Teachers' behaviour and practices in the classroom

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 24 October 2014, At: 18:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Teachers' behaviour and practices inthe classroomKristín Ađalsteinsdóttir a

a Faculty of Education , University of Akureyri , Thingvallastraeti,600 Akureyri, IcelandPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Kristín Ađalsteinsdóttir (2004) Teachers' behaviour and practicesin the classroom, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48:1, 95-113, DOI:10.1080/0031383032000149869

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383032000149869

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0031383032000149869

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383032000149869

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

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

Scandinavian Journal of Educational ResearchVol. 48, No. 1, February 2004

Teachers’ Behaviour andPractices in the ClassroomKristinAdalsteinsdottirFaculty of EducationUniversity of [email protected] AD– ALSTEINSDOTTIRFaculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Thingvallastraeti, 600 Akureyri, Iceland

ABSTRACT The theory behind this study yielded the predictions that successful teacher–pupilinteraction in the classroom is essential to the educational and social development of pupils andthat teachers’ understanding of their own behaviour is therefore of paramount importance. Thestudy examined the behaviour and practices of 20 teachers, 10 in small schools and 10 in largeschools. The teachers were grouped into three categories: empathetic teachers, non-empatheticteachers and uncommitted teachers. This study contributes several significant findings to theliterature on teacher–pupil interaction in the classroom, most importantly that personal charac-teristics appear to be a good predictor of teacher competence and that there appear to berelationships between particular personal characteristics on the one hand and teachers’ classroompractices on the other. These results seemed to be unrelated to class size and schools type.

Key words: teacher–pupil interaction; empathy; teachers as persons; classroom practice

INTRODUCTION

Interaction has been defined as reciprocal communication in which each personreacts to and communicates with the other (Hargreaves, 1975). From Mead’s(1934) sociological viewpoint, the conscious mind, self-awareness and self-regu-lation are central to this interaction, and he viewed human thought, experience andbehaviour as being basically social. When people are interacting, they are constantlyinterpreting the acts of themselves and others and responding to them. Symbolicinteractionists (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969) argue that we perceive ourselvesthrough the eyes of others and that through this process we gradually come toperceive the world. Each time we enter a new social situation or relationship, welearn to behave by watching, asking and listening. Thus, behaviour is not only aresponse to stimuli from another person, but actions are constructed through sharedsymbols in a reciprocal interaction, in which we use our senses, insight and thoughts.Through this interaction, individuals may acquire the basis for cooperative andsocial activity.

Both teachers and pupils are concerned with their ‘selves’ and, as Pollard &Tann (1993) put it, each individual has a unique sense of self and a degree of freewill in acting and in developing understanding with others. Teachers’ sense of self

ISSN 0031-3831 print; ISSN 1430-1170 online/04/010095-19 2004 Scandinavian Journal of Educational ResearchDOI: 10.1080/0031383032000149869

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4

96 K. Adalsteinsdottir

is particularly important, because of the way in which it influences their perspectivesof, strategies with and actions towards children (Hargreaves, 1975; Nias, 1989).Bruner (1977) argues that the teacher is a model, that he or she is a personal symbolof the educational process, a figure with whom pupils can identify and comparethemselves. Through language, teachers and pupils express themselves, but althoughlanguage provides the key set of symbols (Hewitt, 1997), not all symbols takethe form of spoken or written words. Hall & Hall (1988) suggest that the impactof non-verbal communication is potentially much greater than that of verbalcommunication; these subtle cues can be transmitted through many different chan-nels and the ability to understand them is critical to interpersonal relationships.However, Hall and Hall claim that there is a lack of research in this field, and thenature and impact of non-verbal communication in the classroom is still poorlyunderstood.

Several research studies have provided information about teacher–pupil interac-tion in the classroom. In the UK, Cooper & McIntyre (1996) recently found thatfactors connected with pupils’ moods, attitudes and interests are the most prominentkinds of circumstantial factors to which teachers attend. Teachers in their studyfound it desirable to be open to pupils’ influences and to incorporate theseinfluences in their teaching. Some of the outcomes sought by teachers tended torelate to the affective rather than the cognitive realm, in that they represented theneed to create a classroom atmosphere that considered pupils’ feelings or orienta-tions. These factors were found to motivate pupils to engage actively in the learningprocess and to cooperate with others.

These findings are consistent with Bruner’s (1987) model of learning as atransactional process. Given an appropriate, shared social context, children seem tobe more competent as intelligent social actors than they are as individuals (Bruner,1987). However, other research on classroom interaction has yielded differentresults. Alexander’s (1992) findings, for example, indicate that teachers are notaware of the ways in which interaction may influence learning. In his study,conducted in the UK, teachers often spent a large proportion of their time inclass interacting with pupils, but two-thirds of these interactions were routine innature. One-to-one teacher–pupil interaction was brief (three per minute) and, formost of the children, it occurred infrequently. Alexander’s findings, which areconsistent with those of Croll & Moses (1985), present a picture of intensely busyteachers who emphasise the need to approach many pupils in each lesson, but onechild at a time.

In another British study, ORACLE (Observational Research and ClassroomLearning Evaluation), conducted by Galton (1989), primary school teachers wereinvolved in interaction with pupils nearly 80% of the time they were observed; 70%of these interactions were with individual children, 20% with the whole class andless than 10% with groups of children.

Thus, research has shown a high rate of brief teacher–pupil interactions in theclassroom, predominantly on an individual basis. It may be argued, however, thatthe more teachers seek to make themselves available to each pupil as an individual,the less time they have for direct and structured interaction with each child.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers’ Behaviour and Practices 97

NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION IN THE CLASSROOM

Cohen & Manion (1981) maintain that aspects of non-verbal communication are ofconsiderable importance for teacher–pupil interaction. First, non-verbal messagesare seen as reflections of actual thoughts or feelings. Second, a child’s ability to learnfrom a teacher depends upon there being a shared system of non-verbal communi-cation. Finally, new approaches to human communication are concerned with the‘whole man’, in which communication is seen as a process taking place within aframework of human relationships, but limited not only to an analysis of the source,content and reception of messages.

Non-verbal or bodily communication includes gestures, head movements, eyecontact, facial expressions and tone of voice, touch and silence, all integral parts ofpeople as persons. Facial expression and eye contact are considered to be the mostimportant non-verbal communications (Nelson-Jones, 1993).

Gamble & Gamble (1993) maintain that the effect of interaction can beemotional, physical, cognitive or any combination of these factors. Teachers can, tosome extent, be unaware of the complex details of the elements of interaction thatconstantly unfold in front of them:

The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because oftheir simplicity and familiarity. […] And this means: we fail to be struck bywhat, once seen, is most striking and powerful. (Wittgenstein, 1979)

Either intentionally or unintentionally, teachers may send messages that createdistance (Nelson-Jones, 1993). For example, a teacher may physically edge awayfrom a pupil who wishes to discuss personal concerns or a teacher can be physicallynear a pupil without being psychologically available. Egan (1985) maintains that thequality of one’s approach to other people ‘attending’ influences the quality of one’sperceptiveness. Furthermore, he claims that attending is now considered to be abasic and important helping skill.

Argyle (1975) identified several ways in which bodily movements support verbalcommunication: for example, emphasising, providing further information aboutwhat is said, illustrating, providing feedback and signalling attention (Cohen &Manion, 1981, p. 190). A relaxed body posture contributes to the message that oneis receptive (Nelson-Jones, 1993). If a teacher is tense, the pupils may consciouslyor intuitively feel that he/she is not accessible to them, creating tension in theclassroom. Egan (1985) says that relaxation means comfort with using one’s ownbody as a vehicle of contact and expression, suggesting that a relaxed teacher canbetter focus attention on pupils.

Acceptance can also be reflected in teachers’ non-verbal behaviour. Dalen(1994) maintains that acceptance is a concept that refers to the whole person in theinteraction process. To be accepted is the prerequisite of perceiving oneself as anindependent person. She claims that a child who experiences difficulties can easilyfeel different from peers and may have a greater need for acceptance from adultsthan do other children. Thus, Dalen argues, it is especially important for a teacherto acquire good listening skills and to understand the meaning behind a child’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


actions, in order to communicate in a way that helps the child to feel accepted andacknowledged.

Different types of listening make various demands upon both teachers andchildren (Pollard & Tann, 1993). Unlike hearing, listening depends on a complexset of acquired skills. The prerequisite for effective listening is effective feedback,which consists of both verbal and non-verbal messages (Gamble & Gamble, 1993)and as such is based on the ability to show empathetic behaviour.

Rogers (1980) found that when empathy, unconditional positive regard andcongruence are applied in teaching, an ease of interaction is facilitated. Rogersbelieved that too little consideration had been given to ‘empathic’ interpersonalrelations, a critical element for the understanding of personality dynamics and foreffective changes in personality and behaviour. Qualitatively, empathetic under-standing is the desire to know the full, present and changing awareness of anotherperson. It requires one to receive the communication of another; to translate thewords and signs of the other into experienced meaning that matches at least thoseaspects of the other’s awareness that are most important to the other person at themoment (Rogers, 1980, pp. 143–144; citing Barrett-Lennard, 1962). The non-ver-bal communication, the subtle interpersonal interaction and the dynamic complexityof teacher–pupil interaction may all be revealed in the teacher’s empathic behaviourand body messages. Not every teacher is capable of establishing true empatheticunderstanding with pupils. However, Thompson & Rudolph (1992) believe thatchildren, to a greater degree than adults, are sensitive to the real feelings andattitudes of others. Furthermore, non-verbal messages may be the most importantclue to what a child is really feeling and trying to communicate. Rogers & Freiberg(1994) explain that empathetic understanding is sharply different from evaluativeunderstanding. They maintain that when a teacher has the ability to understand apupil’s reactions from inside, has a sensitive awareness of a pupil’s needs and isreceptive and understands how the pupil perceives the learning, the likelihood ofsignificant learning is increased. Therefore, learning is facilitated when pupils areunderstood rather then evaluated or judged.

THE POSSIBILITY OF SMALL SCHOOLS MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALLPUPILS

The strength of small schools, it is often maintained, includes the opportunity toprovide each pupil with personal attention because of the small number of pupils onroll (Bell & Sigsworth, 1987; Galton, 1989; Miller, 1989; Galton & Patrick, 1990;Waugh, 1991; Mann, 1996). It is through the family-like interpersonal relationshipin small schools that teachers have the opportunity to know pupils more intimately,and to know their interests and particular abilities as well as their difficulties (Bell &Sigsworth, 1987; Galton & Patrick, 1990; Waugh, 1991). Hayes & Livingstone(1986) found that inclusion is less socially difficult in small schools; there is lesssensitivity to and evaluation of differences among pupils; the opportunity for theindividual pupil to join in all school activities is maximised; there are greateropportunities for participation and belonging.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


However, research has also revealed that teachers find classroom managementmore difficult in multigrade and mixed ability classes (Reid et al., 1981; Veenman etal., 1987; Eggertsdottir, 1999). Teaching in multigrade classes, a situation that oftenoccurs in small schools, calls attention to the importance of a curriculum that offersopportunities for pupils to practise a range of skills in a cross-curriculum context(Malmros & Norlen, 1984; Miller 1989; Galton et al., 1991; Waugh, 1991; Veen-man, 1995, 1996). Such an approach requires knowledge about suitable methodsfor teaching multigrade classes, as well as a thorough knowledge about individualneeds (Veenman et al., 1987; Galton, 1989; Miller, 1989; Johnson & Johnson,1994). The presence of multigrade classes should be a challenge for teachers toapply modern teaching methods befitting children who differ in age and ability;methods that acknowledge the educational, social and emotional development ofeach pupil (Veenman, 1995).

THE STUDY

The present study focuses on the observation of teachers’ non-verbal behaviour insmall and large schools, teachers’ practices in the classroom and their efforts to meetthe individual needs of all pupils. (Small schools are referred to as schools with lessthen 100 pupils.) Furthermore, semi-structured interviews were designed for thisstudy in order to explore the teachers’ perspectives and understanding of teacher–pupil interaction and learning in the classroom.

In order to achieve these objectives, the observations were designed to provideinformation on two aspects of teacher behaviour.

Teacher’s non-verbal behaviour includes the teacher’s attentive behaviour,body posture, physical openness and facial expressions, as well as appropriate use oftouch, voice, volume, articulation and vocal expression. The data, collected bystructured observation, were meant to identify the ways in which the teacher madeuse of non-verbal communication in the classroom.

Teacher’s general behaviour refers to the teacher’s methods of discipline,teaching methods and provision for children with special needs. In order to obtainan extended understanding of teacher–pupil interactions in the classroom, fieldnotes were used to record instances of the teacher’s general behaviour, including keywords, phrases and classroom atmosphere.

The semi-structured interviews with teachers in small and large schools wereintended to determine: (i) information about teachers’ understanding of pupils’needs; (ii) teachers’ understanding of their own verbal and non-verbal behaviour;(iii) teachers’ beliefs about their classroom interactions; (iv) information aboutteachers’ relationships with parents and colleagues; (v) information about teachers’beliefs about their own teaching.

Methodology

Ten small and 10 large primary schools were chosen from the 37 schools innortheast Iceland, and one teacher from each school was chosen as a participant, for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


a total of 14 female teachers and six male teachers. Lessons were different in contenttaught and actual grade levels of classrooms observed were different, as pupils were6–12 years old. The teacher selection was based on willingness to participate in thestudy, however, attempts were made to take teaching experience into account. Thelow number of teachers in the small schools in the area made it difficult to setconditions for the sample, and in some schools there was little opportunity to makeintentional choices. However, only qualified teachers were chosen for the sample.

An observation scheme was developed to observe two aspects of teachers’communications: body messages and voice messages. To strengthen the validity ofthe observations, a number of coding schemes were designed. The measurement forthe structured observation scheme was a five-point scale ranging from 1 to 5, where1 � always, 2 � often, 3 � sometimes, 4 � seldom and 5 � never. The fivedefinitions of body language and the four definitions of voice messages were asfollows.

Availability: involves the teacher’s physical and psychological orientation towardspupils. Measurement: closeness/distance.

Body posture: involves the teacher’s exhibiting relaxation or tension through bodyposture. Measurement: relaxed/tense.

Physical openness: is a measure of the teacher’s physical connection with the pupilswith whom she/he is interacting. Measurement: facing pupils/eye contact/leaning.

Facial expression: involves the teacher’s demonstration of interest in and concern forthe pupil, as well as surprise and anger. Measurements: interest/concern, surprise/anger.

Appropriate use of touch: refers to the way in which the teacher exhibits physicalcontact in his/her interaction with pupils. Measurement: touching hands/arms/shoulders.

Use of voice: refers to the teacher’s voice tone during teacher–pupil interactions in theclassroom. Measurement: speaking quickly/softly/little.

Volume: refers to the extent to which the teacher speaks loudly or quietly. Measure-ment: loud/quiet.

Articulation: refers to the distinctness and clarity of speech. Measurements: clearvoice/unclear voice, interactive/reflective voice.

Vocal expression: refers to the teacher’s use of his/her voice to express major feelingsand feeling nuances. Measurement: interested/anger/contempt/sadness/boredom.

The field notes made during the structured observation included features ofpupils’ tasks and behaviour, teachers’ comments and methods and notes on theatmosphere in the classroom, all of which were taken to represent an extendedunderstanding of classroom interactions and of teacher behaviour. Special attentionwas paid to any provisions that the teacher made for students in need of specialeducation.

The format of the interviews was semi-structured. Semi-structured interviewsallow the interviewer certain flexibility, which may be helpful under sensitivesituations that may arise during an interview. It can be difficult to analyse thoughtsand actions, but close observation and sympathetic interviewing can bring theresearcher close to the core of social interchange (Woods, 1983).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE I. Proportion of agreement actually observed (Po) and proportion ofagreement expected by chance (Pc) in the pilot testing of measures

Body messages Voice messages

Observation Po Pc Po Pc

1 0.86 0.38 0.84 0.412 0.87 0.42 0.90 0.453 0.60 0.35 0.40 0.23Average 0.77 0.38 0.71 0.36

PROCEDURE

After aspects of non-verbal behaviour had been defined and an observation schemewas designed, a pilot study was conducted in order to ensure the accuracy of theobservation and the reliability of the observation scheme. Two observers tested theobservation scheme in classrooms in order to provide an examination of themeasurements and to provide feedback on the defined codes of teachers’ behaviour.

The agreement statistic Cohen’s � was used to demonstrate point-by-pointagreement and to correct for chance. The frequency of teachers’ non-verbal behav-iour was tallied and the amount of agreement found. Proportion of agreementactually observed and proportions of agreement expected by chance are shown inTable I.

The actually observed agreement demonstrated in Table I is considerably betterthan agreement expected by chance. According to Bakeman & Gottman (1994,p. 79), in cases where there are few coding categories and disproportionate codingfrequencies, the differences between the agreement actually observed and theproportional agreement expected by chance can be quite dramatic. Therefore, thevalue of � (Table II), although respectable, can be considerably lower than the levelof actual observed agreement in this study.

The low agreement in the third observation on voice messages, shown in TablesI and II, was discussed between the observers. It was found that one of the observershad interpreted the teacher’s quiet voice as being relaxed, whilst the other observerinterpreted it as an indication of tenseness. On all the other parts of the observationscheme, this teacher was rated as very tense. Such disagreement, of course, affects�. The results of the observers’ agreement are shown in Table II.

TABLE II. Results of observers’ agreement in the pilot test

Observation Body messages (Cohen’s �) Voice messages (Cohen’s �)

1 0.77 0.722 0.77 0.823 0.52 0.21Average 0.68 0.58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


Bakeman & Gottman (1994) regard � � 0.7 as significant with some concern,but for the purpose of this study, the pilot study seemed to show that the observationscheme could be used to measure teachers’ behaviour and that the results could beregarded as reasonably reliable.

When negotiating access to the teachers, the researcher informed potentialparticipants of the aims and process of the study and explained that classroominteractions and behaviour would be observed. No reference was made to non-ver-bal measures for fear that such knowledge would exert undue influence on teachers’non-verbal behaviour (see Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, for a discussion of theissue of full disclosure).

The structured observation of teachers’ behaviour was conducted and recordedin all 20 schools in two 40-minute sessions. In addition, field notes were taken andevents recorded. Different sets of field notes were distinguished and the researchertried not to overlook details and concerns for the particular. Descriptive informationsuch as teacher–pupil dialogues was recorded, as were physical situations andexplanations of certain events. Reflective information was also included, such as theresearcher’s personal account of the course of inquiry. When the observations hadbeen conducted, semi-structured interviews were carried out. To enhance thequality of the interviews, the researcher used measures that are derived from thework of Rogers (1980): empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence.

ANALYSES

Data on teachers’ behaviour, which were collected by the structured observation,were analysed according to class size and type of class (single age, multigrade). Thedata were also analysed according to teachers’ experience and gender, and teachers’individual behaviour was analysed and compared. A range of statistical tests wasused to investigate relationships among the variables. Non-empathetic teachers’behaviour was demonstrated, as was the probability of this behaviour.

The field notes were analysed both descriptively and reflectively. A descriptionof the physical situation was carried out and events and comments were analysed.The field notes also provided detailed reflective information, as the researcher’saccount of the course of inquiry was included in the analysis.

In order to describe and explain teachers’ behaviour and actions in each type ofschool, interpretational analysis was used. This step required the detection ofconstructs and patterns in the teacher’s behaviour (Gall et al., 1996). A set ofcategories which adequately encompassed and summarised the data was developed.The categories were as follows.

Teaching Approach

Differentiation/individualistic: tasks according to each pupil’s needs and the teacherteaching each child individually (Code 3).

Whole class/individualistic: the teacher teaches the whole class for a while and thenteaches each child individually (Code 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


Whole class/same task: all pupils are provided with the same task (Code 1).

The scale ranged from 1 to 3, with 3 being the most appropriate teachingmethod and 1 the least appropriate.

Method of Discipline

Harmony: balanced atmosphere in the classroom, resulting in pupils being relaxedand concentrating on tasks (intrinsic discipline) (Code 4).

Good order: well-organised classroom and arrangements, the pupils functioningaccording to rules (extrinsic discipline) (Code 3).

Strict order: strictly organised, rules seem to be rigorous and might be inhibiting(enforced discipline) (Code 1).

Confused: classroom disorganised, resulting in pupils being distributed (lack ofdiscipline) (Code 1).

The scale ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 being the most appropriate method ofdiscipline and 1 the least appropriate.

Teachers’ Behaviour

Empathetic/encouraging: continuous awareness of pupils’ conditions, their com-munication and the meanings of words and signs, directly encouraging(Code 3).

Encouraging: directly encouraging and attending to pupils (Code 2).Distant: a lack of attention and consideration (Code 1).

The scale ranged from 1 to 3, with 3 being the most appropriate behaviour and 1the least appropriate behaviour.

Provision for Children with Special Educational Needs

IEP: pupil with special needs working according to an individualistic educationalprogramme, specially designed to pupils’ needs. The class teacher might beteaching alone or there might be a special teacher assisting (Code 2).

None: special provisions not provided (Code 1).

The scale ranged from 1 to 2, with 2 being the most appropriate provision and 1 theleast appropriate provision.

The interviews were dissected into units of analysis and sets of conceptsrelevant to the aim of the study were developed. The concepts were: pupils’individual needs, teachers’ empathetic behaviour, interactions, discipline, teachers’relationships with parents, teachers’ relationships with colleagues and teachingapproaches. The concepts were analysed by subtypes, which led to the formation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


a coding system that seeks to explain the phenomena. The data were analysedinductively from the conceptual codes, by way of ethnographic content analysis.

RESULTS

There was an average of 308.6 pupils in the large schools, compared with 56.7pupils in the small schools. Class sizes ranged from 6 (in a small school) to 25 (ina large school), with an average of 9.6 pupils in the small schools, as against 17.8 inthe large schools. Seven classes in the small schools were multigrade classes, with sixtwo-age groups and one three-age group; there was only one multigrade class in thegroup of large schools.

It is remarkable how many children in the sample were reported to have specialeducational needs. The small number of pupils in the classes, which should make iteasier to provide pupils with individual attention, does not appear to have reducedthe number of pupils with special needs (25% in small schools, as against 15% inlarge schools).

The tenure of teachers in large schools (x � 11.4 years) was significantly longerthan the tenure of teachers in the small schools (x � 5.1 years) (t � 1.73, P � 0.04).Of the 20 teachers in the sample, six (30%) were male and 14 (70%) female,reflecting the general teaching population in Iceland in general (73% females and27% males in 1997) and in northeast Iceland in particular (69% female and 31%male).

When data from the structured observations were analysed, there were fewsignificant differences in teacher behaviour as a function of type of school, size ofclass, experience or gender. Teachers of small schools were more available than wereteachers in large schools (t � 2.07, df � 18, P � 0.05). In the present context,availability refers to the physical and psychological distance the teacher maintainedwith pupils. No significant difference in teachers’ behaviour in small versus largeschools was found as a function of teachers’ body posture (relaxed versus tense) orphysical openness (facing, eye contact with and leaning towards pupils). Theteachers faced pupils (x � 2.17) and eye contact was sometimes used (x � 2.92),but teachers seldom leaned towards pupils (x � 3.46). In both types of schools,teachers showed interest (x � 1.98) and concern (x � 1.73), but no significantdifference was found in their facial expression relating to these issues. Whenobserving appropriate use of touch, no significant difference was found either, andteachers seldom touched pupils (x � 4.68) (in Iceland it is not forbidden to touchpupils). Moreover, no significant difference was found in teachers’ use of voice inrelation to their interaction with pupils in the two types of schools. Most teachersspoke softly (x � 1.67) and little (x � 1.95), but no significant difference was foundin the volume of their voice. Teachers spoke clearly (x � 1.47) and were interactive(x � 2.24) and reflective (x � 2.39), but no significant differences were found.There were no significant differences among expressions of feeling and feelingnuances: interest (x � 2.07), anger (x � 4.86) or sadness (x � 4.70).

Although there were few significant differences in the structured observations,field notes showed small versus large school differences in teacher behaviour in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


FIG. 1. Categories of teachers in small and large schools.

classroom. This difference was also found to relate to teachers’ teaching experienceand gender.

The most common teaching approach in the small schools was individualisticteaching, with all pupils working on the same task. This strategy was observed inseven classrooms (70%) in small schools, of which five were multigraded. Individu-alistic teaching was applied in four (40%) of the large schools, but differed fromwhat was observed in the small schools, since the teaching started with whole classteaching. Two teachers in the large schools taught in front of the class for over halfof the teaching time, requiring all pupils, including the four pupils with specialeducational needs, to concentrate on the same task. Differentiation, with all pupils’needs in mind, was rare in all 20 schools. In only three large school and two smallschool classrooms were all pupils given differentiated tasks according to their needs.

In five small schools and six large schools, discipline was harmonious, theatmosphere balanced and the pupils relaxed and concentrating on their tasks. Inthese classrooms the method of discipline seemed to be intrinsic. The teachersshowed empathetic and encouraging behaviour. In two small schools there was goodorder and the classroom was well organised and well arranged, but a harmonicatmosphere was not present. In these two schools, the pupils were functioningaccording to rules and the discipline seemed to be extrinsic. In two classes in eachcategory of the schools, there was a strict order; the rules seemed to be rigorous andmight have been inhibiting, as the discipline seemed to be enforced on pupils. In twoclasses in the large schools and one in a small school, a method of discipline wasmissing; although one of these teachers started the day with order, control of theclass was lost as the lesson progressed.

As appears above, the results from the field notes showed differences in teacherbehaviour, but these differences were not a function of school size or class size. Nordid teaching methods or discipline differ significantly between school categories.Nevertheless, teacher practice in the classrooms varied. In order to quantify thisdifference, teachers’ behaviour was categorised into three categories according to thedefined concepts. The categories were: empathetic teachers, non-empathetic teach-ers and uncommitted teachers (Figure 1).

As is shown in Figure 1, there were 11 (55%) empathetic teachers in thesample: six in large schools and five in small schools. These teachers showed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


FIG. 2. Teachers’ behaviour and class size.

empathetic and encouraging behaviour, they had created harmony in their class-rooms and they organised their teaching methods according to the diverse needs ofeach pupil. They demonstrated continuous awareness of pupils’ conditions and theywere attentive to their verbal and non-verbal behaviour. On the other hand, the twoteachers who were categorised as non-empathetic teachers (10%) did not showempathy or encouraging behaviour in the classroom. These teachers establishedgood order, but their use of teaching methods was monotonous. They taught thewhole class the same task and then attended to individuals.

As many as seven teachers in the sample (35%) fell into the category ofuncommitted teachers. They provided all pupils with the same task at the same timeand did not seem to consider pupils’ individual needs. They were distant ordistracted and their method of discipline was strict or, in some cases, their work wasdisorganised, resulting in confusion for their pupils.

It is noteworthy that there was no significant difference in teachers’ behaviouras a function of class size (Figure 2).

Teachers (55%) in both categories of schools created harmony in the class-room, showed empathetic behaviour, organised differentiated tasks and provided forpupils’ special needs. It is remarkable that the number of uncommitted teachers andnon-empathetic teachers teaching smaller classes was higher than the number ofuncommitted teachers and non-empathetic teachers teaching larger classes. In threeof the smallest classes with 6–10 pupils, the teachers were distant and kept strictorder and tasks did not seem to be suited to pupils’ individual needs. It also

FIG. 3. Teachers’ behaviour and length of experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


appeared that teachers with the greatest teaching experience showed the clearestsigns of exhaustion (Figure 3).

Among the respondents who had 11–20 years of teaching experience, therewere no uncommitted teachers, which seems to indicate that they are still active andinterested. Of the seven uncommitted teachers, however, five had over 20 years ofteaching experience, but the other two had taught for less than 10 years. The longerthe teachers’ working career, the more worn-out and the less motivated theyappeared to be.

The two teachers who were categorised as non-empathetic were both men, andthree of the seven uncommitted teachers were also men. Only one male teacher fellinto the group of empathetic teachers. Within this sample, female teachers showedgreater commitment to their work then did men; they seemed to be more receptiveand empathetic and they were evaluated as having organised their work in a moreprofessional manner.

The interviews revealed that five (50%) of the teachers in each type of schoolcould explain their understanding of empathetic behaviour with ease. These teachersmaintained that such behaviour is based on both verbal and non-verbal conduct.Three teachers, all with over 20 years of teaching experience, claimed that they hadnot thought about their listening skills. Some of the teachers had not considered towhich of their pupils’ needs they are most sensitive. Teachers in small and largeschools agreed on the following: teacher–pupil interaction in the classroom needs tobe discussed and teacher–pupil interaction depends on teachers’ interpersonal skills,attitude and effort. Six small school and five large school teachers were able toarticulate the ways in which they might be an example to pupils.

Teachers (in six large schools and five small schools) who had based theirmethods of discipline on discussion and negotiation were more likely to say that theytried to appeal to pupils’ sense of responsibility and respect for others. In thisenvironment, they said, pupils seem to recognise the nature of interaction.

The interviews showed that the teachers seemed to have different ways ofconceptualising special needs. Only five large school and three small school teacherssaid that the concept of special needs must be understood in broad terms andpointed out the importance of recognising that every child has special needs.

DISCUSSION

This study examined teachers’ behaviour in relation to their practice and under-standing. The study contributes several significant findings to the literature onteacher–pupil interaction in the classroom. Most important is the finding thatpersonal characteristics seem to be good predictors of teacher competence and thatthere appear to be relationships between particular personal characteristics andteachers’ practices in the classroom. Fortunately, the literature suggests that attitudechange can be accomplished through education (Hirst & Peters, 1991; Thompson& Rudolph, 1992; Rogers & Freiberg, 1994; Hart, 1996, 2000) and that attitudechange can have considerable influence on pupils’ learning (Nias, 1987; Fullan &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


Stiegelbauer, 1991; Nias et al., 1992; Butler, 1994; Carr & Krutz-Costes, 1994;Hart, 1996, 1998, 2000).

Overall, when analysed by systematic observation, no significant differencesappear in teachers’ behaviour in small and large schools. This refers to teachers’body posture, physical openness, facial expression and appropriate use of touch andvoice. However, the analysis of the field notes on teachers’ use of teaching ap-proaches, methods of discipline, empathetic behaviour and provisions for pupilswith special needs show that teachers’ individual practice and behaviour in theclassrooms varies greatly and this behaviour does not relate to the size of class or sizeof school. Not only can the reason for this be related to the generic differences of theobserved behavioural aspects, but also to the instrument used for the observation.Although the accuracy of the observation scheme had been tested and could beregarded as fairly reliable, the quantitative coding seems not to have been sufficientlysensitive. First, the recording was done with 5-minute intervals. A more frequentrecording might have been needed and it would have been preferable to carry outthe observations over a longer period of time in each classroom. This might havecreated a variety of contexts and brought the researcher closer to the core of theactivities of the classes.

However, the field notes helped to minimise the complications suggested above.By recording teachers’ behaviour, the researcher did not lose the detail of theteacher–pupil interaction or the concern for the particular (Hargreaves, 1975). Thefield notes also helped in the study of physical settings and in bringing overt andobservable behaviour into focus, which means that meaningful behaviour was notlost from view. Thus, it may be asserted that valid evidence about the actions ofthe subject of study was obvious to the observer, through both objective realityof activities and subjective meanings and symbols (Blumer, 1969). In this way,an attempt was made to take into account the meaning teachers devoted totheir interaction and this was also how questions about teachers’ actions wereanswered.

In this study there are obvious indications that teachers’ perceptions, behaviourand practice are crucial classroom factors that influence pupils’ learning and en-vironment. The results showed that the quality of teachers’ interaction with pupilsin the classroom varied greatly and seemed to be unrelated to class size. It may besuggested that these teachers would show similar behaviour and practice in any typeof class, because their behaviour seems to be linked to their confidence, experience,knowledge, skills and understanding. Just over half of the teachers were focused onthe problems of pupils who experienced learning difficulties, they showed empa-thetic behaviour, their teaching was well organised and there was harmony in theirclassrooms. However, in this study it became apparent that many teachers do notmake use of the possibilities of the small number of pupils in class in Icelandicschools. This evidence may indicate that key elements are overlooked in theirteaching: the children’s strengths, weaknesses and circumstances of learning; theinfluence of teachers’ thinking; the optimal means for achieving these goals (Nor-wich, 1990; Hart, 1996). Also, the pupils’ fundamental right to an educationis not respected (United Nations, 1994; Government of Iceland, 1995). Overall,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


teachers’ behaviour in relation to their practice in the classroom is grouped intothree categories: empathetic teachers (55%), non-empathetic teachers (10%) anduncommitted teachers (35%).

The classroom observations and interviews revealed that the positive personalqualities of teachers involve relaxation, attentiveness, listening and use of a lowvoice. Teachers with these qualities showed continuous awareness of pupils’ condi-tions and were attentive to pupils’ verbal and non-verbal behaviour. In the inter-views it emerged that the teachers who demonstrated these characteristics also hadclear perceptions of their own behaviour and their work and how they could serveas examples to their pupils; they were interested in and knowledgeable about pupils’individual needs and created appropriate programmes for the pupils and harmony intheir classrooms. Their classroom discipline appeared to be intrinsic, which waspositively reflected in pupils’ behaviour. These findings seem to be consistent withthe earlier findings of Rogers (1980), who argued that empathetic behaviour involvesthe active understanding of pupils. One small school teacher who is conscious ofusing active listening in the classroom illustrates this concept:

First of all I want to say that eye contact indicates listening. I try to makeeye contact with pupils when they are talking to me; I answer and I nodand repeat. With the help of your body language you can show that youunderstand. You can also rephrase what is said. I apply active listening byusing these skills.

Symbolic interactionists would argue that this teacher sensed her ‘self’. Theywould maintain that the empathetic teachers are aware of the expectations placedupon them and that they try to adjust their actions accordingly (Mead, 1934;Blumer, 1969). Burns (1982) has explained that teacher behaviour influences theformation of a child’s self-concept, which has been found to play a vital part inpupils’ educational achievement and engagement. The empathetic teachers demon-strated self-confidence, a trait that Burns maintains is frequently found in emotion-ally stable teachers. They seemed to allow themselves to be accepting human beings,to relate to the pupils, to consider pupils’ individual needs, to show their feelings andbe sensitive, which again may create a climate of trust in the classroom.

On the other hand, one-third of the teachers observed, those categorised asuncommitted teachers, did not show empathetic behaviour in the classroom andwere unable, in the interviews, to explain their understanding of empathetic behav-iour. Their classroom management and the quality of their interaction with thepupils were unstable. They were distant or distracted and their classroom disciplinewas either strict or missing. As a result, harmonic atmosphere in the classroom waslacking. More importantly, they had unclear ideas about their own behaviour andhow they might be serving as examples to their pupils. Although nearly three-quar-ters of these teachers had over 20 years of teaching experience, they seemed to lackself-understanding and their interaction skills were inadequate. Burns (1982) foundthat teachers’ perceptions might restrict learning opportunities. The findings of thepresent study showed that the uncommitted teachers interacted with their pupilsonly as necessary, their discipline was either strict or nonexistent and there appeared

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


to be little consideration of individual needs. In such a classroom, where the teacherneither gives nor receives, the atmosphere can become impersonal and cold (Hirst& Peters, 1991). The negative messages that their pupils observe may affect theirworth and their abilities as learners. According to Burns, such pupils may lose faithin themselves, become anxious and develop self-doubt; their communication maydeteriorate, which, in turn, can lead to other symptoms, such as aggression.

Blumer (1969) clarifies how the continuous process of interaction can influenceindividuals and how it is a basis for the cooperative activity necessary to function insociety. By taking the role of the other, the self acquires its reflexive quality andattains self-consciousness. This effect may be even more pronounced in childrenwith learning difficulties. Dockrell & McShane (1993) found that an interventionprogramme, however well organised, may fail if the relationships between child andteacher do not facilitate cooperation and participation. Only half of the teachersobserved in the small schools were focused on the problems of pupils with specialneeds; the other half obviously considered pupils’ individual needs.

Although this study supplies limited answers to the question of providing forpupils with learning difficulties, there are several findings to suggest that theempathetic teachers are able to meet the needs of all pupils and that they believe inthe potential success of all pupils. On the other hand, one-third of the teachers seemnot to have considered the educational values and the social context suitable for theindividual child. This evidence may indicate that key elements are overlooked intheir teaching: the child’s strengths, weaknesses and circumstances of learning; theinfluence of teachers’ thinking; the optimal means for achieving these goals (Nor-wich, 1990; Hart, 1996). Furthermore, in such a situation pupils’ fundamentalrights to education are not respected (United Nations, 1994; Government ofIceland, 1995).

Consistent with the findings of Rogers (1980), this evidence suggests thatteachers need not only understand the ways in which learning occurs, but also theirown behaviour and the ways in which their perceptions of the situation at a giventime can affect pupils. When a teacher has the ability to understand pupils’ reactionsfrom inside, has a sensitive awareness of pupils’ needs and is receptive to andunderstands how pupils perceive the learning experience, the likelihood ofsignificant learning is increased (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994).

None of the participants in the systematic observations and the interviews hadacquired formal training in dealing with learning difficulties. Formal education isknown to be an important factor in improving teachers’ attitudes towards theimplementation of inclusive policy, as is formally acquired knowledge about childrenwith learning difficulties (Avramidis et al., 2000). Without a coherent plan forteacher training in the educational needs of children with special educational needs,attempts to include these children in ordinary schools create a difficult situation(Avramidis et al., 2000, p. 277). The results of the present study contribute to thefindings of Avramidis and co-workers by demonstrating that inclusion occurs inde-pendently of the teacher’s knowledge of learning difficulties. The results furtherindicate that successful inclusion is largely dependent upon the teacher as a personand upon her/his interaction skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


Teaching methods in the multigrade classes that were observed in this studyseem to be monotonous. One-third of the teachers provide all pupils with the sametasks at the same time and, in accordance with earlier findings in small Icelandicschools (Harðardottir & Magnusson, 1990; Sigurgeirsson, 1991), the most commonpractice in the classroom was individual seat work. Individualistic teaching is, infact, characterised by individual seat work and the teacher spends a large proportionof his/her time in one-to-one interaction. Interaction of this kind has proved to beof little use to pupils (Alexander, 1992).

Teachers may find teaching in multigrade classes difficult (Veeman et al., 1987;Eggertsdottir, 1999). Neither initial teacher training nor in-service training inIceland have highlighted approaches for teaching multigrade classes. Therefore,teachers may lack the knowledge and understanding necessary to take a structuredapproach to differentiation within the curriculum in the learning process.

Overall, the results show that only a few teachers organise their teaching on thebasis of approaches, such as topic work and cooperative learning, that are suitablein multigrade classes. This problem is known to exist in other countries. Bennett(1994), for example, found that the social context for learning in the majority ofprimary schools in Britain is a small group, but that the typical group practice haspupils sitting together but working alone. Thus, pupils’ social development may behampered and they may miss the opportunity to experience participation, involve-ment and personal insight from joint experiences as learners.

Almost half the teachers in this study seemed to exhibit a lack of self-under-standing. Interestingly, Nias et al. (1992) found that a school’s curriculum develop-ment could not be separated from the learning of the individual teacher. Thus, therole of learner is central to the teacher’s profession. Nias and co-workers maintainthat such learning can occur as a result of a felt need to learn in interaction andcooperation with colleagues, in a situation in which teachers feel secure andemotionally supported. If such learning is meaningful and if their colleagues’support and feedback challenge teachers, it will provide a positive emotional experi-ence that affects behaviour and practice.

From Hart’s (1996) point of view, reflective practice or careful interpretation isnot sufficient for understanding pupils’ learning. She introduces the concept of‘innovative thinking’, which is partly based on teachers’ empathetic behaviour, butmainly focuses on teachers’ testing of their own thinking, as well as pupils’ inter-sub-jective meanings of behaviour and actions. Innovative thinking can help teacherstransform their concerns about children’s learning and difficulties into a newunderstanding. Innovative thinking involves empathy, a behaviour that was clearlydemonstrated by the empathetic teachers, who showed continuous awareness ofpupils’ conditions. However, Hart found that teachers who use innovative thinkinggo further in their practice as they deliberately analyse their own thinking. Throughinnovative thinking, teachers become aware of their own thinking, actions, conse-quences and moral responsibilities. To be able to intentionally consider to whatextent one’s own feelings, desires or fears may have an impact on the interpretationsof a child’s learning involves a good understanding of oneself.

What seems to be needed in the classroom is a supportive and sensitive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


atmosphere, in which teachers consider their own thinking and their own influence.There is a need for teachers who display good judgement, who respond fromgenuine consideration. As Hare (1993) said, behaviour of this kind has beenundervalued in educational circles.

Teacher training in Iceland does not ensure skilful teacher–pupil interaction. Inspite of the knowledge that an understanding of human relations theories producesa positive change in teachers’ attitudes and a corresponding positive change inclassroom climate (Thompson & Rudolph, 1992), Icelandic teacher educationprogrammes provide little if any training in human interaction skills (University ofAkureyri, 1999).

The results of this study open the possibility for future research. They also pavethe way for a type of teacher training that emphasises the manner in which learningoccurs. Equally important, this new type of training will focus on teachers’ under-standing of themselves and the ways in which their perspectives of a particularsituation at a particular time may influence their various decisions and behaviour.

REFERENCES

ALEXANDER, R. (1992). Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London: Routledge.AVRAMIDIS, E., BAYLISS, P.D. & BURDEN, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion

of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education,16, 277–293.

BAKEMAN, R. & GOTTMAN, J.M. (1994). Observing Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BELL, A. & SIGSWORTH, A. (1987). The Small Rural Primary School. A matter of quality. London: Falmer.BENNETT, N. (1994). Co-operative learning. In P. KUTNICK & C. ROGERS (Eds) Groups in Schools,

pp. 50–65. London: Cassells.BLUMER, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.BRUNER, J.S. (1977). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.BRUNER, J.S. (1987). The transactional self. In J. BRUNER & H. HASTE (Eds) Making Sense. The child’s

construction of the world, pp. 81–96. London: Methuen.BURNS, R.B. (1982). Self-concept Development and Education. London: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.BUTLER, R. (1994). Teacher communications and student interpretations: effects of teacher responses

to failing students on attributional inference in two age groups. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 64, 277–294.

CARR, M. & KURTZ-COSTES, B. (1994). Is being smart everything? The influence of student achieve-ment on teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 263–276.

COHEN, L. & MANION, L. (1981). Perspectives on Classrooms and Schools. London: Cassells.COOPER, P. & MCINTYRE, D. (1996). Effective Teaching and Learning. Teachers’ and students’ perspectives.

Buckingham: Open University Press.CROLL, P. & MOSES, D. (1985). One in Five. The assessment and incidence of special educational needs.

London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.DALEN, M. (1994). Sa Langt det er Muglig og Faglig Forsvarlig [As far as possible and professionally

reasonable; in Norwegian]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.DOCKRELL, J. & MCSHANE, J. (1993). Children’s Learning Difficulties. A cognitive approach. Oxford:

Blackwell.EGAN, G. (1985). The Skilled Helper. A systematic approach to effective helping, 3rd Edn. Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.EGGERTSDOTTIR, R. (1999). Fra namskeiði til skolastofu—rannsokn a endurmenntun kennara og

framforum i starfi [From workshop to workplace. Research on teachers’ in-service training andprofessional progress; in Islandic]. In H.S. KJARTANSSON, H. RAGNARSDOTTIR, K. INDRID– ADOTTIR

& O.J. PROPPE (Eds) Steinar i Vorðu, til Heiðurs þuriði J. Kristjansdottur Sjotugri, pp. 271–292.Reykjavik: Rannsoknarstofnun Kennarahaskola Islands.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


FULLAN, M.G. & STIEGELBAUER, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change, 2nd Edn. London:Cassells.

GALL, M.D., BORG, W.R. & GALL, J.P. (1996). Educational Research. An introduction, 6th Edn. London:Longman.

GALTON, M. (1989). Teaching in the Primary School. London: David Fulton.GALTON, M. & PATRICK, H. (1990). The debate about small schools. In M. GALTON & H. PATRICK

(Eds) Curriculum Provision in Small Primary Schools. London: Routledge.GALTON, M., FOGELMAN, K., HARGREAVES, L. & CAVENDISH, S. (1991). The Rural Schools Curriculum

Enhancement National Evaluation Project [SCENE]. London: Department of Education and Science.GAMBLE, T.K. & GAMBLE, M. (1993). Communication Works, 4th Edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.GOVERNMENT OF ICELAND (1995). Log um Grunnskola [Education Act], No. 66/1995. Reykjavik:

Government of Iceland.HALL, E. & HALL, C. (1988). Human Relations in Education. London: Routledge.HAMMERSLEY, M. & ATKINSON, P. (1983). Ethnography Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock.HARD– ARDOTTIR, M. & MAGNUSSON, S. (1990). Famennir Skolar. [Small Schools; in Icelandic]. Reyk-

javik: Menntamalaraðuneytið.HARE, W. (1993). What Makes a Good Teacher. Ontario: The Althouse Press.HARGREAVES, D.H. (1975). Interpersonal Relationship and Education, 2nd Edn. London: Routledge &

Keegan Paul.HART, S. (1996). Beyond Special Needs. Enhancing children’s learning through innovative thinking.

London: Paul Chapman.HART, S. (1998). A sorry tail: ability, pedagogy and educational reform. British Journal of Educational

Studies, 46, 153–168.HART, S. (2000). Thinking through Teaching. A framework for enhancing participation and learning.

London: David Fulton.HAYES, A. & LIVINGSTONE, S. (1986). Mainstreaming in rural communities: an analysis of case studies

in Queensland schools. The Exceptional Child, 33, 35–48.HEWITT, J.P. (1997). Self and Society. A symbolic interactionist social psychology, 7th Edn. Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.HIRST, P.H. & PETERS, S.R. (1991). The Logic of Education. London: Routledge.JOHNSON, D.J. & JOHNSON, R.T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone. Co-operative, competitive and

individualistic learning, 4th Edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.MALMROS, A. & NORLEN, C. (1984). Aldersintegrerade Klasser: forekomst och spridning. [Multi-grade

Classes: rate and frequency; in Swedish]. Stockholm: Hogskolan for Larerutbildning i Stockholm,Institutionen for Pedagogik.

MANN, P. (1996). Small Secondary Schools. National Foundation for Educational Research in Englandand Wales.

MEAD, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.MILLER, B.A. (1989). The Multigrade Classroom: a resource handbook for small, rural schools. Portland, OR:

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.NELSON-JONES, R. (1993). Practical Counselling and Helping Skills. How to use the lifeskills helping model,

3rd Edn. London: Cassells.NIAS, J. (1987). Seeing Anew: teachers’ theories of action. Victoria: Deakin University.NIAS, J. (1989). Primary Teachers Talking. London: Routledge.NIAS, J., SOUTHWORTH, G. & CAMPBELL, P. (1992). Whole School Curriculum Develpoment in the Primary

School. London: Falmer.NORWICH, B. (1990). Reappraising Special Needs Education. London: Cassells.POLLARD, A. & TANN, S. (1993). Reflective Teaching in the Primary School. A handbook for the classroom,

2nd Edn. London: Cassells.REID, M.I., CLUNIES-ROSS, L.R., GOACHER, B. & VILE, C. (1981). Mixed Ability Teaching: problems and

possibilities. Windsor: NFER–Nelson.ROGERS, C. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4


ROGERS, C. & FREIBERG, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn, 3rd Edn. New York: Macmillan College.SIGURGEIRSSON, I. (1991). The role, use and impact of curriculum materials in intermediate level

Icelandic classrooms, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sussex.THOMPSON, C.L. & RUDOLPH, L.B. (1992). Counselling Children, 3rd Edn. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.UNITED NATIONS. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.

World Conference on Special Needs: Access and Quality. Salamanca: United Nations.UNIVERSITY OF AKUREYRI (1999). Kennsluskra Haskolans a Akureyri, 1999–2000 [Curriculum of the

University of Akureyri, 1999–2000]. Akureyri: Haskolinn a Akureyri.VEENMAN, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age classes: a best-evi-

dence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 319–381.VEENMAN, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered. Review of Educational

Research, 66, 323–340.VEENMAN, S., VOETEN, M. & LEM, P. (1987). Classroom time and achievement in mixed age classes.

Educational Studies, 13, 75–89.WAUGH, D. (1991). Implementing educational change in the small primary school. In Aspects of

Education. Studies in education. Kingston upon Hull: University of Hull Institute of Education.WITTGENSTEIN, I. (1979). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.WOODS, P. (1983). Sociology and the School. An interactionist viewpoint. London: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

8:33

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Teachers' behaviour and practices in the classroom