 undergraduates. Fourteen of these students were repeatedly asked to return their surveys, but they did not do so. Fifty-five teacher candidates participated in the study. Forty-one teacher candidates ranged in age from 21 to 26; 9 were aged 26 to 34. Five teacher candidates were older than 34 and younger than 43.

All teacher candidates had successfully completed the program by the date on which the surveys were distributed and the data were collected. Although some teacher candidates were men (n = 7), the overwhelming majority were women (n = 48). One man was Black, 2 men were Asian, and 4 men were White. One woman was American Indian, 4 women were Black, 32 women were White, 4 were Mex- ican American, 2 women were Puerto Rican, 2 women were Hispanic, and 3 candidates indicated Other on the survey.

Procedure

To collect data regarding each teacher candidate’s reflective disposition, I administered a questionnaire, the Teacher Candidate Survey, to each teacher candidate. I used a procedure developed by LaBoskey (1994), which she designed specifically to determine initial orientation toward reflection and ability to reflect. At the time the present study was conducted, LaBoskey’s procedure was the only one that I found to fit the study’s methodological design. This procedure is described below.

Teacher candidates were instructed to read each question carefully, to take time to think about each response prior to writing, and to respond within 20 min per question. This was done during their Wednesday afternoon seminar (tak- ing approximately 2 hr). These questions are presented and discussed further in the Instruments section.

Vicki LaBoskey, associate director of a teacher education program (that was advertised as preparing reflective teachers) in a major research university, used a questionnaire administered on the 3rd day of the program to all entering teacher candidates. LaBoskey tested for what she referred to as “spontaneous reflectivity” or “unassisted reflectivity.” According to LaBoskey ( 1994), spontaneous reflection

occurs “when an individual displays reflective thinking in response to an indirect question or circumstance” (p. 2). By reason of her theory of spontaneous reflection, LaBoskey maintained that if an applicant to a teacher credentialing program is asked why he or she wants to become a teacher, the applicant is not required to use either the processes or attitudes of reflective thinking to respond. It is not even obvious that the applicant is being asked to display her reflective propensities: yet those processes and attitudes, if they are present, are likely to be included in the content of the applicant’s response. Questions that LaBoskey developed and used helped to determine “propensities as well as abilities,” answering not only the question “Can they reflect?’ but also the question “Do they tend to reflect even when not overtly asked?’ (p. 2).

If teacher candidates are reflective, then these questions evoke rich responses that include indications as to whether the teacher candidate (a) has long-term views; (b) differen- tiates between roles of teacher and learner; (c) acknowl- edges the need for feedback and triangulation; (d) is a strategic and imaginative thinker; and (e) demonstrates reasoning grounded in the knowledge of self, children, and subject matter. These skills of analysis, planning, creativity, and flexibility are skills that Schon (1 983, 1987) considered to be those of one who not only is reflective in his or her practice but also is a competent professional.

I used five essay questions to measure reflective disposition toward teaching. They were (a) What should teachers know and be able to do? (b) What is the definition of teaching? (c) What is the definition of learning? (d) What does the teacher candidate think is the relationship between learning and teaching? and (e) What will it be like to be a teacher in a classroom?

In addition to these five open-ended questions, teacher candidates provided the following demographic information: date of birth, gender, ethnic origin, and information on previous working experience with elementary school-aged children. They also granted me permission to access their academic files to obtain their current cumulative grade point average (GPA).

One week after the first attempt to collect data, I mailed a follow-up letter and a survey to the teacher candidates who had not responded. This mailing did not produce additional completed surveys. Two weeks later, I sent a second follow-up letter to each of these same teacher candidates. No additional surveys were returned.

At the semester’s end, I collected data measuring teacher effectiveness by distributing the Survey of Teacher Effective- ness to field instructors. Field instructors were given one questionnaire to complete for each teacher candidate they supervised. As the teacher educator from the college who supervised the student teacher, the field instructor worked with both the mentor teacher in the school and the teacher candidate to promote a wide range of learning experiences for the teacher candidate. In addition to these responsibilities, it was also incumbent upon the field instructor to observe the

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

MayIJune 2003 [Vol. 96(No. 9 1 297

teacher candidates’ teaching and to evaluate it. ’I)lpically, a field instructor has as few as 6 or as many as 16 teacher candidates to supervise. Although observation was the center- piece of the data collected, I encouraged field instructors to form judgments based on other forms of data that they had gathered such as assi.gnments, seminar, pre/postobservation conferences, confererices with the mentor, and conversations with others (i.e., the principal, classroom students).

Near the end of the semester, I trained the four field instructors to rate each teacher candidate on the Survey of Teacher Effectiveness. A complete discussion of the training session is presenred in the Instruments section.

Instruments

Teacher Candidate Survey. The Teacher Candidate Sur- vey asks questions on demographics, previous working experience with elementary school-aged children and questions on reflective disposition toward teaching. The following five questions on reflective disposition were extracted from the work of LaBoskey (1994):

What should teachLen know and be able to do? Define teaching. Define learning. What do you think is the relationship between teaching and learning? Describe what it will be like to be a teacher in a classroom (p. 141).

LaBoskey identified two groups of teacher candidates on the basis of their responses to these questions. Alert novices (reflective) scored high on this test of reflection; common- sense thinkers (nonrdlective) scored low. LaBoskey developed and used indicators for initial levels of reflectivity (see Table I ) .

The scoring criteria developed by LaBoskey assigns points to each written response (-5, +5, or 0; see Table 1). I scored the questions in this study using these criteria. An example is “What kinds of things should teachers know about?” That is, if you were to design a test for teachers, what types of information should that examination test for?

A -5 response would be fairly simplistic. The teacher candidate would thirtk that the question could be answered with a few discrete, enumerated skills that might be almost exclusively relational (“all you have to do is care” implication), practical (e.g., discipline, oral presentation), or both. She or he would focus on experience and imply that teachers are born or that tt:achers are transmitters of subject-matter knowledge. The teacher candidate could use the response more as an opportunity to display his or her own knowledge than to probe the issue.

A +5 response would indicate awareness of complexity. The teacher candidate would project the image of teacher as facilitator. She or he would provide thoughtful discussion of one or more of the following issues: orientation to student needs, need for theoretical-type knowledge, need for flexi-

bility and open-mindedness, need for self-awareness (also if more than one issue was identified, there would be an acknowledgement of the interrelatedness of these issues).

A zero response would indicate that the teacher candidate’s response did not clearly fall into one of the other categories. This response would constitute a generic discussion or an incomplete answer or one that could not be rated as either -5 or +5.

The responses to these open-ended questions were scored as follows: An assistant, who was familiar with the work of LaBoskey and Schon, and I discussed the scoring criteria, cit- ing examples of what a response scoring a -5,0, or +5 would be. Eight questionnaires were selected randomly. I read the response to each question aloud. After the reading, the assistant and I scored the response. In instances where the two scores were different, they were discussed until agreement was reached. Eight additional questionnaires were selected randomly. Using LaBoskey’s scoring criteria, the assistant and I independently scored each questionnaire. A comparison of the two ratings of each questionnaire was made. Ninety- five percent of the ratings were in agreement. I continued the scoring of the remaining questionnaires. Figure 1 provides a graph showing the distribution of the reflective disposition scores earned by all the teacher candidates.

Survey of Teacher Effectiveness. I categorized the 20 items on this survey into four domains: classroom management, instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectations. Each item required a Liken-type response, ranging from insufficient evidence, 0, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, to 3.5. The higher the score, the more closely the teacher candidate had attained the desired teaching behavior.

I derived the assessment criteria and the scoring criteria from the study by Dwyer (1994) of the Educational Testing Service and found them in Praxis 111: Classroom Perfor- mance Assessment. These criteria were selected on the review of literature, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) studies, and the fact that these criteria were developed for beginning teacher licensing decisions. In addition, practicing teachers and educators reviewed and helped revise the criteria until they were broadly perceived as acceptable from both points of view.

Briefly, four interrelated domains and their criteria form the framework of knowledge and skills of the Praxis 111: Classroom Performance Assessment. They are organizing content knowledge for student learning, creating an environment for student learning, teaching for student learning, and teacher professionalism. Each domain consists of a set of four or five criteria used to assess the teacher’s performance. Each criterion represents a lens through which teaching may be viewed. A multicultural perspective is infused throughout the criteria.

Prior to distribution of the Survey of Teacher Effective- ness, I conducted a training session for the field instructors to establish interrater reliability. I developed a protocol for this session. Briefly, the training consisted of the field

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.


I TABLE 1. Indicators for Initial Levels of Reflectivity

Unreflective Reflective

Self-orientation (attention on self and/or subject matter) the children)

Short-term view Long-term view Reliance on personal experience in learning to

Metaphor of teacher as transmitter Lack of awareness of need to learn; feeling of

already knowing much from having been in classrooms as a student

Overly certain conclusions

Student orientation (attention on the needs of

Differentiation of teacher and learner roles

Metaphor of teacher as facilitator Openness to learning; growth oriented

teach (learn by doing; trial and error)

Acknowledgment of need for conclusions to be tentative; need for feedback and triangulation

Means-ends thinking; awareness of teaching as a moral activity

Strategic thinking Imaginative thinking Reasoning grounded in knowledge of self,

Broad generalizations

Existing structures taken as givens

children, and subject matter

Summary of scoring criteria

Score Sample criteria

-5 Responses simplistic and certain Focus on practical issues only Emphasis on first-hand experience as the source of learning Teacher as transmitter of knowledge More concern for themselves and/or the subject matter than the student; self-orientation Short-term view Indication of a real struggle with the issues; raises questions; evidence of uncertainty Propensity to consider alternatives and reconsider preconceptions Long-term view Concern for the needs of students Evidence of being open to learning about both practical and theoretical ideas;

Teacher as facilitator of learning Recognition of the complexity of the educational enterprise Awareness of need for tentative conclusions and multiple sources of feedback Cannot be rated as +5 or -5 because teacher candidates did not answer the question or

because it is too difficult to assign another score, for example, the answer has strong features of both reflective and unreflective responses.

+5

,

growth oriented

0

instructors using the survey to rate a teacher (shown on videotape) presenting a lesson. At the completion of the viewing, the field instructors and I discussed the scores given for each criterion. Where variation in scoring was noted, additional discussion took place until consensus was reached. A second video was shown, and a second survey was distributed. Field instructors were asked to rate the teacher on the 20 items. At the conclusion of this video, surveys were collected, and scores were not discussed. To determine whether interrater reliability had been established or whether a third video needed to be viewed and rated, I examined the scores given by each of the field

instructors for each criterion. To have a rough idea of interrater reliability on the spot, I decided that each of the four field instructors needed to have given the same score to 17 or more of the 20 criteria. Two of the field instructors scored 18 of the criteria the same and two instructors scored 19 of the criteria the same. In terms of percentage agreement with the standard, two of the four instructors reached 90% agreement, and the remaining two instructors reached 95% agreement. Therefore, a third video was not required.

I used Cochran’s Q test to assess the comparability of the ratings of each of the four field instructors on the 20 criteria to the standard that I set. If the test was nonsignificant,

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. 96(No. S)] 299

0

7

6

v) CI

E i 5 t5 0 4 5 n

-0 2

c

Z 5 3

2

1

0 1 + -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Scores

FIGURE 1. Distribution of reflective disposition scores.

then the conclusion was that the agreement with my standard for each criterion was comparable across the four field instructors. The test resulted in a value of Q = 2. This value was tested against a chi-square distribution with df = 3 and was found to be nonsignificant (chi-square distribution df = 3, a = 3, a = .OS was 7.82). Thus, the field instructors agreed in their ratings on the 20 criteria.

Data Analysis

To test the hypothesis in the present study, I performed multiple regression analysis. Multiple regression is a procedure used to estimate the relationship between multiple independent variables and one dependent variable. It ana- lyzes the collective and separate contributions of multiple independent variables to the variation of the dependent variable. This procedure was appropriate because it indicated to what extent this model explained effective teaching and how each individual predictor made its unique contribution to the equation.

I used each of the five indicators of effective teaching as a dependent variable in regression equations. First, the composite measure was used as the criterion, and six equations were estimated. The first equation used the composite rating of reflective disposition along with age and grade point average as predictor variables. Then each component of

reflective disposition was used individually with age and GPA as predictors. This allowed the identification of whether reflective disposition influenced effective teaching (the first equation) and if each component of reflective disposition affected effective teaching (latter five equations).

I followed this same procedure using each of the four separate dimensions of effective teaching as outcome variables. This series of equations allowed the determination of whether reflective disposition affected each dimension of effective teaching and whether the individual aspects of reflective disposition influenced each dimension of effective teaching.

Results

The predictor variable reflective disposition had six indicators. The first, reflective disposition, was a composite of the five items measuring reflective disposition. Questions 1 to 5 were each of the individual items. Question 1 was What should teachers know and be able to do? Question 2 was Define teaching; Question 3 was Define learning; Question 4 was What do you think is the relationship between learning and teaching? and Question 5 was What would it be like to be a teacher in the classroom? Analysis of the data helped me determine what influence each of these items had on the criterion variable effective teaching and on each of its components. I had also sought to answer the question of what

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.


influence the predictor variables transfer and university GPA and age had on the criterion variable effective teaching and on each of its components.

Preliminary Analyses

In this segment, I gathered descriptive information about the variables, including means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values (see Table 2).

I found evidence that the independent variables were not highly intercorrelated in the regression analysis. For each variable, tolerance-the proportion of a variable’s variance not accounted for by other independent variables in the equation-was at least .74, with most variables having a tolerance of .90 and above.

I checked variables for internal consistency by combin- ing individual items into scales. This process involved veri- fying that groupings of items into scales were the most appropriate, not only substantively, but also statistically. Table 2 includes internal reliability alpha scores for all scales. Except for the alpha score for the variable reflective disposition (the composite of all the reflective disposition measures), alpha scores were all considerably above the minimum acceptable level of .60. The alpha score for reflective disposition (the composite) was .63.

Regression Analyses

Effective teaching. In the first series of analyses, the composite measure of effective teaching was regressed on the composite measure of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age and subsequently on each individual component of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age. All metric and standardized regression coefficients for these equations are shown in Table 3. The proportion of variance explained in effective teaching ranged from 0.5% to 13.2%. The composite measure of reflective disposition and what a teacher should know and be able to do (Ques- tion 1) and what is teaching (Question 2) significantly influenced effective teaching. In the presence of Question 1, age also influenced effective teaching. Each of these effects was positive, indicating that the greater the reflective disposition toward teaching, the more effective the teaching behavior.

Classroom management. In the next series of analyses, I used classroom management as the criterion variable and regressed it on the composite measure of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age and subsequently on each individual component of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age. All metric and standardized regression coefficients for these equations may be found in Table 4. The proportion of variance explained in classroom management ranged from 2.1% to 6.6%, and no variables were found to be significant predictors in any of the equations.

Znstructional behavior: In the next series of analyses, instructional behavior was used as the criterion variable and

was regressed on the composite measure of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age and subsequently on each component of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age. All metric and standardized regression coefficients for these equations are shown in Table 5. The proportion of variance explained in instructional behavior ranged from 1.0% to 14.7%. The composite measure of reflective disposition and what teachers should know and be able to do (Question 1) and define teaching (Question 2) significantly influenced instructional behavior. In the presence of (Question I ) , age also influenced instructional behavior. Each of these effects was positive, indicating the greater the reflective disposition, the more effective the teaching behavior (instructional behavior).

Classroom organization. In the next series of analyses, classroom organization was used as the criterion variable and was regressed on the composite measure of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age and subsequently on each individual component of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age. All metric and standardized regression coefficients for these equations are shown in Table 6. The proportion of variance explained in classroom organization ranged from 0.1 % to 11.7%. The composite measure of reflective disposition and what teachers should know and be able to do (Question 1) significantly influenced classroom organization. Each of these effects was positive, indicating that the greater the reflective disposition toward teaching, the more effective the teaching behavior (classroom organization).

Teacher expectations. In the next series of analyses, teacher expectations was used as the criterion variable and was regressed on the composite measure of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age and subsequently on each individual component of reflective disposition, transfer and university GPA, and age. All metric and standardized regression coefficients for these equations are shown in Table 7. The proportion of variance explained in teacher expectations ranged from .6% to 10.7%. The composite measure of reflective disposition and what teachers should know and be able to do (Question 1) and define teaching (Question 2) significantly influenced teacher expectations.

Discussion and Implications of Findings

I conducted this study by examining how variations in reflective disposition toward teaching influence effective teaching in teacher candidates as perceived by their field instructors, at the elementary education undergraduate level. Teacher candidates were students in a teacher education program in a major metropolitan university. The study was based on a theoretical framework that explores the possibility that a reflective disposition toward teaching is related to effective teaching. The reflective disposition variable for this study was defined as making decisions and formu- lating ideas about educational goals, practices, and out-

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. 9’6(No. 5)] 301

comes that are subjected to careful reconsideration in light of information from acurrent theory and practice (LaBoskey, 1994). This variable was measured on the basis of the teacher candidates’ responses to five open-ended questions. As stated in the Method section, LaBoskey used these questions to identify teacher candidates as either reflective or unreflective. The effective teaching variable for this study was defined as the consistent performance in the following domains of teacher behavior: classroom management, instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectations (for students’ success). The findings represent

a predisposition toward reflection in teaching and may be generalized to teacher candidates entering a teacher education program, in the following paragraphs.

Relationship Between a Reflective Disposition Toward Teaching and Effective Teaching

In terms of the variance explained, the results of this study suggest that a reflective disposition toward teaching made a small but statistically significant contribution to effective teaching. However, in terms of the standardized

TABLE 2. Definitions, Descriptive Statistics, and Reliability Coefficients of Variables

Variable Definition, descriptive statistics, and alpha

Age

Transfer and university GPA

Reflective dispositinn

Date of birth requested so as to permit accurate calculation of years and months: M = 25.559 Minimum = 21.760

SD = 4.400 Maximum = 42.290

All transfer and university work equaling final cumulative GPA: Coded from 5, equaling an A to I , equaling an E (failure)

M = 4.190 SD = 0.316 Minimum = 3.650 Maximum = 4.910

M = 2.545 SD = 13.570 Minimum = -25.000 Maximum = 25.000 Alpha = .627

A 5-item scale created by summing responses to Ql , Q2, 43, Q4, and Q5:

Reflection on what teachers should know and be able to do (QI)

Reflection on teaching

Reflection on learning

Reflection on the relationship between learning and teaching

Reflection on what it would be like to be a teacher in the classroom

Effective teaching

A single item that asks What should teachers know and be able to do? Response is rated -5 =fairly simplistic response, +5 = awareness of complexity of issues, and 0 = That response does not clearlyjir one of the other categories.

M = 1.636 Minimum = -5.000

SD = 4.309 Maximum = 5.000

A single item that asks to define teaching. Response is rated, -5 =fairly simplistic response; +5 = awareness of complexity of issues; and 0 = That response does not clearly jit one of the other categories.

M = 0.091 Minimum = -5.000

SD = 4.461 Maximum = 5.000

A single item that asks to define learning. Response is rated, -5 =fairly simplistic response; +5 = awareness of complexity of issues; and 0 = That response does not clearly jit one of the other categories.

M = 0.818 Minimum = -5.000

SD = 4.168 Maximum = 5.000

A single item that asks What do you think is the relationship between learning and teach ing? Response is rated, -5 =fairly simplistic response; +5 = awareness of complexity of issues; and 0 = That response does not clearly fit one of the other categories.

M = -0.273 Minimum = -5.000

SD = 4.657 Maximum = 5.000

A single item that asks to Describe what it will be like to be a teacher in a classroom. Response is rated, -5 =fairly simplistic response; +5 = awareness of complexity of issues: and 0 = That response does not clearlyjt one of the other categories.

SD = 3.778 Maximum = 5.000

M = 0.273 Minimum = -5.000

A 20-item scale created by summing the 3 items for classroom management component, 9 items for instructional behavior component, 5 items for classroom organization cornpo- nent, and 3 items for teacher expectation component.

M = 56.499 Minimum = 36.500 Maximum = 67.000 Alpha = .977

SD = 6.698

(table continues)

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.


TABLE 2.Pontinued

Variable Definition, descriptive statistics, and alpha

Classroom management

Instructional behavior

Classroom organization

Teacher expectations

A 3-item scale created by summing responses that measures effective teaching in the aspect of classroom management. Rating ranges from 0 indicating least effective to 3.5 indicating most effective.

M=8.199 SD = 1.163 Minimum = 5.000 Maximum = 9.000 Alpha = .895

A 9-item scale created by summing responses that measures effective teaching in the aspect of instructional behavior. Rating ranges from 0 indicating Ieasr effective to 3.5 indicating most effective. M = 25.500 SD = 3.301 Minimum = 16.500 Maximum = 3 1 .500 Alpha = .963

A 5-item scale created by summing responses that measures effective teaching in the aspect of classroom organization. Rating ranges from 0 indicating least effective to 3.5 indicating most effective. M = 14.155 SD = 1.721 Minimum = 9.000 Maximum = 16.000 Alpha = .947

A 3-item scale created by summing responses that measures effective teaching in the aspect of teacher expectation. Rating ranges from 0 indicating least e$ective to 3.5 indicating most effective.

M = 8.645 Minimum = 5.000 Maximum = 10.500 Alpha = .914

SD = 0.994

TABLE 3. Metric and Standardized Regression Coefficients on Effective Teaching

Predictor Metric Standardized R2

Reflective disposition Transfer and university GPA Age

Reflection on what teachers should know and be able to do Transfer and university GPA Age

Reflection on teaching Transfer and university GPA Age

Reflection on learning Transfer and university GPA Age

Reflection on relationship between learning and teaching Transfer and university GPA Age

Reflection on what it would be like to be a teacher in a

Transfer and university GPA classroom

Age

0.147** 0.298** -0.445 -0.02 1

0.179 0.1 17

0.645*** 0.415***

0.389* 0.256*

0.387* 0.258* 0.120 0.079

4 . 8 4 0 -0.040

0.227 0.141 1.107 0.052 0.108 0.071

0.036 0.025 0.71 1 0.034 0.077 0.050

,085

-0.261 -0.012

.132*

.064

.023

.005

0.309 0.174 0.242 0.01 1 0.063 0.041

.034

Nore. GPA = grade point average. *p < .lo. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. 96(No. S)] 303

TABLE 4. Metric and Standardized Regression Coefficients on Classroom Management

Predictor Metric Standardized Rz





Reflection on relationship between learning and teaching Transfer and university GPA A F



Age

0.0 10 0.396 0.019

0.067 0.373 0.044

0.034 0.016 0.339

0.012 0.499 0.014

-0.007 0.497 0.012

0.010 0.464 0.01 1

0.120 0.108 0.072

0.248 0.102 0.168

0.130 0.060 0.092

0.042 0.135 0.05 1

4.028 0.135 0.045

,033

.066

.035

.022

.02 1

0.033 0.126 0.043

.02 1

Note. GPA = grade point average.

coefficients in this study, which were all relatively large, results suggest that reflective disposition had a fairly strong influence on effective teaching. Land (1969) noted that standardized coefficitmts less than .OS should be considered substantively unimportant and essentially representing no influence. The standardized coefficients in this study were all well above .2S. Specifically, the results in Table 3 indicate that reflective disposition (the composite of the five open-ended questions) exerted a statistically significant influence on effective teaching (all components summed together). Reflective disposition (the composite), reflection on what teachers should know and be able to do and reflection on “define teaching” were all positively related to effective teaching (all components). These significant relationships suggest that the more the reflection among teacher candidates, the more effective their teaching is judged. Moreover, these relationships suggest that the more teacher candidates reflect about what a teacher should know and be able to do and the more they reflect about what teaching is, the more effective their teaching is. Reflection on define learning, reflection on the relationship between learning and teaching, and reflection on what it would be like to be a teacher in a classroom were not iissociated with effective teaching (all components). GPA, including all course work, was not asso-

ciated with effective teaching. Age was associated with effective teaching (all components summed together) as was instructional behavior but only in the presence of Question 1 : What should teachers know and be able to do?

Composite Measure of Reflective Disposition Toward Teaching

The composite measure of reflective disposition was associated with the composite measure of effective teaching. With the exception of classroom management, each component of effective teaching was associated with reflective disposition. Two factors may contribute to the absence of a relationship between classroom management and reflective disposition. First, it is likely that classroom management is not an area in which teacher candidates would score high. They often have problems with classroom management (Acheson & Gall, 1997; Dunkin & Biddle, 1994; Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Bown, p. 39; Veenman, 1984). Similarly, studies have shown that teacher candidates are most concerned with class control (Fuller; Fuller, Parsons, & Watkins, 1973; Hoy, 1967; Iannaccone, 1963; Veenman, 1984). Most candidates have feelings of inadequacy or dependency (Fuller & Bown, 1975; Hawkey, 1996; Maxie,

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.


TABLE 5. Metric and Standardized Regmion Coefficients on Instructional Behavior









Age

0.084** -0.270 0.102

0.334***

0.206”

0.228** 0.069

-0.521

0.123 0.610 0.061

0.05 1 0.328 0.044

-0.106

0.168 0.140 0.036

0.347 * * -0.026 0.136

0.437***

0.275*

0.308** 0.092

-0.050

0.155 0.059 0.08 1

0.072 0.03 1 0.058

.115*

-0.0 10

.147**

.09 1

.029

.010

0.199 0.013 0.048

.042

Note. GPA = grade point average. *p < .lo. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

1989). As less successful managers (Dunkin & Biddle, 1994), perhaps their unsuccessful responses to disruptive behavior help increase these feelings. If noninstructional procedures are not performed as efficiently as possible, classroom management suffers. The situation “including attitudes of others, is often the culprit” (Fuller & Bown, p. 39). Engulfed by feelings of inadequacy, teacher candidates may be unable to improve their classroom management.

A second explanation for the lack of relationship between classroom management and reflective disposition may be attributed to teacher education cumcula. Some investigators claim that teacher candidates are not prepared in classroom management by their teacher education programs (Doyle, 1985, 1990b; Fennell, 1993; Goodlad, 1990; Loche, 1996; Maxie, 1989; Sarason, Davidson, & Blatt, 1989). Specifi- cally, preparatory programs, “inadequately prepare educators [teachers and administrators] for what life is like in classrooms, schools, and school systems” (p. xiii, Sarason et al.). Goodlad (1990) has suggested that the topic of classroom management is presented as “bits and pieces of good counsel . . . received in methods classes” (p. 248). There- fore, teacher candidates attempt to duplicate their mentors’ classroom management skills without reflecting on the hows and whys of what they are doing. Unfortunately, this

does not work well because teacher candidates do not com- mand the same attention as do their mentors.

Transfer and university GPA did not prove to be significant on any of the components of effective teaching. Age was associated with the composite of effective teaching and with instructional behavior but only in the presence of the question, What should teachers know and be able to do?

The lack of a relationship between GPA and effective teaching was consistent with findings reported by Freeman, Martin, Brousseau, and West (1989). Their findings revealed that GPA did not influence teaching performance. However, research findings reported in the literature are mixed. For example, Daniel (1993) and Kowalski and Weaver (1988) reported a positive relationship between GPA and teaching performance.

Reflection on What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do

Reflection on what teachers should know and be able to do was associated with the composite of effective teaching and all aspects of effective teaching except for classroom management. For the reasons stated earlier, teacher candidates may lack the skills that would improve their classroom man-

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. 96(No. S)] 305

TABLE 6. Metric and Standardized Regression Coefficients on Classroom Organization


-

Refliective disposition Transfer and university GPA Age


Refllection on teaching Transfer and university GPA Age

Refllection on learning Transfer and university GPA Age

Refllection on relationship between learning and teaching Tratisfer and university GPA Age



Age

0.033* -0.284 0.032

0.158** -0.267 0.085

0.067 0.017

-0.294

0.049 0.059 0.0 16

0.000 -0.009 0.009

0.093 -0.174

0.005

0.258* -0.052 0.08 1

0.396** -0.049 0.219

0.175 0.042

-0.054

0.118 0.01 I 0.040

O.OO0 -0.002 0.023

0.204 -0.032 0.012

.06 1

.117*

.028

.014

.oo 1

.04 1

Nok. GPA = grade point average. * p < .lo. **p < .05.

agement. Therefore, their responses to this question indicated their shortfall in this area. However, the suggestion of this finding, that is, that the more teacher candidates know about what a teacher should know and be able to do, the more effective their teaching is judged, strengthens the position that reflective disposition is related to effective teaching.

Age was significant in the presence of Question 1 : What should teachers know and be able to do? However, it was significant for only two outcomes: the composite measure of reflective disposition and the composite measure of effective teaching, and in Table 5 , instructional behavior.

That age proved to be a significant positive influence suggests that as time passes, teacher candidates increase their capacity to recognize ,what a teacher should know and be able to do and that the older the teacher candidate is, the more effective his or her teaching is judged. This result supports research by Shulman (1987), who found that student teachers who were 10 years older than their colleagues possessed “mature commitment and capacity to adapt” and “excellent pedagogical intuitions in the face of conventional and dull dispositions.” Shulman found that these same students entered the professional status with the maturity and compe- tence to deal with contradictions. This result also suggests that older teacher candidates’ schemas contain a larger store

of information about teaching than the schemas of younger teacher candidates; it is knowledge that has been tested and strengthened by life experiences. Research done by Berliner (1986), Fuller (1969) and Kagan (1992) with regard to teacher candidates suggested (a) that nontraditional-aged teacher candidates are more concerned with children’s learning than are traditional-aged teacher candidates and that (b) traditional-aged teacher candidates’ concerns tend to revolve around themselves. The present results support this finding.

Reflection on Define Teaching

Reflection on the definition of teaching was associated with the composite measure of effective teaching and with all aspects save classroom management. The lack of preparation in the area of classroom management and the feelings of inadequacy may have combined to promote this one exception. The suggestion that the more insight teacher candidates have into teaching, the more effective their teaching is estimated to be, adds support to the existence of a relationship between reflective disposition toward teaching and effective teaching. Transfer and university GPA and age played no role in any of the outcomes and were not significant in the presence of this question.

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 7. Metric and Standardized Regression Coefficients on Teacher Expectations

Predictor Metric Standardized RZ








Age

0.020* -0.289 0.026

0.086** -0.261 0.537

0.058* 0.0 19

-0.364

0.043 -0.061 0.018

-0.008 -0.105 0.122

0.038 -0.189 0.01 1

0.268* -0.091

0.1 15

0.371** -0.083 0.238

0.259* 0.083

-0.1 16

0.182 -0.019 0.08 1

-0.037 -0.033 0.054

0.143 -0.060 0.047

.070

.lo7

.064

.036

.006

.024

Note. GPA = grade point average. *p < .lo. **p < .05.

Reflection on Define Learning, Relationship Between Learning and Teaching, and What It Would Be Like to Be a Teacher in a Classroom

There were no significant associations between the following variables: reflection on the definition of learning, reflection on the relationship between learning and teaching, and reflection on what it would be like to be a teacher in a classroom, and effective teaching (all components). These results may have been caused by several factors. The first factor was the possibility of measurement error. When teacher candidates responded to these open-ended questions, they may have believed that they had already answered them, so they did not fully express themselves. The second factor focused on the possible lack of variability. That is, the possibility existed that all teacher candidates in this study were at the same level with regard to their responses. If this was so, then there was less variability in their responses. Examination of the standard deviations revealed that they were small. Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs (1988) advised that “a small standard deviation indicates little variability” (p. 61). With less variability, significance cannot be found. Finally, the sample size may have been too small. In studies where the sample size is small, significance may not be found.

Transfer and university GPA and age did not prove to be significant influences on effective teaching (all components) in the presence of these three questions. The finding that GPA was not significant in the presence of any of the reflective disposition questions is somewhat unexpected because Securro (1992) found that GPA is often thought to be a reliable predictor for identifying qualitative preprofes- sional status and for judging subsequent classroom performance and teaching abilities. Results of other studies have indicated that students’ GPAs are relatively good predictors of teaching performance (Daniel, 1993; Riggs, 1992; Riggs & Riggs, 1990). Perhaps the measurement of teaching performance in these studies was totally different from the measurement of teaching performance in the present study.

Limitations

Several factors may have affected the results of the present study. These factors include sampling technique, sample size, measurement error, and nonbias response.

As stated in the Method section, I used a convenience sample. The participants were included because they were easy to reach and easy to obtain. The target population of teacher candidates would have been more difficult to obtain and to work with. In a convenience sample, participants do not have

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. 96(No. 5)] 307

a known nonzero probability of selection; therefore, researchers cannot conclude that they are representative of the target population. Light, Singer, and Willett (1990) stated that “results from convenience samples cannot be generalized to the target population” (p. 56). Consequently, caution must be used in interpreting the results presented here.

A sample size of 6 9 was expected initially for this study. To obtain reliable parameter estimates of the factors involved in the model of effective teaching, I had to collect data from at least 69 teacher candidates. Because some participants were reluctant to respond, my final sample was 55. According to Light, Singer, and Willett (1990), “The single most important design feature affecting the occurrence of Type I1 errors is sample size-the more students you study, the lower your chances of making such errors” (p. 19 I ) . For this study, the sample size was smaller than expected, and this may have caused the occurrence of Type I1 errors, that is, the study might not have identified some of the relations that were present.

Nonresponse might bias the results of research. Light et al. (1990) explained \hat “you face such bias if the people you reach give different answers, on average, from what those you did not reach would have told you” (p. 67). For the present study, not all the teacher candidates that I contacted responded. “Since it is hard to know with any confidence what non-respondents would tell you, you face an unknown level of bias” (Light, Singer, & Willett, 1990, p. 67).

Implications for Policy and Research

Despite the constraints just described, i t seems reason- able that researchers make suggestions for policy and research using the results of this study. The present study has demonstrated that reflective disposition is related to effective teaching especially in the domains of instructional behavior, classroom organization, and teacher expectations. If teacher educators agree with Schon’s (1 983, 1987) assertion that competent professionals are reflective (in action) and that teacher candidates should have a reflective disposition, these findings may have implications for recruitment and admission. Tools such as those used in this study might be used to assess the reflective disposition of teacher candidates prior to their admit- tance to a teacher education program.

In her study, LaBoskey (1 994) argued that those teacher candidates who were found to be reflective after the pre- study questionnaire had been scored remained reflective throughout the student teaching year, and those teacher candidates whose scores indicated that they were unreflective remained unreflective throughout the student teaching year. Also, Korthagen (1985) found that in course work aimed to develop skills of critical reflection on practice, the only students to be influenced appeared to be those who were already disposed toward critically analyzing their practice. Therefore, I believe that the predisposition to be reflective toward teaching existed in the teacher candidates studied

when they entered the program especially because this program did not purport to prepare reflective teachers. Further- more, although LaBoskey examined teacher candidates entering a teacher education program that professed to prepare reflective teachers, and the present study examined teacher candidates who were exiting a teacher education program, I believe, as LaBoskey suggested, that this information may be combined with other data to help in decisions about admission, advancement, or both.

In addition, the results of this study have produced a valuable point in relation to the admission issue: It is critical to balance admission committees’ concerns for the results of standardized tests and GPA with attention to the attitudes, values, beliefs, and emotions of teacher candidates. This dimension has not been given adequate consideration. Traditional criteria often have favored the non- reflective thinker. Fuller and Bown (1975) argued,

Teachers enter teaching because of a desire for upward mobility, a lack of interest in any other field, and the influence of their elementary and secondary teachers; because education has value to society, because of an interest in a subject matter field, because of opportunities for self-growth, and perhaps because of Stephens’ “spontaneous tendencies.” Different groups seem to have different motivation patterns but selection procedures do not consider different motiva- tional patterns and may even operate to favor students moti- vated only by expediency. (p. 36) Another implication of this study is support for the

inclusion of activities and experiences in teacher preparation programs that foster future teachers’ abilities to reflect on, analyze, and critique their work. Whereas teacher educators have long recognized the importance of reasoning about one’s teaching, this study provides empirical evidence for attention to this dimension of practice in our preparation programs. Researchers should attempt to repli- cate this finding and to determine the extent to which it can be generalized to other types of teacher education programs-for example, those candidates preparing to teach at the secondary level. Also, future investigators should examine the specific impact of certain types of program activities on the development of teacher candidates’ reflective disposition and the relationship between this disposition and their teaching performance. However, some research indicates that reflection toward teaching may not be learned if the subject being trained is not predisposed to being reflective toward teaching (Calderhead, 1989; LaBoskey, 1994).

Finally, the results of this study support the continued inclusion of a standard of teaching quality pertaining to a reflective disposition toward teaching in statements written by teacher education professional organizations. As stated earlier, most statements of this type include such a standard. Although it may be defined variously, reflective disposition toward teaching is an essential aspect of professional practice in the INTASC principles and in the NBPTS standards. The data presented in this study support the importance of this disposition toward teaching.

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

The Journal of Educational Research

Conclusion

Reflection, which is a difficult mental process to assess, is complex. However, teacher education programs need to explore the nature and stability of reflective disposition in teacher candidates to reveal factors that may contribute to or detract from its development as an instructional tool. Results of the limited research that has been done on the impact of reflective teacher education programs and structures have been mixed (LaBoskey, 1994). Calderhead (1989) argued that the “little research relating to these areas tends to suggest that student teachers’ reflection generally remains at a fairly superficial level even in teacher education courses which purport to be encouraging reflective teaching” (p. 46). Some researchers submit that novices differ in their ability to carry out the necessary mental manip- ulations associated with cognitive or reflective ability (Calderhead; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). The effort to develop means of assessment of reflective disposition will be challenging, but it can be made easier by well-articulated definitions and rationales for reflective teacher education (LaBoskey, 1994). Factors connected to effective teaching are multiple and complex.

The instruments and methods used in this study represent one effort to meet the charge of more systematic evaluation. There is however much need of further testing, modifica- tion, and contextual adaptation. Nonetheless, this study contributed to the literature by affording a better understanding of the nature of reflective disposition toward teaching and its relationship to effective teaching and by provid- ing a way in which this can be measured and facilitated.

REFERENCES

Acheson, K., & Gall, M. (1997). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservices applications. New York Longman.

Aoki, T. ( I 984). Towards reconceptualization of curriculum implementation. In J. Hopkins & R. Wideen (Eds.), Alternative perspectives on school improvement. London: Falmer Press.

Behets. D. (1997). Comparison of more and less effective teaching behaviors in secondary physical education. Teaching and Teacher Education,

Berliner. D. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In P. L. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 51-77). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researchec 15(7), 5-13.

Borich, G. (1992). Effective teaching methods. New York: Macmillan. Brophy, J. ( 1 986). Classroom management techniques. Education and

Urban Society, 18(2), 182-194. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1985). School effects. (ERIC Document Repro-

duction Service No. ED264212) Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement.

In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.

Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teacher and Teaching Education, 5( I), 43-5 I .

Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: Reflec- tive practice under scrutiny. Teaching and Teacher Education, I1(3),

Copeland, W., Birmingham, C., De La Cruz, E., & Lewin, B. (1993). The reflective practitioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 347-359.

Crocker. R. (1986). What research says fo the reacher: Cfassroom process-

1312). 215-224.

243-261.

es and student outcomes. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED277095) Daniel, L. ( 1993). Predicting teaching performances: A multivariate inves-

tigation. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED357029) Davis, G., & Thomas, M. (1989). Efective schools and effective reachers.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Davis, R. (1998). Helpful hints for effective teaching. Chemical Engineer-

ing Education. 32( 1) 36-39. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. in C. A.

McMurry (Ed.), The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers. (Third yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, Part 1.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective

thinking to the educative process. Chicago: D. C. Heath. Doyle, W. (1985). Effective teaching and the concept of master teacher.

The Elementary School Journal, 86(1), 27-33. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wit-

trock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

Doyle, W. (1990a). Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Hous- ton, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on reacher education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.

Doyle, W. (1990b). Classroom management techniques. In 0. C. Moles (Ed.), Student discipline strategies: Research and practice (pp. 113-127). Albany State University of New York Press.

Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1994). Effects of formal teacher education upon student teachers’ cognitions regarding teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education. 10(4), 395-408.

Dwyer, C. (1994). Development of the knowledge base of the Praxis Ill: Classroom performance assessments assessment criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Emans, R., & Milbum, C. (1989). The knowledge base of teaching: A review and commentary of process-product research. (ERIC Reproduc- tion Service No. ED309 137)

Emmer, E., Evertson, C., Sanford, J., Clements, B., & Worsham, M. (1982). Organizing and managing the junior high classroom. Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Evertson, C. (1986). Do teachers make a difference? Issues for the eight- ies. Education and Urban Society, 18(2). 195-210.

Evertson, C., & Harris, A. (1992, April). What we know about managing classrooms. Educational Leadership, 74-78.

Evertson, C., Hawley, W., & Zlotnik, M. (1984), The characteristics of effective teacher preparation programs: A review of research. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED2503 14)

Evertson, C., Hawley, W., & Zlotnik, M. (1985). Making a difference in educational quality through teacher education. Journal of Teacher Edu- cation, 36(2), 2-12.

Evertson, C., & Smylie, M. (1987). Research on teaching and classroom processes. in J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology, New York: Plenum.

Evertson. C., & Weade, R. (1989). Classroom management and teaching style: Instructional stability and variability in two junior high English classrooms. The Elementary School Journal. 89(3), 379-393.

Fennel], H. (1993). Student teachers ‘evaluation of their preparation for an internship course: A case study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361335)

Freeman, D., Martin, R., Brousseau, B., & West, B. (1989). Do higher program admission standards alter profiles of entering teacher candidates? Research, May-June, 3 3 4 1 .

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualiza- tion. American Educational Research Journal, 6. 201-226.

Fuller, F., & Bown, 0. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: The seventy-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part 2 (pp. 25-52. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fuller, F., Parsons, J., & Watkins, J. (1974). Concerns of teachers: Research and reconceptualization. Oftice of Education (DHEW). Wash- ington, DC: Research and Development Centers Branch. (BBB07499)

Gage, N. (1978). Four cheers for research on teaching. (ERIC Reproduc- tion Service No. ED178460)

Gage, N. (1985). Hard gains in the so8 sciences: The case of pedagogy. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED267098)

Good, T. (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

May/June 2003 [Vol. %;(No. 5)] 309

of Teacher Education, 30(2), 52-64. Good, T. (1983). Research on classroom teaching. In L. S. Shulman & G.

Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 42-80). New York: Longman.

Good. T. (1984). Teacher efects. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 249585)

Gocdlad. J. (1990). Teachers ,for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gore, J. (1987). Reflecting on reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Edu- cation. 38(2). 33-39.

Grant, C., & Zeichner, K. I 1984). On becoming a reflective teacher. In C. Grant (Ed.), Preparinghw reflective teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, I I ( I ) , 3349.

Hawkey, K. (1996). h a g : and the pressure to conform in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, I2( I ) , 99-108.

Hawley, W., & Everston, C. (19850. Good schools: What research says about improving studenl: achievement. Peabody Journal of Education,

Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1988). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hofmeister, A,, & Lubke, M. (1990). Research into practice: Implement- ing efective teaching strategies. Boston: AIlyn & Bacon.

Hoy, W. (1967). Organizational socialization: The student teacher and pupil control ideology. The Joccmal of Educational Research 61, 153- 155.

Hullfish, B., & Smith, D. (1961). Reflective thinking: The method of education. New York: Dodd, Mead.

Iannaccone, L. (1963). Student teaching: A transitional stage in the making of a teacher. Theory and Practice, 73-81.

Jirovec, R., Ramanathan, I:., & Alvarez, A. (1998). Course evaluations: What are social work students telling us about teaching effectiveness? Journal of Social Work Education, 34(2) 229-236.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 6, 129-169.

Kelsay, K. (1989). A qualibztive study of reflective teaching. (ERIC Repro- duction Service No. ED352320)

Killen, L. (1989). Reflective teaching: A response. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 49-52.

Killen, L. (1990). Teacher clarity in reflective teaching and regular class- mom lessons.

Kinchloe, J. (1990). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry us a path to empowerment. London: Falmer Press.

Kowalski, T., &Weaver, R. (1988). Characteristics of outstanding teachers: An academic and social improvement profile. Action in Teacher Educa- tion. 10(2), 93-99.

LaBoskey, V. ( 1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teach- ers College.

Light, R., Singer. J., & Willet, J. (1990). By design. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.

Loche, S. (1996). Concern:; and perceptions of a middle school practicum program: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Long, R. (1996). Better teacher training urged by state report. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago, IL.

Lowman, J. (1996). Characteristics of exemplary teachers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65, 3340.

Maxie, A. (1989). Studen; teachers' concerns and the student teaching experience: Does e.rperience make a difference. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED308 164)

Newman, J. (1991). Interwoven conversations: Learning and reaching through critical reflection. Toronto: Heineman.

61(4), 1-178.

Noffke, S., & Brennan, M. ( 1991). Student teachers use action research: Issues and examples. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented reacher education (pp. 186-201). London: Falmer.

Ornstein, A. (1986). Teacher effectiveness research: Some ideas and issues. Education and Urban Society, 18(2), 168-175.

Osterman, K. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education and Urban Society, 22(2), 133-152.

Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self- regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1 , pp. 35-62). Greenwich, C T JAI Press.

Patrick, J., & Smart, R. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evalua- tion in Higher Education. 23(2) 165-178.

Reavis, C. (1988). Extraordinary educators: Lessons in leadership. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 293825)

Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62( I ) , 1-36.

Riggs, I. (1992). An assessment of selection criteria validity for a teacher education program. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED35329 1 )

Riggs, I. , & Riggs, M. (1990). A test of the validiry of selected predict0r.s of student success in a teacher education program. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED324324)

Rohrkemper, M., & Corno, L. (1988). Discipline is a by-product of effective instruction and classroom management success and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptive learning and classroom teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 297-3 12.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wit- trock (Ed.), Hizndbook of reseatrh on teaching (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.

Ross, J. (1992). Teacher efticacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17( I ) , 5 1-65,

Sarason, S., Davidson, K., & Blatt, B. (1989). The preparation of reacher.s: An unstudied problem in education. Cambridge: Brookline Books.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Securro, S. (1992). Quality of teacher education and nonteacher education graduates: Fact or artifact? Journal of Research & Development in Edu- cation, 25(3), 131-135.

Shulman, J. (1987). From veteran parent to novice teacher: A case study of a student teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education. 3 1 ) . 13-27.

Tang, T. (1997). Teaching evaluation at a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness. Public Per- sonnel Management, 26(3) 370-389.

Tuckman, B. (1995). Assessing effective teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 127-138.

US. Depantment of Education. (1986). What works: Research about teaching and learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftice.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178.

Yinger, R. (1986). Examining thought in action: A theoretical and methodological critique of research on interactive teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(3), 263-282.

Ysseldyke, J. ( 1987). Instructional factors that influence student achievement: An integrative review. Monograph No. 7. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED303977)

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57( I ), 23-48.

The

Jou

rnal

of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

2003

.96:

293-

309.

Documents

Relationship Between Reflective Disposition Toward Teaching and Effective Teaching