Stimulating constructivist teaching styles through use of an observation rubric

Stimulating Constructivist Teaching Styles through Use of an Observation Rubric

Paul E. Adams,1 Gerald H. Krockover2

1Department of Physics, Fort Hays State University, 600 Park St., Hays, Kansas 67601-4099

2School Mathematics and Science Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1442

Received 12 May 1998; first revision 9 November 1998; second revision 18 December 1998; accepted 21 December 1998

Abstract: One of the difficult transitions for new secondary science teachers is that from noviceteacher to master teacher. Often this process involves the novice in adopting survival strategies for teach-ing rather than those advocated by the National science education standards or the Project 2061 bench-marks. This study reports on an instrument that has been shown to be useful in helping novice teachers re-flect on and change their science teaching praxis. Based on the interpretation of this case study, it appearsto have the potential to significantly affect the development of secondary science teachers by providing areadily accessible model of instruction that aligns with student-centered models of instruction advocatedby the Standards and Project 2061. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 36:955–971,1999

Teacher preparation programs in the United States are often criticized for failing to look be-yond the immediate task of preparing teachers. Once these individuals enter the profession, fewif any attempts are made to seek substantial feedback on their performance which could be usedto improve the effectiveness of the program or assist teachers in the transition into the scienceteaching profession (cf. Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). It is apparent that there is a need for ad-ditional research in the area of preservice teacher education and its translation into the praxis ofbeginning teachers (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994; Zeichner, Tabachnick, & Densmore, 1987).

Two projects that have the potential to significantly affect science teacher development andthe teaching and learning of science are American Association for the Advancement of Science’s(AAAS’s) Project 2061, which produced Benchmarks for science literacy (AAAS, 1993), andthe National Academy of Sciences’ effort to establish standards for science education, whichproduced the National science education standards (National Research Council, 1996). Both ofthese efforts advocate reform in teaching science through the establishment of minimal processskills and content knowledge to be achieved by all students using student-centered methods ofinstruction such as collaborative groups and the use of manipulatives. Further, both efforts as-

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 36, NO. 8, PP. 955–971 (1999)

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/99/080955-17

Correspondence to: P.E. Adams

sume that K–12 teachers will adapt their teaching style to achieve these goals. The Standardsgo so far as to lay out the nature and type of professional development activities that preserviceand inservice K–12 teachers must experience to achieve the criterion these efforts have estab-lished for teaching and learning. However, there is scant research on secondary science teacherdevelopment showing how and which university preservice program experiences translate intothe praxis of beginning secondary science teachers. The research that has been done has ne-glected the long-term impact of the preservice program on a science teacher’s professional de-velopment (Adams & Krockover, 1997a; Cunliffe, 1994; Loughran, 1992, 1994). Without thisspecific foundational knowledge, these reform efforts probably will fail, as many have in thepast (Klopfer & Champagne, 1990).

Another aspect of this situation is related to the socialization of teachers when they enter theteaching field. Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981) expressed the opinion that the effects of theteacher preparation experience are often lost during the first year of teaching as teachers are so-cialized into their classroom environment. It is more likely that teachers adopt a survival modeand regress to teacher-centered styles of teaching, rather than the student-centered styles currentlyadvocated by most science teacher preparation programs (cf. Fessler & Christensen, 1992; Fuller,1969). Leib, quoted in Gold (1996), noted that much of what teachers have learned disappearswhen they enter the classroom. Furthermore, teachers appear to be “imprinted” by their first-yearexperiences, which in turn influences future behavior (Gold, 1996). Given these observations andthe push for reforms in science teaching and learning, such as those advocated by the Bench-marks and Standards, it is apparent that there is a “need for data regarding effectiveness of dif-ferent types and sources of support for new teachers” (Gold, 1996, p. 560). Without a means oftranslating aspects of the preservice program into teacher praxis, we may very well be doomedto maintenance of the status quo, failing in the reform of science teaching and learning.

Objectives

This study is an extension of the Salish I Research Project, an investigation into the link-ages of preservice program experiences in the secondary science program and the impact ofthese experiences over the first 3 years of a teacher’s career (Yager, 1993). It became evidentduring the course of the investigation that one of the instruments being used, the SecondaryTeaching Analysis Matrix (STAM)1 (Gallagher & Parker, 1995), a constructivist-based obser-vation rubric, was not only providing information necessary to the study, but also appeared tostimulate the professional development of teachers during the critical early years of their pro-fession (cf. Fessler & Christensen, 1992; Kagan, 1992) (see Table 1 for the first page of theSTAM rubric). This observation merited further investigation and provided the basis for this 3-year case study of a secondary biology teacher identified as Bill. The a priori research ques-tions that guided this case study were:

1. In what manner does the use of this instrument stimulate recall of secondary sciencepreservice program experiences?

2. What was the perceived impact of the use of STAM on Bill’s teaching as reported byBill and observed in practice?

Theoretical Perspective

To place this study in context a theory of how experience is integrated into cognitive struc-ture is needed. Kelly’s personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955) provides a model for cognitive

956 ADAMS AND KROCKOVER

STIMULATING CONSTRUCTIVIST TEACHING 957

Tabl

e 1

Scie

nce

teac

hing

ana

lysi

s m

atri

x

Act

ions

cha

ract

eris

tic o

f te

achi

ng s

tyle

E. E

xper

ienc

edT

reat

men

t of

Con

tent

A. D

idac

ticB

. Tra

nsiti

onal

C. C

once

ptua

lD

. Ear

ly c

onst

ruct

ivis

tco

nstr

uctiv

ist

F. C

onst

ruct

ivis

t in

quir

y

1. S

truc

ture

of

cont

ent

Fact

ual

cont

ent,

fact

oids

Con

tent

ten

ds t

o be

de-

Con

tent

ten

ds t

o be

Teac

her

and

stud

ents

Te

ache

r an

d st

uden

tsIn

vest

igat

ions

dom

inat

esc

ript

ive,

with

con

cept

sex

plan

ator

y, w

ithne

gotia

te u

nder

stan

ding

of

nego

tiate

und

erst

andi

ngco

nten

t. C

once

ptua

l co

nten

tan

d fa

ctoi

ds g

iven

equ

al

conc

eptu

al c

onte

ntke

y id

eas,

with

tea

cher

’s

of k

ey i

deas

bas

ed o

nan

d co

nnec

tions

em

bedd

edem

phas

isor

gani

zed

arou

nd k

eyco

nten

t em

phas

ized

stud

ents

’id

eas

and

into

des

ign,

im

plem

enta

tion,

id

eas

cont

ent

anal

ysis

, and

rep

ort

ofin

vest

igat

ion

2. E

xam

ples

and

No

exam

ples

or

inte

r-R

eal-

wor

ld e

xam

ple

and/

Exa

mpl

es a

nd c

onne

c-Te

ache

r le

ads

stud

ents

in

Con

nect

ions

con

stru

cted

Con

nect

ions

con

stru

cted

conn

ectio

nsco

nnec

tions

to:

(a)

rea

l-or

rel

ated

ide

as s

epar

ate

tions

mad

e by

tea

cher

usin

g ex

ampl

es a

nd c

on-

by s

tude

nts

with

tea

cher

’sby

stu

dent

s ar

e re

late

d to

wor

ld e

vent

s, (

b) r

elat

edfr

om o

ther

pie

ces

of

to:

(a)

real

-wor

ld e

vent

s,st

ruct

ing

conn

ectio

ns t

ogu

idan

ce t

o: (

a) r

eal

inve

stig

atio

ns, d

ata

anal

ysis

, id

eas,

or

(c)

key

idea

s of

cont

ent

(b)

rela

ted

idea

s, a

nd(a

) re

al w

orld

eve

nts;

wor

ld, (

b) r

elat

ed i

deas

,an

d co

ncep

t bu

ildin

gth

e su

bjec

t(c

) ke

y id

eas

of t

he(b

) re

late

d id

eas,

and

and

(c)

key

idea

s of

subj

ect

(c)

key

idea

s of

con

cept

conc

ept

3. L

imits

, exc

eptio

ns,

Ove

rsim

plifi

ed s

o th

atSo

me

limits

, exc

eptio

ns,

Lim

its, e

xcep

tions

, and

Teac

her

lead

s st

uden

ts

Teac

her

and

stud

ents

Teac

her

and

stud

ents

an

d m

ultip

leth

e lim

its o

r ex

cept

ions

an

d al

tern

ate

inte

rpre

ta-

alte

rnat

e in

terp

reta

tions

to i

dent

ify

limits

and

id

entif

y lim

its a

nd e

xcep

-id

entif

y lim

its, e

xcep

tions

,in

terp

reta

tion

with

in c

onte

nt a

re n

ottio

ns i

nclu

ded,

but

are

are

pres

ente

d as

par

t of

ex

cept

ions

tha

t m

ay

tions

tha

t m

ay g

ener

ate

and

alte

rnat

e in

terp

reta

tions

pres

ente

d. M

any

not

inte

grat

ed w

ithth

e co

nten

tge

nera

te a

ltern

ate

way

s of

al

tern

ativ

e w

ays

of r

epre

-by

app

lyin

g kn

owle

dge

tost

atem

ents

are

abs

olut

esot

her

cont

ent

repr

esen

ting

or i

nter

pret

ing

sent

ing

or i

nter

pret

ing

part

of

prob

lem

sol

ving

with

out

qual

ifier

sob

serv

atio

ns a

nd e

vent

sob

serv

atio

ns a

nd e

vent

s4.

Pro

cess

es a

nd

No

expl

icit

men

tion

of

No

expl

icit

men

tion

of“h

ow w

e kn

ow”

incl

uded

Teac

her

lead

s st

uden

ts t

oSt

uden

ts, w

ith t

each

er’s

Proc

esse

s of

sci

ence

app

lied

hist

ory

of s

cien

ceho

w w

e kn

ow. S

cien

tific

how

we

know

. Pro

cess

esin

con

tent

. Tea

cher

int

e-re

cons

truc

t ho

w e

vide

nce

guid

ance

rec

onst

ruct

how

to d

esig

n of

pro

ject

inv

esti-

met

hod

is p

rese

nted

of s

cien

ce (

obse

rvat

ion

grat

es p

roce

ss o

f sc

ienc

eha

s be

en u

sed

to f

orm

ulat

eev

iden

ce h

as b

een

used

to

gatio

n, d

ata

colle

ctio

n, d

ata

sepa

rate

ly a

s ro

tein

fere

nce,

exp

erim

ents

,w

ith c

once

pts

scie

ntifi

c id

eas

and

to u

sefo

rmul

ate

scie

ntifi

c id

eas

anal

ysis

, and

con

cept

pr

oced

ure

etc.

) ar

e no

t in

tegr

ated

scie

ntifi

c pr

oces

ses

toan

d to

use

sci

entifi

cbu

ildin

gw

ith c

onte

ntfo

rmul

ate

and

eval

uate

proc

esse

s to

for

mul

ate

idea

san

d ev

alua

te i

deas

Not

e.Fr

om J

. Gal

lagh

er &

J. P

arke

r, S

econ

dary

Sci

ence

Tea

chin

g A

naly

sis

Mat

rix:

Sci

ence

Ver

sion

[unp

ublis

hed

pres

enta

tion]

, p. 1

, 199

5. R

epro

duce

d w

ith p

erm

issi

on.

development. Kelly’s theory was deemed useful for this study as it relates mental constructs toan individual’s actions and also provides a framework for understanding how recalled experi-ences are used to reshape these constructs.

Constructive Alternativism

Kelly’s theory arises from the philosophy of constructive alternativism (Kelly, 1955). Con-structive alternativism maintains that there is an objective reality that “man is gradually com-ing to understand” and that “the correspondence between what people really think exists andwhat really does exist is a continually changing one” (Kelly, 1955, p. 6). The universe is inte-gral, in that “it functions as a single unit with all its imaginable parts having an exact relation-ship with each other” (Kelly, 1955, p. 6); thus, the universe is continually changing with respectto itself. These three beliefs, an objective reality, an integrated universe, and a continually chang-ing universe, define the framework of the philosophy.

Personal Construct Theory

Kelly used the constructive alternativism philosophy to develop personal construct theory.The fundamental postulate of this theory is: “A person’s processes are psychologically chan-nelized by the ways in which he [sic] anticipates events” (Kelly, 1955, p. 46). This can be in-terpreted as: “A person lives his life by reaching out for what comes next and the only channelshe has for reaching are the personal constructions he is able to place upon what may actuallybe happening” (p. 228). Constructs are the referents that individuals use to place events into per-spective. Constructs are defined by the interweaving of the past, present, and future; events givedefinition to constructs and constructs give meaning to events. The implication is that reflectionon an experience, which in essence is anticipating the future event, can result in a reconstruingof a construct. Kelly’s (1955) theory is a useful framework for understanding the developmentof cognitive structure in preservice and inservice teachers. The theory provides a necessaryframework for interpreting the role of STAM as a potential device to stimulate recall of sec-ondary science preservice program experiences and subsequent reconstruing of a teacher’s con-cepts of teaching.

The Validity of Recalled Memories

A question that naturally arises from this conjecture, that recall of memories of the preser-vice experience can stimulate teachers to reconstrue their constructs of teaching, is the validityof the teachers’ memories. According to Ben-Peretz (1995), “everyday events and incidents be-come part of our memory and can determine to a large extent our behavior in diverse situations”(p. 7). The research literature on memories identifies two major types of memory: semantic andepisodic. Episodic memory “consists of personal experiences stored as information about epi-sodes or events,” while semantic memory “consists of general knowledge about the world thatis organized into schemes or categories and is context-free; its retrieval does not usually involvethe experience of remembering” (Ben-Peretz, 1995, p. 8). Cohen (1989) stated that these “twoforms of knowledge are not separate compartmentalized structures but are in an interactive andinterdependent relationship” (pp. 114–115), where semantic knowledge is derived from episod-ic memory through abstraction and generalization. This perspective agrees with that of Carterand Doyle (1987) who stated:


A central premise of cognitive science is that comprehension is a constructive process. . . .Meaning does not result from the reception or rehearsal of information. Rather under-standing involves an active construction of a cognitive representation of events or con-cepts and their relationships in a specific context. (p. 149)

Cohen (1989) provided insight as to the ability of individuals to recall events involved inthe construction of memory, since “particular episodes that are sufficiently distinctive, novel,deviant, or recent are not absorbed into generalised representations but are represented at themost specific level where they can be identified by specific tags” (p. 128). This suggests that ex-periences that precipitate or change an individual’s cognitive structure will not be lost in se-mantic memory but will be able to be recalled. Ben-Peretz (1995) reported in a study of retiredIsraeli schoolteachers that their memories of seminal events in their careers had ecological va-lidity because the memories did reflect “real and significant events” (p. 16).

Methodology

Constructive alternativism and the personal construct theory offer “a theoretical frameworkwhich is potentially applicable to many teaching and learning issues, and therefore, [will begin]to have increasing influence in science education” (Bezzi, 1996, p. 181). This paradigm also hasclear indications as to appropriate choice of methodology, since the “variable and personal (in-tramental) nature of social constructions suggests that individual constructions can be elicitedand refined only through interaction between and among investigator and respondents” (Guba& Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). Within this theoretical paradigm, the researcher must “watch, listen,ask, record, and examine” (Schwandt, p. 119).

Methodological Perspective

Associated with the decision of methodology is the choice of an interpretive style (cf. Den-zin, 1994; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). An appropriate interpretive stylefor this study is inductive analysis. Inductive analysis means that “the patterns, themes, and cat-egories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposedon them prior to data collection and analysis” (Patton, 1990, p. 390). Furthermore the “induc-tive search for patterns is guided by the . . . questions identified at the beginning of the studyand focuses on how the findings are intended to be used” (Patton, 1990, p. 405).

Research Strategy

One strategy that is appropriate for use with the theoretical paradigm is the interpretive casestudy method, a strategy which relies on “interviewing, observing, and document analysis”(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 14). Case studies provide a “deeper understanding of science teach-ers and their development” (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994, p. 28). The study reported here is acase study (Stake, 1994, p. 237) of Bill, a secondary biology teacher at a rural/suburban highschool in the Midwest.

Program Setting

Bill graduated from Glass University, a pseudonym for a land-grant university located neara Midwestern city, which has both an industrial and agricultural economic base. Graduates who


receive certification in secondary science teaching must complete a B.S. degree in their subjectarea (i.e., biology). There are typically 25 secondary science teachers graduating per year. In ad-dition to the requisite subject-matter coursework, these graduates must also take appropriatepedagogy courses leading to certification in science for Grades 5–12. This consists of an intro-duction to secondary education, content area reading, subject matter–specific methods course(e.g., The Teaching of Earth/Physical Science in the Secondary Schools, The Teaching of Biology in Secondary Schools), an educational foundations course, an educational psychologycourse, an adolescent psychology course, a social implications of science course for science ma-jors, and supervised teaching.

The preservice teachers receive 20–40 h of field experiences through their coursework pri-or to their 10-week student teaching experience. The first field experience occurs during thesophomore year and is focused on becoming aware of the public school environment. The sec-ond field experience occurs in the junior year during the methods course. The focus of this ex-perience is on observing and practicing some of the methods and that have been illustrated inclass. The experience can either be in a public school or through any other relevant teaching ex-perience (e.g., coaching, teaching at a reading academy, undergraduate teaching assistantship).The 10-week student teaching experience is done under the supervision of a cooperating teacherand a university supervisor.

Teacher Participant

The participant for the case study was purposefully selected (Patton, 1990). Stake (1994)noted that the “cases that seem to offer the opportunity to learn [the most]” (p. 243) should beused. Bill was selected because he offered contrasting experiences and perceptions. These con-trasts provided disconfirming evidence against which to limit, modify, or reject the assertionsthat arose out of the data analysis, and thereby help establish trustworthiness and confirmabili-ty (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Bill, a biology teacher at a county high school in a suburban setting located near a smallMidwestern city, was in his third year of teaching at the conclusion of the study. Bill partici-pated in a pilot study at the end of his first year of teaching designed to investigate the percep-tions of beginning teachers in relation to their program experiences (Adams & Krockover,1997a). Bill was strongly of the opinion that his content courses were not broad enough forteaching high school science. He also was confronted, during his first year of teaching, with thetask of developing the curriculum for the state-mandated biology technical preparation course.

Bill’s first year of teaching was a stressful event. He indicated: “I was hired the day beforeschool started . . . on a Thursday night about 6:00 p.m., and showed up the next morning at 8a.m.” His teaching assignment during his first year consisted of biotechnology, a course imple-mented for the first time that year, and freshman biology, along with coaching responsibilities.

The motivation to select Bill for this study was that his teaching style dramatically changedas determined by the STAM observation rubric (Gallagher & Parker, 1995). During Bill’s first2 years of teaching he was classified as a didactic/transitional teacher; at the beginning of histhird year of teaching he had shifted to a conceptual/transitional teacher. A constructivist teacher,per the STAM scale, is one who exhibits actions such as (a) negotiation of understanding of keyideas with students; (b) student-generated investigations; (c) leading students to reconstruct howevidence has been used to formulate scientific ideas; (d) utilization of student-centered methodssuch as group work, concept mapping, and writing to represent ideas; and (e) use of multipleforms of assessment that integrate with instruction. A conceptual/transitional teacher, per theSTAM scale, is one who exhibits actions such as (a) predominant use of teacher-centered meth-


ods of teaching, (b) cookbook investigations where the answer is already known, (c) instructionthat seeks to correct unscientific ideas without consideration of students’ prior knowledge, (d)writing to reconfigure information provided, and (e) limited use of alternative assessments. Adidactic/transitional teacher is one who exhibits such actions as (a) emphasis on factual infor-mation, (b) incorporation of real-world examples without integration into other content compo-nents, (c) demonstrations or laboratories that are overly directed, (d) questioning calling for fac-tual recall, (e) allowing short answers to predominate over written explanations.

Methods of Inquiry

Data were collected in relation to the case from January 1994 to May 1996. The data con-sisted of formal interviews (8 h total), informal interviews following classroom observations (24h total), direct classroom observations (50 h total), videotaped observations (15 h total) assessedusing STAM, and document analysis of classroom handouts.

The formal interviews were conducted using questions developed for use in the Salish I Re-search Project (1997). These interviews were designed to elicit the beginning teacher’s philos-ophy and beliefs related to science teaching, sources of these ideas, significant preparation pro-gram experiences, and motivations for classroom praxis. Standardized sets of codes developedby the Salish I Research project for each interview protocol (Salish I Research Project, 1997)were used for this case study as an initial analysis of the interviews.

Classroom observations were conducted to better understand the videotaped observations ofBill’s classroom. The videotapes, while useful for observing teacher action, did not provide thefull context of student actions. Furthermore, the field experiences were extended over time, thusenabling the researchers to obtain a more robust understanding of Bill’s classroom. The primaryresearch (Adams) was seated at the back of the classroom during the times when the teacher wastalking and discussing with students. When the students were engaged in activities, the researcherwalked about the room and asked students questions related to the activity in terms of the actionsthey were to accomplish and their understanding of the content. Extensive field notes were tak-en during the classroom observations regarding Bill’s interactions with students, student-to-stu-dent interactions, and the structure and nature of Bill’s content knowledge of biology and biolo-gy teaching strategies. Teacher-produced documents and examples of student work were collectedduring the field observations and also during the videotaped sessions. These were analyzed in re-lation to the observed classroom actions and became part of the field notes.

The focus of the informal interviews was to ascertain Bill’s motivation for classroom prax-is. The researcher reviewed the observation field notes to develop a series of questions for useduring the informal interviews. These questions were used to elicit information regarding the“why” and “how” of Bill’s decisions related to the instructional praxis and student interactionsobserved in his classroom.

The analysis of the formal and informal interviews, videotaped observations analyzed withSTAM, and field observations were used to support the researchers’ assessment of Bill’s teach-ing style. In June of 1995, Bill was provided with a copy of the STAM observation rubric to tri-angulate the researchers’ perception of the classroom with his perception; he was also asked toproject his preferred teaching style.

Researcher Role

The role of the researchers was guided by personal construct theory in that we strived toanticipate the participant’s actions. As Kelly (1955) explained:


The clinician [researcher] should establish for himself a true role relationship to hisclient. . . . It is not enough that the clinician [researcher] be able to think about [italics inthe original] the client’s [participant’s] actions or even at times think [italics in the origi-nal]; he must be able to subsume [italics in the original] the client’s [participant’s]thoughts. (p. 764)

To achieve this goal, the researchers assumed the role of participant observer (Denzin, cit-ed in Patton, 1990).

Data Analysis

Methods of single-case analytic induction (Patton, 1990) were used to analyze the data. Ver-batim transcriptions were completed for all interviews. The observation field notes, STAManalysis, and salient constructs in the data were recorded with memos (Miles & Huberman,1994), which then became part of the case record. The study progressed through three stages ofdata analysis.

The first stage of data analysis consisted of detailed coding of the formal interviews andvideotapes. Memos, a technique for reducing data into a recognizable cluster (Miles & Huber-man, 1994), were used extensively at this stage in anticipation of collapsing the discrete datacoding into encompassing themes. Inconsistencies and deficiencies in the data sources were not-ed so that these might be more fully investigated during the field observations.

The second stage of data analysis involved the daily inductive analysis of simultaneous ob-servation, initial coding of observational and interview data, interpretation of data, memo writ-ing, and generation of postobservation interview questions. The emphasis at this stage of an-alysis was to condense the large amount of field data into conceptual clusters and tentativeassertions that could be immediately tested through the postobservation interviews. Bill was ableto provide input on the interpretation of the data and its meaning through these interviews, there-by providing confirmability (Miles & Huberman, 1994) of the interpretation of the data.

The third stage of data analysis involved synthesizing the various data sources. Assertionsmade as a result of the analysis of each data source were confirmed, combined with other as-sertions, or disconfirmed. The final outcome of this case study was a set of assertions support-ed through the triangulation of the various data sources. After this, the case study was writtenusing analytic narrative vignettes to support the empirical assertions (Erickson, 1986; Gallagher& Tobin, 1991).

Findings

Bill was observed to have dramatically changed his teaching style from that of a didacticteacher in May 1995 to one more focused on conceptual development in September 1995. Whenasked about this change, Bill credited STAM for providing him with a picture of how he want-ed to see himself as a teacher. In essence, STAM became a heuristic device for guiding his de-velopment as a teacher. As Bill was observed in his class, changes in his teaching style werefurther examined. Through the informal and formal interviews, it became evident that Bill wasdrawing on his preservice program experiences to fulfill his vision of the classroom he had cre-ated through his personal use of STAM. Thus, it appears that this instrument stimulated Bill’sprofessional development by having him recall his program experiences.

Based on the framework of Kelly’s personal construct theory, it would appear that this stim-ulated recall prompted Bill to reconstrue his conceptions of teaching and learning. Viewed from


this framework, Bill was channelized into the most familiar teaching method (e.g., didactic) ow-ing to the stresses experienced in his first year. It was not until his third year of teaching that hewas ready to consider other options for teaching. STAM provided a mechanism to recall the stu-dent-centered teaching strategies advocated by his program by its fortuitous use at a criticaljuncture in his career cycle (Fessler & Christensen, 1992).

Teaching Vignettes

To better characterize the teaching style of Bill, two vignettes will be described. The firstwas videotaped and observed in May 1995, the second in September 1995.

The first teaching sequence occurred at the end of Bill’s second year of teaching. Bill’s 6-week project unit in freshman biology was adapted from his high school teacher. The openingscene showed the students involved with various projects. Some were dissecting a frog to iden-tify its internal organs. Others were working with the human internal organ model to learn itsparts, watching a slide show to learn how to identify the birds of the state, or looking throughbooks about dinosaurs to answer specific questions. All told, there were 10 different projectsthat the students were to complete. During the 3 days of this sequence, students were seen com-pleting projects and moving on to other projects. The end point of different projects varied. Forsome it was a project, such as a notebook with pictures and classification of animals. For thestarfish project, it was identification of the internal organs of a dissected starfish. The studentswould go to Bill, who was generally sitting at his desk during these sessions, and ask to bequizzed. The pace of the class and sequence of events was very much controlled by the students.If asked, Bill would come and help students, especially with dissections. He took a day to leadstudents through the dissection of a frog.

This sequence is difficult to classify. Part of this difficulty stems from Bill’s goals for theunit, which are to: (a) teach time management, (b) teach responsibility, and (c) learn how toidentify items related to biology. As measured against these goals, the structure of his lessonwas successful; however, it does not align well with current reforms in science education, or thegoals of his preservice science education program (Adams & Krockover, 1997b). When ob-served through the filter of STAM, even though his methods tended toward conceptual learn-ing, his emphasis on content and interaction with students was clearly didactic. The two priorobservations, one from late in his first year of teaching, and the other early in his second yearof teaching, were classified in the same manner.

The observation made during his third year of teaching, in September 1995, showed a dra-matic change in his teaching style. Instead of being classified somewhere between didactic andtransitional, Bill had changed his style to somewhere between conceptual and transitional. The3-day sequence follows.

Bill started the biotechnology class by asking the 25 students to take out a piece of paper.He then reviewed laboratory techniques related to the study of bacteria. He pointed out that theyhad yet to really talk about what bacteria are.

Bill: [Up to this point we have not studied] bacteria. . . . That’s the plan for the nextcouple of days. I’m going to try something new. What this actually requiresfrom you is to actually use your brain. Put forth a little effort. . . . There aregoing to be three stages related to this activity. . . . The first stage, you are go-ing to answer three questions, with [no instruction, using only the] knowledgeyou have right now. The second stage, you are going to take the microscopeand three slides and go look at bacteria. The third stage, you will go back to


your seat and answer five questions using the information you just gained bylooking through the microscope, I’ll also have the TV on to help you out [it isconnected to a video microscope camera], using that information that you justgained on your own to hopefully help you answer the questions when you area little more informed. Then, tomorrow be prepared because I’m going to talkthe whole hour. We’ll discuss these. Right now, what I need for you to do, us-ing your best imagination possible, I want you to answer the three questionson the board as best as possible. . . . Think about it a little bit; don’t just writeyes or I don’t know.

Student 1: Can I draw pictures?Bill: However you want to answer it; you are totally on your own.

The three questions were: (a) What shape [do] bacteria [have]? (b) What color[s] [do] bacteria[have]? What causes the color? and (c) What do you see inside the bacteria? What might thisbe used for? The two postlaboratory questions were: (d) Can you see anything which indicateshow bacteria move? Explain. (e) Explain why the bacteria on the petri plates look the way theydo when a single bacterium looks like it does.

The students were then given time to respond to the questions. As the students finished, Billpassed out prepared slides to lab partners. The bacteria on the three slides were, respectively,bacillus, salmonella, and staphylococcus. He directed them to observe under all three powers ofmagnification. He instructed the students to look at all three slides and then go back to theirseats and answer Questions (d) and (e). With this charge, the students went to the microscopes.Bill set up the video microscope at the front of the room. After that, he circulated among thestudents to determine what they had observed. Some of the students had difficulty using the mi-croscopes; Bill determined that either they had not used a microscope before or they had for-gotten how to use it. He provided separate instruction as needed. As the students worked, hemonitored their progress and explained the procedure to those who asked.

Bill continued to assist students as needed. One student claimed that the bacteria lookedlike cotton fiber. Bill said that students could check it out on the video microscope. He preparedthis for the class to examine on the monitor. They did and it answered the student’s question.The students then continued to answer their questions. He further elaborated on the fifth ques-tion by showing them one of the petri dishes the students had previously streaked. The paperswere collected at the end of class.

The second day of the sequence began with a review of what had been going on the past 2weeks. He pointed out that the course had emphasized laboratory technique for working withbacteria and that yesterday was the first day that they had the opportunity to look at bacteria.Today is going to be an informational session on bacteria to discuss (a) What [are] bacteria?;(b) What [is the] make . . . up [of bacteria]?; and (c) Structures, food, etc. He first introducesshapes. He asks students to describe what they saw in lab yesterday. He keeps asking studentsquestions until he can pull out the features he wants. He did not reject any answers; rather, hehad students expand on what they said. As he gathered and expanded on the information fromthe students he entered it into a table he had drawn on the board to help students organize theirnotes. He elaborated on students’ answers and used analogies. He maintained rapport with stu-dents through questioning, albeit low-level questioning. He then told students that on a test theywould have to remember the types and shapes of bacteria and those that live in colonies and assingle cells. In essence, he provided the outline of what would be on the test.

One point that Bill wanted to point out to students that was not evident from the micro-scope observations was the relative size of bacteria:


Bill: Protozoan are up here [draws line at the top of chalkboard], and bacteria [are]smaller [a line just below the previous one]. Now, a virus. [Does] a virus, likeAIDS and Ebola and all the others you hear about on TV, does it fit, up here,between here, or is it even smaller yet than bacteria?

Student 5: Smaller.Bill: It is smaller, so its going to go down here. So, we’ve got protozoan, bacteria

in the middle, and a virus. So, bacteria, it is somewhere along the line of 0.1mm to 100 mm. A micron is 1026 m. 1026 m doesn’t mean anything to me.1023 is a millimeter, that means there are 1000 mm in a meter. About this longfor 1000 mm. There’s a million microns in 1 m. Here is a little tool that theyuse in a lot of machine shops.

Student 5: A caliper.Bill: To judge the preciseness of parts they are making, like an engine and stuff. If

the parts aren’t right the engines won’t run. This little tool is called a mi-crometer, looks like a little C-clamp, little fancier. This measures in microns.If we take a piece of paper and we put it in our micrometer here and we mea-sure it . . . I come out to . . . all right. [He does not tell students the answer.]How many bacteria will fit laid end to end across this piece of paper [edge ofpaper]? What do you think?

Student 4: 1000.Student 5: 1000.Student 3: 100,000.Student 6: 700,000.Student 7: 1,000,000.

Bill: Any other guesses? We are laying them end to end, like stacking schoolbuses,how many do you think?

Student 8: 30,000,000.Bill: That paper is about 100 mm thick. One hundred microns thick, and we have a

bacteria that is 0.1 mm across; you’re going to be able to stack 1000 bacteriaend to end across that piece of paper [worked out math on board]. So, on thatpiece of paper you can put 1000 bacteria end to end. So, on a test when youare asked for the size of a bacteria, you’ll have to come up with something be-tween 0.1 and 500 mm. Small won’t work.

He then changed the topic to energy sources. He posed the question of how bacteria gettheir food, then answered that there are three ways. He wrote heterotroph on the board. He thentried to see if any students knew this term. They did not, so he proceeded to write down the defi-nition and expand on what each part means. He did this by trying to have students relate thebacteria actions to ways that humans gather food. For example, he suggested they recall whatthey learned in health class. He then introduced phototroph. Again, he tried to draw from stu-dents what this definition was; he was successful in doing so. He did the same type of ques-tioning cycle as before. The third term was chemotroph.

Bill then entered the third column (bacteria, energy, air) and introduced the terms aerobicand anaerobic. He stated that the chart was all fair game for the test. He then indicated that itwas time to switch gears, and began discussion about the structure of bacteria.

He started this discussion with a drawing of a bacterium and its structures. Students wereasked to identify each of the structures by term and function.

Bill: Cell membrane. Any ideas?Student: Is it like a cover or something?

Bill: No.


Student 2: It allows stuff to go in and out?Bill: It allows stuff to go in and out, all right. It controls what goes in and out of

the cell. Controls what comes in and goes out. So, all the food and nutrientsand stuff like that that come in, the cell membrane controls that. All the wasteand stuff like that, the cell membrane controls that. All right, I like to think ofthis as the policeman at the jail. They let some people come in the jail, andthey don’t let everybody out. Like, it holds in the organelles and stuff like thatin, it doesn’t let virus and other bacteria in to, like, kill it.

To finish the discussion, Bill asked students to recall their prior knowledge about protozoaand flagella. He related that in bacteria the flagella point in several directions and stick out allover; they move the cell. He provided an analogy of how you might get to a pizza if you couldnot see. You would use your sense of smell to keep changing directions to get to the pizza; thepath is erratic. He stated that bacteria will do something similar to locate their food. The sen-sors inside the organism’s body will guide it on its way. He finished the day by outlining thenext class dealing with Gram stains.

The third day began with the students taking a series of notes that dealt with the procedurefor the day’s laboratory. He first reviewed the basic of the five questions from laboratory, andthe lecture on size, energy, and structure. That day’s goal was to learn how to take bacteria andprepare them for observation. He pointed out that the color on the first day of the sequence wasdue to a dye, the Gram stain. He then proceeded to give a history of the Gram stain. Bill indi-cated that he usually did not do this, but he decided to do so that day. He stated that the pur-pose for using stains with bacteria is to determine the type of material used in the cell wall. Hediscussed the use of these stains by doctors to determine the choice of antibiotics and cell iden-tification. He then introduced saffron and iodine.

The next step was a demonstration of how to do step-by-step Gram stains. He worked withthe students to develop the list of steps necessary to produce a slide to observe the bacteria; thelist was developed in part from their previous work with bacteria in making streak plates. Hethen divided the students into groups of four to begin the laboratory. The students were told towrite up a laboratory report as the outcome of the laboratory.

As students produced and looked at their slides, Bill helped them observe and checked thequality of their work. Some groups were sent back to produce a new slide. He dealt with stu-dent questions by asking them to recheck their observations. Bill’s goals for the students wereto identify the color and shape of the bacteria and determine whether the bacteria was Grampositive or negative. For example:

Student 8: How am I to get the shape?Bill: Did you look at it under the microscope?

Student 8: No.Bill: So look at that first and then try to answer the questions.

He placed a great deal of emphasis on students making and interpreting their observations.It appears that we have two contradictory examples between the two video sequences. Bill’s

presentation style during his first 2 years of teaching tended to be didactic. He acknowledgedthat his primary teaching strategy, in which students work on projects that only require factualknowledge and not understanding, was adopted from his high school teacher.

My high school biology teacher actually is where I get a lot of my ideas [for teaching].That’s the reason why I’m a biology teacher, and actually there’s another teacher right


across the hall that had him as a student teacher and we both use some of the same ideasthat we got from him.

Thus, in his first 2 years of teaching, Bill based his style on his observations of his high schoolteacher. The observed change in Bill was dramatic and raises the questions of why he changedand what guided the change. Based on Bill’s self-report, STAM appears to have had a majorrole.

STAM: An Instrument with the Potential for Change

Assertion 1: STAM Provides a Heuristic for Teachers to Reconstrue their Teaching Style.

When asked about his approaches on the first day of the third-year sequence, Bill indicat-ed that it came from his reading of STAM. He was provided with a copy of STAM in Augustprior to his third year as part of the Salish I Research Project efforts at Glass University. Thiswas done to compare Bill’s perceptions of his teaching against ours. However, in September,we found that the instrument had an effect on Bill’s teaching style, as the following conversa-tion illustrates:

I: What motivated you to teach the laboratory like you did today?Bill: STAM. STAM motivated me. I got to looking [at STAM] and I wish I had this style

[points to the experienced constructivist category]. It seems like what [studentsneed], learning on their own and not just me filling it out. Student with teacher’sguidance, where you construct how evidence are used to formulate scientific ideasand stuff like that. So you know they’re guided using their own stuff. I bet [I] guidethem where I wanted them to go with the questions, you know. I wanted [students]to know, to learn, to see how bacteria are small.

This is different from Bill’s perspective on his project work. His concern was not learning facts,but rather building concepts. His indication was that STAM provided the impetus to reconstruehis constructs for teaching and learning. He also was guided in this motivation by his beliefsabout what students need:

Bill: Of the six categories [six classifications of STAM], I would like to see myself devel-op into an experienced constructivist. This category allows for both learning throughinvestigation and learning through memorization. This type of instruction is similar towhat students will receive in college with a mixture of lab and lecture classes.

Assertion 2: STAM Stimulates Recall of Program Experiences to Aid in the Reconstruing of Teaching Style.

The question that remains is the manner in which STAM caused Bill to reconstrue his un-derstanding and actions for teaching and learning. When probed about his choice of classroomactions, he indicated:

Bill: I had never tried it before and actually I just came up with it. I had a list of whereI wanted to go and that was a question I posed at the top of my list: What does abacterium look like? I thought about it and then the question got me thinking again,and last night I kind of formulated by plan of attack on the way home from work.

I: Did you do any of this style of teaching in your methods class?


Bill: I do remember some of this stuff [use of prelaboratory assessment]. I don’t remem-ber what any of them [were called], but I remember talking about this. Probablysome to this stuff that I’m making reference to. Unfortunately, I didn’t pay attentionto this stuff, and truthfully I’m not sure that it’s important when you start out.

The interpretation of this is that Bill is recalling some of his program experiences, albeitthe recall is weak. This may be due in part to the fact that it had been 4 years since Bill had tak-en his methods courses. There is a connection to STAM in that it motivated Bill to reconstruehis teaching, and thus consider classroom actions. This process, when viewed through the lensof Kelly’s theory of personal constructs (Kelly, 1955), is indicative of recalling earlier experi-ences that align with the desired action. In this instance, it was pulling up his recollection oftechniques used in his methods courses. The memories appear not to be major episodic events,since it is apparent that he did not have clear ideas. Nonetheless, it appears that STAM helpedBill reconstrue his teaching.

Assertion 3: There Is a Time-Critical Component with the Use of Devices Such as STAM.

Despite the indicators that STAM can be useful in helping teachers reconstrue their think-ing about teaching, it may not be effective until teachers move past their beginning teachingconcerns (cf. Fessler & Christensen, 1992; Fuller, 1969; Sprinthall, Reiman, Thies-Sprinthall,1996). Bill also provided insight related to this assertion:

Bill: Starting out, it’s going to be hard to [teach in a student-centered style]. See, yourfirst year of teaching, teaching is easy. It is all the other [ job responsibilities] thatare hard. But for the first-year teacher to try to [do these type of activities] can hard-ly be done. I wasn’t coming up with ideas like this because I was too busy trying tofigure out where I could take this slip to the dean’s office, how to do attendance, and[how to] get down to the gymnasium without getting lost. But now that I’ve got acouple of years of experience I enjoy doing this . . . to try and do an activity thatmight fit into this category [points to “experienced constructivist” on the STAMscale] and see how it goes. I can see that my first year, definitely, I was didactic andgave lectures with just content and facts. But now, as you learn about how to man-age your classrooms and how to improve your teaching, you first have to learn howto manage your classroom. I was ready to roll this year [his third year of teaching].

Thus, it appears that Bill received STAM at the juncture in his career where he was readyto begin improving his teaching. STAM provided a heuristic that Bill could follow to alter histeaching style into one that focused on students. Had Bill not had access to STAM, it is possi-ble he could have developed more student-centered teaching of his own volition. However,STAM provided a model from which he could contemplate instruction and stimulate recall. Itis possible that if he had had access to this earlier, he would have begun altering his teachingstyle earlier as he learned to manage the classroom. This merits further consideration, as STAMmay provide a mechanism to retain the effect of the preservice science teacher program evenduring the first year.

Implications

This study indicates the importance of longitudinal research for investigating the effect ofscience teacher education programs. The impact of the program may not be evident until 2 or 3


years after the experience, as appeared to be the case with Bill. Information from such studiesprovides information about the development of teachers that can be used to plan interventionsand professional growth opportunities. Use of a device such as STAM provides a method ofhelping beginning teachers refocus their conceptions of teaching and learning along the lines ofeffective research-based teaching strategies, rather than allowing them to be channeled into moretraditional didactic methods of teaching (cf. Zeichner & Gore, 1990; Zeichner & Tabachnick,1981).

Furthermore, the study indicates that universities and colleges should not relinquish re-sponsibility for the professional development of teachers once they graduate from the pro-gram. Teacher preparation programs should consider provide support and transition activitiesto bridge the change from student to teacher during the critical first year of a teacher’s career.The investment in time and resources involved in training and using heuristic devices such asSTAM is minimal compared to the potential impact such university follow-up can have onthe professional development of beginning science teachers when they are most amicable tochange.

The other significant aspect of devices such as STAM is that these provide a means for sci-ence teachers to measure their success in achieving the goals for science teaching establishedby the National science education standards related to professional development. STAM pro-vides a mechanism to conduct self-assessment as well as a heuristic to guide the teacher intothe student-centered styles of teaching advocated by the Standards. This device can help fill thevoid of appropriate developmental materials that are needed to achieve the vision of the Stan-dards.

One further implication of this research is that STAM may also be of use for inservice ac-tivities that advocate the development of student-centered teaching strategies. Teachers who at-tend inservice workshops often have a long history of teaching in a traditional manner. The tran-sition to a more student-centered model of teaching is difficult, since teachers may not haveappropriate models from which to develop. STAM may provide a guide to helping experiencedteachers make a transition from teacher-centered to student-centered models of teaching.

Clearly, there is a need for further investigation of the use of STAM as a device for pro-fessional development of science teachers. A systematic study with greater control is needed tosupport or refute the exploratory findings reported in this article. The investigation is warrant-ed, as the potential to provide teachers with a device to monitor and alter their teaching style toachieve the vision of the Standards will have a long and significant effect on science education.

Note

1 The Secondary Teaching Analysis Matrix (STAM) (Gallagher & Parker, 1995; Salish I ResearchProject, 1997) is an observation rubric to classify teachers’ and students’ actions in relation to content,teachers’ actions and assessment, students’ actions, resources, environment, teacher reflection, and class-room management. STAM assists researchers in assigning a teacher to one of six teaching styles: didac-tic, transitional, conceptual, early constructivist, experienced constructivist, and constructivist inquiry, ineach of 22 dimensions that are subdivided into the categories previously identified. The rubric for eachteaching style in each of the dimensions is empirically based, deriving the divisions from the research lit-erature on classroom interactions between teachers and students, teacher knowledge and beliefs and theirimpact on the teacher, constructivist learning, and the personal experiences of the developers (J.J. Gal-lagher, personal communication, May 20, 1995); the research teams at each site in the Salish I ResearchProject concurred with the structure and content of the STAM rubric, thereby indicating content validity.Inter-site-rater reliability (Miles & Huberman, 1994), on four training videotapes was r 5 .83 using thetwo coders at the research site. Check-coding reliability (Miles & Huberman, 1994) with a time delay of


6 weeks was r 5 .86. These values are significantly greater than per chance; there are six choices for eachof the 22 dimensions. This indicates, then, that “more than one observer agrees that the perceived phe-nomena does exist” (Lauer & Asher, 1988, p. 138), supporting the reliability of this instrument. Furtherinformation on this instrument is available from the developers.

References

Adams, P.E., & Krockover, G.H. (1997a). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondaryscience and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29–50.

Adams, P.E., & Krockover, G.H. (1997b). Beginning science teacher cognition and its ori-gins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 34, 633–653.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science lit-eracy. New York: Oxford Press.

Anderson, R.D., & Mitchener, C.P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D.L.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York:Macmillan.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1995). Learning from experience: Memory and the teacher’s account ofteaching. Albany: SUNY.

Bezzi, A. (1996). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and recon-struction in geology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 179–209.

Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1987). Teachers’ knowledge structures and comprehensionprocesses. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 147–160). London: Cassell.

Cohen, G. (1989). Memory in the real world. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cunliffe, A. (1994, July). How do science teachers become professionals? Implications of

case studies of two beginning science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAustralian Education Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 376 155)

Denzin, N.K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative re-search. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

Fessler, R., & Christensen, J.C. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and guid-ing the professional development of teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental perspective. American EducationalResearch Journal, 6, 207–226.

Gallagher, J., & Parker, J. (1995, October). Secondary Teaching Analysis Matrix (STAM).East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Gallagher, J.J., & Tobin, K.G. (1991). Reporting interpretive research. In J.J. Gallagher(Ed.), Interpretive research in science education (NARST Monograph No. 4) (pp. 83–95). Man-hattan, KS: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.

Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and education. In J. Siku-la (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 548–594). New York:Macmillan.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.


Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Re-view of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.

Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1–2). New York: W.W.Norton.

Klopfer, L.E., & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Ghosts of crisis past. Science Education, 74,133–154.

Lauer, J.M., & Asher, J.W. (1988). Composition research: Empirical designs. New York:Oxford University Press.

Loughran, J. (1992). Becoming a science teacher: First year teachers’ approaches to learn-ing about teaching. Research in Science Education, 22, 273–282.

Loughran, J. (1994). Bridging the gap: An analysis of the needs of second-year scienceteachers. Science Education, 78, 365–386.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded source book: Qualitative data analy-sis (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Salish I Research Project. (1997). Secondary science and mathematics teacher preparationprograms: Influences on new teachers and their students; Instrument package and users’ guide.Iowa City, IA: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.

Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Sprinthall, N.A., Reiman, A.J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional devel-opment. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 666–703).New York: Macmillan.

Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denizen & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qual-itative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yager, R.E. (Ed.) (1993, October). Salish proposal: Linking teacher preparation outcomesand teacher performance. Unpublished manuscript, Science Education Center, University ofIowa, Iowa City.

Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York: Macmillan.

Zeichner, K.M., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education“washed out” by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 7–11.

Zeichner, K.M., Tabachnick, B.R., & Densmore, K. (1987). Individual institutional, and cul-tural influences on the development of teachers’ craft knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Ex-ploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 21–59). London: Cassell.


Documents

Stimulating constructivist teaching styles through use of an observation rubric