Citation
The effects of teacher preparation on classroom performance of beginning teachers in special and general education

Material Information

Title:
The effects of teacher preparation on classroom performance of beginning teachers in special and general education
Creator:
Eisele, Mary Robertson, 1963-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 144 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Beginning teachers ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Educational activities ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teacher education ( jstor )
Teacher evaluation ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
First year teachers ( lcsh )
Special Education thesis, Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 135-142).
General Note:
Vita.
General Note:
Typescript.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mary Robertson Eisele.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023806915 ( ALEPH )
35737224 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER PREPARATION
ON CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE
OF BEGINNING TEACHERS
IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATION













By

MARY ROBERTSON EISELE














A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1996









^o^""---Y




THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER PREPARATION
ON CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE
OF BEGINNING TEACHERS
IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATION
By
MARY ROBERTSON EISELE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1996
ofROBUE*M"ES


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
They say it takes a whole village to raise a child.
Similarly, I found that it often takes family, friends, and
colleagues to reach the completion of a Ph.D. program. This
study was conducted with the assistance and support of
numerous individuals. My sincerest gratitude is extended to
all those who contributed.
First, the teachers and students who participated in
this study deserve an enormous amount of credit. Without
their willingness to allow me into their classrooms and their
flexibility in scheduling observations and interviews, this
study could never have been conducted. Their willingness to
participate in a study that may assist in better prepared
teachers for tomorrow's students is admirable. The hours I
spent in these classrooms has had a profound effect on my
views of the teaching and learning process.
This study was supported, in part, through Project
SEART-C at the University of Florida. I wish to thank Dr.
Paul Sindelar and Dr. Mary Sue Rennells for their guidance
and continued support throughout this project.
I wish to thank past and present doctoral students who
have endured, alongside me, all the trials and tribulations
of the doctoral program. Thanks, especially, to Dr. Maria
Blanes, Dr. LuAnn Jordon, Penny Travis, and Dr. David Allsopp
ii


for your support and continued encouragement that it can be
done! I owe a very, special thanks to Dr. Holly Lane. If it
were not for your persistence over the past year, I may still
be writing. Your support, encouragement, and friendship has
helped me over the last few obstacles and for that I will
always be grateful. I am sure that our grandparents are
looking upon us with smiling faces!
I wish to give a special thanks to Dr. Ann Daunic. She
gave so much of her time and talents to make this study
possible. Her critical assistance during this study is
immeasurable. Thanks for helping me to keep things in
perspective, for the endless support and laughs, and for the
many restaurant discussions. I hope that in the future we
can work together again.
The support and assistance that my committee provided
from my courses through the final submission of the
dissertation is endless. Drs. Karen Kilgore and Mary
Brownell, both early in their careers as teacher educators
and researchers themselves, have served as role models for me
throughout my program. Dr. Kilgore listened to me, gave me
direction, and encouraged me to remain close to teachers in
the field. With her unique position on Project PART, Dr.
Kilgore influenced many of my thoughts about collaboration
among teachers, schools, and universities. Dr. Brownell has
consistently challenged me to examine issues from many
different perspectives. Dr. Cary Reichard has guided me
through the doctoral program by remaining a steady influence


with lots of enthusiasm. Dr. Linda Lombardino encouraged me
to expand my interest in beginning reading and provided me
with ideas and resources that I have shared with many
preservice and inservice teachers. I am deeply indebted to
Dr. Patricia Ashton for her assistance and input throughout
this study. With her expertise and vision, Dr. Ashton
inspired me to conduct teacher education research.
My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Cecil Mercer, who
has been a teacher, a mentor, a colleague, and a friend. As
an undergraduate and master's student, Dr. Mercer served as a
role model for the power of teaching. His philosophy of
always doing what is best for students has remained with me
for many years. As my committee chairman, Dr. Mercer has
used his kindness, intellect, and humor to guide me through a
challenging program. You have and will continue to be a
powerful influence in my career as a teacher educator.
Finally, and most important, the love, support, and
encouragement that I have received from my family and close
friends have made this endeavor possible. My thanks to the
Mullins' family, my home away from home, your support has
been limitless. I express my deepest thanks to my parents
who instilled in me the importance of education and the
belief that I could accomplish anything. Most of all, I
thank Andrew. You have given me more love, patience, and
support than imaginable.
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Rationale for the Study 2
Scope of the Study 3
Delimitations 3
Limitations 3
Definition of Terms 4
Overview 6
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
Teacher Preparation 7
Differences in Preparation 7
Differences Between Teachers 9
Beginning Teacher Literature 10
Relevant Literature 11
Preactive 11
Interactive 13
Postactive 16
Limitations of Existing Research 17
Assessment of Beginning Teachers 18
Conclusions 19
Teacher Development Theory 20
Teachers' Developmental Stages 20
Summary of Developmental Stages 25
Teacher Evaluation 26
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation 26
Methods of Teacher Assessment 28
Teacher ratings 28
Self-assessments 29
Student achievement 29
Portfolio assessment 30
Simulations/performance exercises 30
Paper-and-pencil tests 31
Classroom observation 32
Summary 35
v


Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments 36
Purpose 36
Stage 1 38
Stage 2 38
Stage 3 38
Guiding Conceptions and Assessment Principles ... 39
Instrument Development 40
Praxis III Framework 42
Domain A: Organizing content knowledge
for student learning 42
Domain B: Creating an environment for
student learning 43
Domain C: Teaching for student learning... 43
Domain D: Teacher professionalism 44
Reflection and Performance 44
Assessment and Professional Development 45
Implications for Research 46
III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 48
Introduction 48
Description of the Null Hypothesis 48
Methods 49
Description of the Subjects 49
Sampling Procedures 49
Description of the Research Instrumentation 51
Data Collection Procedures 51
Validity and Reliability 52
Knowledge base 53
Criterion development 54
Description of the Procedures 55
Assessment Cycle 55
Preobservation interview 56
Classroom observation 56
Postobservation interview 57
Recording/scoring of evidence 57
Assessor Training 57
Treatment of the Data 59
IV RESULTS 60
Introduction 60
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics 61
Criterion and Domain Scores 63
Test of Hypothesis 65
Sources of Significant Differences 67
Criterion A3 67
Criterion B1 68
Criterion B4 68
Criterion C3 69
Criterion D3 70
Summary 71
vi


V DISCUSSION 72
Overview of Research Findings 72
Implications of the Research Findings 74
Theoretical Implications 74
Implications for Beginning Teacher Knowledge
Base 75
Preactive 76
Interactive 77
Postactive 79
Implications for Teacher Education 80
Limitations 84
Suggestions for Future Research 86
Summary 87
APPENDICES
A PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA 89
B QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSOR REFLECTION 91
C CANDIDATE PROFILE 99
D LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS 102
E PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT 104
F RECORD OF EVIDENCE 106
G PRAXIS III SCORING RULES AND MATRICES 107
H CLASS PROFILE 126
I INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE 129
J PREOBSERVATION INTERVIEW 131
K POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW 133
REFERENCES 135
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 143
vii


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER PREPARATION
ON CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE
OF BEGINNING TEACHERS
IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATION
By
Mary Robertson Eisele
August 1996
Chairman: Cecil D. Mercer
Major Department: Special Education
Examining the performance of first-year classroom
teachers may be a useful way to determine the effects of
teacher preparation on those teachers' abilities to meet the
demands of their profession. This study is an examination of
effects of teacher preparation on the classroom performance
of beginning teachers in general and special education.
Several key aspects of classroom performance were examined:
(a) organizing content knowledge for student learning, (b)
creating an environment for student learning, (c) teaching
for student learning, and (d) teacher professionalism.
Assessments using Praxis III: Classroom Performance
Assessment were conducted on beginning teachers in special
education (N=25) and general education (N=22). Each
assessment cycle consisted of a preobservation interview, an
viii


observation, and a postobservation interview. Each teacher
was scored on the 19 criteria of Praxis III.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a
significant difference between general and special education
teachers. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were
conducted for each criterion. Significant differences
between general education and special education teachers were
detected on a total of 5 criteria on Praxis III. General
educators scored significantly higher on measures of a
teachers' ability (a) to demonstrate an understanding of the
connection between the content that was learned previously,
the current content, and the content that remains to be
learned in the future, (b) to encourage students to extend
their thinking, and (c) to build professional relationships
with colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate
learning activities for students. Special educators scored
significantly higher on criterion related to the creation of
a climate that promotes fairness and to establishing and
maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior.
Several implications for beginning teaching research and
teacher preparation emerge from these findings. This
approach to beginning teacher assessment promotes the
formation of a more complete picture of teaching and learning
in context. The emergence of research on the differences
between beginning general and special education teachers may
be especially useful to teacher educators as they could
IX


revise programs to better prepare preservice teachers for the
demands of their classrooms.
x


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem
Changes in society are reflected in schools today. The
demands of classroom teaching are different from what they
were even a few years ago. A clear understanding of the
demands of the teaching profession should drive the
development and refinement of teacher preparation programs.
Since the passage of Public Law 94-142 (Education of the
Handicapped Act) in 1975, schools have been charged with the
mission of educating all children and youth equitably.
Recent trends in the education of students with mild learning
and behavior problems have prompted an increase in
collaborative efforts between general and special education
teachers (Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Pugach & Johnson, 1989).
This type of collaboration, however, requires the joining of
groups of professionals who have differences in professional
knowledge structures due to the distinctive orientations of
general and special education teacher preparation (Sindelar,
et al., 1995). Traditionally, general education preparation
has focused on pedagogical and curricular concerns. In
contrast, special education preparation has emphasized
instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and
behavior management. A greater understanding of the
1


2
similarities and differences between the demands of teaching
in general and special education has implications for teacher
education programs.
Information that could lead to a clearer understanding
of the demands of teaching in general and special education
could come from a variety of sources. One source of
information would be the classroom performance of teachers in
general and special education. Examining the performance of
first-year classroom teachers may be a useful way to
determine the effects of teacher preparation on those
teachers' abilities to meet the demands of their profession.
Very little research has examined the effects of teacher
preparation on teacher performance.
Research emerging from teacher development theory has
provided a foundation for understanding teacher concerns at
the initial stages of development. At least two limitations
of this research are evident: (a) the research has been
conducted primarily with general education teachers and (b)
the effects of teacher preparation on teacher development
have received little attention. Teacher concerns at the
initial stages of teacher development may be different for
the two groups of teachers due to the differences in teacher
preparation.
Rationale for the Study
This study examines how differences in general and
special education teacher preparation programs affect the
ability of teachers to meet the demands of their classrooms.


3
The central purpose of the study was to compare the effects
of teacher preparation on the classroom performance of
beginning teachers in general and special education. Several
aspects of beginning teachers' classroom performance were
examined: (a) organizing content knowledge for student
learning, (b) creating an environment for student learning,
(c) teaching for student learning, and (d) teacher
professionalism.
Scope of the Study
This study was conducted within a limited scope. The
delimitations and limitations of this research are described
in the following sections.
Delimitations
This study was delimited by geographical location to
districts within the state of Florida. The research
participants were 47 first-year teachers who had graduated
from a teacher preparation program at one of four state
universities in Florida. Participant selection did not
include consideration of graduates of the other five state
universities. Additionally, several districts were
eliminated from the sample pool due to the time and expense
required to travel to them.
Limitations
This study was conducted with beginning general and
special education teachers during the second semester of
their first year of teaching. The teachers' beliefs, skills,
and knowledge prior to entering a teacher preparation program


4
were unknown and may have influenced the results of this
study. The nature of voluntary participation by the teachers
may further limit this study. In addition, differences in
teacher preparation programs were not assessed.
Consequently, differences between special and general
education teachers may or may not have been attributable to
differences in specific university programs. Finally, the
results of this study may not be generalized to teachers of
middle and high school students or teachers who graduated
from unified teacher preparation programs.
Definition of Terms
An understanding of the literature and procedures
discussed in this study requires a clarification of
terminology. The terms defined in this section are needed
for interpretation of this study.
Teacher assessment and teacher evaluation refer to a
multifaceted process that considers the way a teacher
performs a variety of tasks within a context, the meaning of
their performance in terms of that context, and often a
likely explanation for those performances. These terms will
be used interchangeably for the purposes of this study.
Beginning teacher and first-year teacher describe an
individual who is currently in the first year of teaching.
Experienced teacher is an individual who has typically
taught more than one year but does not necessarily imply that
the teacher is competent.


5
Teacher competence is the repertoire of competencies a
teacher possesses. As a teacher comes to possess more
competencies, it is said the teacher has become more
competent (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990).
Teacher competency is any single knowledge, skills, or
value position. The possession of these competencies is
believed to be related to teacher effectiveness.
Competencies refer to specific knowledge, behaviors, and
beliefs but not to the effects of these attributes on
students (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990).
Teacher effectiveness is the effect that the teacher's
performance has on pupils. Teacher effectiveness depends not
only on competence and performance, but also on the responses
pupils make. Effectiveness is defined in terms of the scores
the teachers' students achieve on tests or similar measures.
Just as competence cannot predict performance cannot predict
outcomes under different situations (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990) .
Teacher performance refers to the actual behavior of the
teacher while teaching. Teacher performance is specific to
the job situation; it depends on the competence of the
teacher, the context in which the teacher works, and the
teacher's ability to apply his or her competencies at any
given point in time (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990).
Teacher preparation program and teacher education
program are university programs designed with legal
authorization to prepare teachers. These terms will be used
interchangeably for the purposes of this study.


Overview
An investigation of the effects of teacher preparation
6
(special and general education) on beginning teachers'
classroom performance is the focus of this study. Chapter II
provides a review and analysis of relevant professional
literature in the areas of teacher preparation, beginning
teaching, teacher development theory, teacher evaluation, and
Praxis III. Chapter III presents a description of the
methods and procedures used in this study. The results
obtained from the Praxis III assessments are discussed in
Chapter IV. Chapter V includes (a) a discussion of the
results as they relate to previous research, (b) implications
for teacher development theory, beginning teaching knowledge
base, and teacher education, (c) limitations of the research,
and (d) recommendations for future research.


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Chapter II includes a summary and analysis of the
literature on teacher preparation, beginning teaching,
teacher development theory, teacher evaluation, and Praxis
III. The chapter concludes with a summary of the research
findings.
Teacher Preparation
Differences in Preparation
Pugach (1992) proposed that special educators and
elementary educators historically have held different
assumptions about teaching, learning, and teacher and student
roles. She added that basic organizing structures and
beliefs governing the two programs remain distinctly
different.
The origins of special education were closely tied to
psychology, in particular behavioral psychology. Through
this association, special education has established a firm
foundation in positivistic, behavioral approaches (Sindelar
et al., 1995). These approaches emphasize skill-based
instruction, rather than holistic instruction. Tasks are
broken into small units that are taught in isolation and
reformed to create a whole. Teacher educators of special
education have traditionally prepared teachers to focus on
student competencies within categories of disability. The
7


content of special education courses has emphasized almost
exclusively the individual and individual pathology.
Although general and special education teacher preparation
programs tend to address the same content and readings, which
adds coherence to the curricula, special education programs
seldom address curriculum beyond the teaching of reading and
basic mathematics (Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993) In addition,
through a comprehensive study of teacher education, Goodlad
(1993) found that students in special education teacher
education programs expressed more confidence in their
abilities in individualized instruction and behavior
management.
Conversely, teacher educators in general education
traditionally have emphasized group process, rather than
individual student needs. Students in general education
teacher education programs perceived themselves as ill
equipped to deal with children with disabilities,
particularly in areas of individualized instruction and
behavior management (Goodlad, 1993). Preparation in general
education focuses on the scope and sequence of curriculum,
and more recently, holistic approaches to teaching and
learning. Traditionally, general education teacher
preparation programs have emphasized instructional methods
that can be described as implicit. These methods include
child-determined exploration, discovery learning, and
procedural knowledge instruction (Swanson & Cooney, 1991).
In contrast, special education teacher preparation programs


have emphasized explicit methods of instruction. These
methods of instruction include direction instruction
9
(Camine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1990; Engelmann, Camine, &
Steely, 1991; Gersten, Camine, & Woodward, 1987), learning
strategies (Schumaker & Deshler, 1992; Swanson, 1989),
classwide peer tutoring (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989;
Maheady, 1991), and declarative knowledge instruction
(Swanson & Cooney, 1991).
Differences Between Teachers
Researchers have long recognized the differences between
general education and special education teacher preparation;
however, they have neglected the role of differences in
teacher education programs in the development of teacher
differences. Little is known about the knowledge possessed
by general and special education teachers about instruction,
especially for diverse learners. Blanton, Blanton, and Cross
(1994) conducted one of the first studies to investigate
similarities and differences between general and special
education teachers in how they think and make instructional
decisions. They reported that general and special education
teachers responded similarly when they identified student
strengths and the strategies they would use to provide
instruction. Yet the two groups of teachers differed in
their explanation of why they would use the strategy and
their roles in working with the student. Blanton et al.
suggested that special education teachers may possess a more
complex organization of knowledge from which they interpret


10
learning problems. This expanded knowledge base may allow
special education teachers to better identify and interpret
problems.
The differences in the instructional practices of
general and special education teachers appears to be based on
the differences in teacher preparation. Very little research
has examined the effects of teacher preparation on teacher
performance. This study examines how different program
philosophies and orientations (i.e., general education and
special education) affect the performance profiles of program
graduates.
Beginning Teacher Literature
Sound assessments for beginning teachers must be
grounded in the research on teaching (Reynolds, 1992) By
documenting what is known about effective teachers and
particularly beginning teachers, assessment developers can
begin to specify what aspects of teaching should be
addressed. A review of the literature should be helpful in
addressing the following questions. What is competent
beginning teaching? What should we expect beginning teachers
to be able to do? Is the knowledge base of beginning
teachers different from experienced teachers? Should
assessments for beginning teachers and experienced teachers
differ?
Educational research uses a number of different methods
of inquiry. These different ways of studying teaching can
contribute to the definition of competent beginning teaching


11
(Fenstermacher, 1986) Therefore, the literature for this
section represents major research programs that provide the
bulk of research on teaching (Shulman, 1986). These research
programs include process-product research, time and learning,
pupil cognition and the mediation of teaching, classroom
ecology, teacher cognition and decision making, and types of
knowledge (Wittrock, 1986).
Relevant Literature
Regardless of subject-matter, grade level, or
instructional method, teaching tasks can be divided into
three broad domains: preactive, interactive, and postactive
(Reynolds, 1992). Jackson (1968) identified preactive tasks
as that phase of teaching in which the teacher develops an
appropriate lesson plan or strategy and also sets objectives
for the lesson. Jackson called the implementation of this
lesson and objectives the interactive phase of teaching.
Postactive tasks include reflections after a teaching episode
as well as steps to improve teaching (Clark & Peterson,
1986) Although these domains are distinct, the tasks
included may occur simultaneously or sequentially. The rest
of this section draws from a comprehensive analysis of
reviews of effective teaching and studies of learning to
teach, regardless of the teaching context (i.e., grade level,
subject matter).
Preactive. Research involving preactive teaching tasks
are typically descriptive in nature and focus on lesson or
strategy planning. Methods of inquiry in the thought


12
processes of a teacher may include thinking aloud, stimulated
recall, and journal keeping (Clark & Peterson, 1986). There
are key differences in the preactive tasks of beginning and
more experienced teachers. When planning a lesson, more
experienced teachers relate new information to students in a
way that connects to what their students already know (Porter
& Brophy, 1988). Experienced teachers' instruction of new
information is frequently integrated across content areas
(Porter & Brophy, 1988). Experienced teachers also choose
activities that take into consideration their students'
developmental levels, achievement levels, interests, and
background experience (Brophy & Good, 1986; Christenson,
Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1989; Corno & Snow, 1986). Becoming
familiar with students allows experienced teachers to set
appropriate expectations and clear learning goals (Brophy &
Good, 1986; Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978). Similarly, these
teachers set appropriate expectations for themselves and
believe that they can affect the learning of students;
whereas beginning teachers question their impact on student
achievement (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992) .
Most teacher planning involves the use of curricular
materials. Competent teachers select curricular materials
that are appropriate for the students' level and needs as
well as their interests. Typically, experienced teachers
take advantage of available materials and spend more time on
enriching the content (Porter & Brophy, 1988) Beginning
teachers have difficulty with the connection between


13
curricular material and instruction (Clark & Peterson, 1986).
Effective teachers are more consistent with evaluation of
student progress than beginning teachers (Porter & Brophy,
1988; Zigmond, Sansone, Miller, Donahoe, & Kohnke, 1986).
One major influence on teachers' preactive tasks is the
knowledge of their students. Experienced teachers give more
consideration to a student's prior knowledge of subject and
academic performance than do beginning teachers (Corno &
Snow, 1986; Fogarty, Wang, & Creek, 1983; Shulman, 1989).
Beginning teachers are more impractical about student
differences and view these differences as problematic
(Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, & Berliner, 1988; Fogarty,
Wang, & Creek, 1983; Shulman, 1989) .
In summary, the knowledge of subject-matter and students
underlies good planning. Experienced and beginning teachers
appear to differ in the depth of these types of knowledge.
Beginning teachers are less apt to consider subject-matter
and student differences in their planning.
Interactive. Most of the research on teaching entails
interactive teaching tasks, rather than preactive or
postactive ones. This is largely due to the popularity of
classroom observations as a source of assessment. The
interactive domain of teaching is the actual implementation
of a lesson or strategy. During this time, the teacher is
actively engaged with the students and content. Interactive
teaching tasks consists of (a) creating/managing the learning


14
environment, (b) presenting subject matter, and (c)
evaluating student learning (Reynolds, 1992).
When creating an environment for student learning,
competent teachers view themselves as classroom managers
(Brophy & Good, 1986). They possess positive qualities such
as withitness, empathy, and rapport (Brophy & Good, 1986).
As a classroom manager, the competent teacher establishes and
maintains consistent rules and routines (Doyle, 1986; Brophy
& Good, 1986; Zigmond et al., 1986). In matters of
discipline, competent teachers ignore minor misbehavior and
deal with severe disruptions through a variety of means.
Conversely, beginning teachers generally have difficulty with
discipline and maintaining consistent standards of behavior
(Doyle, 1986) Researchers reason that beginning teachers
spend time primarily on solving problems, whereas competent
teachers define the problem and evaluate possible solutions
(Reynolds, 1992) When determining the best instructional
arrangement (e.g., small group, peer tutoring, individualized
instruction), competent teachers base their decision on how
best to accomplish the goals of the lesson (Doyle, 1986;
Reynolds, 1992) Beginning teachers have difficulty in their
selection of instructional grouping for given goals and
students. Moreover, beginning teachers seem unable to
ascertain what makes a lesson efficient.
The successful presentation of subject matter relies on
the quality of a teacher's subject-matter knowledge and
pedagogical-content knowledge (Shulman, 1987) Beginning


15
teachers often have low levels of pedagogical-content
knowledge (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987). Competent
teachers use their pedagogical-content knowledge to assess
the readiness of their students before beginning new subject
matter. They focus on their students' preconceptions and
misconceptions. In turn, competent teachers use this
information to adapt the level and pace of instruction
(Christenson, Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1987) Further,
experienced teachers vary their teaching strategies in
response to the ability levels of students more than
beginning teachers (Corno & Snow, 1986) .
The lessons of competent teachers typically have common
characteristics, including clear expectations, appropriate
pacing, new learning related to prior learning, maintained
flow of activity, frequent monitoring of performance, and
feedback (Brophy & Good, 1986; Gersten, Camine, & Woodward,
1987; Zigmond et al., 1986). Beginning teachers may not
demonstrate this consistency in their instructional routines
because routines are not yet developed (Reynolds, 1992) .
Competent teachers use certain aspects to actively engage
students in lessons, which include orientation to the lesson,
guided practice, development of metacognitive strategies, and
effective questioning techniques (Gersten, Camine, &
Woodward, 1987; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Swanson, 1989; Zigmond
et al., 1986). When beginning teachers respond to students
experiencing difficulty in a lesson they generally do not
link the concept to related concepts (Borko & Livingston,


16
1989). They are also less effective in questioning
strategies and tend not to use this information to improve
their teaching (Reynolds, 1992) .
Competent teachers maintain consistent procedures for
monitoring student progress and have interventions to improve
student learning. They hold students accountable for
assignments and give clear expectations (Christenson,
Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1987; Porter & Brophy, 1988) When
evaluating student work, competent teachers look for
completeness and accuracy, give feedback promptly, and
encourage self monitoring (Zigmond et al., 1986). In
addition, multiple forms of assessment are used to evaluate
their students.
Postactive. Competent teachers reflect on their own
teaching as well as student responses (Porter & Brophy, 1988;
Schn, 1987) They use multiple forms of assessment to help
improve their teaching. The major distinction between
beginning and expert teachers is that novice teachers'
reflections are less focused than expert teachers'
reflections (Borko & Livingston, 1989). Beginning teachers
highlight events during the lesson such as their clarity of
examples used in the presentation or student participation;
whereas expert teachers target student understanding and
rarely mention their own effectiveness (Reynolds, 1992) .
Little evidence is available on the connection between
competent teaching and other postactive teaching tasks, which
include interaction with colleagues, affiliation with


17
organizations, enrollment in courses, and participation in
school activities (Reynolds, 1992) .
Limitations of Existing Research
Regardless of the method used to study effective
teaching, problems and criticisms abound. First, the
effective teaching literature, while the most vigorous and
productive of research programs, relies heavily on
correlational findings (see Brophy & Good, 1986) In the
effective teaching research, the absence of an explanatory
theory of the relationships between teacher behavior and
student performance has been criticized. Critics of this
research typically sought to develop programs of research in
which a mediating variable (i.e., student as mediator of
instruction) was examined. Further limiting the effective
teaching research is the lack of varied settings. Most of
the studies were conducted in elementary grades with the
focus on reading and mathematics achievement.
A second limitation is research on teaching has largely
been conducted by researchers interested in teaching.
Omitted from this literature are studies by teachers and
teachers' perspectives on effective teaching. Teachers often
cite affective areas such as enhancing self-esteem and
meeting emotional needs as imperative jobs of elementary
teachers (Reynolds, 1992). Research on teaching, however,
tells us very little about the importance of these tasks.
Third, assessment developers cannot assume that the
findings of correlational and descriptive research give the


18
entire view of teaching. The value of educational research
is to help us understand and learn about a limited range of
educational phenomena, particularly when research is done
well. Continued research on effective teaching and learning
to teach will only improve our understanding of competent
beginning teaching.
Assessment of Beginning Teachers
Few would argue that beginning teachers need assessment
to a greater extent than experienced teachers. Fortunately,
beginning teachers are more likely to support teacher
assessments because of their initial positive attitudes
(Peterson, 1990). Peterson (1990) described four problems of
evaluation faced by beginning teachers. First, many
assessments are inaccurate and provide limited feedback to
the teachers. Second, principals have been given the
contradictory roles of judge and supporter. Third, formative
and summative evaluations are generally administered at the
same time and often by the same assessor. Fourth, the
feedback given to beginning teachers is generally not used to
shape their professional development plans. Recent
innovations of assessment systems enhance the effectiveness
of teacher assessment for beginning teachers (Peterson,
1984) One of these innovations is the increasing popular
use of multiple data sources. No single line of evidence can
provide a comprehensive picture of what a competent beginning
teacher does (Medley et al., 1984). Current data sources for
assessment may include systematic observation, documentation


19
of professional activities, teacher tests, parent surveys,
pupil achievement data, peer review, and other individualized
data (Peterson, 1990).
Researchers have offered a few suggestions for beginning
teacher assessment. First, the time of formal evaluation is
important. Reynolds (1992) stated that beginning teachers
need time at the beginning of the school year to develop an
understanding of their students and the culture of their
school. Evaluation of competence should begin after a
semester of full-time teaching. A second suggestion is
beginning teacher assessments should be tailored to the
specific population (i.e., beginning teachers) under
consideration (Berliner, 1989). Those assessing beginning
teachers need an instrument that is capable of capturing the
best teaching as well as allowing for the struggles that
beginning teachers are inevitably going to face. The current
pass/no pass systems are not flexible enough to distinguish
among different levels of teaching. A system is needed that
is flexible enough to weigh different competencies, depending
upon whether the competencies would be apt to develop or
should have been attained through preservice training.
Conclusions
After her review of the research on effective teaching
and studies of learning to teach, Reynolds (1992) concluded
"beginning teachers often lack an adequate knowledge base of
understandings to perform teaching tasks in an effective
manner" (p.5). Beginning teachers differ from experienced


20
teachers not only in a knowledge base but on the needs of
assessment. Some considerations for assessment of beginning
teachers include (a) the use of multiple data sources, (b)
judgments of teacher performance, (c) teacher involvement,
and (d) feedback tied to professional development (Berliner,
1990) .
Teacher Development Theory
Knowledge of the developmental characteristics that
teachers exhibit during their careers can provide educators
with an understanding of the abilities and inadequacies of
teachers during different stages. Information about these
stages can serve as a foundation for (a) improving preservice
teacher education programs, (b) improving staff-development
programs, and (c) improving the assessment of teacher
performance.
Teachers' Developmental Stages
Several research studies have provided detail
descriptions of the various stages of teacher development.
The most prominent of these studies was conducted by Frances
Fuller and her colleagues (Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Bown,
1975) Through her own research and reviews of similar
studies, Fuller concluded that teachers progress through four
stages in the process of becoming a teacher. The first stage
is the preteaching phase in which preservice teachers cannot
identify with teachers but rather more closely identify with
the pupils. In the second stage, or the early teaching
phase, teachers are primarily concerned with survival as
A


21
teacher along with some concern for the content of lessons
and class control. The third stage is characterized by the
teachers' concerns about their teaching performance and
situational demands that may be limiting or frustrating. In
the fourth stage teachers begin to show more concern for
their pupils. More emphasis can be seen on the social and
emotional needs of the pupils. Fuller and her colleagues
never established whether the proposed stages overlapped or
were clearly defined.
Similarly, Unruh and Turner (1970) proposed four stages
of teacher growth based on their experiences with teachers.
The preservice period was the initial stage that included
preparation at the high school and college level. Initial
teaching, the second stage, was proposed as the trial phase
that could last for 1 to 6 years. Although Unruh and Turner
do not explain why some teachers remain in this stage longer
than others, they noted that these teachers often have
difficulty with classroom management, organization,
evaluation, and curriculum development. In the third stage,
the teacher embarks on the security period which ranges
approximately from 6 to 15 years. During this phase,
teachers become secure in their commitment to teaching and
therefore often pursue ways to improve their knowledge. In
the final stage, maturity period, teachers continue to refine
their competence and effectiveness. These teachers have
reached a level at which they are confident of performing
their teaching duties.


22
Another 4-stage developmental process for teachers was
proposed by Katz (1972) Based on her studies with preschool
teachers, Katz described the characteristics of each phase
and offered suggestions of assistance that would be relevant
to each stage of growth. In stage one, the survival stage,
teachers are focused primarily on survival as they experience
the differences between their expectations and the realities
of a classroom. Because teachers may feel insecure and
inadequately prepared, Katz suggested on-site support for
these teachers. Teachers in the second stage, consolidation
stage, now begin to remove the focus from themselves and
refocus on the students. This stage may continue from a
teacher's second year into the third year. Again Katz
recommends on-site support with additional assistance from
other professionals such as consultants and specialists. In
the third stage, renewal, teachers begin to seek out new ways
of teaching. These innovations may be found through
conferences, journals, and critiques of their own teaching.
Maturity, the fourth stage, is distinguished by the ability
of teachers to ask deeper and more abstract questions. Katz
suggests that assistance at this stage may consist of
attending seminars, reading books and journals, and
furthering education through a degree program.
After studying the behavior of teachers, Gregorc (1973)
and his colleagues described four stages of development:
becoming, growing, maturing, and fully functioning
professional. In the becoming stage, teachers demonstrate a


23
limited notion of their teaching duties. Teachers often feel
that their job is to share information with students and
complete the assigned book for a subject area. Initial
concepts of teaching, the educational process, and the role
of a school are just beginning to develop during this phase.
In the growing stage, these initial concepts become more
refined as teachers increase their knowledge about students,
materials, curricula, and their own teaching. Teachers
moving into the maturing stage have made a commitment to
teaching. They have reexamined their original concepts and
gained new insights to education, subject matter, and
themselves. Gregorc found that those teachers who reach the
fully functioning professional stage had made a definite
commitment to their profession. These teachers were able to
see their full potential as teachers as they consistently
tested and altered their concepts and beliefs.
In 1980, Yarger and Mertens posited a continuum of
career stages that teachers experience, based on their work
with teachers and teacher education. Similar to the work by
Katz, Yarger and Mertens also described types of programming
assistance that would be appropriate to each stage of
development. At Stages 1 and 2, the preeducation and
education student advances to a point of making a conscious
decision and commitment to becoming a teacher and develops
the basic skills necessary for this decision. In stage 3,
the teacher enters the first year of teaching and encounters
the demands of the teaching profession. Concerns at this


24
stage include classroom discipline, continuing development of
pedagogical skills, and receiving constructive feedback from
supervisors. During the second and third year of teaching,
stage 4, the teacher may still retain some of the initial
concerns, but new concerns emanate about content and gaps in
previous training. At stage 5, the teacher may have from 3
to 8 years of experience and thus becomes more stable.
Teachers at this point are more likely to have completed
advanced degrees and additional coursework. Teachers shift
their focus to content expertise and new professional roles.
Teachers with at least eight years of experience are seen in
stage 6. Yarger and Mertens described these teachers as
aware of their particular strengths and areas of expertise
and thereby having different professional needs.
Another theory of teachers' developmental stages was
suggested by McDonald (1982). This model consisted of four
stages including (a) the transition stage, (b) the exploring
stage, (c) the invention and experimenting stage, and (d) the
professional teaching stage. The transition stage was
characterized by a teacher's low sense of efficacy. This is
compounded with fundamental tasks of learning about students,
and learning how to manage and organize. In the invention
and experimenting stage, a teacher effectively manages
instruction and develops a sense of efficacy in using the
basic skills of teaching. This second stage involves the
teacher attempting new strategies, developing techniques, and
seeking professional growth. In the final stage,


25
professional teaching, the teacher has problem-solving skills
and often will assist other teachers in their professional
growth.
Summary of Developmental Stages
Examination of these theories concerning the stages of
teachers' development suggests three predominant stages for
inservice teachers. The first stage is distinguished by a
teacher's focus on self. Difficulty with students,
curricula, discipline, and organization seem to be common
issues of teachers in this initial phase of professional
growth. In the second stage, teachers begin to refocus their
attention on students and mastery of content. They become
more knowledgeable about their own teaching and its effects
on the students. The third or final stage represents a time
when teachers begin to feel secure about their teaching and
therefore attempt innovative ways to expand and enhance their
teaching skills.
A restriction of teacher development theory is the lack
of clarity in the range of competencies exhibited within each
stage. Although some teacher development theorists have
suggested characteristics of teacher performance for each
stage, it is not apparent how a range of competency may be
accounted for. Teachers do not fit neatly into one stage of
development; they may exhibit behaviors and skills
characteristic of other stages. For example, a teacher may
be highly skilled in one aspect of teaching (e.g., lesson
planning), yet the teacher's overall classroom performance


26
may indicate that she is functioning at the survival stage.
Theorists offer no explanation about the range of
competencies that may be exhibited within a single stage.
Research emerging from teacher development theory has
provided a foundation for understanding teacher concerns at
the initial stages of development. However, the effects of
teacher preparation on beginning teacher performance have
received little attention in teacher development research.
Because teacher preparation may have its greatest influence
on the initial stage of teacher development, teacher
educators should have more information on this particular
stage of development theory.
Teacher Evaluation
The much publicized decline in student performance has
called into question the competency of teachers. In response
to public demands of accountability, the educational
establishment has taken steps to improve teachers.
Evaluation processes have become a widespread solution for
ensuring teacher competency. The quality of evaluation
depends on the degree to which selected methods will provide
reliable and valid data for the primary purpose(s).
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation
The two major functions of evaluation are formative and
summative. Formative evaluation represents a process or
professional development. Formative evaluation provides
data, judgment, and suggestions to teachers to help in making
appropriate adjustments on their teaching performance.


27
Summative evaluation represents a product or accountability.
This type of evaluation serve administrative decisions such
as hiring, firing, promotion, certification, and salary.
Striking a balance between the two types of evaluation could
have profound implications for teacher professionalism and
education (Andrews & Barnes, 1990) .
The first step in the process of evaluation, whether
formative or summative, is defining the purpose or multiple
purposes of the inquiry. Although teacher evaluation may
have explicit and specific purposes, the effects of the
evaluation may extend into unintended areas. For instance,
the dismissal of a teacher for incompetent performance has an
effect not only on that teacher but on other teachers in the
school as well. Natriello (1990) proposed three purposes for
teacher evaluation. The first purpose, to control or
influence the performance of a teacher, is to improve
performance that is already within an acceptable range for
that current teaching assignment. Many of these evaluation
systems use criteria that are based on effective teaching
research (Medley, Coker, & Soar, 1984) or on models of
clinical supervision (Goldsberry, 1984) The second purpose
is to control movement in and out of positions (i.e., hiring,
firing, certification). Some examples of assessments are
pencil-and-paper examinations used by states (districts) to
screen applicants. The third purpose is to justify the
organizational control system. The emphasis is to convince


28
employees that the system is fair and equal, valid for
decision-making processes.
Methods of Teacher Assessment
The assessor may choose various methods to evaluate
teachers. The type of method chosen should be fair,
efficient, credible, and accurate (Millman, 1981) Yet the
quality of the method depends heavily on the context and
manner in which the method is implemented. Evaluation of
teachers must identify and define possible contexts and take
into account their influences. Our selection of assessment
methods have grown significantly over the past 20 years. In
the following section, various sources of teaching evidence
are presented.
Teacher ratinas. Teacher rating scales were first used
in late 19th century. As interest in teacher effectiveness
increased in the early 20th century, thousands of studies
were conducted using rating scales (Good & Mulryan, 1990).
Teacher ratings quickly gained popularity among
administrators for summative evaluation purposes (i.e.,
promotion, transfer, dismissal, and merit). The increased
use of teacher rating scales was accompanied by a multitude
of problems (Medley & Mitzel, 1963), such as a lack of
criteria and objective measures for the ratings. Moreover,
the information obtained from teacher ratings has never
informed us of what should be rated and how rating is best
accomplished. Medley et al. (1984) acknowledged the strength


29
of rating instruments is in helping teachers to analyze and
improve their instruction.
Self-assessments. Self-assessments of teacher
performance are formative in nature with personal development
as their primary purpose. Self-assessments, including audio-
and videotapes, self-reports, questionnaires, and self-rating
forms, allow insight into a teacher's own strengths and
weaknesses. However, self-assessments have several
limitations, such as lack of objectivity, accuracy, and
reliability (Barber, 1990). Assessment may become a form of
justification, in which ineffective teachers may not realize
the true level at which they are performing. For example,
when novice teachers view videotapes of their own teaching,
they tend to have difficulty focusing on matters of
significance.
Student achievement. If the function of teaching is to
enhance student learning, then using student achievement as a
measure of teacher performance seems reasonable. Although
student achievement measures are used for both formative and
summative evaluations, using these measures for summative
evaluations results in more controversy simply because more
is at stake. Millman (1981) described three limitations of
using student achievement as a method of teacher assessment.
One limitation is that students differ in their levels of
academic aptitude and willingness to learn. Individual
differences among students are rarely taken into account with
student achievement measures. Another limitation is that


30
student achievement measures cannot tell how the teacher
planned and implemented the lesson and therefore are limited
in their usefulness for improving instruction. Finally, the
achievement tests may not be representative of what is being
taught or may only sample a set of the instruction goals.
This is particularly evident in secondary schools where the
measures of student achievement are not aligned with the
curriculum (Glass, 1990).
Portfolio assessment. The portfolio as an evaluation
instrument is an idea borrowed from other professions, such
as architecture, writing, and photography. Bird (1990)
discussed the potential of portfolio assessment for teacher
evaluation. He identified two purposes of portfolios:
contributing to personnel decisions and improving teacher
performance. A wide array of documents (e.g., photographs,
videotapes, written products, and lesson plans) could be
included in a teacher's portfolio. Portfolios are gaining
popularity because they provide opportunities to see a
teacher's work holistically and in context (Shulman, 1989).
Yet a different set of problems is inherent in portfolio
assessment. Shulman (1988) claimed that portfolios are often
too large and become a waste of time if contents do not
reveal how teachers actually teach in their classrooms.
Another problem is the lack of standard documentation
procedures.
Simulations/performance exercises. Simulations or
performance exercises are assessments that are conducted


31
outside of the classroom but are designed to simulate actual
practice. Stanford's Teacher Assessment Project, under the
direction of Lee Shulman, led the research and development of
performance exercises. These exercises included planning
lessons, commenting on videotapes of other teachers'
performances, critiquing textbooks, and correcting homework
papers (Shulman, Haertel, & Bird, 1988) Performance
exercises can simulate the complexities of teaching and allow
for inferences about decision-making capabilities (Dwyer,
1993). The major limitation of these methods is that the
teacher is still removed from the actual contexts and thus
the direct relationship of teaching to learning is lost
(Dwyer, 1993; Haertel, 1990) Other limitations of this
method are that it is expensive to administer, create, and
evaluate and that it samples the depth of a teacher's
knowledge rather than the breadth. In addition, performance
exercises are task specific so the validity and reliability
of these instruments are dependent on the type of task
demands (Shulman, 1988). There is growing interest in
performance exercises, but they are not yet widely accepted
due to the problems with this technique. Many efforts to use
simulation and performance exercises are addressing these
problems and are still in the development stages.
Paper-and-pencil tests. At least 46 states have adopted
teacher-competency tests as a prerequisite for teacher
certification (Darling-Hammond, 1990). The main advantage of
these conventional tests is that they can adequately sample


32
the breadth of teacher knowledge. Conventional tests are (a)
efficient, (b) easy to score, (c) highly reliable, and (d)
objective. They are incomplete, however, because they
measure isolated pieces of knowledge, omitting processes such
as judgment, problem solving, and decision making (Madaus &
Mehrens, 1990; Shulman, 1988) In summary, paper-and-pencil
tests play an important role in teacher evaluation but fall
short of providing information to improve teacher
performance.
Classroom observation. Classroom observations are the
dominant method of teacher evaluation in elementary and
secondary schools today. To assess teacher behavior
(action), classroom observation seems to be the leading
method; however, observations are not without their
limitations. Most notably, researchers regard observations
as a limited tool in evaluating teacher's thinking (thought)
(Darling-Hammond, 1990; Medley et al., 1984; Shulman, 1988;
Stodolsky, 1990).
Classroom observation as a method of teacher assessment
can assume different forms, including behavior checklists,
category systems, summaries, and narrative records (See
Evertson & Green, 1986). Observation systems may be open or
closed, each with unique characteristics. In open systems,
the assessor makes a full description of all behavior as it
occurs without any reference to interpretation. Examples of
open systems are narrative records and summaries. These
systems produce a rich description of classroom events and


33
provide specific examples for discussion or analysis. In
particular, narrative records have several advantages.
First, narrative records allow for a natural approach to
understanding the classroom. Second, narrative records can
preserve the original sequencing of behavior and the context
in which it occurs. This holistic approach is more
comprehensive than selective approaches such as category
systems which are discussed next (Evertson & Holley, 1981) .
In contrast, closed systems center on specific types or
patterns of behavior, as exemplified by behavior checklists
and category systems. Within a closed system, the assessor
records a behavior (or lack of behavior), event, or
interaction sequence (Stodolsky, 1990).
Another dimension of observation systems is whether they
are high inference or low inference. Low inference systems
require the assessor to identify behaviors that are codified.
The Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and the
Classroom Observations Keyed for Effectiveness Research
(COKER) are two examples of low inference systems. Although
these systems have strong reliability and require less
assessor training, the disadvantage is that teaching is
viewed as a sum of discrete behaviors. Conversely, high
inference systems emphasize teaching as a holistic activity
within the context of a particular classroom. High inference
systems demand more assessor training and suffer from lower
reliability. An example of a high inference system is the
Salt Lake City procedure (See Wise, Darling-Hammond,


34
McLaughlin, & Bernstein, 1984), in which each classroom is
considered a contextual unit. Instead of focusing on generic
competencies, the district's conception of teaching is that a
variety of instruction approaches are compatible with
effective teaching.
Although observation systems may potentially help
teachers conceptualize their teaching behaviors, they are
riddled with problems (Good, 1980). One problem is that
observation systems are adopted too casually by state
education agencies. Typically, one state develops a system
and other states become interested. Seldom are the purposes
and limitations of new systems explored prior to adoption. A
second problem is the simplicity of observation systems:
Only a few behaviors are measured. Most observation systems
assume that certain patterns of behavior are effective,
resulting in an overinterpretation of particular behaviors.
Another weakness of observation systems is their inability to
assess preactive teaching behaviors such as teacher thinking.
Most classroom observations use nominal systems of two
categories: satisfactory and unsatisfactory. Although these
categories may be useful for employment retention or
dismissal, they are glaringly inadequate at contributing
substantively to teachers' professional development, another
purpose of assessment.
Despite criticisms, classroom observations are likely to
be the centerpiece of systematic assessment processes.
Improvements, however, are still needed. First, greater


35
clarity about the place of effective teaching behavior in
quality teaching is imperative (Evertson & Holley, 1981) .
Second, researchers must determine optimum times in a
teacher's career for observation. Third, procedures for
observations need further refinement.
Summary
Peterson (1984) described two models of teacher
evaluation: discrepancy and emergent. The discrepancy model
defines a standard of good teaching and then compares
teachers to this standard. Teacher quality is judged by how
close teacher behavior matches behavior that is correlated
with high student outcomes. A problem with the discrepancy
model is that there is no universally agreed-upon description
of quality teaching. Another problem involves criteria or
methods that are unfair to particular individuals (e.g.,
standardized testing). Finally, the possession of minimum
competencies to meet a standard of teaching does not
guarantee their effective use in practice.
The emergent model asserts that teaching is contextually
and situationally dependent. When judging teacher
performance and effectiveness, an assessor must consider (a)
the complexity of teaching, (b) the value of teaching related
to specific students, and (c) the contextual dependency of
teaching. Emergent evaluations entail value judgments in the
form of a statement with supporting lines of evidence.
Methods of teacher assessment have strengths and
limitations based on the purposes of evaluation. Mehrens


36
(1990) stressed the importance of combining evaluation data
from multiple sources, particularly when career decisions are
made.
Because evaluations of teachers can lead to significant
decisions, assessment systems should provide the best data
possible. Conceivably, an ideal teacher assessment would
incorporate multiple sources of evidence about teachers and
their effects on students (Mehrens, 1990; Shulman, 1988;
Stodolsky, 1990). High-stakes decisions about teachers put
great demands on teacher assessment methods. Each method is
a lens into the complexity of teaching. In general, the more
lenses that are looked through, the better the decision is
likely to be (Mehrens, 1990). The following assessment
methods each have their own advantage. Pre- and post
observation interviews can provide additional information
about teacher planning and thinking. Paper-and-pencil tests
may be used to assess subject-matter knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge. Evidence of student learning
and attitudes may also be helpful. Finally, classroom
observations give us a view of the interaction, climate, and
rapport of the classroom that is available from no other
source.
Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments
Purpose
In 1987, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) created
and funded a group of test development leaders who were
instructed to turn educational and measurement goals into


37
reality. It was the job of one development leader, Carol
Anne Dwyer, to redesign the ETS assessment process for
licensing beginning teachers and, in turn, to create a new
generation of assessment methods. These new teacher
assessments were to benefit the individuals being assessed
and others who would make use of information regarding
beginning teacher performance. ETS expected the results of
this effort to be available by 1992. Several requirements
were made of this project. First, the project must function
from a solid research and development foundation and build on
technology and educational reform. Second, the project
should coalesce with other research and development efforts,
such as Stanford's Teacher Assessment Project, the Holmes
Group, the Rand Corporation, research at Michigan State
University, and the Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. Third, the answers to questions of measurement,
technology, and educational policy should have
generalizability to other assessment situations (Dwyer,
1989) .
The initial goal was to identify important events in the
process of becoming a teacher and develop multiple assessment
methods. At these times and with the appropriate methods,
individuals would be assessed on enabling skills, subject-
matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical-
content skills.
The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for
Beginning Teachers is a comprehensive series of classroom


38
performance assessments for beginning teachers. The
assessment consists of three stages that are part of the
licensing process. Each stage corresponds to events in a
teacher's career and in licensing decisions.
Stage 1. Stage 1 assessments are designed to be taken
as early as possible in a student's undergraduate program or
soon after the decision to become a teacher is made. Using a
computer-based approach, prospective teachers are evaluated
on enabling skills (i.e., reading, writing, and mathematics).
Practice tests are a special feature of the first stage
(Dwyer, 1991).
Stage 2. In the second stage, the Praxis II: Subject
Assessments assesses subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical
principles. These assessments utilize the more traditional
assessment methods of paper-and-pencil measures. Completion
of these assessments should take place at the end of teacher
preparation or formal coursework. Although Praxis II is
nationally developed and administered, individual states may
tailor some of the modules (Dwyer, 1991) .
Stage 3. The third stage of the Praxis Series, Praxis
III: Classroom Performance Assessments, emphasizes
understanding and making judgments about the act of teaching.
Praxis III does not duplicate the assessment of subject-
matter knowledge (Praxis II) but assesses the application of
this knowledge in specific classroom settings. This final
assessment is designed to be administered toward the end of
an internship or during the first year of teaching for those


39
States requiring a performance-based assessment as a part of
licensing. Although Praxis III is predominantly a
performance-based assessment, a paper-and-pencil task is
required to provide classroom and instructional information.
The entire Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for
Beginning Teachers was developed for licensing decisions of
beginning teachers typically made by states or local
education agencies. Praxis III, however, was not intended
for use in making decisions about teachers who are already
licensed (Dwyer, 1994) Praxis III is the subject of the
remainder of this section, which includes a description of
the development of the knowledge base, the relationship
between assessment and professional development, the
instrument development, and the emerging uses.
Guiding Conceptions and Assessment Principles
A conception of teaching and, specifically, a conception
of effective teaching are fundamental to teacher assessment,
yet the conception is often not stated clearly by developers
because of empirical, theoretical, and value differences
about the characteristics of good teaching (Stodolsky, 1990) .
During the initial stages of the development of Praxis III,
the researchers found it necessary to state explicitly a
guiding conception of teaching and learning and a set of
criteria for assessment of beginning teaching. The guiding
conceptions are founded in Dwyer and Villegas's (1993)
multicultural view of teaching. They maintain that teaching
requires engaging students as active learners to promote


40
changes in their pre-existing knowledge. Additionally,
teachers must consider students' background, experiences,
interests, and abilities and must continually accommodate the
diverse needs of their students by modifying their teaching.
In operationalizing this conception, the developers of Praxis
III used three assessment principles (Dwyer, 1993). First,
teacher assessment should contribute to the understanding of
teaching. Teacher assessments should not only reflect the
view of teachers as professionals but should also reveal the
future direction of the profession. Second, teacher
assessment should represent the complexity of teaching and
learning, avoiding the prescription of a right way to teach..
Multiple assessment methods grounded in theory and practice
are necessary because teaching is complex and highly
interactive. Further, teacher assessment is a process that
entails a high degree of professional judgment. Third,
teacher assessment should promote equity among all teachers
and students.
Instrument Development
What aspects of teaching should be assessed? The
process of developing a knowledge base for Praxis III took
approximately 6 years. The goal of the developers was to
identify the knowledge base in research and practice and to
translate this knowledge base into criteria that illustrate
teaching and can be fairly and validly assessed. During this
process, three main sources were used: practitioners, the
research community, and state teacher licensing authorities


41
(Dwyer, 1993, 1994). These sources represent three
fundamentally different paradigms, because their basic
assumptions, methodologies, and values differ. With the
practicing teachers, three formal job analyses were conducted
on the requirements of elementary, middle, and high school
teaching. Practicing teachers were asked about the
importance of specific aspects of the work of beginning
teachers. Teachers were encouraged to make suggestions about
other aspects of teaching that they deemed significant. For
the research/theoretical perspective, a series of research
reviews about important knowledge and skills for beginning
and experienced teachers were conducted, with particular
emphasis on multicultural educational practices. For the
state perspective, a nationwide content analysis of state
performance assessment requirements was conducted.
From these main sources came the knowledge base that
Praxis developers drafted into an initial set of assessment
criteria. After several iterations of the criteria by a
national advisory panel including experienced teachers,
prominent teacher educators, and ETS staff, cycles of
fieldwork began. Most of the fieldwork was conducted in
Delaware and Minnesota with the help of teachers. These
teachers became involved in refining the assessment criteria
and scoring rules, developing the assessor training process,
and piloting the system.
Two important tests of quality were necessary before the
criteria were accepted. First, the criteria had to exemplify


42
the essentials of good professional practice that teachers
acknowledge. Several revisions resulted from a better
understanding of teachers' perception of their work (Powers,
1992; Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld,
Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, & Bukatko,
1992; Wesley, Rosenfeld, & Sims-Gunzenhauser, 1993). The
second test of quality was determining whether the criteria
reflected the relationship between teacher education and the
indicators of the requirements of teaching competency. To
some extent, the relationship is important for aligning
teachers' perceptions of their preparation with the realities
of their work.
Praxis Til Framework
The results of intensive research and fieldwork were 19
specific assessment criteria grouped into four domains:
organizing content for student learning, creating an
environment for student learning, teaching for student
learning, and advancing teacher professionalism. Because the
underlying conception states that teaching is complex and
interactive, these domains should be thought of as
interrelated, not independent components (Dwyer, 1993). The
four domains are described briefly along with the specific
criteria composing each domain (See Appendix A). For further
description of each criterion, the reader is referred to
Dwyer (1994) or the Praxis III materials.
Domain A: Organizing content knowledge for student
learning. Application of content knowledge is the focus of


43
assessment in Domain A. With their students' background
knowledge and experience in mind, teachers must (a) decide on
learning goals, (b) sequence instruction for curricular
goals, (c) select appropriate methods, activities, and
materials, and (d) select evaluation strategies to reflect
learned goals. These criteria are assessed primarily through
teacher-prepared written documentation and semi-structured
interviews. Classroom observation may also contribute to the
assessment evidence.
Domain B: Creating an environment for student learning.
The focus of Domain B is on the personal interactions in the
classroom between teachers and students and among students.
Teachers address issues of (a) fairness, (b) rapport, (c)
challenging expectations, (d) standards of classroom
behavior, and (e) the safety of the physical environment.
Although classroom observations will provide the primary
evidence for this domain, supporting evidence may be used
from the semi-structured interviews.
Domain C: Teaching for student learning. Domain C
relates to the act of teaching in which the purpose is to
connect the students with the content. Content refers to the
knowledge, skills, perceptions, and values of subject matter.
Teachers provide evidence of (a) clear goals and procedures,
(b) comprehensible content, (c) extended student thinking,
(d) monitoring understanding, and (e) effective use of
instructional time. Most of the evidence for these criteria


44
will be drawn from classroom observation. Information gained
through interviews may enhance the evidence.
Domain D: Teacher professionalism. In this domain,
teachers evaluate their own effectiveness and discuss aspects
of the lesson. The assessor obtains information through a
postobservation interview. Questions will focus on (a)
meeting learning goals, (b) attaining a sense of efficacy,
(c) building professional relationships, and (d)
communicating with parents/guardians.
There are three main steps in the assessment process of
Praxis III. The first step involves the assessor collecting
data in a variety of ways: conferences, interviews,
observation, and documentation. In the next step, the
assessor reflects and analyzes the data collected. For the
final step, the assessor reaches a judgment about the
teacher's performance. To provide feedback to the teacher,
the assessor provides explanations and summary documentation.
Each criterion has a rating scale that includes illustrations
at each of three levels of performance. These are used as
guides by the assessor when interpreting data. Questions are
provided for assessor reflection (See Appendix B).
Reflection and Performance
Praxis III was designed under the assumption that
effective teaching requires both thought and action working
simultaneously. In keeping with this assumption, each domain
is examined from both perspectives (Dwyer, 1994) Thus, an
examination of each domain requires multiple methods of


45
assessment (i.e., classroom observation, teacher-prepared
written documents, and semi-structured interviews).
Critical to a teacher's thought and action is the
conception that each perspective must be adapted to
accommodate the specific students in a particular teaching
situation. Effective teaching then relies on knowledge of
subject matter and students. Teacher assessment should focus
on how a teacher adapts instruction to four classroom context
variables: subject matter, students' individual differences,
students' developmental levels, and students' cultural
backgrounds. Consequently, teacher assessment should not
impose the use of any particular method of teaching.
Assessment and Professional Development
Praxis III has the primary purpose of a summative
evaluationlicensing beginning teachers. A formative role,
however, is needed. The developers of Praxis III believe the
following basic principle: assessment must be targeted on
the teacher's level of professional development. It is
unlikely that beginning teachers possesses all the knowledge
and skills of competent teachers. Teaching effectiveness
develops slowly and gradually. The process of acquiring
knowledge and skills of an expert teacher takes years.
Therefore assessments of beginning teachers should provide
sound information for professional development. In turn,
these assessments should be aligned with later assessments,
such as those by the National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS). The Praxis III performance assessment


46
criteria has been compared to (a) the early
adolescence/generalist standards of the NBPTS, (b) the model
standards for beginning teachers of the Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, and (c) the
outcome-based standards of the National Association of State
Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (Ingwerson,
1994) .
The formative information gained through Praxis III
should provide a learning experience for the beginning
teacher. If the ability to teach can be acquired, then
beginning teachers should be given the opportunity to
improve. Teacher assessments should contribute information
about the knowledge and skills that are being evaluated.
Tmnl.i cati ons for Research
The literature reviewed in this chapter provides a
theoretical and empirical basis for this study. Little is
known about the effects of teacher preparation on the
classroom performance of beginning teachers. Researchers
have confirmed the differences between programs in general
and special education in terms of traditional program
characteristics. Recent studies have examined the
differences in how experienced general and special education
teachers think and make decisions.
The literature on effective teaching and learning to
teach has presented us with considerable information on what
beginning teachers know and do and what effective teachers
know and do. Reynolds (1992) stated that teacher assessment


47
developers are left with the task of deciding what competent
beginning teachers should know and do. More examination is
needed into how competent performance may differ across
teaching philosophies and orientations.
Teacher development theory provides a basis for
examining teachers in different stages of their development.
By starting to construct profiles of first-year teachers
through Praxis III, teacher educators could use this
developmental information to revise instructional content and
learning experiences to meet preservice teachers'
developmental needs and to promote further growth. In
addition, Praxis III may be used to delineate and solve the
problems and limitations of teacher development theory.
The current trend toward sound assessments for teacher
licensure has produced an innovative teacher assessment
system in The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for
Beginning Teachers. The use of Praxis III for licensure
will have broad effects for teacher education.
This study begins to establish a research base by
examing the effects of teacher preparation on the classroom
performance of beginning teachers. As profiles of these
teachers begin to emerge, the role of teacher development
theory in teacher preparation may become more clear to
teacher educators.


CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of
teacher preparation on the classroom performance of beginning
teachers in special and general education. Several key
aspects of classroom performance were examined: (a)
organizing content knowledge for student learning, (b)
creating an environment for student learning, (c) teaching
for student learning, and (d) teacher professionalism. To
determine these effects, observations using Praxis III:
Classroom Performance Assessment were conducted. In this
chapter, the methods and procedures of the study are
presented. The chapter begins with a review of the
hypothesis. The second section presents the methods and
includes descriptions of the subjects and sampling
procedures. The subsequent sections include descriptions of
the research procedures and the treatment of data.
Description of the Null Hypothesis
The following null hypothesis was tested in the study:
There is no statistically significant difference between
beginning special education and beginning general education
teachers on measures of classroom performance.
The 19 criteria of Praxis III were used to test this
hypothesis.
48


49
Methods
Description of the Subjects
The sample consisted of 47 teachers teaching in public
elementary schools in Florida. Information about each
teacher was obtained through the completion of a candidate
profile (see Appendix C). Each teacher in the sample was a
graduate from a teacher preparation program at one of four
state universities: University of Florida (UF), Florida
State University (FSU), University of Central Florida (UCF),
and University of South Florida (USF). All teachers were
employed in positions for which they were certified (e.g.,
special education teacher with special education degree). As
first-year teachers, they were participants in the Florida
Professional Orientation Program (POP), a state required
beginning teacher program. All observations took place at
comprehensive elementary schools that included kindergarten
through fifth grade. Although most teachers in the study
taught all or most elementary school subjects, some special
and general education teachers had a primary teaching
assignment of reading/language arts or math/sciences.
Sampling Procedures
To identify a pool of beginning teachers, a list of
graduates and the districts in which they were employed was
obtained from the Florida Department of Education. The total
pool of qualified beginning teachers (general and special
education) was plotted on a map of the Florida districts.
Several districts were eliminated for the following reasons:


50
(a) unbalanced numbers of available general and special
education teachers, (b) unrepresentative numbers from the
four state universities, and (c) time and expense required
for travel. Next, a stratified, random sample of the
beginning teachers from the chosen districts was selected.
The population was stratified by university and type of
preservice teacher education program (i.e., special and
general education). The beginning teachers in the random
sample were sent a letter that included a brief explanation
of the study and a postcard to return if they would like to
participate (see Appendix D). Their permission was obtained
to meet the University of Florida Institutional Review Board
regulations (Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects)
(see Appendix E).
The number of postcards returned did not result in an
adequate sample size; therefore, follow-up phone calls were
made to enlist more participation. Telephone contact with
beginning teachers also provided the opportunity to determine
typical reasons that some chose not to participate. Those
reasons included (a) the number of required observations for
the beginning teacher program, (b) concern that their
teaching situations would not provide an accurate
illustration of what typically occurs in the classroom, and
(c) general feelings of stress.
Three factors were considered in determining the sample
size. First, the alpha level was set at a conservative level
(.05) so that the probability of a Type I error (rejecting a


51
true null hypothesis) was minimized. Second, without a
theoretical base from which to predict an effect size, the
effect size was conservatively estimated to be between .50
and .60. Third, power of .80 was targeted to adequately
detect any differences between the two groups. Therefore,
the sample size of 47 was considered acceptable (Shavelson,
1988).
Description of the Research Instrumentation
The research instrument used in the study, Praxis III:
Classroom Performance Assessment, is an assessment system
that uses three data-collection methods: direct observation
of classroom practice, written descriptions of the students
and what they are to learn, and interviews that are
structured around the classroom observation. Following the
postobservation interview, the assessor reviews all the notes
taken from the preobservation interview, observation, and
postobservation interview as well as the teacher-prepared
written documents.
Data Collection Procedures
Evidence is gathered for each criterion and may come
from any source within the assessment cycle. The assessor
compiles positive and/or negative evidence for each
criterion. The most pertinent evidence is then selected and
transferred to the Record of Evidence form (see Appendix F).
After careful consideration of the evidence for each
criterion, the assessor writes a summary statement connecting
the evidence to the scoring rules for that criterion. A


52
score is then assigned for each criterion based on the
scoring rules. The criterion score range is from 1.0 to 3.5
with a score at each .5 interval (e.g., 1.0, 1.5). Scoring
rules and scoring matrices for each criterion can be found in
Appendix G.
For each criterion, evidence should be (a) relevant to
the criterion, (b) free of bias, (c) an accurate
representation of events, and (d) of sufficient quantity to
support a judgment. A summary statement must summarize the
evidence cited, refer to all parts of the scoring rule, and
support the score assigned.
The time required for the assessment cycle varies for
each individual. The preobservation interview lasts
approximately 20 minutes. Following the interview, a
classroom observation is conducted that lasts a class period
or the length of a lesson. The postobservation interview
completes the cycle and requires from 20 to 30 minutes. One
to 2 hours is required by the assessor to score each domain.
Validity and Reliability
Praxis III was developed during 6 years of extensive
research by personnel at the Educational Testing Service
(ETS). The developers considered it essential to articulate
both a guiding conception of teaching and learning and a set
of criteria by which beginning teaching could be assessed.
The guiding conception, discussed in detail in Chapter II,
clarified the research and development effort that culminated
in the 19 Praxis III criteria.


Prior to determination of the 19 criteria, the
developers identified a knowledge base from which to
establish an initial set of assessment criteria. The
knowledge base was derived from three main sources of
evidence: practicing teachers, the research/theoretical
perspective, and teacher licensing requirements. This was
done to consider multiple perspectives rather than rely on
one paradigm of effective teaching.
Knowledge base. The first major source of information
in the development of the Praxis III assessment consisted of
praciticing teachers. The developers conducted large-scale
studies to determine important tasks required of beginning
teaching (see Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992;
Rosenfeld, Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, &
Bukatko, 1992) Surveys were sent to teachers from
elementary, middle, and secondary levels. The respondents
were asked about the importance of specific tasks from their
own teaching as well as beginning teaching. Further, the
respondents were asked to identify other important aspects of
teaching that may not have been included in the survey.
The second source of information was a series of
research reviews. Guided by a panel of experts (e.g., D.
Berliner, R. Calfee, L. Delpit, and A. Hilliard), researchers
reviewed literature on effective teaching, effective
beginning teaching, and effective teaching in multicultural
classrooms. Thus theoretical perspectives and research


54
findings strengthened the knowledge base provided by
praciticing teachers.
The third source of evidence for the knowledge base was
an analysis of states' regulations and practices regarding
beginning teacher assessments. Through a nationwide content
analysis of state performance assessment requirements,
information was identified and compiled. Developers focused
on the requirements related to the assessment of actual
teaching rather than on other knowledge, skill, experience,
or educational attainment.
Criterion development. From the three sources described
above, a knowledge base for the assessment of beginning
teachers was formed. The development team used this
knowledge base to draft an initial set of assessment
criteria. At this point a National Advisory Committee
reviewed the research base and the draft assessment criteria.
Members advised the development team to bring the criteria
more in line with the guiding conceptions and organizing
framework. The team then developed several revised versions
of the assessment criteria and conducted small-scale pilot
studies to test their effectiveness in actual teaching
situations. From these studies, the criteria and the
assessment process underwent extensive changes. Large-scale
fieldwork was then conducted to further refine criteria.
During this phase of the research process, scoring rules were
developed and clarified by collaborating teachers and
researchers. Concurrent with the refinement of the


55
assessment criteria, field studies also focused on assessor
training. Several modifications were made to clarify
particular scoring rules and enhance note taking, coding, and
use of multiple sources of evidence. Additional assessors
were then trained using the finalized version of the Praxis
III assessment system. A more complete description of the
process of developing the criteria and the knowledge base for
each of the 19 assessment criteria can be found in Dwyer
(1994) .
A preliminary analysis of data collected during field
testing indicated a moderate to high level of inter-rater
agreement between paired assessors who observed the same
teaching event (Dwyer, 1994). To date, no inter-rater
reliability data have been published. ETS does not emphasize
inter-rater reliability; rather they stress the importance of
using certified assessors. Ultimately, therefore, the
validity of Praxis III rests on the rigor of the assessor
training (Klem, personal communication, 1994; Villegas,
1992) .
Description of the Procedures
Asses.sment__Cycle
The collection of data for this study was conducted
through an interactive process consisting of the four phases
of Praxis III: preobservation interview, classroom
observation, postobservation interview, and recording/scoring
of evidence. This set of phases is referred to as an


56
assessment cycle and was conducted for each beginning
teacher.
Preobservation interview. Prior to the preobservation
interview, the assessor provided each teacher with three
forms to complete: Candidate Profile (see Appendix C), Class
Profile (see Appendix H), and Instruction Profile (see
Appendix I). These forms supplied written documentation to
convey a sense of the general classroom context and
characteristics of the students in the class, as well as
specific information about the lesson to be observed. The
written documentation included a sketch of the classroom and
a seating chart to facilitate the questioning during the
interview. The purpose of the semi-structured,
preobservation interview was to provide insight into the
teacher's planning for the observed lesson. The assessor
asked a series of questions related to the Class Profile,
Instruction Profile, and the planned lesson. Questions
allowed for a free-flow response from the teacher (see
Appendix J). Notes were recorded by the assessor using a
laptop computer.
Classroom observation. During the observation of the
planned lesson, the assessor transcribed an account of the
unfolding events using a laptop computer. Teacher behavior,
student behavior, and teacher-student interaction during the
lesson was recorded. Summary statements restricted to
observable behavior were allowed. During this phase, no
judgments or interpretations were made.


57
Postobservation interview. The postobservation
interview was conducted as soon after the planned lesson as
possible. The purpose of this interview was to allow for
exploration of the teacher's rationales for his or her
decisions and practices as well as an opportunity for
reflection on his or her teaching practice. The assessor's
questions produced free-flow responses from the subjects (see
Appendix K). Again, laptop computers were used for taking
notes.
Recordinq/scoring of evidence. Following the data
collection, the assessor analyzed the data from all of the
sources. After a thorough analysis, the assessor evaluated
the beginning teacher using a set of specific criteria and
scoring rules to procure ratings for each of the criteria.
Assessors supported their professional judgments by citing
specific evidence for their ratings.
Assessor Training
Following intensive training by ETS personnel, each
assessor was able to document a teacher's performance and to
interpret and score collected data accurately in a wide
variety of classroom contexts. The degree of accuracy was
determined by how close the assessors' ratings were to the
preestablished scores. Assessor training consisted of 5 days
of highly interactive instruction using a wide range of
stimuli such as, videotapes, simulations, and printed
materials (e.g., sample records of evidence). Throughout the
training, participants receive feedback from the instructor,


58
other participants, and answer keys of the exercises. After
4 days of training, assessors conducted a field test of the
assessment system, then returned for a fifth day of targeted
skill reinforcement and consolidation. During their final
session, assessors demonstrated competency on an assessor
proficiency test. Competency was judged by how close the
assessors' ratings were to the preestablished scores. This
test was performance-based and allowed assessors to
demonstrate the entire range of assessment activities that
they will encounter in practice.
Assessors were specifically instructed that there is a
wide range of acceptable teaching styles that may or may not
match their own teaching preferences. Furthermore, training
personnel emphasized the importance of including documented
information about the classroom context into the ratings. In
particular, assessors were trained not to penalize teachers
in difficult teaching situations for circumstances beyond
their control.
Both assessors used in this study were trained at the
same time by ETS personnel. Several of those involved in
training the assessors were also involved in the development
of the instrument. Each of the assessors was a doctoral
student in the College of Education at the University of
Florida and each had gained some experience with Praxis III
prior to collecting data for this study.


59
Treatment of the Data
The major research question was to determine whether
there was significant differences between the two groups of
teachers on all 19 criteria of Praxis III. Because the
domains of Praxis III and their corresponding criteria were
designed to be interrelated to mirror the integrated nature
of teaching, these 19 measures are not assumed to be
statistically independent of each other (Dwyer, 1994). Thus,
a one-way, between-groups multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis. Because the MANOVA
indicated a significant difference between the two groups, a
series of one-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were
conducted for each criterion.


CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Tntroducti on
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects
of teacher preparation on the classroom performance of
beginning teachers (special and general education) in several
key areas: (a) organizing content knowledge for student
learning, (b) creating an environment for student learning,
(c) teaching for student learning, and (d) teacher
professionalism. The general question of the study was as
follows: Do beginning special education teachers differ from
beginning general education teachers in their classroom
performance? To investigate this question, the classroom
performance of beginning special education teachers was
compared to the performance of beginning general education
teachers.
To determine the effects of teacher preparation on
classroom performance, observations using Praxis III were
conducted on 25 special education teachers and 22 general
education teachers who had graduated from four state
universities in Florida: University of Florida (UF), Florida
State University (FSU), University of Central Florida (UCF),
and University of South Florida (USF). All of the teachers
in both groups taught at the elementary level and were in
60


61
their first year of teaching. This chapter contains the
results of the statistical analyses of data from this study.
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics
The data were analyzed to determine if any differences
existed between the teacher preparation groups (general and
special education) on any of the measures. This section
includes a description of the analyses and the results.
Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of study
participants in the two groups. Chi-square analyses were
completed to determine if there were any preexisting
differences between the two groups of teachers with respect
to gender, age, race, and university.
The chi-square tests revealed no statistically
significant differences between special education teachers
and general education teachers. The majority of both groups
were female (96% and 86% respectively for special and general
education teachers). Among the special education teachers,
84% were under 34 years of age and 91% of the general
education teachers were in this age group. All (100%) of the
special education teachers and 95% of the general education
teachers were white. The distribution by university was
nearly even as exhibited by the chi-square and associated p-
value of 0.985. Therefore, the two groups are comparable
with respect to age, gender, race, and university attended.


62
Table 1
Distribution of Participants by Demographic Characteristics
Special
n
Education
%
General
n
Education
%
Gender
Female 24
96
19
86
Male 1
4
3
14
(Chi-square = 1.396, 1,
E = 0.237)
Age
<25 10
40
13
59
25-34 11
44
7
32
35-44 3
12
2
9
45-54 1
4
0
0
(Chi-square = 2.298, 3,
E = 0.513)
Race
White 25
100
21
95
Black 0
0
1
5
(Chi-square = 1.161, 1,
E = 0.281)
University
UF 9
36
7
32
FSU 4
16
4
18
UCF 6
24
6
27
USF 6
24
5
23
(Chi-square = 0.150, 3,
E = 0.985)
Total 25
100%
22
100%


Criterion and Domain Scores
The means and standard deviations of the 19 criterion
63
scores and domain scores were calculated for each group.
These figures are presented in Tables 2-6.
Table 2
Summary of Domain Scores bv Group
Domain
SDecial Educators(n=25)
General Educators(n=221
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
A
11.58
11.52
(2.03)
(1.57)
B
13.80
12.50
(1.60)
(1.78)
c
12.20
12.27
(1.68)
(2.16)
D
10.04
10.02
d-31)
d-48)
Table 3
Summary of Domain A Criterion Scores bv Group
Criterion
SDecial Educators(n=25)
General Educators(n=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
A1
2.64
2.52
(.511)
(.475)
A2
2.28
2.00
(.678)
(.672)
A3
2.02
2.43
(.489)
(.541)
A4
2.66
2.50
(.494)
(.345)
A5
1.98
2.09
(-568)
(.453)


64
Table 4
Summary of Domain B Criterion Scores bv Group
Criterion
Soecial Educators(n=25)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
General Educators(n=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Bl
2.64
2.20
(.468)
(.630)
B2
2.82
2.57
(.518)
(.541)
B3
2.56
2.25
(.565)
(.668)
B4
3.10
2.59
(.289)
(.590)
B5
2.68
2.89
(.430)
(.342)
Table 5
Summary of
Domain C Criterion Scores
bv Group
Soecial Educators(n=25)
General Educators(n=22)
Mean
Mean
Criterion
(Std. Dev.)
(Std. Dev.)
Cl
2.40
2.34
(.577)
(.679)
C2
2.52
2.43
(.586)
(.642)
C3
1.80
2.30
(.479)
(.718)
C4
2.78
2.59
(.435)
(.549)
C5
2.70
2.61
(.408)
(.533)


Table 6
Summary of Domain D Criterion Scores by Group
65
Criterion
Snecial Educators(n=25)
Oeneral Educators (n=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Dl
2.42
2.25
(.687)
(.783)
D2
2.52
2.45
(.510)
(.533)
D3
2.56
2.93
( .464)
(.417)
D4
2.54
2.39
(-431)
(-435)
Test of Hypothesis
A one-way, between-groups multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis that there
would be no differences between the groups on the 19
criteria. The MANOVA revealed significant differences
between groups on at least one variable [Hotelling's F(19,27)
= 2.791, E = 0.001].
Based on the results of Hotelling's MANOVA (e<0.05), the
mull hypothesis was rejected. Special education teachers
differed from general education teachers on at least one of
the criteria.
To determine which criteria were the sources of the
differences between special education and general education
teachers, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were


66
conducted for each criterion. Table 7 shows the results of
these analyses.
Table 7
Summary of Univariate Analysis of Variance for 19 Criteria
Dependent
Measure
F
df
n
A1
0.66
1,45
.421
A2
2.01
1,45
.163
A3
7.51
1,45
.009*
A4
1.61
1,45
.211
A5
0.54
1,45
.467
B1
7.35
1,45
.009*
B2
2.65
1,45
.110
B3
2.97
1,45
.092
B4
14.65
1,45
.000*
B5
3.25
1,45
.078
Cl
0.10
1,45
.749
C2
0.24
1,45
.625
C3
7.92
1,45
.007*
C4
1.73
1,45
.195
C5
0.39
1,45
.533
D1
0.63
1,45
.432
D2
0.19
1,45
.669
D3
8.27
1,45
.006*
D4
1.48
1,45
.231
*Significant at
the e<.05
level.


67
Sources of Significant Differences
The data collected through the interviews and
observations, as documented on the Records of Evidence, were
used to establish the scores for each criterion within Praxis
III. The criteria on which significant differences between
groups were obtained are described in this section. Examples
of teacher responses and behaviors are provided.
Criterion A3
Criterion A3 measured the teachers' ability to
demonstrate an understanding of the connections between the
content that was learned previously, the current content, and
the content that remains to be learned in the future.
General education teachers scored significantly higher than
special education teachers on this criterion.
General education teachers tended to explain accurately
how the content of the current lesson related to the content
of previous and future lessons, and they were also able to
explain how the current lesson fits within the structure of
the discipline. As a group, special education teachers were
less able to explain how the current lesson fits within the
larger goals of learning in the discipline. For example, in
a preobservation interview question about the organization of
the subject or discipline, one general education teacher
provided a detailed explanation of how the observed lesson on
planets and their order from the sun directly related to a
unit on astronomy that included stars, galaxies, and solar
systems. Given the same preobservation question, one special


68
educator responded by relating the current reading lesson to
prior lessons in which students learned letter names and
sounds.
Criterion R1
Criterion B1 examines the teachers1 creation of a
climate that promotes fairness. Special education teachers
scored significantly higher than general education teachers
on this criterion.
Special education teachers tended to be fair in their
treatment of and attention to students and actively
encouraged fairness among students during lesson
observations. For example, during the classroom observation,
one special educator responded quickly to demeaning
statements made by a student. The teacher encouraged the
students to show respect for each other by not using unfair
statements. Many general education teachers restricted equal
access to learning by overattending to certain students in
the class and excluding others during student-teacher
interactions. For example, one general educator consistently
ignored students who were off-task without attempting to
reengage them in the lesson.
Criterion B4
Criterion B4 focuses on establishing and maintaining
consistent standards of classroom behavior. Special
education teachers scored significantly higher than general
education teachers on this criterion.


69
During classroom observations, special education
teachers tended to respond to minor misbehavior consistently
and they experienced reasonable success in reducing those
behaviors. For example, several special educators responded
to students calling out answers by reminding them of the rule
and reinforcing those students that responded appropriately.
In contrast, general education teachers tended to respond
inconsistently to minor misbehavior and had less success in
reducing those behaviors. For example, several general
educators corrected the inappropriate behavior of students in
some instances, while allowing the same behavior to occur
uncorrected at other times.
Criterion C3
Criterion C3 examined the methods teachers use to extend
student thinking. General education teachers scored
significantly higher than special education teachers on this
criterion.
General education teachers tended to use activities that
were specifically designed to encourage students to think
independently, creatively, or critically about the lesson
content. These activities promoted the extension of student
thinking beyond the current lesson. For example, one general
education teacher conducted a lesson on letter writing. The
teacher designed a learning activity in which students would
write a letter to themselves. The students were to write
about (a) what they were looking forward to the next school
year, (b) what they would miss most about fifth grade, and


70
(c) what they saw themselves doing in the year 2002, after
graduation. The teacher planned to send the letters to her
students in the year 2002. This lesson required students to
think creatively about their lives in the present and future.
Special education teachers were more likely to encourage
students to think independently, creatively, or critically,
but this only occurred within the existing context of the
lesson. Some of the techniques that special educators used
during the observed lessons included asking open-ended
questions and making predictions about story outcomes.
Cri terlon D3
The focus of Criterion D3 was the building of
professional relationships with colleagues to share teaching
insights and to coordinate learning activities for students.
General education teachers scored significantly higher than
special education teachers on this criterion.
General education teachers tended to demonstrate
knowledge of available resources and to consult with
colleagues on matters related to student learning. They also
collaborated frequently with other teachers to coordinate
learning activities for their students. General educators
were likely to work with other teachers on their grade level
as well as teachers from other grade levels.
Special educators also demonstrated knowledge of
available resources and consulted with colleagues on matters
related to student learning, but they were less likely to
collaborate with colleagues to coordinate learning


71
activities. Several special education teachers noted that
the isolated and specialized nature of their job contributed
to their lack of opportunities for frequent, informal
collaboration.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of teacher preparation on classroom performance of beginning
teachers in general and special education. The dependent
measures were the 19 criteria on an instrument designed to
assess beginning teachers for licensure, PRAXIS III:
Classroom Performance Assessment.
A MANOVA was used to test the following null hypothesis:
There will be no statistically significant difference between
the groups on measures of classroom performance.
Significant differences between special and general education
teachers were detected, which resulted in the rejection of
the null hypothesis. These differences were detected on 5 of
the 19 criteria on Praxis III. General educators scored
significantly higher on measures of Criterion A3, C3, and D3.
Special educators score significantly higher on measures of
Criterion B1 and B4. The implications of these results are
discussed in Chapter V.


CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
teacher preparation on the classroom performance of beginning
teachers in general and special education. Several key
domains of classroom performance were examined: (a)
organizing content knowledge for student learning, (b)
creating an environment for student learning, (c) teaching
for student learning, and (d) teacher professionalism. One
hypothesis was formulated and tested. The general question
of the study was as follows: Does teacher preparation in
general education or special education affect the classroom
performance of beginning teachers? To determine these
effects, observations using Praxis III: Classroom
Performance Assessment were conducted.
Overview of Research Findings
In this section, the null hypothesis is reviewed, along
with the findings. An explanation of the relationship
between the hypothesis and the respective domains and
criteria of Praxis III is provided.
The 19 criteria of Praxis III were used to test the
hypothesis that there is no statistically significant
difference between beginning special education and beginning
general education teachers on measures of classroom
72


73
performance. Significant differences were indicated between
the two groups; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
These differences were detected on five criteria.
In Domain A, organizing content knowledge for student
learning, general educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion A3) that
related to the teacher's ability to demonstrate an
understanding of the connections between the content that was
learned previously, the current content, and the content that
remains to be learned in the future. On measures of creating
an environment for student learning, Domain B, special
educators scored significantly higher than general educators
on the criterion (Criterion Bl) that related to the creation
of a climate that promotes fairness. Special educators also
scored significantly higher than general educators on the
criterion (Criterion B4) that related to establishing and
maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior.
In Domain C, teaching for student learning, general
educators scored significantly higher than special educators
on the criterion (Criterion C3) that related to encouraging
students to extend their thinking. On measures of teacher
professionalism, Domain D, general educators scored
significantly higher than special educators on the criterion
(Criterion D3) that related to building professional
relationships with colleagues to share teaching insights and
to coordinate learning activities for students.


74
Implications of the Research Findings
Teacher development theory was applied to this study to
increase understanding of the initial stage of teacher
development. The following sections contain (a) theoretical
implications, (b) implications for beginning teacher
knowledge base, and (c) implications for teacher education.
Theoretical Implications
Although teachers appear to progress through several
stages of development in the process of becoming a competent
teacher, these stages are characterized by a variety of
behaviors. During a stage of development, a teacher may
exhibit a wide range of competency in classroom behaviors and
skills. This range of skills may be one reason for the lack
of clarity in the descriptions of the developmental-stage
models (Burden, 1990). Praxis III may provide teacher
development theorists with clearer descriptions of the
various characteristics of beginning teacher development.
Results of this study indicate that, while all of the
teachers appeared to be in the initial stage of teaching
(survival), some teaching behaviors and skills were different
for the two groups. For example, special education teachers
in this study exhibited strengths in establishing and
maintaining consistent standards of behavior in contrast to
the expectation of beginning teacher performance established
by teacher development theory. Clearly, the differences in
preparation of the special education teachers contributed to


75
this finding, but the theory of teacher development does not
consider preparation other than general education.
One responsibility of university field supervisors and
school administrators is to help preservice and inservice
teachers improve their instruction by facilitating their
development. With knowledge of the theory of teacher
development, supervisors could, perhaps, become more
effective in their use of Praxis III as a tool to promote
professional growth. Similarly, if these supervisors
understand the differences in teacher preparation between
special and general education, their ability to apply teacher
development theory in practice may be enhanced.
Teacher development theory characterizes the initial
stage of teaching as a survival stage. Teachers in this
stage tend to (a) have difficulty with curriculum
development, (b) struggle with evaluation of student
progress, and (c) be more concerned with their own
performance than with student learning (Burden, 1990). The
evidence from classroom observations and interviews indicates
that both groups exhibited characteristics of this initial
stage. Therefore, the findings of this study support
generalizations of teacher development theory to include
beginning special education teachers.
Implications for Beginning Teacher Knowledge Base
Although much is known about the differences between
beginning teachers and competent, experienced teachers,
researchers have done little to add to the current knowledge


76
base about competent beginning teachers. The results of
research conducted with Praxis III may assist researcher in
expanding the knowledge base and improving our understanding
of competent beginning teaching. In this study, the evidence
cited from interviews and observations supports the current
beginning teacher literature. Specific examples of teacher
behaviors and responses are provided and grouped by three
phases of teaching.
Preactive. When planning their lessons, both groups of
beginning teachers rarely took into consideration their
students' background experiences, prior skills, and
developmental levels. In choosing goals for these lessons,
general and special education teachers seldom provided a
thoughtful explanation of why the goals were appropriate for
all students nor did they differentiate these goals for
groups or individual students in the class (Brophy & Good,
1986; Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978). Both groups of
teachers were also unlikely to choose methods and activities
that allowed for differentiated learning experiences nor did
they provide an explanation of why the method or activity
chosen was appropriate to all students.
One of the lowest mean scores for both groups of
teachers was on their ability to create or select evaluation
strategies that are appropriate for students and aligned with
the goals of the lesson. Many teachers either had not
provided a plan for systematic evaluation of student learning
or had selected a plan that was clearly inappropriate to the


77
goals of the lesson (Porter & Brophy, 1988; Zigmond, Sansone,
Miller, Donahoe, & Kohnke, 1986). None of the teachers in
this study described how he or she would use the results of
the evaluation in planning future instruction. These
similarities between the two groups of teachers supports
previous research that beginning teachers are less apt to
consider student differences and subject matter in their
planning and are often inconsistent in their evaluation of
student progress.
Interactive. Most evidence of teaching tasks in the
interactive phase was detected during the observation. When
managing the learning environment, special education teachers
were very likely to be consistent in maintaining and
establishing rules and routines. This evidence contradicts
several beginning teacher studies that report beginning
teachers generally have difficulty with maintaining
consistent standards of behavior (Doyle, 1986). In fact,
both groups of teachers demonstrated competence with
establishing rapport with students and maintaining a safe
environment. In addition, special education teachers were
likely to demonstrate fairness in their interactions with
students. Perhaps, teacher education programs in Florida,
particularly special education teacher education programs,
emphasize the importance of creating a learning environment
more than programs in other areas of the country.
When presenting subject matter, both groups of teachers
were less likely to provide students with clear information


78
about the learning goals, either explicitly or implicitly.
They often used general statements to begin their lessons,
for example, a general education teacher stated, "This is
math. We are going to review some of the things we did
yesterday and the day before." In this particular case, the
learning goals was for students to demonstrate an
understanding of basic concepts in fractions (e.g., least
common multiple, greatest common factor). In their attempts
to make the content of the lesson comprehensible to students,
teachers form both groups experienced difficulty linking a
concept to related concepts, which is consistent with
previous findings by Borko and Livingston (1989) Further,
many of the teachers did not make instructional adjustments
based on their monitoring of student understanding. These
teachers tended to use feedback with students that was not
specific and substantive. For example, some special and
general education teachers only used statements like "Right,"
"That's good," and "No, that's not right." One general
education teacher provided little assistance to a groups of
students who had missed the previous day's lesson that was
essential to the understanding and completion of the observed
lesson. This teacher made nojOattempt to adjust the learning
activity even thought it was evident that the students were
not on track. This evidence supports previous findings by
Reynolds (1992) that beginning teachers are typically
ineffective in questioning strategies and tend not to use


79
this information about student understanding to improve their
teaching during the lesson.
Postactive. Teachers' responses during the
postobservation conference provided evidence to support
previous research on beginning teacher reflection of a lesson
(Reynolds, 1992). Both groups of teachers had difficulty
focusing their reflections. When asked to reflect on the
extent to which the learning goals were met, the teachers
often responded with statements about student participation
and ease of presentation. The teachers had difficulty
describing the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in
relation to the learning goals and student understanding.
Moreover, teachers from both groups rarely supported their
judgments with specific evidence from the observed lesson.
Although little research is available on the connection
between teaching and other professional tasks, such as
collaborating with colleagues. Domain D of Praxis III does
begin to shed some light on how these professional tasks may
relate to teaching. Both groups of teachers demonstrated
knowledge of school resources available to them and
frequently consulted with colleagues on matters related to
their students and instruction. Additionally, all teachers
demonstrated knowledge of forms of parental communication
that they used for various purposes (e.g., newsletters, phone
calls, daily notes, and conferences).
Blanton, Blanton, and Cross (1994) found that despite
efforts at the preservice and inservice level to increase


80
collaboration among teachers, communication between general
education and special education teachers remains infrequent
and possibly inadequate. Similar evidence was found in this
study. Although many teachers' responses indicated that
collaboration with colleagues did occur, the collaboration
tended to be intradisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary
in nature.
Implications for Teacher Education
The most common method used for follow-up studies of
graduates is the survey of beginning teachers' perceptions of
the value of their preparation. This method, while
convenient and efficient, may provide teacher education
programs with an incomplete picture of their effectiveness.
Teacher educators have found that these data often present a
fragmented picture regarding graduates' perceptions.
Further, researchers have noted that perceptions of
preparation by first-year teachers are unstable during the
first year of teaching (Adams, 1987) .
The purpose of program evaluation should be to develop
anil understanding of the relationships among a program's
contexts, inputs, processes, and products (Galluzzo & Craig,
1990). Currently, the missing piece in this understanding is
the productgraduates' performance in the fieldan area
seldom evaluated by teacher preparation programs. Research
that focuses on beginning teachers' behaviors and skills can
provide details about the unique needs, strengths, and
problems of first-year teachers. The more teacher educators


81
understand these experiences the more capable they will be to
make decisions about the continuation, modification, or
termination of a teacher preparation program. Conducting
first-year performance research with instruments such as
Praxis III could (a) facilitate communication between schools
and universities, (b) advance what is known about teacher
education, and (c) raise important questions about issues and
practices that should be addressed.
Given the recent trend toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities in general classrooms, increased insight
into how teachers from different types of preparation
(general and special education) perform during their first
year of teaching is important. The trend toward inclusion
has resulted in the increased likelihood that teachers in
general and special education will collaborate about the
needs and goals of students with special needs (Pugach &
Johnson, 1989). The need for a common core of knowledge and
collaboration among discipline is reflected in the
development of unified teacher preparation programs such as
those at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the
University of Cincinnati. Knowledge of the possible
differences in beginning teacher performance due to
differences in teacher preparation may enhance the
collaboration among teacher educators.
General educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion A3) that
related to the teacher's ability to demonstrate an


82
understanding of the connections between the content that was
learned previously, the current content, and the content that
remains to be learned in the future. Perhaps this difference
is due to the emphasis on scope and sequence of content areas
in general education teacher preparation programs. General
education teachers were able to draw on knowledge of the
subject matter to explain where the observed lesson fits
within the broader scope of the discipline. Because special
education teacher preparation programs traditionally do not
require multiple courses in the content areas, teacher
educators of these programs may want to provide preservice
teachers with several resources on how to obtain the
structure or hierarchy of a content area.
Special educators scored significantly higher than
general educators on the criterion (Criterion Bl) that
related to the creation of a climate that promotes fairness.
Fairness in this sense means helping all students to have
equal access to learning and to feel equally valued in the
classroom. Special education courses often stress the
importance of individualized instruction, rather than the
group process emphasized in general education courses. This
difference in focus may be why special education teachers
were more likely to assure learning opportunities to all
students. In contrast, many general education teachers
demonstrated patterns of asking or allowing only some
students to respond to questions. Teacher educators in


83
general education could illustrate some ways that the teacher
could help all students have access to learning.
Special educators also scored significantly higher than
general educators on the criterion (Criterion B4) that
related to establishing and maintaining consistent standards
of classroom behavior. This difference is possibly due to
the attention behavior management receives in special
education teacher preparation programs. Goodlad (1993)
reported that students in special education programs
expressed more confidence in their abilities of behavior
management than do students in general education programs.
Teacher educators of general education might consider
incorporating a course on classroom management into their
preparation of teachers. This could be accomplished in
collaboration with the college's department of special
education.
General educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion C3) that
related to encouraging students to extend their thinking.
Most special education teachers in the study did not use an
activity that was specifically designed to actively encourage
students to extend their thinking about the content of the
lesson. They seemed to rely more on instructional techniques
such as asking open-ended questions. This emphasis on low-
level cognitive processes by special educators may be from a
preparation program that prepares teachers to focus on the
basic skills of reading, math, writing, and spelling.


84
Teacher educators in special education may want to assist
preservice teachers in designing activities or lessons that
specifically encourage students to extend their thinking.
General educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion D3) that
related to building professional relationships with
colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate
learning activities for students. General education teachers
tended to consistently coordinate activities with other
colleagues, particularly grade level team members. These
results may be a product of either the school organization
structure, teacher's preparation particularly field
experience, or a combination of these factors. Schools are
most often organized into grade levels and opportunities for
collaboration are abundant for general education teachers.
In contrast, special education teachers often function in
isolation within schools limiting opportunities for
collaboration. The effect of teacher preparation on
collaboration of beginning teachers is probably most
influential during field experiences. The field experiences
where preservice teachers observe the effects of school
structure on collaboration may influence the likelihood of
collaboration efforts in their future teaching positions.
Limitations
This study had several limitations. The most
significant limitation is the lack of information about these
teachers' beliefs, skills, and knowledge prior to entering


85
their teacher preparation program. It is difficult to know
what influence these factors, or a combination of these
factors with preparation, may have had on their performance.
Addition ally, the type of teacher preparation was self-
selected by the teachers. That is, those who selected
special education as opposed to general education as a career
may exhibit different beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and
knowledge about teaching.
A second limitation is that only teachers at the
elementary level were considered for participation in the
study. The results of this study may not be generalized to
beginning teachers at the secondary level. This particular
limitation is consistent with the limitations of beginning
teacher research and teacher development theory. Both bodies
of research have focused primarily on elementary school
teachers. Teacher development theorists have found
significant differences between elementary and secondary
teachers. For example, elementary teachers report a greater
degree of concern about self, instructional tasks, and
student impact (Burden, 1990) .
Another limitation of this study is the restricted
geographic location. Observations were limited to districts
in Florida and graduates of state universities in Florida.
Further, the effects of the bureaucratic structure of
education in Florida may contribute to differences and
similarities. For example, in the 1991-1992 school year
Florida ranked seventh in the nation for how likely districts


86
are to separate students with disabilities from their peers
(Special Education Report, 1996). The results may be
different in a state that is more likely to serve students
with disabilities in a regular classroom.
A fourth limitation of this study is voluntary
participation of the teachers. Teachers who volunteer to
participate in a study in which they are to be observed are
more likely to be confident in their teaching abilities and,
perhaps, more likely to be competent. The results might have
been different given a truly random sample of teachers.
Finally, the results of this study may have been
influenced by the differences in the contexts in which
special and general educators function. The teachers'
perceptions of the demands of their classrooms may have
affected their performance and the aspects of teaching that
they emphasized.
Suggestions for Future Research
Due to the lack of information about these teachers
prior to entering their teacher preparation program, a
longitudinal study may be warranted. This would allow
researchers to delineate any preexisting differences between
the two groups of teachers.
To study the effects of preparation for content areas,
additional research with teachers at the secondary level is
warranted. Additional studies should also focus on graduates
from other teacher preparation programs and various
geographic locations. Observations may be conducted on


87
graduates of unified teacher preparation programs as well.
Although this type of research involves extensive time and
energy on the part of the teacher, researchers should attempt
to achieve a more random sample in future studies, rather
than limiting the sample to volunteers.
Summary
This study was conducted to examine the effects of two
types of teacher preparation on the classroom performance of
beginning teachers. Teachers were observed using an
assessment instrument that was developed to evaluate
teachers' knowledge and skills in four domains: organizing
content knowledge for student learning, creating an
environment for student learning, teaching for student
learning, and teacher professionalism.
Special education teachers scored significantly higher
on criteria related to creating an environment for student
learning: creating a climate that promotes fairness and
establishing and maintaining consistent standards of
classroom behavior. General education teachers scored
significantly higher on criteria related to organizing
content knowledge, teaching for student learning, and teacher
professionalism. These criteria included (a) demonstration
of an understanding of the connections between the content
that was learned previously, the current content, and the
content that remains to be learned in the future, (b)
encouraging students to extend their thinking, and (c)
building professional relationships with colleagues to share


88
teaching insights and to coordinate learning activities for
students.
These findings hold several implications for teacher
development theory and the knowledge base on beginning
teaching. Reynolds (1992) asserted that assessment of
competent beginning teaching should exceed the research on
effective beginning teaching and the research on learning to
teach. Praxis III accomplishes this goal by reflecting the
view of teachers as professionals, by representing the
complexity of teaching and learning, and by promoting equity
among all teachers and students. The use of Praxis III in
this study revealed that the development of general and
special education teachers is somewhat different and does not
fit neatly into stages of teacher development. This approach
to beginning teacher assessment promotes the formation of a
more complete picture of teaching and learning in context.
The results of the study could inform teacher education
program development. The emergence of research on the
differences between beginning general and special education
teachers may be especially useful to teacher educators as
they could revise content to better prepare preservice
teachers for their first year of teaching.


APPENDIX A
PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA
Domain A
A1
A2
A3
A5
Domain B
B1
B2
B3
Organizing content knowledge for student learning
Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of
students' background knowledge and experience
Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson
that are appropriate to the students
Demonstrating an understanding of the connections
between the content that was learned previously,
the current content, and the content that remains
to be learned in the future
Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning
activities, and instructional materials or other
resources that are appropriate to the students and
that are aligned with the goals of the lesson
Creating or selecting evaluation strategies that
are appropriate for the students and that are
aligned with the goals of the lesson
Creating an environment for student learning
Creating a climate that promotes fairness
Establishing and maintaining rapport with students
Communicating challenging learning expectations to
each student
89


Full Text

PAGE 1

7+( ())(&76 2) 7($&+(5 35(3$5$7,21 21 &/$665220 3(5)250$1&( 2) %(*,11,1* 7($&+(56 ,1 63(&,$/ $1' *(1(5$/ ('8&$7,21 %\ 0$5< 52%(57621 (,6(/( $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ RI52%}8(r0(6

PAGE 2

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n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

PAGE 3

IRU \RXU VXSSRUW DQG FRQWLQXHG HQFRXUDJHPHQW WKDW LW FDQ EH GRQH RZH D YHU\ VSHFLDO WKDQNV WR 'U +ROO\ /DQH ,I LW ZHUH QRW IRU \RXU SHUVLVWHQFH RYHU WKH SDVW \HDU PD\ VWLOO EH ZULWLQJ
PAGE 4

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nV VWXGHQW 'U 0HUFHU VHUYHG DV D UROH PRGHO IRU WKH SRZHU RI WHDFKLQJ +LV SKLORVRSK\ RI DOZD\V GRLQJ ZKDW LV EHVW IRU VWXGHQWV KDV UHPDLQHG ZLWK PH IRU PDQ\ \HDUV $V P\ FRPPLWWHH FKDLUPDQ 'U 0HUFHU KDV XVHG KLV NLQGQHVV LQWHOOHFW DQG KXPRU WR JXLGH PH WKURXJK D FKDOOHQJLQJ SURJUDP
PAGE 5

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n 'HYHORSPHQWDO 6WDJHV 6XPPDU\ RI 'HYHORSPHQWDO 6WDJHV 7HDFKHU (YDOXDWLRQ 3XUSRVHV RI 7HDFKHU (YDOXDWLRQ 0HWKRGV RI 7HDFKHU $VVHVVPHQW 7HDFKHU UDWLQJV 6HOIDVVHVVPHQWV 6WXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW 3RUWIROLR DVVHVVPHQW 6LPXODWLRQVSHUIRUPDQFH H[HUFLVHV 3DSHUDQGSHQFLO WHVWV &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ 6XPPDU\ Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

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n DELOLWLHV WR PHHW WKH GHPDQGV RI WKHLU SURIHVVLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ LV DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ 6HYHUDO NH\ DVSHFWV RI FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH ZHUH H[DPLQHG Df RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ef FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ff WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG Gf WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP $VVHVVPHQWV XVLQJ 3UD[LV ,,, &ODVVURRP 3HUIRUPDQFH $VVHVVPHQW ZHUH FRQGXFWHG RQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ 1 f DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ 1 f (DFK DVVHVVPHQW F\FOH FRQVLVWHG RI D SUHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ DQ YLLL

PAGE 9

REVHUYDWLRQ DQG D SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ (DFK WHDFKHU ZDV VFRUHG RQ WKH FULWHULD RI 3UD[LV ,,, $ PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH 0$129$f UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV 2QHZD\ DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH $129$Vf ZHUH FRQGXFWHG IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV ZHUH GHWHFWHG RQ D WRWDO RI FULWHULD RQ 3UD[LV ,,, *HQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU RQ PHDVXUHV RI D WHDFKHUVn DELOLW\ Df WR GHPRQVWUDWH DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH FRQWHQW WKDW ZDV OHDUQHG SUHYLRXVO\ WKH FXUUHQW FRQWHQW DQG WKH FRQWHQW WKDW UHPDLQV WR EH OHDUQHG LQ WKH IXWXUH Ef WR HQFRXUDJH VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ DQG Ff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

PAGE 10

UHYLVH SURJUDPV WR EHWWHU SUHSDUH SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV IRU WKH GHPDQGV RI WKHLU FODVVURRPV [

PAGE 11

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 72 7+( 352%/(0 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP &KDQJHV LQ VRFLHW\ DUH UHIOHFWHG LQ VFKRROV WRGD\ 7KH GHPDQGV RI FODVVURRP WHDFKLQJ DUH GLIIHUHQW IURP ZKDW WKH\ ZHUH HYHQ D IHZ \HDUV DJR $ FOHDU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH WHDFKLQJ SURIHVVLRQ VKRXOG GULYH WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG UHILQHPHQW RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 6LQFH WKH SDVVDJH RI 3XEOLF /DZ (GXFDWLRQ RI WKH +DQGLFDSSHG $FWf LQ VFKRROV KDYH EHHQ FKDUJHG ZLWK WKH PLVVLRQ RI HGXFDWLQJ DOO FKLOGUHQ DQG \RXWK HTXLWDEO\ 5HFHQW WUHQGV LQ WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV ZLWK PLOG OHDUQLQJ DQG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV KDYH SURPSWHG DQ LQFUHDVH LQ FROODERUDWLYH HIIRUWV EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV *RRGODG t /RYLWW 3XJDFK t -RKQVRQ f 7KLV W\SH RI FROODERUDWLRQ KRZHYHU UHTXLUHV WKH MRLQLQJ RI JURXSV RI SURIHVVLRQDOV ZKR KDYH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SURIHVVLRQDO NQRZOHGJH VWUXFWXUHV GXH WR WKH GLVWLQFWLYH RULHQWDWLRQV RI JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ 6LQGHODU HW DO f 7UDGLWLRQDOO\ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ SUHSDUDWLRQ KDV IRFXVHG RQ SHGDJRJLFDO DQG FXUULFXODU FRQFHUQV ,Q FRQWUDVW VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SUHSDUDWLRQ KDV HPSKDVL]HG LQVWUXFWLRQDO VWUDWHJLHV LQGLYLGXDOL]HG LQVWUXFWLRQ DQG EHKDYLRU PDQDJHPHQW $ JUHDWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH

PAGE 12

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n DELOLWLHV WR PHHW WKH GHPDQGV RI WKHLU SURIHVVLRQ 9HU\ OLWWOH UHVHDUFK KDV H[DPLQHG WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH 5HVHDUFK HPHUJLQJ IURP WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ KDV SURYLGHG D IRXQGDWLRQ IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WHDFKHU FRQFHUQV DW WKH LQLWLDO VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW $W OHDVW WZR OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK DUH HYLGHQW Df WKH UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG SULPDULO\ ZLWK JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV DQG Ef WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW KDYH UHFHLYHG OLWWOH DWWHQWLRQ 7HDFKHU FRQFHUQV DW WKH LQLWLDO VWDJHV RI WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW PD\ EH GLIIHUHQW IRU WKH WZR JURXSV RI WHDFKHUV GXH WR WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ 5DWLRQDOH IRU WKH 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHV KRZ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV DIIHFW WKH DELOLW\ RI WHDFKHUV WR PHHW WKH GHPDQGV RI WKHLU FODVVURRPV

PAGE 13

7KH FHQWUDO SXUSRVH RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV WR FRPSDUH WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ 6HYHUDO DVSHFWV RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVn FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH ZHUH H[DPLQHG Df RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ef FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ff WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG Gf WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 6FRSH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG ZLWKLQ D OLPLWHG VFRSH 7KH GHOLPLWDWLRQV DQG OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK DUH GHVFULEHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV 'HOLPLWDWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV GHOLPLWHG E\ JHRJUDSKLFDO ORFDWLRQ WR GLVWULFWV ZLWKLQ WKH VWDWH RI )ORULGD 7KH UHVHDUFK SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH ILUVW\HDU WHDFKHUV ZKR KDG JUDGXDWHG IURP D WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP DW RQH RI IRXU VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV LQ )ORULGD 3DUWLFLSDQW VHOHFWLRQ GLG QRW LQFOXGH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI JUDGXDWHV RI WKH RWKHU ILYH VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV $GGLWLRQDOO\ VHYHUDO GLVWULFWV ZHUH HOLPLQDWHG IURP WKH VDPSOH SRRO GXH WR WKH WLPH DQG H[SHQVH UHTXLUHG WR WUDYHO WR WKHP /LPLWDWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG ZLWK EHJLQQLQJ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG VHPHVWHU RI WKHLU ILUVW \HDU RI WHDFKLQJ 7KH WHDFKHUVn EHOLHIV VNLOOV DQG NQRZOHGJH SULRU WR HQWHULQJ D WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP

PAGE 14

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

PAGE 15

7HDFKHU FRPSHWHQFH LV WKH UHSHUWRLUH RI FRPSHWHQFLHV D WHDFKHU SRVVHVVHV $V D WHDFKHU FRPHV WR SRVVHVV PRUH FRPSHWHQFLHV LW LV VDLG WKH WHDFKHU KDV EHFRPH PRUH FRPSHWHQW 0DGDXV t 0HKUHQV f 7HDFKHU FRPSHWHQF\ LV DQ\ VLQJOH NQRZOHGJH VNLOOV RU YDOXH SRVLWLRQ 7KH SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKHVH FRPSHWHQFLHV LV EHOLHYHG WR EH UHODWHG WR WHDFKHU HIIHFWLYHQHVV &RPSHWHQFLHV UHIHU WR VSHFLILF NQRZOHGJH EHKDYLRUV DQG EHOLHIV EXW QRW WR WKH HIIHFWV RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV RQ VWXGHQWV 0DGDXV t 0HKUHQV f 7HDFKHU HIIHFWLYHQHVV LV WKH HIIHFW WKDW WKH WHDFKHUnV SHUIRUPDQFH KDV RQ SXSLOV 7HDFKHU HIIHFWLYHQHVV GHSHQGV QRW RQO\ RQ FRPSHWHQFH DQG SHUIRUPDQFH EXW DOVR RQ WKH UHVSRQVHV SXSLOV PDNH (IIHFWLYHQHVV LV GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH VFRUHV WKH WHDFKHUVn VWXGHQWV DFKLHYH RQ WHVWV RU VLPLODU PHDVXUHV -XVW DV FRPSHWHQFH FDQQRW SUHGLFW SHUIRUPDQFH FDQQRW SUHGLFW RXWFRPHV XQGHU GLIIHUHQW VLWXDWLRQV 0DGDXV t 0HKUHQV f 7HDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH UHIHUV WR WKH DFWXDO EHKDYLRU RI WKH WHDFKHU ZKLOH WHDFKLQJ 7HDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH LV VSHFLILF WR WKH MRE VLWXDWLRQ LW GHSHQGV RQ WKH FRPSHWHQFH RI WKH WHDFKHU WKH FRQWH[W LQ ZKLFK WKH WHDFKHU ZRUNV DQG WKH WHDFKHUnV DELOLW\ WR DSSO\ KLV RU KHU FRPSHWHQFLHV DW DQ\ JLYHQ SRLQW LQ WLPH 0DGDXV t 0HKUHQV f 7HDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP DUH XQLYHUVLW\ SURJUDPV GHVLJQHG ZLWK OHJDO DXWKRUL]DWLRQ WR SUHSDUH WHDFKHUV 7KHVH WHUPV ZLOO EH XVHG LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 16

2YHUYLHZ $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ VSHFLDO DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQf RQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVn FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH LV WKH IRFXV RI WKLV VWXG\ &KDSWHU ,, SURYLGHV D UHYLHZ DQG DQDO\VLV RI UHOHYDQW SURIHVVLRQDO OLWHUDWXUH LQ WKH DUHDV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ DQG 3UD[LV ,,, &KDSWHU ,,, SUHVHQWV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH PHWKRGV DQG SURFHGXUHV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV REWDLQHG IURP WKH 3UD[LV ,,, DVVHVVPHQWV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU ,9 &KDSWHU 9 LQFOXGHV Df D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV DV WKH\ UHODWH WR SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK Ef LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ NQRZOHGJH EDVH DQG WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ Ff OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFK DQG Gf UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK

PAGE 17

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( &KDSWHU ,, LQFOXGHV D VXPPDU\ DQG DQDO\VLV RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ DQG 3UD[LV ,,, 7KH FKDSWHU FRQFOXGHV ZLWK D VXPPDU\ RI WKH UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV 7HDFKHU 3UHSDUDWLRQ 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3XJDFK f SURSRVHG WKDW VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV DQG HOHPHQWDU\ HGXFDWRUV KLVWRULFDOO\ KDYH KHOG GLIIHUHQW DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW WHDFKLQJ OHDUQLQJ DQG WHDFKHU DQG VWXGHQW UROHV 6KH DGGHG WKDW EDVLF RUJDQL]LQJ VWUXFWXUHV DQG EHOLHIV JRYHUQLQJ WKH WZR SURJUDPV UHPDLQ GLVWLQFWO\ GLIIHUHQW 7KH RULJLQV RI VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ ZHUH FORVHO\ WLHG WR SV\FKRORJ\ LQ SDUWLFXODU EHKDYLRUDO SV\FKRORJ\ 7KURXJK WKLV DVVRFLDWLRQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D ILUP IRXQGDWLRQ LQ SRVLWLYLVWLF EHKDYLRUDO DSSURDFKHV 6LQGHODU HW DO f 7KHVH DSSURDFKHV HPSKDVL]H VNLOOEDVHG LQVWUXFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ KROLVWLF LQVWUXFWLRQ 7DVNV DUH EURNHQ LQWR VPDOO XQLWV WKDW DUH WDXJKW LQ LVRODWLRQ DQG UHIRUPHG WR FUHDWH D ZKROH 7HDFKHU HGXFDWRUV RI VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ KDYH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ SUHSDUHG WHDFKHUV WR IRFXV RQ VWXGHQW FRPSHWHQFLHV ZLWKLQ FDWHJRULHV RI GLVDELOLW\ 7KH

PAGE 18

FRQWHQW RI VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ FRXUVHV KDV HPSKDVL]HG DOPRVW H[FOXVLYHO\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG LQGLYLGXDO SDWKRORJ\ $OWKRXJK JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV WHQG WR DGGUHVV WKH VDPH FRQWHQW DQG UHDGLQJV ZKLFK DGGV FRKHUHQFH WR WKH FXUULFXOD VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV VHOGRP DGGUHVV FXUULFXOXP EH\RQG WKH WHDFKLQJ RI UHDGLQJ DQG EDVLF PDWKHPDWLFV *RRGODG t /RYLWW f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKURXJK D FRPSUHKHQVLYH VWXG\ RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ *RRGODG f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f 3UHSDUDWLRQ LQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ WKH VFRSH DQG VHTXHQFH RI FXUULFXOXP DQG PRUH UHFHQWO\ KROLVWLF DSSURDFKHV WR WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ 7UDGLWLRQDOO\ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV KDYH HPSKDVL]HG LQVWUXFWLRQDO PHWKRGV WKDW FDQ EH GHVFULEHG DV LPSOLFLW 7KHVH PHWKRGV LQFOXGH FKLOGGHWHUPLQHG H[SORUDWLRQ GLVFRYHU\ OHDUQLQJ DQG SURFHGXUDO NQRZOHGJH LQVWUXFWLRQ 6ZDQVRQ t &RRQH\ f ,Q FRQWUDVW VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV

PAGE 19

KDYH HPSKDVL]HG H[SOLFLW PHWKRGV RI LQVWUXFWLRQ 7KHVH PHWKRGV RI LQVWUXFWLRQ LQFOXGH GLUHFWLRQ LQVWUXFWLRQ &DPLQH 6LOEHUW t .DPHHQXL (QJHOPDQQ &DPLQH t 6WHHO\ *HUVWHQ &DPLQH t :RRGZDUG f OHDUQLQJ VWUDWHJLHV 6FKXPDNHU t 'HVKOHU 6ZDQVRQ f FODVVZLGH SHHU WXWRULQJ *UHHQZRRG 'HOTXDGUL t +DOO 0DKHDG\ f DQG GHFODUDWLYH NQRZOHGJH LQVWUXFWLRQ 6ZDQVRQ t &RRQH\ f 'LIIHUHQFHV %HWZHHQ 7HDFKHUV 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH ORQJ UHFRJQL]HG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ KRZHYHU WKH\ KDYH QHJOHFWHG WKH UROH RI GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WHDFKHU GLIIHUHQFHV /LWWOH LV NQRZQ DERXW WKH NQRZOHGJH SRVVHVVHG E\ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV DERXW LQVWUXFWLRQ HVSHFLDOO\ IRU GLYHUVH OHDUQHUV %ODQWRQ %ODQWRQ DQG &URVV f FRQGXFWHG RQH RI WKH ILUVW VWXGLHV WR LQYHVWLJDWH VLPLODULWLHV DQG GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV LQ KRZ WKH\ WKLQN DQG PDNH LQVWUXFWLRQDO GHFLVLRQV 7KH\ UHSRUWHG WKDW JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV UHVSRQGHG VLPLODUO\ ZKHQ WKH\ LGHQWLILHG VWXGHQW VWUHQJWKV DQG WKH VWUDWHJLHV WKH\ ZRXOG XVH WR SURYLGH LQVWUXFWLRQ
PAGE 20

OHDUQLQJ SUREOHPV 7KLV H[SDQGHG NQRZOHGJH EDVH PD\ DOORZ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV WR EHWWHU LGHQWLI\ DQG LQWHUSUHW SUREOHPV 7KH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV RI JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV DSSHDUV WR EH EDVHG RQ WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ 9HU\ OLWWOH UHVHDUFK KDV H[DPLQHG WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHV KRZ GLIIHUHQW SURJUDP SKLORVRSKLHV DQG RULHQWDWLRQV LH JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQf DIIHFW WKH SHUIRUPDQFH SURILOHV RI SURJUDP JUDGXDWHV %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHU /LWHUDWXUH 6RXQG DVVHVVPHQWV IRU EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV PXVW EH JURXQGHG LQ WKH UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ 5H\QROGV f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

PAGE 21

)HQVWHUPDFKHU f 7KHUHIRUH WKH OLWHUDWXUH IRU WKLV VHFWLRQ UHSUHVHQWV PDMRU UHVHDUFK SURJUDPV WKDW SURYLGH WKH EXON RI UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ 6KXOPDQ f 7KHVH UHVHDUFK SURJUDPV LQFOXGH SURFHVVSURGXFW UHVHDUFK WLPH DQG OHDUQLQJ SXSLO FRJQLWLRQ DQG WKH PHGLDWLRQ RI WHDFKLQJ FODVVURRP HFRORJ\ WHDFKHU FRJQLWLRQ DQG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ DQG W\SHV RI NQRZOHGJH :LWWURFN f 5HOHYDQW /LWHUDWXUH 5HJDUGOHVV RI VXEMHFWPDWWHU JUDGH OHYHO RU LQVWUXFWLRQDO PHWKRG WHDFKLQJ WDVNV FDQ EH GLYLGHG LQWR WKUHH EURDG GRPDLQV SUHDFWLYH LQWHUDFWLYH DQG SRVWDFWLYH 5H\QROGV f -DFNVRQ f LGHQWLILHG SUHDFWLYH WDVNV DV WKDW SKDVH RI WHDFKLQJ LQ ZKLFK WKH WHDFKHU GHYHORSV DQ DSSURSULDWH OHVVRQ SODQ RU VWUDWHJ\ DQG DOVR VHWV REMHFWLYHV IRU WKH OHVVRQ -DFNVRQ FDOOHG WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKLV OHVVRQ DQG REMHFWLYHV WKH LQWHUDFWLYH SKDVH RI WHDFKLQJ 3RVWDFWLYH WDVNV LQFOXGH UHIOHFWLRQV DIWHU D WHDFKLQJ HSLVRGH DV ZHOO DV VWHSV WR LPSURYH WHDFKLQJ &ODUN t 3HWHUVRQ f $OWKRXJK WKHVH GRPDLQV DUH GLVWLQFW WKH WDVNV LQFOXGHG PD\ RFFXU VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ RU VHTXHQWLDOO\ 7KH UHVW RI WKLV VHFWLRQ GUDZV IURP D FRPSUHKHQVLYH DQDO\VLV RI UHYLHZV RI HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ DQG VWXGLHV RI OHDUQLQJ WR WHDFK UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH WHDFKLQJ FRQWH[W LH JUDGH OHYHO VXEMHFW PDWWHUf 3UHDFWLYH 5HVHDUFK LQYROYLQJ SUHDFWLYH WHDFKLQJ WDVNV DUH W\SLFDOO\ GHVFULSWLYH LQ QDWXUH DQG IRFXV RQ OHVVRQ RU VWUDWHJ\ SODQQLQJ 0HWKRGV RI LQTXLU\ LQ WKH WKRXJKW

PAGE 22

SURFHVVHV RI D WHDFKHU PD\ LQFOXGH WKLQNLQJ DORXG VWLPXODWHG UHFDOO DQG MRXUQDO NHHSLQJ &ODUN t 3HWHUVRQ f 7KHUH DUH NH\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SUHDFWLYH WDVNV RI EHJLQQLQJ DQG PRUH H[SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUV :KHQ SODQQLQJ D OHVVRQ PRUH H[SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUV UHODWH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ WR VWXGHQWV LQ D ZD\ WKDW FRQQHFWV WR ZKDW WKHLU VWXGHQWV DOUHDG\ NQRZ 3RUWHU t %URSK\ f ([SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUVn LQVWUXFWLRQ RI QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ LV IUHTXHQWO\ LQWHJUDWHG DFURVV FRQWHQW DUHDV 3RUWHU t %URSK\ f ([SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUV DOVR FKRRVH DFWLYLWLHV WKDW WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKHLU VWXGHQWVn GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHOV DFKLHYHPHQW OHYHOV LQWHUHVWV DQG EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFH %URSK\ t *RRG &KULVWHQVRQ
PAGE 23

FXUULFXODU PDWHULDO DQG LQVWUXFWLRQ &ODUN t 3HWHUVRQ f (IIHFWLYH WHDFKHUV DUH PRUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK HYDOXDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SURJUHVV WKDQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV 3RUWHU t %URSK\ =LJPRQG 6DQVRQH 0LOOHU 'RQDKRH t .RKQNH f 2QH PDMRU LQIOXHQFH RQ WHDFKHUVn SUHDFWLYH WDVNV LV WKH NQRZOHGJH RI WKHLU VWXGHQWV ([SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUV JLYH PRUH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WR D VWXGHQWnV SULRU NQRZOHGJH RI VXEMHFW DQG DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ GR EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV &RUQR t 6QRZ )RJDUW\ :DQJ t &UHHN 6KXOPDQ f %HJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV DUH PRUH LPSUDFWLFDO DERXW VWXGHQW GLIIHUHQFHV DQG YLHZ WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV DV SUREOHPDWLF &DUWHU &XVKLQJ 6DEHUV 6WHLQ t %HUOLQHU )RJDUW\ :DQJ t &UHHN 6KXOPDQ f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f FUHDWLQJPDQDJLQJ WKH OHDUQLQJ

PAGE 24

HQYLURQPHQW Ef SUHVHQWLQJ VXEMHFW PDWWHU DQG Ff HYDOXDWLQJ VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 5H\QROGV f :KHQ FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV YLHZ WKHPVHOYHV DV FODVVURRP PDQDJHUV %URSK\ t *RRG f 7KH\ SRVVHVV SRVLWLYH TXDOLWLHV VXFK DV ZLWKLWQHVV HPSDWK\ DQG UDSSRUW %URSK\ t *RRG f $V D FODVVURRP PDQDJHU WKH FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHU HVWDEOLVKHV DQG PDLQWDLQV FRQVLVWHQW UXOHV DQG URXWLQHV 'R\OH %URSK\ t *RRG =LJPRQG HW DO f ,Q PDWWHUV RI GLVFLSOLQH FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV LJQRUH PLQRU PLVEHKDYLRU DQG GHDO ZLWK VHYHUH GLVUXSWLRQV WKURXJK D YDULHW\ RI PHDQV &RQYHUVHO\ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV JHQHUDOO\ KDYH GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK GLVFLSOLQH DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI EHKDYLRU 'R\OH f 5HVHDUFKHUV UHDVRQ WKDW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV VSHQG WLPH SULPDULO\ RQ VROYLQJ SUREOHPV ZKHUHDV FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV GHILQH WKH SUREOHP DQG HYDOXDWH SRVVLEOH VROXWLRQV 5H\QROGV f :KHQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH EHVW LQVWUXFWLRQDO DUUDQJHPHQW HJ VPDOO JURXS SHHU WXWRULQJ LQGLYLGXDOL]HG LQVWUXFWLRQf FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV EDVH WKHLU GHFLVLRQ RQ KRZ EHVW WR DFFRPSOLVK WKH JRDOV RI WKH OHVVRQ 'R\OH 5H\QROGV f %HJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV KDYH GLIILFXOW\ LQ WKHLU VHOHFWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO JURXSLQJ IRU JLYHQ JRDOV DQG VWXGHQWV 0RUHRYHU EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV VHHP XQDEOH WR DVFHUWDLQ ZKDW PDNHV D OHVVRQ HIILFLHQW 7KH VXFFHVVIXO SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI VXEMHFW PDWWHU UHOLHV RQ WKH TXDOLW\ RI D WHDFKHUnV VXEMHFWPDWWHU NQRZOHGJH DQG SHGDJRJLFDOFRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH 6KXOPDQ f %HJLQQLQJ

PAGE 25

WHDFKHUV RIWHQ KDYH ORZ OHYHOV RI SHGDJRJLFDOFRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH *URVVPDQ 6KXOPDQ f &RPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV XVH WKHLU SHGDJRJLFDOFRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH WR DVVHVV WKH UHDGLQHVV RI WKHLU VWXGHQWV EHIRUH EHJLQQLQJ QHZ VXEMHFW PDWWHU 7KH\ IRFXV RQ WKHLU VWXGHQWVn SUHFRQFHSWLRQV DQG PLVFRQFHSWLRQV ,Q WXUQ FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV XVH WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ WR DGDSW WKH OHYHO DQG SDFH RI LQVWUXFWLRQ &KULVWHQVRQ
PAGE 26

f 7KH\ DUH DOVR OHVV HIIHFWLYH LQ TXHVWLRQLQJ VWUDWHJLHV DQG WHQG QRW WR XVH WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ WR LPSURYH WKHLU WHDFKLQJ 5H\QROGV f &RPSHWHQW WHDFKHUV PDLQWDLQ FRQVLVWHQW SURFHGXUHV IRU PRQLWRULQJ VWXGHQW SURJUHVV DQG KDYH LQWHUYHQWLRQV WR LPSURYH VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 7KH\ KROG VWXGHQWV DFFRXQWDEOH IRU DVVLJQPHQWV DQG JLYH FOHDU H[SHFWDWLRQV &KULVWHQVRQ
PAGE 27

RUJDQL]DWLRQV HQUROOPHQW LQ FRXUVHV DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VFKRRO DFWLYLWLHV 5H\QROGV f /LPLWDWLRQV RI ([LVWLQJ 5HVHDUFK 5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH PHWKRG XVHG WR VWXG\ HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ SUREOHPV DQG FULWLFLVPV DERXQG )LUVW WKH HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ OLWHUDWXUH ZKLOH WKH PRVW YLJRURXV DQG SURGXFWLYH RI UHVHDUFK SURJUDPV UHOLHV KHDYLO\ RQ FRUUHODWLRQDO ILQGLQJV VHH %URSK\ t *RRG f ,Q WKH HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ UHVHDUFK WKH DEVHQFH RI DQ H[SODQDWRU\ WKHRU\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHDFKHU EHKDYLRU DQG VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH KDV EHHQ FULWLFL]HG &ULWLFV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK W\SLFDOO\ VRXJKW WR GHYHORS SURJUDPV RI UHVHDUFK LQ ZKLFK D PHGLDWLQJ YDULDEOH LH VWXGHQW DV PHGLDWRU RI LQVWUXFWLRQf ZDV H[DPLQHG )XUWKHU OLPLWLQJ WKH HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ UHVHDUFK LV WKH ODFN RI YDULHG VHWWLQJV 0RVW RI WKH VWXGLHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG LQ HOHPHQWDU\ JUDGHV ZLWK WKH IRFXV RQ UHDGLQJ DQG PDWKHPDWLFV DFKLHYHPHQW $ VHFRQG OLPLWDWLRQ LV UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ KDV ODUJHO\ EHHQ FRQGXFWHG E\ UHVHDUFKHUV LQWHUHVWHG LQ WHDFKLQJ 2PLWWHG IURP WKLV OLWHUDWXUH DUH VWXGLHV E\ WHDFKHUV DQG WHDFKHUVn SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ 7HDFKHUV RIWHQ FLWH DIIHFWLYH DUHDV VXFK DV HQKDQFLQJ VHOIHVWHHP DQG PHHWLQJ HPRWLRQDO QHHGV DV LPSHUDWLYH MREV RI HOHPHQWDU\ WHDFKHUV 5H\QROGV f 5HVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ KRZHYHU WHOOV XV YHU\ OLWWOH DERXW WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH WDVNV 7KLUG DVVHVVPHQW GHYHORSHUV FDQQRW DVVXPH WKDW WKH ILQGLQJV RI FRUUHODWLRQDO DQG GHVFULSWLYH UHVHDUFK JLYH WKH

PAGE 28

HQWLUH YLHZ RI WHDFKLQJ 7KH YDOXH RI HGXFDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK LV WR KHOS XV XQGHUVWDQG DQG OHDUQ DERXW D OLPLWHG UDQJH RI HGXFDWLRQDO SKHQRPHQD SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ UHVHDUFK LV GRQH ZHOO &RQWLQXHG UHVHDUFK RQ HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ WR WHDFK ZLOO RQO\ LPSURYH RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI FRPSHWHQW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ $VVHVVPHQW RI %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHUV )HZ ZRXOG DUJXH WKDW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV QHHG DVVHVVPHQW WR D JUHDWHU H[WHQW WKDQ H[SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUV )RUWXQDWHO\ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR VXSSRUW WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQWV EHFDXVH RI WKHLU LQLWLDO SRVLWLYH DWWLWXGHV 3HWHUVRQ f 3HWHUVRQ f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f 2QH RI WKHVH LQQRYDWLRQV LV WKH LQFUHDVLQJ SRSXODU XVH RI PXOWLSOH GDWD VRXUFHV 1R VLQJOH OLQH RI HYLGHQFH FDQ SURYLGH D FRPSUHKHQVLYH SLFWXUH RI ZKDW D FRPSHWHQW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU GRHV 0HGOH\ HW DO f &XUUHQW GDWD VRXUFHV IRU DVVHVVPHQW PD\ LQFOXGH V\VWHPDWLF REVHUYDWLRQ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ

PAGE 29

RI SURIHVVLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV WHDFKHU WHVWV SDUHQW VXUYH\V SXSLO DFKLHYHPHQW GDWD SHHU UHYLHZ DQG RWKHU LQGLYLGXDOL]HG GDWD 3HWHUVRQ f 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH RIIHUHG D IHZ VXJJHVWLRQV IRU EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW )LUVW WKH WLPH RI IRUPDO HYDOXDWLRQ LV LPSRUWDQW 5H\QROGV f VWDWHG WKDW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV QHHG WLPH DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH VFKRRO \HDU WR GHYHORS DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKHLU VWXGHQWV DQG WKH FXOWXUH RI WKHLU VFKRRO (YDOXDWLRQ RI FRPSHWHQFH VKRXOG EHJLQ DIWHU D VHPHVWHU RI IXOOWLPH WHDFKLQJ $ VHFRQG VXJJHVWLRQ LV EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQWV VKRXOG EH WDLORUHG WR WKH VSHFLILF SRSXODWLRQ LH EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVf XQGHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ %HUOLQHU f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f FRQFOXGHG EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV RIWHQ ODFN DQ DGHTXDWH NQRZOHGJH EDVH RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJV WR SHUIRUP WHDFKLQJ WDVNV LQ DQ HIIHFWLYH PDQQHU Sf %HJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV GLIIHU IURP H[SHULHQFHG

PAGE 30

WHDFKHUV QRW RQO\ LQ D NQRZOHGJH EDVH EXW RQ WKH QHHGV RI DVVHVVPHQW 6RPH FRQVLGHUDWLRQV IRU DVVHVVPHQW RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQFOXGH Df WKH XVH RI PXOWLSOH GDWD VRXUFHV Ef MXGJPHQWV RI WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH Ff WHDFKHU LQYROYHPHQW DQG Gf IHHGEDFN WLHG WR SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW %HUOLQHU f 7HDFKHU 'HYHORSPHQW 7KHRU\ .QRZOHGJH RI WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW WHDFKHUV H[KLELW GXULQJ WKHLU FDUHHUV FDQ SURYLGH HGXFDWRUV ZLWK DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH DELOLWLHV DQG LQDGHTXDFLHV RI WHDFKHUV GXULQJ GLIIHUHQW VWDJHV ,QIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKHVH VWDJHV FDQ VHUYH DV D IRXQGDWLRQ IRU Df LPSURYLQJ SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV Ef LPSURYLQJ VWDIIGHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV DQG Ff LPSURYLQJ WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH 7HDFKHUVn 'HYHORSPHQWDO 6WDJHV 6HYHUDO UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV KDYH SURYLGHG GHWDLO GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH YDULRXV VWDJHV RI WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW 7KH PRVW SURPLQHQW RI WKHVH VWXGLHV ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ )UDQFHV )XOOHU DQG KHU FROOHDJXHV )XOOHU )XOOHU t %RZQ f 7KURXJK KHU RZQ UHVHDUFK DQG UHYLHZV RI VLPLODU VWXGLHV )XOOHU FRQFOXGHG WKDW WHDFKHUV SURJUHVV WKURXJK IRXU VWDJHV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI EHFRPLQJ D WHDFKHU 7KH ILUVW VWDJH LV WKH SUHWHDFKLQJ SKDVH LQ ZKLFK SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV FDQQRW LGHQWLI\ ZLWK WHDFKHUV EXW UDWKHU PRUH FORVHO\ LGHQWLI\ ZLWK WKH SXSLOV ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWDJH RU WKH HDUO\ WHDFKLQJ SKDVH WHDFKHUV DUH SULPDULO\ FRQFHUQHG ZLWK VXUYLYDO DV $

PAGE 31

WHDFKHU DORQJ ZLWK VRPH FRQFHUQ IRU WKH FRQWHQW RI OHVVRQV DQG FODVV FRQWURO 7KH WKLUG VWDJH LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH WHDFKHUVn FRQFHUQV DERXW WKHLU WHDFKLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG VLWXDWLRQDO GHPDQGV WKDW PD\ EH OLPLWLQJ RU IUXVWUDWLQJ ,Q WKH IRXUWK VWDJH WHDFKHUV EHJLQ WR VKRZ PRUH FRQFHUQ IRU WKHLU SXSLOV 0RUH HPSKDVLV FDQ EH VHHQ RQ WKH VRFLDO DQG HPRWLRQDO QHHGV RI WKH SXSLOV )XOOHU DQG KHU FROOHDJXHV QHYHU HVWDEOLVKHG ZKHWKHU WKH SURSRVHG VWDJHV RYHUODSSHG RU ZHUH FOHDUO\ GHILQHG 6LPLODUO\ 8QUXK DQG 7XUQHU f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

PAGE 32

$QRWKHU VWDJH GHYHORSPHQWDO SURFHVV IRU WHDFKHUV ZDV SURSRVHG E\ .DW] f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n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f DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV GHVFULEHG IRXU VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW EHFRPLQJ JURZLQJ PDWXULQJ DQG IXOO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO ,Q WKH EHFRPLQJ VWDJH WHDFKHUV GHPRQVWUDWH D

PAGE 33

OLPLWHG QRWLRQ RI WKHLU WHDFKLQJ GXWLHV 7HDFKHUV RIWHQ IHHO WKDW WKHLU MRE LV WR VKDUH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK VWXGHQWV DQG FRPSOHWH WKH DVVLJQHG ERRN IRU D VXEMHFW DUHD ,QLWLDO FRQFHSWV RI WHDFKLQJ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO SURFHVV DQG WKH UROH RI D VFKRRO DUH MXVW EHJLQQLQJ WR GHYHORS GXULQJ WKLV SKDVH ,Q WKH JURZLQJ VWDJH WKHVH LQLWLDO FRQFHSWV EHFRPH PRUH UHILQHG DV WHDFKHUV LQFUHDVH WKHLU NQRZOHGJH DERXW VWXGHQWV PDWHULDOV FXUULFXOD DQG WKHLU RZQ WHDFKLQJ 7HDFKHUV PRYLQJ LQWR WKH PDWXULQJ VWDJH KDYH PDGH D FRPPLWPHQW WR WHDFKLQJ 7KH\ KDYH UHH[DPLQHG WKHLU RULJLQDO FRQFHSWV DQG JDLQHG QHZ LQVLJKWV WR HGXFDWLRQ VXEMHFW PDWWHU DQG WKHPVHOYHV *UHJRUF IRXQG WKDW WKRVH WHDFKHUV ZKR UHDFK WKH IXOO\ IXQFWLRQLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO VWDJH KDG PDGH D GHILQLWH FRPPLWPHQW WR WKHLU SURIHVVLRQ 7KHVH WHDFKHUV ZHUH DEOH WR VHH WKHLU IXOO SRWHQWLDO DV WHDFKHUV DV WKH\ FRQVLVWHQWO\ WHVWHG DQG DOWHUHG WKHLU FRQFHSWV DQG EHOLHIV ,Q
PAGE 34

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
PAGE 35

SURIHVVLRQDO WHDFKLQJ WKH WHDFKHU KDV SUREOHPVROYLQJ VNLOOV DQG RIWHQ ZLOO DVVLVW RWKHU WHDFKHUV LQ WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO JURZWK 6XPPDU\ RI 'HYHORSPHQWDO 6WDJHV ([DPLQDWLRQ RI WKHVH WKHRULHV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH VWDJHV RI WHDFKHUVn GHYHORSPHQW VXJJHVWV WKUHH SUHGRPLQDQW VWDJHV IRU LQVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV 7KH ILUVW VWDJH LV GLVWLQJXLVKHG E\ D WHDFKHUn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f \HW WKH WHDFKHUnV RYHUDOO FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 36

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f 3XUSRVHV RI 7HDFKHU (YDOXDWLRQ 7KH WZR PDMRU IXQFWLRQV RI HYDOXDWLRQ DUH IRUPDWLYH DQG VXPPDWLYH )RUPDWLYH HYDOXDWLRQ UHSUHVHQWV D SURFHVV RU SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW )RUPDWLYH HYDOXDWLRQ SURYLGHV GDWD MXGJPHQW DQG VXJJHVWLRQV WR WHDFKHUV WR KHOS LQ PDNLQJ DSSURSULDWH DGMXVWPHQWV RQ WKHLU WHDFKLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 37

6XPPDWLYH HYDOXDWLRQ UHSUHVHQWV D SURGXFW RU DFFRXQWDELOLW\ 7KLV W\SH RI HYDOXDWLRQ VHUYH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH GHFLVLRQV VXFK DV KLULQJ ILULQJ SURPRWLRQ FHUWLILFDWLRQ DQG VDODU\ 6WULNLQJ D EDODQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR W\SHV RI HYDOXDWLRQ FRXOG KDYH SURIRXQG LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP DQG HGXFDWLRQ $QGUHZV t %DUQHV f 7KH ILUVW VWHS LQ WKH SURFHVV RI HYDOXDWLRQ ZKHWKHU IRUPDWLYH RU VXPPDWLYH LV GHILQLQJ WKH SXUSRVH RU PXOWLSOH SXUSRVHV RI WKH LQTXLU\ $OWKRXJK WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ PD\ KDYH H[SOLFLW DQG VSHFLILF SXUSRVHV WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH HYDOXDWLRQ PD\ H[WHQG LQWR XQLQWHQGHG DUHDV )RU LQVWDQFH WKH GLVPLVVDO RI D WHDFKHU IRU LQFRPSHWHQW SHUIRUPDQFH KDV DQ HIIHFW QRW RQO\ RQ WKDW WHDFKHU EXW RQ RWKHU WHDFKHUV LQ WKH VFKRRO DV ZHOO 1DWULHOOR f SURSRVHG WKUHH SXUSRVHV IRU WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ 7KH ILUVW SXUSRVH WR FRQWURO RU LQIOXHQFH WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI D WHDFKHU LV WR LPSURYH SHUIRUPDQFH WKDW LV DOUHDG\ ZLWKLQ DQ DFFHSWDEOH UDQJH IRU WKDW FXUUHQW WHDFKLQJ DVVLJQPHQW 0DQ\ RI WKHVH HYDOXDWLRQ V\VWHPV XVH FULWHULD WKDW DUH EDVHG RQ HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ UHVHDUFK 0HGOH\ &RNHU t 6RDU f RU RQ PRGHOV RI FOLQLFDO VXSHUYLVLRQ *ROGVEHUU\ f 7KH VHFRQG SXUSRVH LV WR FRQWURO PRYHPHQW LQ DQG RXW RI SRVLWLRQV LH KLULQJ ILULQJ FHUWLILFDWLRQf 6RPH H[DPSOHV RI DVVHVVPHQWV DUH SHQFLODQGSDSHU H[DPLQDWLRQV XVHG E\ VWDWHV GLVWULFWVf WR VFUHHQ DSSOLFDQWV 7KH WKLUG SXUSRVH LV WR MXVWLI\ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FRQWURO V\VWHP 7KH HPSKDVLV LV WR FRQYLQFH

PAGE 38

HPSOR\HHV WKDW WKH V\VWHP LV IDLU DQG HTXDO YDOLG IRU GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVVHV 0HWKRGV RI 7HDFKHU $VVHVVPHQW 7KH DVVHVVRU PD\ FKRRVH YDULRXV PHWKRGV WR HYDOXDWH WHDFKHUV 7KH W\SH RI PHWKRG FKRVHQ VKRXOG EH IDLU HIILFLHQW FUHGLEOH DQG DFFXUDWH 0LOOPDQ f
PAGE 39

RI UDWLQJ LQVWUXPHQWV LV LQ KHOSLQJ WHDFKHUV WR DQDO\]H DQG LPSURYH WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQ 6HOIDVVHVVPHQWV 6HOIDVVHVVPHQWV RI WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH DUH IRUPDWLYH LQ QDWXUH ZLWK SHUVRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DV WKHLU SULPDU\ SXUSRVH 6HOIDVVHVVPHQWV LQFOXGLQJ DXGLR DQG YLGHRWDSHV VHOIUHSRUWV TXHVWLRQQDLUHV DQG VHOIUDWLQJ IRUPV DOORZ LQVLJKW LQWR D WHDFKHUnV RZQ VWUHQJWKV DQG ZHDNQHVVHV +RZHYHU VHOIDVVHVVPHQWV KDYH VHYHUDO OLPLWDWLRQV VXFK DV ODFN RI REMHFWLYLW\ DFFXUDF\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\ %DUEHU f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f GHVFULEHG WKUHH OLPLWDWLRQV RI XVLQJ VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW DV D PHWKRG RI WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW 2QH OLPLWDWLRQ LV WKDW VWXGHQWV GLIIHU LQ WKHLU OHYHOV RI DFDGHPLF DSWLWXGH DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV WR OHDUQ ,QGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ VWXGHQWV DUH UDUHO\ WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW ZLWK VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW PHDVXUHV $QRWKHU OLPLWDWLRQ LV WKDW

PAGE 40

VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW PHDVXUHV FDQQRW WHOO KRZ WKH WHDFKHU SODQQHG DQG LPSOHPHQWHG WKH OHVVRQ DQG WKHUHIRUH DUH OLPLWHG LQ WKHLU XVHIXOQHVV IRU LPSURYLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQ )LQDOO\ WKH DFKLHYHPHQW WHVWV PD\ QRW EH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI ZKDW LV EHLQJ WDXJKW RU PD\ RQO\ VDPSOH D VHW RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQ JRDOV 7KLV LV SDUWLFXODUO\ HYLGHQW LQ VHFRQGDU\ VFKRROV ZKHUH WKH PHDVXUHV RI VWXGHQW DFKLHYHPHQW DUH QRW DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH FXUULFXOXP *ODVV f 3RUWIROLR DVVHVVPHQW 7KH SRUWIROLR DV DQ HYDOXDWLRQ LQVWUXPHQW LV DQ LGHD ERUURZHG IURP RWKHU SURIHVVLRQV VXFK DV DUFKLWHFWXUH ZULWLQJ DQG SKRWRJUDSK\ %LUG f GLVFXVVHG WKH SRWHQWLDO RI SRUWIROLR DVVHVVPHQW IRU WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ +H LGHQWLILHG WZR SXUSRVHV RI SRUWIROLRV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR SHUVRQQHO GHFLVLRQV DQG LPSURYLQJ WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH $ ZLGH DUUD\ RI GRFXPHQWV HJ SKRWRJUDSKV YLGHRWDSHV ZULWWHQ SURGXFWV DQG OHVVRQ SODQVf FRXOG EH LQFOXGHG LQ D WHDFKHUnV SRUWIROLR 3RUWIROLRV DUH JDLQLQJ SRSXODULW\ EHFDXVH WKH\ SURYLGH RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR VHH D WHDFKHUnV ZRUN KROLVWLFDOO\ DQG LQ FRQWH[W 6KXOPDQ f
PAGE 41

RXWVLGH RI WKH FODVVURRP EXW DUH GHVLJQHG WR VLPXODWH DFWXDO SUDFWLFH 6WDQIRUGnV 7HDFKHU $VVHVVPHQW 3URMHFW XQGHU WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI /HH 6KXOPDQ OHG WKH UHVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI SHUIRUPDQFH H[HUFLVHV 7KHVH H[HUFLVHV LQFOXGHG SODQQLQJ OHVVRQV FRPPHQWLQJ RQ YLGHRWDSHV RI RWKHU WHDFKHUVn SHUIRUPDQFHV FULWLTXLQJ WH[WERRNV DQG FRUUHFWLQJ KRPHZRUN SDSHUV 6KXOPDQ +DHUWHO t %LUG f 3HUIRUPDQFH H[HUFLVHV FDQ VLPXODWH WKH FRPSOH[LWLHV RI WHDFKLQJ DQG DOORZ IRU LQIHUHQFHV DERXW GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ FDSDELOLWLHV 'Z\HU f 7KH PDMRU OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKHVH PHWKRGV LV WKDW WKH WHDFKHU LV VWLOO UHPRYHG IURP WKH DFWXDO FRQWH[WV DQG WKXV WKH GLUHFW UHODWLRQVKLS RI WHDFKLQJ WR OHDUQLQJ LV ORVW 'Z\HU +DHUWHO f 2WKHU OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKLV PHWKRG DUH WKDW LW LV H[SHQVLYH WR DGPLQLVWHU FUHDWH DQG HYDOXDWH DQG WKDW LW VDPSOHV WKH GHSWK RI D WHDFKHUnV NQRZOHGJH UDWKHU WKDQ WKH EUHDGWK ,Q DGGLWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH H[HUFLVHV DUH WDVN VSHFLILF VR WKH YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKHVH LQVWUXPHQWV DUH GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH W\SH RI WDVN GHPDQGV 6KXOPDQ f 7KHUH LV JURZLQJ LQWHUHVW LQ SHUIRUPDQFH H[HUFLVHV EXW WKH\ DUH QRW \HW ZLGHO\ DFFHSWHG GXH WR WKH SUREOHPV ZLWK WKLV WHFKQLTXH 0DQ\ HIIRUWV WR XVH VLPXODWLRQ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH H[HUFLVHV DUH DGGUHVVLQJ WKHVH SUREOHPV DQG DUH VWLOO LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW VWDJHV 3DSHUDQGSHQFLO WHVWV $W OHDVW VWDWHV KDYH DGRSWHG WHDFKHUFRPSHWHQF\ WHVWV DV D SUHUHTXLVLWH IRU WHDFKHU FHUWLILFDWLRQ 'DUOLQJ+DPPRQG f 7KH PDLQ DGYDQWDJH RI WKHVH FRQYHQWLRQDO WHVWV LV WKDW WKH\ FDQ DGHTXDWHO\ VDPSOH

PAGE 42

WKH EUHDGWK RI WHDFKHU NQRZOHGJH &RQYHQWLRQDO WHVWV DUH Df HIILFLHQW Ef HDV\ WR VFRUH Ff KLJKO\ UHOLDEOH DQG Gf REMHFWLYH 7KH\ DUH LQFRPSOHWH KRZHYHU EHFDXVH WKH\ PHDVXUH LVRODWHG SLHFHV RI NQRZOHGJH RPLWWLQJ SURFHVVHV VXFK DV MXGJPHQW SUREOHP VROYLQJ DQG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ 0DGDXV t 0HKUHQV 6KXOPDQ f ,Q VXPPDU\ SDSHUDQGSHQFLO WHVWV SOD\ DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ EXW IDOO VKRUW RI SURYLGLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WR LPSURYH WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV DUH WKH GRPLQDQW PHWKRG RI WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ LQ HOHPHQWDU\ DQG VHFRQGDU\ VFKRROV WRGD\ 7R DVVHVV WHDFKHU EHKDYLRU DFWLRQf FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ VHHPV WR EH WKH OHDGLQJ PHWKRG KRZHYHU REVHUYDWLRQV DUH QRW ZLWKRXW WKHLU OLPLWDWLRQV 0RVW QRWDEO\ UHVHDUFKHUV UHJDUG REVHUYDWLRQV DV D OLPLWHG WRRO LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WHDFKHUnV WKLQNLQJ WKRXJKWf 'DUOLQJ+DPPRQG 0HGOH\ HW DO 6KXOPDQ 6WRGROVN\ f &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ DV D PHWKRG RI WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW FDQ DVVXPH GLIIHUHQW IRUPV LQFOXGLQJ EHKDYLRU FKHFNOLVWV FDWHJRU\ V\VWHPV VXPPDULHV DQG QDUUDWLYH UHFRUGV 6HH (YHUWVRQ t *UHHQ f 2EVHUYDWLRQ V\VWHPV PD\ EH RSHQ RU FORVHG HDFK ZLWK XQLTXH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ,Q RSHQ V\VWHPV WKH DVVHVVRU PDNHV D IXOO GHVFULSWLRQ RI DOO EHKDYLRU DV LW RFFXUV ZLWKRXW DQ\ UHIHUHQFH WR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ([DPSOHV RI RSHQ V\VWHPV DUH QDUUDWLYH UHFRUGV DQG VXPPDULHV 7KHVH V\VWHPV SURGXFH D ULFK GHVFULSWLRQ RI FODVVURRP HYHQWV DQG

PAGE 43

SURYLGH VSHFLILF H[DPSOHV IRU GLVFXVVLRQ RU DQDO\VLV ,Q SDUWLFXODU QDUUDWLYH UHFRUGV KDYH VHYHUDO DGYDQWDJHV )LUVW QDUUDWLYH UHFRUGV DOORZ IRU D QDWXUDO DSSURDFK WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH FODVVURRP 6HFRQG QDUUDWLYH UHFRUGV FDQ SUHVHUYH WKH RULJLQDO VHTXHQFLQJ RI EHKDYLRU DQG WKH FRQWH[W LQ ZKLFK LW RFFXUV 7KLV KROLVWLF DSSURDFK LV PRUH FRPSUHKHQVLYH WKDQ VHOHFWLYH DSSURDFKHV VXFK DV FDWHJRU\ V\VWHPV ZKLFK DUH GLVFXVVHG QH[W (YHUWVRQ t +ROOH\ f ,Q FRQWUDVW FORVHG V\VWHPV FHQWHU RQ VSHFLILF W\SHV RU SDWWHUQV RI EHKDYLRU DV H[HPSOLILHG E\ EHKDYLRU FKHFNOLVWV DQG FDWHJRU\ V\VWHPV :LWKLQ D FORVHG V\VWHP WKH DVVHVVRU UHFRUGV D EHKDYLRU RU ODFN RI EHKDYLRUf HYHQW RU LQWHUDFWLRQ VHTXHQFH 6WRGROVN\ f $QRWKHU GLPHQVLRQ RI REVHUYDWLRQ V\VWHPV LV ZKHWKHU WKH\ DUH KLJK LQIHUHQFH RU ORZ LQIHUHQFH /RZ LQIHUHQFH V\VWHPV UHTXLUH WKH DVVHVVRU WR LGHQWLI\ EHKDYLRUV WKDW DUH FRGLILHG 7KH )ORULGD 3HUIRUPDQFH 0HDVXUHPHQW 6\VWHP )306f DQG WKH &ODVVURRP 2EVHUYDWLRQV .H\HG IRU (IIHFWLYHQHVV 5HVHDUFK &2.(5f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

PAGE 44

0F/DXJKOLQ t %HUQVWHLQ f LQ ZKLFK HDFK FODVVURRP LV FRQVLGHUHG D FRQWH[WXDO XQLW ,QVWHDG RI IRFXVLQJ RQ JHQHULF FRPSHWHQFLHV WKH GLVWULFWnV FRQFHSWLRQ RI WHDFKLQJ LV WKDW D YDULHW\ RI LQVWUXFWLRQ DSSURDFKHV DUH FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ $OWKRXJK REVHUYDWLRQ V\VWHPV PD\ SRWHQWLDOO\ KHOS WHDFKHUV FRQFHSWXDOL]H WKHLU WHDFKLQJ EHKDYLRUV WKH\ DUH ULGGOHG ZLWK SUREOHPV *RRG f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n SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DQRWKHU SXUSRVH RI DVVHVVPHQW 'HVSLWH FULWLFLVPV FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV DUH OLNHO\ WR EH WKH FHQWHUSLHFH RI V\VWHPDWLF DVVHVVPHQW SURFHVVHV ,PSURYHPHQWV KRZHYHU DUH VWLOO QHHGHG )LUVW JUHDWHU

PAGE 45

FODULW\ DERXW WKH SODFH RI HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ EHKDYLRU LQ TXDOLW\ WHDFKLQJ LV LPSHUDWLYH (YHUWVRQ t +ROOH\ f 6HFRQG UHVHDUFKHUV PXVW GHWHUPLQH RSWLPXP WLPHV LQ D WHDFKHUnV FDUHHU IRU REVHUYDWLRQ 7KLUG SURFHGXUHV IRU REVHUYDWLRQV QHHG IXUWKHU UHILQHPHQW 6XPPDU\ 3HWHUVRQ f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f )LQDOO\ WKH SRVVHVVLRQ RI PLQLPXP FRPSHWHQFLHV WR PHHW D VWDQGDUG RI WHDFKLQJ GRHV QRW JXDUDQWHH WKHLU HIIHFWLYH XVH LQ SUDFWLFH 7KH HPHUJHQW PRGHO DVVHUWV WKDW WHDFKLQJ LV FRQWH[WXDOO\ DQG VLWXDWLRQDOO\ GHSHQGHQW :KHQ MXGJLQJ WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQ DVVHVVRU PXVW FRQVLGHU Df WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WHDFKLQJ Ef WKH YDOXH RI WHDFKLQJ UHODWHG WR VSHFLILF VWXGHQWV DQG Ff WKH FRQWH[WXDO GHSHQGHQF\ RI WHDFKLQJ (PHUJHQW HYDOXDWLRQV HQWDLO YDOXH MXGJPHQWV LQ WKH IRUP RI D VWDWHPHQW ZLWK VXSSRUWLQJ OLQHV RI HYLGHQFH 0HWKRGV RI WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW KDYH VWUHQJWKV DQG OLPLWDWLRQV EDVHG RQ WKH SXUSRVHV RI HYDOXDWLRQ 0HKUHQV

PAGE 46

f VWUHVVHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI FRPELQLQJ HYDOXDWLRQ GDWD IURP PXOWLSOH VRXUFHV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ FDUHHU GHFLVLRQV DUH PDGH %HFDXVH HYDOXDWLRQV RI WHDFKHUV FDQ OHDG WR VLJQLILFDQW GHFLVLRQV DVVHVVPHQW V\VWHPV VKRXOG SURYLGH WKH EHVW GDWD SRVVLEOH &RQFHLYDEO\ DQ LGHDO WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW ZRXOG LQFRUSRUDWH PXOWLSOH VRXUFHV RI HYLGHQFH DERXW WHDFKHUV DQG WKHLU HIIHFWV RQ VWXGHQWV 0HKUHQV 6KXOPDQ 6WRGROVN\ f +LJKVWDNHV GHFLVLRQV DERXW WHDFKHUV SXW JUHDW GHPDQGV RQ WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW PHWKRGV (DFK PHWKRG LV D OHQV LQWR WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WHDFKLQJ ,Q JHQHUDO WKH PRUH OHQVHV WKDW DUH ORRNHG WKURXJK WKH EHWWHU WKH GHFLVLRQ LV OLNHO\ WR EH 0HKUHQV f 7KH IROORZLQJ DVVHVVPHQW PHWKRGV HDFK KDYH WKHLU RZQ DGYDQWDJH 3UH DQG SRVWn REVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV FDQ SURYLGH DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WHDFKHU SODQQLQJ DQG WKLQNLQJ 3DSHUDQGSHQFLO WHVWV PD\ EH XVHG WR DVVHVV VXEMHFWPDWWHU NQRZOHGJH DQG SHGDJRJLFDO FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH (YLGHQFH RI VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG DWWLWXGHV PD\ DOVR EH KHOSIXO )LQDOO\ FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV JLYH XV D YLHZ RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ FOLPDWH DQG UDSSRUW RI WKH FODVVURRP WKDW LV DYDLODEOH IURP QR RWKHU VRXUFH 3UD[LV ,,, &ODVVURRP 3HUIRUPDQFH $VVHVVPHQWV 3XUSRVH ,Q WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH (76f FUHDWHG DQG IXQGHG D JURXS RI WHVW GHYHORSPHQW OHDGHUV ZKR ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR WXUQ HGXFDWLRQDO DQG PHDVXUHPHQW JRDOV LQWR

PAGE 47

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nV 7HDFKHU $VVHVVPHQW 3URMHFW WKH +ROPHV *URXS WKH 5DQG &RUSRUDWLRQ UHVHDUFK DW 0LFKLJDQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG WKH %RDUG IRU 3URIHVVLRQDO 7HDFKLQJ 6WDQGDUGV 7KLUG WKH DQVZHUV WR TXHVWLRQV RI PHDVXUHPHQW WHFKQRORJ\ DQG HGXFDWLRQDO SROLF\ VKRXOG KDYH JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ WR RWKHU DVVHVVPHQW VLWXDWLRQV 'Z\HU f 7KH LQLWLDO JRDO ZDV WR LGHQWLI\ LPSRUWDQW HYHQWV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI EHFRPLQJ D WHDFKHU DQG GHYHORS PXOWLSOH DVVHVVPHQW PHWKRGV $W WKHVH WLPHV DQG ZLWK WKH DSSURSULDWH PHWKRGV LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG EH DVVHVVHG RQ HQDEOLQJ VNLOOV VXEMHFW PDWWHU NQRZOHGJH SHGDJRJLFDO NQRZOHGJH DQG SHGDJRJLFDO FRQWHQW VNLOOV 7KH 3UD[LV 6HULHV 3URIHVVLRQDO $VVHVVPHQWV IRU %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHUVr1 LV D FRPSUHKHQVLYH VHULHV RI FODVVURRP

PAGE 48

SHUIRUPDQFH DVVHVVPHQWV IRU EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV 7KH DVVHVVPHQW FRQVLVWV RI WKUHH VWDJHV WKDW DUH SDUW RI WKH OLFHQVLQJ SURFHVV (DFK VWDJH FRUUHVSRQGV WR HYHQWV LQ D WHDFKHUnV FDUHHU DQG LQ OLFHQVLQJ GHFLVLRQV 6WDJH 6WDJH DVVHVVPHQWV DUH GHVLJQHG WR EH WDNHQ DV HDUO\ DV SRVVLEOH LQ D VWXGHQWnV XQGHUJUDGXDWH SURJUDP RU VRRQ DIWHU WKH GHFLVLRQ WR EHFRPH D WHDFKHU LV PDGH 8VLQJ D FRPSXWHUEDVHG DSSURDFK SURVSHFWLYH WHDFKHUV DUH HYDOXDWHG RQ HQDEOLQJ VNLOOV LH UHDGLQJ ZULWLQJ DQG PDWKHPDWLFVf 3UDFWLFH WHVWV DUH D VSHFLDO IHDWXUH RI WKH ILUVW VWDJH 'Z\HU f 6WDJH ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWDJH WKH 3UD[LV ,, 6XEMHFW $VVHVVPHQWV DVVHVVHV VXEMHFWPDWWHU NQRZOHGJH DQG SHGDJRJLFDO SULQFLSOHV 7KHVH DVVHVVPHQWV XWLOL]H WKH PRUH WUDGLWLRQDO DVVHVVPHQW PHWKRGV RI SDSHUDQGSHQFLO PHDVXUHV &RPSOHWLRQ RI WKHVH DVVHVVPHQWV VKRXOG WDNH SODFH DW WKH HQG RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RU IRUPDO FRXUVHZRUN $OWKRXJK 3UD[LV ,, LV QDWLRQDOO\ GHYHORSHG DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG LQGLYLGXDO VWDWHV PD\ WDLORU VRPH RI WKH PRGXOHV 'Z\HU f 6WDJH 7KH WKLUG VWDJH RI WKH 3UD[LV 6HULHV 3UD[LV ,,, &ODVVURRP 3HUIRUPDQFH $VVHVVPHQWV HPSKDVL]HV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG PDNLQJ MXGJPHQWV DERXW WKH DFW RI WHDFKLQJ 3UD[LV ,,, GRHV QRW GXSOLFDWH WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI VXEMHFW PDWWHU NQRZOHGJH 3UD[LV ,,f EXW DVVHVVHV WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKLV NQRZOHGJH LQ VSHFLILF FODVVURRP VHWWLQJV 7KLV ILQDO DVVHVVPHQW LV GHVLJQHG WR EH DGPLQLVWHUHG WRZDUG WKH HQG RI DQ LQWHUQVKLS RU GXULQJ WKH ILUVW \HDU RI WHDFKLQJ IRU WKRVH

PAGE 49

6WDWHV UHTXLULQJ D SHUIRUPDQFHEDVHG DVVHVVPHQW DV D SDUW RI OLFHQVLQJ $OWKRXJK 3UD[LV ,,, LV SUHGRPLQDQWO\ D SHUIRUPDQFHEDVHG DVVHVVPHQW D SDSHUDQGSHQFLO WDVN LV UHTXLUHG WR SURYLGH FODVVURRP DQG LQVWUXFWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH HQWLUH 3UD[LV 6HULHV 3URIHVVLRQDO $VVHVVPHQWV IRU %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHUVr1 ZDV GHYHORSHG IRU OLFHQVLQJ GHFLVLRQV RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV W\SLFDOO\ PDGH E\ VWDWHV RU ORFDO HGXFDWLRQ DJHQFLHV 3UD[LV ,,, KRZHYHU ZDV QRW LQWHQGHG IRU XVH LQ PDNLQJ GHFLVLRQV DERXW WHDFKHUV ZKR DUH DOUHDG\ OLFHQVHG 'Z\HU f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f 'XULQJ WKH LQLWLDO VWDJHV RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI 3UD[LV ,,, WKH UHVHDUFKHUV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU\ WR VWDWH H[SOLFLWO\ D JXLGLQJ FRQFHSWLRQ RI WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ DQG D VHW RI FULWHULD IRU DVVHVVPHQW RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ 7KH JXLGLQJ FRQFHSWLRQV DUH IRXQGHG LQ 'Z\HU DQG 9LOOHJDVnV f PXOWLFXOWXUDO YLHZ RI WHDFKLQJ 7KH\ PDLQWDLQ WKDW WHDFKLQJ UHTXLUHV HQJDJLQJ VWXGHQWV DV DFWLYH OHDUQHUV WR SURPRWH

PAGE 50

FKDQJHV LQ WKHLU SUHH[LVWLQJ NQRZOHGJH $GGLWLRQDOO\ WHDFKHUV PXVW FRQVLGHU VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV LQWHUHVWV DQG DELOLWLHV DQG PXVW FRQWLQXDOO\ DFFRPPRGDWH WKH GLYHUVH QHHGV RI WKHLU VWXGHQWV E\ PRGLI\LQJ WKHLU WHDFKLQJ ,Q RSHUDWLRQDOL]LQJ WKLV FRQFHSWLRQ WKH GHYHORSHUV RI 3UD[LV ,,, XVHG WKUHH DVVHVVPHQW SULQFLSOHV 'Z\HU f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

PAGE 51

'Z\HU f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

PAGE 52

WKH HVVHQWLDOV RI JRRG SURIHVVLRQDO SUDFWLFH WKDW WHDFKHUV DFNQRZOHGJH 6HYHUDO UHYLVLRQV UHVXOWHG IURP D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKHLU ZRUN 3RZHUV 5RVHQIHOG )UHHEHUJ t %XNDWNR 5RVHQIHOG 5H\QROGV t %XNDWNR 5RVHQIHOG :LOGHU t %XNDWNR :HVOH\ 5RVHQIHOG t 6LPV*XQ]HQKDXVHU f 7KH VHFRQG WHVW RI TXDOLW\ ZDV GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU WKH FULWHULD UHIOHFWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH LQGLFDWRUV RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WHDFKLQJ FRPSHWHQF\ 7R VRPH H[WHQW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV LPSRUWDQW IRU DOLJQLQJ WHDFKHUVn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f 7KH IRXU GRPDLQV DUH GHVFULEHG EULHIO\ DORQJ ZLWK WKH VSHFLILF FULWHULD FRPSRVLQJ HDFK GRPDLQ 6HH $SSHQGL[ $f )RU IXUWKHU GHVFULSWLRQ RI HDFK FULWHULRQ WKH UHDGHU LV UHIHUUHG WR 'Z\HU f RU WKH 3UD[LV ,,, PDWHULDOV 'RPDLQ $ 2UJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ $SSOLFDWLRQ RI FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH LV WKH IRFXV RI

PAGE 53

DVVHVVPHQW LQ 'RPDLQ $ :LWK WKHLU VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFH LQ PLQG WHDFKHUV PXVW Df GHFLGH RQ OHDUQLQJ JRDOV Ef VHTXHQFH LQVWUXFWLRQ IRU FXUULFXODU JRDOV Ff VHOHFW DSSURSULDWH PHWKRGV DFWLYLWLHV DQG PDWHULDOV DQG Gf VHOHFW HYDOXDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV WR UHIOHFW OHDUQHG JRDOV 7KHVH FULWHULD DUH DVVHVVHG SULPDULO\ WKURXJK WHDFKHUSUHSDUHG ZULWWHQ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ DQG VHPLVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ PD\ DOVR FRQWULEXWH WR WKH DVVHVVPHQW HYLGHQFH 'RPDLQ % &UHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 7KH IRFXV RI 'RPDLQ % LV RQ WKH SHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQV LQ WKH FODVVURRP EHWZHHQ WHDFKHUV DQG VWXGHQWV DQG DPRQJ VWXGHQWV 7HDFKHUV DGGUHVV LVVXHV RI Df IDLUQHVV Ef UDSSRUW Ff FKDOOHQJLQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV Gf VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU DQG Hf WKH VDIHW\ RI WKH SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW $OWKRXJK FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV ZLOO SURYLGH WKH SULPDU\ HYLGHQFH IRU WKLV GRPDLQ VXSSRUWLQJ HYLGHQFH PD\ EH XVHG IURP WKH VHPLVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZV 'RPDLQ & 7HDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 'RPDLQ & UHODWHV WR WKH DFW RI WHDFKLQJ LQ ZKLFK WKH SXUSRVH LV WR FRQQHFW WKH VWXGHQWV ZLWK WKH FRQWHQW &RQWHQW UHIHUV WR WKH NQRZOHGJH VNLOOV SHUFHSWLRQV DQG YDOXHV RI VXEMHFW PDWWHU 7HDFKHUV SURYLGH HYLGHQFH RI Df FOHDU JRDOV DQG SURFHGXUHV Ef FRPSUHKHQVLEOH FRQWHQW Ff H[WHQGHG VWXGHQW WKLQNLQJ Gf PRQLWRULQJ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG Hf HIIHFWLYH XVH RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO WLPH 0RVW RI WKH HYLGHQFH IRU WKHVH FULWHULD

PAGE 54

ZLOO EH GUDZQ IURP FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ JDLQHG WKURXJK LQWHUYLHZV PD\ HQKDQFH WKH HYLGHQFH 'RPDLQ 7HDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP ,Q WKLV GRPDLQ WHDFKHUV HYDOXDWH WKHLU RZQ HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG GLVFXVV DVSHFWV RI WKH OHVVRQ 7KH DVVHVVRU REWDLQV LQIRUPDWLRQ WKURXJK D SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 4XHVWLRQV ZLOO IRFXV RQ Df PHHWLQJ OHDUQLQJ JRDOV Ef DWWDLQLQJ D VHQVH RI HIILFDF\ Ff EXLOGLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG Gf FRPPXQLFDWLQJ ZLWK SDUHQWVJXDUGLDQV 7KHUH DUH WKUHH PDLQ VWHSV LQ WKH DVVHVVPHQW SURFHVV RI 3UD[LV ,,, 7KH ILUVW VWHS LQYROYHV WKH DVVHVVRU FROOHFWLQJ GDWD LQ D YDULHW\ RI ZD\V FRQIHUHQFHV LQWHUYLHZV REVHUYDWLRQ DQG GRFXPHQWDWLRQ ,Q WKH QH[W VWHS WKH DVVHVVRU UHIOHFWV DQG DQDO\]HV WKH GDWD FROOHFWHG )RU WKH ILQDO VWHS WKH DVVHVVRU UHDFKHV D MXGJPHQW DERXW WKH WHDFKHUnV SHUIRUPDQFH 7R SURYLGH IHHGEDFN WR WKH WHDFKHU WKH DVVHVVRU SURYLGHV H[SODQDWLRQV DQG VXPPDU\ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ (DFK FULWHULRQ KDV D UDWLQJ VFDOH WKDW LQFOXGHV LOOXVWUDWLRQV DW HDFK RI WKUHH OHYHOV RI SHUIRUPDQFH 7KHVH DUH XVHG DV JXLGHV E\ WKH DVVHVVRU ZKHQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ GDWD 4XHVWLRQV DUH SURYLGHG IRU DVVHVVRU UHIOHFWLRQ 6HH $SSHQGL[ %f 5HIOHFWLRQ DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH 3UD[LV ,,, ZDV GHVLJQHG XQGHU WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ UHTXLUHV ERWK WKRXJKW DQG DFWLRQ ZRUNLQJ VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ ,Q NHHSLQJ ZLWK WKLV DVVXPSWLRQ HDFK GRPDLQ LV H[DPLQHG IURP ERWK SHUVSHFWLYHV 'Z\HU f 7KXV DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI HDFK GRPDLQ UHTXLUHV PXOWLSOH PHWKRGV RI

PAGE 55

DVVHVVPHQW LH FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ WHDFKHUSUHSDUHG ZULWWHQ GRFXPHQWV DQG VHPLVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZVf &ULWLFDO WR D WHDFKHUnV WKRXJKW DQG DFWLRQ LV WKH FRQFHSWLRQ WKDW HDFK SHUVSHFWLYH PXVW EH DGDSWHG WR DFFRPPRGDWH WKH VSHFLILF VWXGHQWV LQ D SDUWLFXODU WHDFKLQJ VLWXDWLRQ (IIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ WKHQ UHOLHV RQ NQRZOHGJH RI VXEMHFW PDWWHU DQG VWXGHQWV 7HDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW VKRXOG IRFXV RQ KRZ D WHDFKHU DGDSWV LQVWUXFWLRQ WR IRXU FODVVURRP FRQWH[W YDULDEOHV VXEMHFW PDWWHU VWXGHQWVn LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV VWXGHQWVn GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHOV DQG VWXGHQWVn FXOWXUDO EDFNJURXQGV &RQVHTXHQWO\ WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW VKRXOG QRW LPSRVH WKH XVH RI DQ\ SDUWLFXODU PHWKRG RI WHDFKLQJ $VVHVVPHQW DQG 3URIHVVLRQDO 'HYHORSPHQW 3UD[LV ,,, KDV WKH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI D VXPPDWLYH HYDOXDWLRQf§OLFHQVLQJ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV $ IRUPDWLYH UROH KRZHYHU LV QHHGHG 7KH GHYHORSHUV RI 3UD[LV ,,, EHOLHYH WKH IROORZLQJ EDVLF SULQFLSOH DVVHVVPHQW PXVW EH WDUJHWHG RQ WKH WHDFKHUn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f 7KH 3UD[LV ,,, SHUIRUPDQFH DVVHVVPHQW

PAGE 56

FULWHULD KDV EHHQ FRPSDUHG WR Df WKH HDUO\ DGROHVFHQFHJHQHUDOLVW VWDQGDUGV RI WKH 1%376 Ef WKH PRGHO VWDQGDUGV IRU EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV RI WKH ,QWHUVWDWH 1HZ 7HDFKHU $VVHVVPHQW DQG 6XSSRUW &RQVRUWLXP DQG Ff WKH RXWFRPHEDVHG VWDQGDUGV RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WDWH 'LUHFWRUV RI 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ DQG &HUWLILFDWLRQ ,QJZHUVRQ f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f VWDWHG WKDW WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW

PAGE 57

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n GHYHORSPHQWDO QHHGV DQG WR SURPRWH IXUWKHU JURZWK ,Q DGGLWLRQ 3UD[LV ,,, PD\ EH XVHG WR GHOLQHDWH DQG VROYH WKH SUREOHPV DQG OLPLWDWLRQV RI WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ 7KH FXUUHQW WUHQG WRZDUG VRXQG DVVHVVPHQWV IRU WHDFKHU OLFHQVXUH KDV SURGXFHG DQ LQQRYDWLYH WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW V\VWHP LQ 7KH 3UD[LV 6HULHV 3URIHVVLRQDO $VVHVVPHQWV IRU %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHUVr1 7KH XVH RI 3UD[LV ,,, IRU OLFHQVXUH ZLOO KDYH EURDG HIIHFWV IRU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ EHJLQV WR HVWDEOLVK D UHVHDUFK EDVH E\ H[DPLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV $V SURILOHV RI WKHVH WHDFKHUV EHJLQ WR HPHUJH WKH UROH RI WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ LQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ PD\ EHFRPH PRUH FOHDU WR WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV

PAGE 58

&+$37(5 ,,, 0(7+2'6 $1' 352&('85(6 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR FRPSDUH WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ VSHFLDO DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ 6HYHUDO NH\ DVSHFWV RI FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH ZHUH H[DPLQHG Df RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ef FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ff WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG Gf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

PAGE 59

0HWKRGV 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 6XEMHFWV 7KH VDPSOH FRQVLVWHG RI WHDFKHUV WHDFKLQJ LQ SXEOLF HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRROV LQ )ORULGD ,QIRUPDWLRQ DERXW HDFK WHDFKHU ZDV REWDLQHG WKURXJK WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI D FDQGLGDWH SURILOH VHH $SSHQGL[ &f (DFK WHDFKHU LQ WKH VDPSOH ZDV D JUDGXDWH IURP D WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP DW RQH RI IRXU VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 8)f )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ )68f 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &HQWUDO )ORULGD 8&)f DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6RXWK )ORULGD 86)f $OO WHDFKHUV ZHUH HPSOR\HG LQ SRVLWLRQV IRU ZKLFK WKH\ ZHUH FHUWLILHG HJ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU ZLWK VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ GHJUHHf $V ILUVW\HDU WHDFKHUV WKH\ ZHUH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH )ORULGD 3URIHVVLRQDO 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3URJUDP 323f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f ZDV SORWWHG RQ D PDS RI WKH )ORULGD GLVWULFWV 6HYHUDO GLVWULFWV ZHUH HOLPLQDWHG IRU WKH IROORZLQJ UHDVRQV

PAGE 60

Df XQEDODQFHG QXPEHUV RI DYDLODEOH JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV Ef XQUHSUHVHQWDWLYH QXPEHUV IURP WKH IRXU VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG Ff WLPH DQG H[SHQVH UHTXLUHG IRU WUDYHO 1H[W D VWUDWLILHG UDQGRP VDPSOH RI WKH EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV IURP WKH FKRVHQ GLVWULFWV ZDV VHOHFWHG 7KH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV VWUDWLILHG E\ XQLYHUVLW\ DQG W\SH RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP LH VSHFLDO DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQf 7KH EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ WKH UDQGRP VDPSOH ZHUH VHQW D OHWWHU WKDW LQFOXGHG D EULHI H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH VWXG\ DQG D SRVWFDUG WR UHWXUQ LI WKH\ ZRXOG OLNH WR SDUWLFLSDWH VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f 7KHLU SHUPLVVLRQ ZDV REWDLQHG WR PHHW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG UHJXODWLRQV &RPPLWWHH IRU WKH 3URWHFWLRQ RI +XPDQ 6XEMHFWVf VHH $SSHQGL[ (f 7KH QXPEHU RI SRVWFDUGV UHWXUQHG GLG QRW UHVXOW LQ DQ DGHTXDWH VDPSOH VL]H WKHUHIRUH IROORZXS SKRQH FDOOV ZHUH PDGH WR HQOLVW PRUH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 7HOHSKRQH FRQWDFW ZLWK EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV DOVR SURYLGHG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR GHWHUPLQH W\SLFDO UHDVRQV WKDW VRPH FKRVH QRW WR SDUWLFLSDWH 7KRVH UHDVRQV LQFOXGHG Df WKH QXPEHU RI UHTXLUHG REVHUYDWLRQV IRU WKH EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU SURJUDP Ef FRQFHUQ WKDW WKHLU WHDFKLQJ VLWXDWLRQV ZRXOG QRW SURYLGH DQ DFFXUDWH LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI ZKDW W\SLFDOO\ RFFXUV LQ WKH FODVVURRP DQG Ff JHQHUDO IHHOLQJV RI VWUHVV 7KUHH IDFWRUV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH VDPSOH VL]H )LUVW WKH DOSKD OHYHO ZDV VHW DW D FRQVHUYDWLYH OHYHO f VR WKDW WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI D 7\SH HUURU UHMHFWLQJ D

PAGE 61

WUXH QXOO K\SRWKHVLVf ZDV PLQLPL]HG 6HFRQG ZLWKRXW D WKHRUHWLFDO EDVH IURP ZKLFK WR SUHGLFW DQ HIIHFW VL]H WKH HIIHFW VL]H ZDV FRQVHUYDWLYHO\ HVWLPDWHG WR EH EHWZHHQ DQG 7KLUG SRZHU RI ZDV WDUJHWHG WR DGHTXDWHO\ GHWHFW DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV 7KHUHIRUH WKH VDPSOH VL]H RI ZDV FRQVLGHUHG DFFHSWDEOH 6KDYHOVRQ f 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 5HVHDUFK ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ 7KH UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 3UD[LV ,,, &ODVVURRP 3HUIRUPDQFH $VVHVVPHQW LV DQ DVVHVVPHQW V\VWHP WKDW XVHV WKUHH GDWDFROOHFWLRQ PHWKRGV GLUHFW REVHUYDWLRQ RI FODVVURRP SUDFWLFH ZULWWHQ GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH VWXGHQWV DQG ZKDW WKH\ DUH WR OHDUQ DQG LQWHUYLHZV WKDW DUH VWUXFWXUHG DURXQG WKH FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ )ROORZLQJ WKH SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ WKH DVVHVVRU UHYLHZV DOO WKH QRWHV WDNHQ IURP WKH SUHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ REVHUYDWLRQ DQG SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ DV ZHOO DV WKH WHDFKHUSUHSDUHG ZULWWHQ GRFXPHQWV 'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ 3URFHGXUHV (YLGHQFH LV JDWKHUHG IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ DQG PD\ FRPH IURP DQ\ VRXUFH ZLWKLQ WKH DVVHVVPHQW F\FOH 7KH DVVHVVRU FRPSLOHV SRVLWLYH DQGRU QHJDWLYH HYLGHQFH IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ 7KH PRVW SHUWLQHQW HYLGHQFH LV WKHQ VHOHFWHG DQG WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH 5HFRUG RI (YLGHQFH IRUP VHH $SSHQGL[ )f $IWHU FDUHIXO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH HYLGHQFH IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ WKH DVVHVVRU ZULWHV D VXPPDU\ VWDWHPHQW FRQQHFWLQJ WKH HYLGHQFH WR WKH VFRULQJ UXOHV IRU WKDW FULWHULRQ $

PAGE 62

VFRUH LV WKHQ DVVLJQHG IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ EDVHG RQ WKH VFRULQJ UXOHV 7KH FULWHULRQ VFRUH UDQJH LV IURP WR ZLWK D VFRUH DW HDFK LQWHUYDO HJ f 6FRULQJ UXOHV DQG VFRULQJ PDWULFHV IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ FDQ EH IRXQG LQ $SSHQGL[ )RU HDFK FULWHULRQ HYLGHQFH VKRXOG EH Df UHOHYDQW WR WKH FULWHULRQ Ef IUHH RI ELDV Ff DQ DFFXUDWH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI HYHQWV DQG Gf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f 7KH GHYHORSHUV FRQVLGHUHG LW HVVHQWLDO WR DUWLFXODWH ERWK D JXLGLQJ FRQFHSWLRQ RI WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ DQG D VHW RI FULWHULD E\ ZKLFK EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ FRXOG EH DVVHVVHG 7KH JXLGLQJ FRQFHSWLRQ GLVFXVVHG LQ GHWDLO LQ &KDSWHU ,, FODULILHG WKH UHVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSPHQW HIIRUW WKDW FXOPLQDWHG LQ WKH 3UD[LV ,,, FULWHULD

PAGE 63

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t %XNDWNR 5RVHQIHOG 5H\QROGV t %XNDWNR 5RVHQIHOG :LOGHU t %XNDWNR f 6XUYH\V ZHUH VHQW WR WHDFKHUV IURP HOHPHQWDU\ PLGGOH DQG VHFRQGDU\ OHYHOV 7KH UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG DERXW WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI VSHFLILF WDVNV IURP WKHLU RZQ WHDFKLQJ DV ZHOO DV EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ )XUWKHU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LGHQWLI\ RWKHU LPSRUWDQW DVSHFWV RI WHDFKLQJ WKDW PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VXUYH\ 7KH VHFRQG VRXUFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV D VHULHV RI UHVHDUFK UHYLHZV *XLGHG E\ D SDQHO RI H[SHUWV HJ %HUOLQHU 5 &DOIHH / 'HOSLW DQG $ +LOOLDUGf UHVHDUFKHUV UHYLHZHG OLWHUDWXUH RQ HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ HIIHFWLYH EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ DQG HIIHFWLYH WHDFKLQJ LQ PXOWLFXOWXUDO FODVVURRPV 7KXV WKHRUHWLFDO SHUVSHFWLYHV DQG UHVHDUFK

PAGE 64

ILQGLQJV VWUHQJWKHQHG WKH NQRZOHGJH EDVH SURYLGHG E\ SUDFLWLFLQJ WHDFKHUV 7KH WKLUG VRXUFH RI HYLGHQFH IRU WKH NQRZOHGJH EDVH ZDV DQ DQDO\VLV RI VWDWHVn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

PAGE 65

DVVHVVPHQW FULWHULD ILHOG VWXGLHV DOVR IRFXVHG RQ DVVHVVRU WUDLQLQJ 6HYHUDO PRGLILFDWLRQV ZHUH PDGH WR FODULI\ SDUWLFXODU VFRULQJ UXOHV DQG HQKDQFH QRWH WDNLQJ FRGLQJ DQG XVH RI PXOWLSOH VRXUFHV RI HYLGHQFH $GGLWLRQDO DVVHVVRUV ZHUH WKHQ WUDLQHG XVLQJ WKH ILQDOL]HG YHUVLRQ RI WKH 3UD[LV ,,, DVVHVVPHQW V\VWHP $ PRUH FRPSOHWH GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH SURFHVV RI GHYHORSLQJ WKH FULWHULD DQG WKH NQRZOHGJH EDVH IRU HDFK RI WKH DVVHVVPHQW FULWHULD FDQ EH IRXQG LQ 'Z\HU f $ SUHOLPLQDU\ DQDO\VLV RI GDWD FROOHFWHG GXULQJ ILHOG WHVWLQJ LQGLFDWHG D PRGHUDWH WR KLJK OHYHO RI LQWHUUDWHU DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ SDLUHG DVVHVVRUV ZKR REVHUYHG WKH VDPH WHDFKLQJ HYHQW 'Z\HU f 7R GDWH QR LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ GDWD KDYH EHHQ SXEOLVKHG (76 GRHV QRW HPSKDVL]H LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ UDWKHU WKH\ VWUHVV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI XVLQJ FHUWLILHG DVVHVVRUV 8OWLPDWHO\ WKHUHIRUH WKH YDOLGLW\ RI 3UD[LV ,,, UHVWV RQ WKH ULJRU RI WKH DVVHVVRU WUDLQLQJ .OHP SHUVRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 9LOOHJDV f 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 3URFHGXUHV $VVHVVPHQWBB&\FOH 7KH FROOHFWLRQ RI GDWD IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WKURXJK DQ LQWHUDFWLYH SURFHVV FRQVLVWLQJ RI WKH IRXU SKDVHV RI 3UD[LV ,,, SUHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ DQG UHFRUGLQJVFRULQJ RI HYLGHQFH 7KLV VHW RI SKDVHV LV UHIHUUHG WR DV DQ

PAGE 66

DVVHVVPHQW F\FOH DQG ZDV FRQGXFWHG IRU HDFK EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU 3UHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 3ULRU WR WKH SUHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ WKH DVVHVVRU SURYLGHG HDFK WHDFKHU ZLWK WKUHH IRUPV WR FRPSOHWH &DQGLGDWH 3URILOH VHH $SSHQGL[ &f &ODVV 3URILOH VHH $SSHQGL[ +f DQG ,QVWUXFWLRQ 3URILOH VHH $SSHQGL[ ,f 7KHVH IRUPV VXSSOLHG ZULWWHQ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ WR FRQYH\ D VHQVH RI WKH JHQHUDO FODVVURRP FRQWH[W DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV DV ZHOO DV VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH OHVVRQ WR EH REVHUYHG 7KH ZULWWHQ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ LQFOXGHG D VNHWFK RI WKH FODVVURRP DQG D VHDWLQJ FKDUW WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH TXHVWLRQLQJ GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH VHPLVWUXFWXUHG SUHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ ZDV WR SURYLGH LQVLJKW LQWR WKH WHDFKHUnV SODQQLQJ IRU WKH REVHUYHG OHVVRQ 7KH DVVHVVRU DVNHG D VHULHV RI TXHVWLRQV UHODWHG WR WKH &ODVV 3URILOH ,QVWUXFWLRQ 3URILOH DQG WKH SODQQHG OHVVRQ 4XHVWLRQV DOORZHG IRU D IUHHIORZ UHVSRQVH IURP WKH WHDFKHU VHH $SSHQGL[ -f 1RWHV ZHUH UHFRUGHG E\ WKH DVVHVVRU XVLQJ D ODSWRS FRPSXWHU &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ 'XULQJ WKH REVHUYDWLRQ RI WKH SODQQHG OHVVRQ WKH DVVHVVRU WUDQVFULEHG DQ DFFRXQW RI WKH XQIROGLQJ HYHQWV XVLQJ D ODSWRS FRPSXWHU 7HDFKHU EHKDYLRU VWXGHQW EHKDYLRU DQG WHDFKHUVWXGHQW LQWHUDFWLRQ GXULQJ WKH OHVVRQ ZDV UHFRUGHG 6XPPDU\ VWDWHPHQWV UHVWULFWHG WR REVHUYDEOH EHKDYLRU ZHUH DOORZHG 'XULQJ WKLV SKDVH QR MXGJPHQWV RU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV ZHUH PDGH

PAGE 67

3RVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 7KH SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ ZDV FRQGXFWHG DV VRRQ DIWHU WKH SODQQHG OHVVRQ DV SRVVLEOH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV LQWHUYLHZ ZDV WR DOORZ IRU H[SORUDWLRQ RI WKH WHDFKHUnV UDWLRQDOHV IRU KLV RU KHU GHFLVLRQV DQG SUDFWLFHV DV ZHOO DV DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU UHIOHFWLRQ RQ KLV RU KHU WHDFKLQJ SUDFWLFH 7KH DVVHVVRUnV TXHVWLRQV SURGXFHG IUHHIORZ UHVSRQVHV IURP WKH VXEMHFWV VHH $SSHQGL[ .f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nV SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WR LQWHUSUHW DQG VFRUH FROOHFWHG GDWD DFFXUDWHO\ LQ D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI FODVVURRP FRQWH[WV 7KH GHJUHH RI DFFXUDF\ ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ KRZ FORVH WKH DVVHVVRUVn UDWLQJV ZHUH WR WKH SUHHVWDEOLVKHG VFRUHV $VVHVVRU WUDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHG RI GD\V RI KLJKO\ LQWHUDFWLYH LQVWUXFWLRQ XVLQJ D ZLGH UDQJH RI VWLPXOL VXFK DV YLGHRWDSHV VLPXODWLRQV DQG SULQWHG PDWHULDOV HJ VDPSOH UHFRUGV RI HYLGHQFHf 7KURXJKRXW WKH WUDLQLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV UHFHLYH IHHGEDFN IURP WKH LQVWUXFWRU

PAGE 68

RWKHU SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG DQVZHU NH\V RI WKH H[HUFLVHV $IWHU GD\V RI WUDLQLQJ DVVHVVRUV FRQGXFWHG D ILHOG WHVW RI WKH DVVHVVPHQW V\VWHP WKHQ UHWXUQHG IRU D ILIWK GD\ RI WDUJHWHG VNLOO UHLQIRUFHPHQW DQG FRQVROLGDWLRQ 'XULQJ WKHLU ILQDO VHVVLRQ DVVHVVRUV GHPRQVWUDWHG FRPSHWHQF\ RQ DQ DVVHVVRU SURILFLHQF\ WHVW &RPSHWHQF\ ZDV MXGJHG E\ KRZ FORVH WKH DVVHVVRUVn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

PAGE 69

7UHDWPHQW RI WKH 'DWD 7KH PDMRU UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV RI WHDFKHUV RQ DOO FULWHULD RI 3UD[LV ,,, %HFDXVH WKH GRPDLQV RI 3UD[LV ,,, DQG WKHLU FRUUHVSRQGLQJ FULWHULD ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR EH LQWHUUHODWHG WR PLUURU WKH LQWHJUDWHG QDWXUH RI WHDFKLQJ WKHVH PHDVXUHV DUH QRW DVVXPHG WR EH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQGHSHQGHQW RI HDFK RWKHU 'Z\HU f 7KXV D RQHZD\ EHWZHHQJURXSV PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH 0$129$f ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKH K\SRWKHVLV %HFDXVH WKH 0$129$ LQGLFDWHG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV D VHULHV RI RQHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFHV $129$Vf ZHUH FRQGXFWHG IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ

PAGE 70

&+$37(5 ,9 5(68/76 7QWURGXFWL RQ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV VSHFLDO DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQf LQ VHYHUDO NH\ DUHDV Df RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ef FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ff WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG Gf WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 7KH JHQHUDO TXHVWLRQ RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV DV IROORZV 'R EHJLQQLQJ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV GLIIHU IURP EHJLQQLQJ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV LQ WKHLU FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH" 7R LQYHVWLJDWH WKLV TXHVWLRQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV ZDV FRPSDUHG WR WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV 7R GHWHUPLQH WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH REVHUYDWLRQV XVLQJ 3UD[LV ,,, ZHUH FRQGXFWHG RQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV ZKR KDG JUDGXDWHG IURP IRXU VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV LQ )ORULGD 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 8)f )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ )68f 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &HQWUDO )ORULGD 8&)f DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6RXWK )ORULGD 86)f $OO RI WKH WHDFKHUV LQ ERWK JURXSV WDXJKW DW WKH HOHPHQWDU\ OHYHO DQG ZHUH LQ

PAGE 71

WKHLU ILUVW \HDU RI WHDFKLQJ 7KLV FKDSWHU FRQWDLQV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV RI GDWD IURP WKLV VWXG\ &RPSDULVRQ RI 'HPRJUDSKLF &KDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KH GDWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG WR GHWHUPLQH LI DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ WKH WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ JURXSV JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQf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b DQG b UHVSHFWLYHO\ IRU VSHFLDO DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUVf $PRQJ WKH VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV b ZHUH XQGHU \HDUV RI DJH DQG b RI WKH JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV ZHUH LQ WKLV DJH JURXS $OO bf RI WKH VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV DQG b RI WKH JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV ZHUH ZKLWH 7KH GLVWULEXWLRQ E\ XQLYHUVLW\ ZDV QHDUO\ HYHQ DV H[KLELWHG E\ WKH FKLVTXDUH DQG DVVRFLDWHG S YDOXH RI 7KHUHIRUH WKH WZR JURXSV DUH FRPSDUDEOH ZLWK UHVSHFW WR DJH JHQGHU UDFH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ DWWHQGHG

PAGE 72

7DEOH 'LVWULEXWLRQ RI 3DUWLFLSDQWV E\ 'HPRJUDSKLF &KDUDFWHULVWLFV 6SHFLDO Q (GXFDWLRQ b *HQHUDO Q (GXFDWLRQ b *HQGHU )HPDOH 0DOH &KLVTXDUH ( f $JH &KLVTXDUH ( f 5DFH :KLWH %ODFN &KLVTXDUH ( f 8QLYHUVLW\ 8) )68 8&) 86) &KLVTXDUH ( f 7RWDO b b

PAGE 73

&ULWHULRQ DQG 'RPDLQ 6FRUHV 7KH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH FULWHULRQ VFRUHV DQG GRPDLQ VFRUHV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG IRU HDFK JURXS 7KHVH ILJXUHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOHV 7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 'RPDLQ 6FRUHV EY *URXS 'RPDLQ 6'HFLDO (GXFDWRUVQ f *HQHUDO (GXFDWRUVQ 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf $ f f % f f F f f Gf Gf 7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 'RPDLQ $ &ULWHULRQ 6FRUHV EY *URXS &ULWHULRQ 6'HFLDO (GXFDWRUVQ f *HQHUDO (GXFDWRUVQ f 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf $ f f $ f f $ f f $ f f $ f f

PAGE 74

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 'RPDLQ % &ULWHULRQ 6FRUHV EY *URXS &ULWHULRQ 6RHFLDO (GXFDWRUVQ f 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf *HQHUDO (GXFDWRUVQ f 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf %O f f % f f % f f % f f % f f 7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 'RPDLQ & &ULWHULRQ 6FRUHV EY *URXS 6RHFLDO (GXFDWRUVQ f *HQHUDO (GXFDWRUVQ f 0HDQ 0HDQ &ULWHULRQ 6WG 'HYf 6WG 'HYf &O f f & f f & f f & f f & f f

PAGE 75

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 'RPDLQ &ULWHULRQ 6FRUHV E\ *URXS &ULWHULRQ 6QHFLDO (GXFDWRUVQ f 2HQHUDO (GXFDWRUV Q f 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf 0HDQ 6WG 'HYf 'O f f f f f f f f 7HVW RI +\SRWKHVLV $ RQHZD\ EHWZHHQJURXSV PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH 0$129$f ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKHUH ZRXOG EH QR GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH JURXSV RQ WKH FULWHULD 7KH 0$129$ UHYHDOHG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JURXSV RQ DW OHDVW RQH YDULDEOH >+RWHOOLQJnV )f ( @ %DVHG RQ WKH UHVXOWV RI +RWHOOLQJnV 0$129$ Hf WKH PXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV UHMHFWHG 6SHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV GLIIHUHG IURP JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV RQ DW OHDVW RQH RI WKH FULWHULD 7R GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK FULWHULD ZHUH WKH VRXUFHV RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV RQHZD\ DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH $129$Vf ZHUH

PAGE 76

FRQGXFWHG IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ 7DEOH VKRZV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH DQDO\VHV 7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 8QLYDULDWH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU &ULWHULD 'HSHQGHQW 0HDVXUH ) GI Q $ $ $ r $ $ % r % % % r % &O & & r & & ' r r6LJQLILFDQW DW WKH H OHYHO

PAGE 77

6RXUFHV RI 6LJQLILFDQW 'LIIHUHQFHV 7KH GDWD FROOHFWHG WKURXJK WKH LQWHUYLHZV DQG REVHUYDWLRQV DV GRFXPHQWHG RQ WKH 5HFRUGV RI (YLGHQFH ZHUH XVHG WR HVWDEOLVK WKH VFRUHV IRU HDFK FULWHULRQ ZLWKLQ 3UD[LV ,,, 7KH FULWHULD RQ ZKLFK VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JURXSV ZHUH REWDLQHG DUH GHVFULEHG LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ ([DPSOHV RI WHDFKHU UHVSRQVHV DQG EHKDYLRUV DUH SURYLGHG &ULWHULRQ $ &ULWHULRQ $ PHDVXUHG WKH WHDFKHUVn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

PAGE 78

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

PAGE 79

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f ZKDW WKH\ ZHUH ORRNLQJ IRUZDUG WR WKH QH[W VFKRRO \HDU Ef ZKDW WKH\ ZRXOG PLVV PRVW DERXW ILIWK JUDGH DQG

PAGE 80

Ff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

PAGE 81

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

PAGE 82

&+$37(5 9 ',6&866,21 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH HIIHFWV RI WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ 6HYHUDO NH\ GRPDLQV RI FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH ZHUH H[DPLQHG Df RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ef FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ Ff WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG Gf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

PAGE 83

SHUIRUPDQFH 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH LQGLFDWHG EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV WKHUHIRUH WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV UHMHFWHG 7KHVH GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH GHWHFWHG RQ ILYH FULWHULD ,Q 'RPDLQ $ RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ JHQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ $f WKDW UHODWHG WR WKH WHDFKHUnV DELOLW\ WR GHPRQVWUDWH DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH FRQWHQW WKDW ZDV OHDUQHG SUHYLRXVO\ WKH FXUUHQW FRQWHQW DQG WKH FRQWHQW WKDW UHPDLQV WR EH OHDUQHG LQ WKH IXWXUH 2Q PHDVXUHV RI FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 'RPDLQ % VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ %Of WKDW UHODWHG WR WKH FUHDWLRQ RI D FOLPDWH WKDW SURPRWHV IDLUQHVV 6SHFLDO HGXFDWRUV DOVR VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ %f WKDW UHODWHG WR HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU ,Q 'RPDLQ & WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ JHQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ &f WKDW UHODWHG WR HQFRXUDJLQJ VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ 2Q PHDVXUHV RI WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 'RPDLQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ 'f WKDW UHODWHG WR EXLOGLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK FROOHDJXHV WR VKDUH WHDFKLQJ LQVLJKWV DQG WR FRRUGLQDWH OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV IRU VWXGHQWV

PAGE 84

,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH 5HVHDUFK )LQGLQJV 7HDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ ZDV DSSOLHG WR WKLV VWXG\ WR LQFUHDVH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LQLWLDO VWDJH RI WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW 7KH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV FRQWDLQ Df WKHRUHWLFDO LPSOLFDWLRQV Ef LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU NQRZOHGJH EDVH DQG Ff LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7KHRUHWLFDO ,PSOLFDWLRQV $OWKRXJK WHDFKHUV DSSHDU WR SURJUHVV WKURXJK VHYHUDO VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW LQ WKH SURFHVV RI EHFRPLQJ D FRPSHWHQW WHDFKHU WKHVH VWDJHV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D YDULHW\ RI EHKDYLRUV 'XULQJ D VWDJH RI GHYHORSPHQW D WHDFKHU PD\ H[KLELW D ZLGH UDQJH RI FRPSHWHQF\ LQ FODVVURRP EHKDYLRUV DQG VNLOOV 7KLV UDQJH RI VNLOOV PD\ EH RQH UHDVRQ IRU WKH ODFN RI FODULW\ LQ WKH GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH GHYHORSPHQWDOVWDJH PRGHOV %XUGHQ f 3UD[LV ,,, PD\ SURYLGH WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRULVWV ZLWK FOHDUHU GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH YDULRXV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW 5HVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKDW ZKLOH DOO RI WKH WHDFKHUV DSSHDUHG WR EH LQ WKH LQLWLDO VWDJH RI WHDFKLQJ VXUYLYDOf VRPH WHDFKLQJ EHKDYLRUV DQG VNLOOV ZHUH GLIIHUHQW IRU WKH WZR JURXSV )RU H[DPSOH VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV LQ WKLV VWXG\ H[KLELWHG VWUHQJWKV LQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI EHKDYLRU LQ FRQWUDVW WR WKH H[SHFWDWLRQ RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ &OHDUO\ WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV FRQWULEXWHG WR

PAGE 85

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f KDYH GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK FXUULFXOXP GHYHORSPHQW Ef VWUXJJOH ZLWK HYDOXDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW SURJUHVV DQG Ff EH PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKHLU RZQ SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ ZLWK VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ %XUGHQ f 7KH HYLGHQFH IURP FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV DQG LQWHUYLHZV LQGLFDWHV WKDW ERWK JURXSV H[KLELWHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKLV LQLWLDO VWDJH 7KHUHIRUH WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ VXSSRUW JHQHUDOL]DWLRQV RI WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ WR LQFOXGH EHJLQQLQJ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHU .QRZOHGJH %DVH $OWKRXJK PXFK LV NQRZQ DERXW WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV DQG FRPSHWHQW H[SHULHQFHG WHDFKHUV UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH GRQH OLWWOH WR DGG WR WKH FXUUHQW NQRZOHGJH

PAGE 86

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n EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV SULRU VNLOOV DQG GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHOV ,Q FKRRVLQJ JRDOV IRU WKHVH OHVVRQV JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV VHOGRP SURYLGHG D WKRXJKWIXO H[SODQDWLRQ RI ZK\ WKH JRDOV ZHUH DSSURSULDWH IRU DOO VWXGHQWV QRU GLG WKH\ GLIIHUHQWLDWH WKHVH JRDOV IRU JURXSV RU LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV %URSK\ t *RRG 3HWHUVRQ 0DU[ t &ODUN f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

PAGE 87

JRDOV RI WKH OHVVRQ 3RUWHU t %URSK\ =LJPRQG 6DQVRQH 0LOOHU 'RQDKRH t .RKQNH f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f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

PAGE 88

DERXW WKH OHDUQLQJ JRDOV HLWKHU H[SOLFLWO\ RU LPSOLFLWO\ 7KH\ RIWHQ XVHG JHQHUDO VWDWHPHQWV WR EHJLQ WKHLU OHVVRQV IRU H[DPSOH D JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU VWDWHG 7KLV LV PDWK :H DUH JRLQJ WR UHYLHZ VRPH RI WKH WKLQJV ZH GLG \HVWHUGD\ DQG WKH GD\ EHIRUH ,Q WKLV SDUWLFXODU FDVH WKH OHDUQLQJ JRDOV ZDV IRU VWXGHQWV WR GHPRQVWUDWH DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI EDVLF FRQFHSWV LQ IUDFWLRQV HJ OHDVW FRPPRQ PXOWLSOH JUHDWHVW FRPPRQ IDFWRUf ,Q WKHLU DWWHPSWV WR PDNH WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH OHVVRQ FRPSUHKHQVLEOH WR VWXGHQWV WHDFKHUV IRUP ERWK JURXSV H[SHULHQFHG GLIILFXOW\ OLQNLQJ D FRQFHSW WR UHODWHG FRQFHSWV ZKLFK LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV ILQGLQJV E\ %RUNR DQG /LYLQJVWRQ f )XUWKHU PDQ\ RI WKH WHDFKHUV GLG QRW PDNH LQVWUXFWLRQDO DGMXVWPHQWV EDVHG RQ WKHLU PRQLWRULQJ RI VWXGHQW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 7KHVH WHDFKHUV WHQGHG WR XVH IHHGEDFN ZLWK VWXGHQWV WKDW ZDV QRW VSHFLILF DQG VXEVWDQWLYH )RU H[DPSOH VRPH VSHFLDO DQG JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV RQO\ XVHG VWDWHPHQWV OLNH 5LJKW 7KDWnV JRRG DQG 1R WKDWnV QRW ULJKW 2QH JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SURYLGHG OLWWOH DVVLVWDQFH WR D JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG PLVVHG WKH SUHYLRXV GD\nV OHVVRQ WKDW ZDV HVVHQWLDO WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH REVHUYHG OHVVRQ 7KLV WHDFKHU PDGH QRM2DWWHPSW WR DGMXVW WKH OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLW\ HYHQ WKRXJKW LW ZDV HYLGHQW WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV ZHUH QRW RQ WUDFN 7KLV HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWV SUHYLRXV ILQGLQJV E\ 5H\QROGV f WKDW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV DUH W\SLFDOO\ LQHIIHFWLYH LQ TXHVWLRQLQJ VWUDWHJLHV DQG WHQG QRW WR XVH

PAGE 89

WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VWXGHQW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WR LPSURYH WKHLU WHDFKLQJ GXULQJ WKH OHVVRQ 3RVWDFWLYH 7HDFKHUVn UHVSRQVHV GXULQJ WKH SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ FRQIHUHQFH SURYLGHG HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK RQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU UHIOHFWLRQ RI D OHVVRQ 5H\QROGV f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f %ODQWRQ %ODQWRQ DQG &URVV f IRXQG WKDW GHVSLWH HIIRUWV DW WKH SUHVHUYLFH DQG LQVHUYLFH OHYHO WR LQFUHDVH

PAGE 90

FROODERUDWLRQ DPRQJ WHDFKHUV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV UHPDLQV LQIUHTXHQW DQG SRVVLEO\ LQDGHTXDWH 6LPLODU HYLGHQFH ZDV IRXQG LQ WKLV VWXG\ $OWKRXJK PDQ\ WHDFKHUVn UHVSRQVHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW FROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK FROOHDJXHV GLG RFFXU WKH FROODERUDWLRQ WHQGHG WR EH LQWUDGLVFLSOLQDU\ UDWKHU WKDQ LQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ LQ QDWXUH ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7KH PRVW FRPPRQ PHWKRG XVHG IRU IROORZXS VWXGLHV RI JUDGXDWHV LV WKH VXUYH\ RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH YDOXH RI WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ 7KLV PHWKRG ZKLOH FRQYHQLHQW DQG HIILFLHQW PD\ SURYLGH WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV ZLWK DQ LQFRPSOHWH SLFWXUH RI WKHLU HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7HDFKHU HGXFDWRUV KDYH IRXQG WKDW WKHVH GDWD RIWHQ SUHVHQW D IUDJPHQWHG SLFWXUH UHJDUGLQJ JUDGXDWHVn SHUFHSWLRQV )XUWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH QRWHG WKDW SHUFHSWLRQV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ E\ ILUVW\HDU WHDFKHUV DUH XQVWDEOH GXULQJ WKH ILUVW \HDU RI WHDFKLQJ $GDPV f 7KH SXUSRVH RI SURJUDP HYDOXDWLRQ VKRXOG EH WR GHYHORS DQLO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ D SURJUDPnV FRQWH[WV LQSXWV SURFHVVHV DQG SURGXFWV *DOOX]]R t &UDLJ f &XUUHQWO\ WKH PLVVLQJ SLHFH LQ WKLV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ LV WKH SURGXFWf§JUDGXDWHVn SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKH ILHOGf§DQ DUHD VHOGRP HYDOXDWHG E\ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV 5HVHDUFK WKDW IRFXVHV RQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVn EHKDYLRUV DQG VNLOOV FDQ SURYLGH GHWDLOV DERXW WKH XQLTXH QHHGV VWUHQJWKV DQG SUREOHPV RI ILUVW\HDU WHDFKHUV 7KH PRUH WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV

PAGE 91

XQGHUVWDQG WKHVH H[SHULHQFHV WKH PRUH FDSDEOH WKH\ ZLOO EH WR PDNH GHFLVLRQV DERXW WKH FRQWLQXDWLRQ PRGLILFDWLRQ RU WHUPLQDWLRQ RI D WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP &RQGXFWLQJ ILUVW\HDU SHUIRUPDQFH UHVHDUFK ZLWK LQVWUXPHQWV VXFK DV 3UD[LV ,,, FRXOG Df IDFLOLWDWH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHWZHHQ VFKRROV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV Ef DGYDQFH ZKDW LV NQRZQ DERXW WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ DQG Ff UDLVH LPSRUWDQW TXHVWLRQV DERXW LVVXHV DQG SUDFWLFHV WKDW VKRXOG EH DGGUHVVHG *LYHQ WKH UHFHQW WUHQG WRZDUG WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI VWXGHQWV ZLWK GLVDELOLWLHV LQ JHQHUDO FODVVURRPV LQFUHDVHG LQVLJKW LQWR KRZ WHDFKHUV IURP GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQf SHUIRUP GXULQJ WKHLU ILUVW \HDU RI WHDFKLQJ LV LPSRUWDQW 7KH WUHQG WRZDUG LQFOXVLRQ KDV UHVXOWHG LQ WKH LQFUHDVHG OLNHOLKRRG WKDW WHDFKHUV LQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ ZLOO FROODERUDWH DERXW WKH QHHGV DQG JRDOV RI VWXGHQWV ZLWK VSHFLDO QHHGV 3XJDFK t -RKQVRQ f 7KH QHHG IRU D FRPPRQ FRUH RI NQRZOHGJH DQG FROODERUDWLRQ DPRQJ GLVFLSOLQH LV UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI XQLILHG WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV VXFK DV WKRVH DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :LVFRQVLQ0LOZDXNHH DQG WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &LQFLQQDWL .QRZOHGJH RI WKH SRVVLEOH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHU SHUIRUPDQFH GXH WR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ PD\ HQKDQFH WKH FROODERUDWLRQ DPRQJ WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV *HQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ $f WKDW UHODWHG WR WKH WHDFKHUnV DELOLW\ WR GHPRQVWUDWH DQ

PAGE 92

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f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

PAGE 93

JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ FRXOG LOOXVWUDWH VRPH ZD\V WKDW WKH WHDFKHU FRXOG KHOS DOO VWXGHQWV KDYH DFFHVV WR OHDUQLQJ 6SHFLDO HGXFDWRUV DOVR VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ %f WKDW UHODWHG WR HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH LV SRVVLEO\ GXH WR WKH DWWHQWLRQ EHKDYLRU PDQDJHPHQW UHFHLYHV LQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV *RRGODG f UHSRUWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV LQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV H[SUHVVHG PRUH FRQILGHQFH LQ WKHLU DELOLWLHV RI EHKDYLRU PDQDJHPHQW WKDQ GR VWXGHQWV LQ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV 7HDFKHU HGXFDWRUV RI JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ PLJKW FRQVLGHU LQFRUSRUDWLQJ D FRXUVH RQ FODVVURRP PDQDJHPHQW LQWR WKHLU SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WHDFKHUV 7KLV FRXOG EH DFFRPSOLVKHG LQ FROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH FROOHJHnV GHSDUWPHQW RI VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ *HQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ &f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

PAGE 94

7HDFKHU HGXFDWRUV LQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ PD\ ZDQW WR DVVLVW SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV LQ GHVLJQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV RU OHVVRQV WKDW VSHFLILFDOO\ HQFRXUDJH VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ *HQHUDO HGXFDWRUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV RQ WKH FULWHULRQ &ULWHULRQ 'f WKDW UHODWHG WR EXLOGLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK FROOHDJXHV WR VKDUH WHDFKLQJ LQVLJKWV DQG WR FRRUGLQDWH OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV IRU VWXGHQWV *HQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV WHQGHG WR FRQVLVWHQWO\ FRRUGLQDWH DFWLYLWLHV ZLWK RWKHU FROOHDJXHV SDUWLFXODUO\ JUDGH OHYHO WHDP PHPEHUV 7KHVH UHVXOWV PD\ EH D SURGXFW RI HLWKHU WKH VFKRRO RUJDQL]DWLRQ VWUXFWXUH WHDFKHUn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n EHOLHIV VNLOOV DQG NQRZOHGJH SULRU WR HQWHULQJ

PAGE 95

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f $QRWKHU OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WKH UHVWULFWHG JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ 2EVHUYDWLRQV ZHUH OLPLWHG WR GLVWULFWV LQ )ORULGD DQG JUDGXDWHV RI VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV LQ )ORULGD )XUWKHU WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH EXUHDXFUDWLF VWUXFWXUH RI HGXFDWLRQ LQ )ORULGD PD\ FRQWULEXWH WR GLIIHUHQFHV DQG VLPLODULWLHV )RU H[DPSOH LQ WKH VFKRRO \HDU )ORULGD UDQNHG VHYHQWK LQ WKH QDWLRQ IRU KRZ OLNHO\ GLVWULFWV

PAGE 96

DUH WR VHSDUDWH VWXGHQWV ZLWK GLVDELOLWLHV IURP WKHLU SHHUV 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ 5HSRUW f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n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

PAGE 97

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n NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV LQ IRXU GRPDLQV RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 6SHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU RQ FULWHULD UHODWHG WR FUHDWLQJ DQ HQYLURQPHQW IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ FUHDWLQJ D FOLPDWH WKDW SURPRWHV IDLUQHVV DQG HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU *HQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ WHDFKHUV VFRUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU RQ FULWHULD UHODWHG WR RUJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH WHDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DQG WHDFKHU SURIHVVLRQDOLVP 7KHVH FULWHULD LQFOXGHG Df GHPRQVWUDWLRQ RI DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH FRQWHQW WKDW ZDV OHDUQHG SUHYLRXVO\ WKH FXUUHQW FRQWHQW DQG WKH FRQWHQW WKDW UHPDLQV WR EH OHDUQHG LQ WKH IXWXUH Ef HQFRXUDJLQJ VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ DQG Ff EXLOGLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK FROOHDJXHV WR VKDUH

PAGE 98

WHDFKLQJ LQVLJKWV DQG WR FRRUGLQDWH OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV IRU VWXGHQWV 7KHVH ILQGLQJV KROG VHYHUDO LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW WKHRU\ DQG WKH NQRZOHGJH EDVH RQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ 5H\QROGV f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

PAGE 99

$33(1',; $ 35$;,6 ,,, '20$,16 $1' &5,7(5,$ 'RPDLQ $ $ $ $ $ 'RPDLQ % % % % 2UJDQL]LQJ FRQWHQW NQRZOHGJH IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ %HFRPLQJ IDPLOLDU ZLWK UHOHYDQW DVSHFWV RI VWXGHQWVn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

PAGE 100

% % 'RPDLQ & &O & & & & 'RPDLQ ' ' (VWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU 0DNLQJ WKH SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW DV VDIH DQG FRQGXFLYH WR OHDUQLQJ DV SRVVLEOH 7HDFKLQJ IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 0DNLQJ OHDUQLQJ JRDOV DQG LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV FOHDU WR VWXGHQWV 0DNLQJ FRQWHQW FRPSUHKHQVLEOH WR VWXGHQWV (QFRXUDJLQJ VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ 0RQLWRULQJ VWXGHQWVn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

PAGE 101

$33(1',; % 48(67,216 )25 $66(6625 5()/(&7,21 $ +RZ GRHV WKH WHDFKHU ILQG RXW DERXW VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFHV" +RZ GRHV WKH WHDFKHU ILQG RXW DERXW VWXGHQWVn IRXQGDWLRQ IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQWHQW" ,V WKH WHDFKHU DEOH WR GHVFULEH ZK\ LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR EHFRPH IDPLOLDU ZLWK VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFHV" ,V WKH WHDFKHUnV GHJUHH RI IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK VWXGHQWVn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

PAGE 102

$ &DQ WKH WHDFKHU H[SODLQ KRZ WKH FRQWHQW KH RU VKH KDV SODQQHG IRU WRGD\ FRQQHFWV WR ZKDW WKH VWXGHQWV KDYH SUHYLRXVO\ OHDUQHG" &DQ WKH WHDFKHU H[SODLQ KRZ WKH FRQWHQW KH RU VKH SODQQHG IRU WRGD\ FRQQHFWV WR ZKDW WKH VWXGHQWV ZLOO VWXG\ LQ WKH IXWXUH" 7R ZKDW H[WHQW FDQ WKH WHDFKHU H[SODLQ KRZ WRGD\nV OHVVRQ ILWV ZLWK ODUJHU JRDOV RI OHDUQLQJ LQ WKH GLVFLSOLQH" $ $UH WKH PHWKRGV DFWLYLWLHV PDWHULDOV DQG UHVRXUFHV VHOHFWHG E\ WKH WHDFKHU DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH JRDOV RI WKH OHVVRQ" $UH WKH PHWKRGV DQG DFWLYLWLHV DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VWXGHQWVn GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHOV" 'R WKH PDWHULDOV DQG DFWLYLWLHV SURYLGH IRU YDULHG VW\OHV RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ" $UH WKH DFWLYLWLHV PDWHULDOV DQG UHVRXUFHV DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VWXGHQWVn GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHOV" 'R WKH\ UHIOHFW WKH FRPPRQ DQG XQLTXH H[SHULHQFHV RI GLIIHUHQW HWKQLF JURXSV RI PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV RI GLIIHUHQW HFRQRPLF JURXSV RI JURXSV ZLWK H[FHSWLRQDOLWLHV" $UH WKH DFWLYLWLHV DQG UHVRXUFHV DSSURSULDWH IRU VWXGHQWV RI OLPLWHG (QJOLVK SURILFLHQF\" ,I D VLQJOH DFWLYLW\ LV XVHG FDQ WKH WHDFKHU SURYLGH D VRXQG H[SODQDWLRQ RI ZK\ D VLQJOH DFWLYLW\ LV DSSURSULDWH IRU DOO VWXGHQWV

PAGE 103

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

PAGE 104

,V WKH WHDFKHU LQDSSURSULDWHO\ QHJDWLYH LQ UHPDUNV WR VWXGHQWV" 'R VWXGHQWV WUHDW HDFK RWKHU IDLUO\" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU UHVSRQG DSSURSULDWHO\ WR VWHUHRW\SH EDVHG GHPHDQLQJ RU RWKHU XQIDLU FRPPHQWV E\ VWXGHQWV" % 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU DWWHPSW WR UHODWH SRVLWLYHO\ WR VWXGHQWV" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU VKRZ FRQFHUQ IRU WKH VWXGHQWV" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU WDLORU SHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI VWXGHQWV" 'R WKH WHDFKHUnV DWWHPSWV WR HVWDEOLVK UDSSRUW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQGV DQG H[SHULHQFHV" $UH WKH WHDFKHUnV DWWHPSWV WR HVWDEOLVK UDSSRUW DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VWXGHQWVn GHYHORSPHQWDO OHYHOV" % +RZ GRHV WKH WHDFKHU VKRZ E\ ZRUGV DFWLRQV RU DWWLWXGH WKDW HDFK VWXGHQW LV FDSDEOH RI PHDQLQJIXO DFKLHYHPHQW" ,Q ZKDW ZD\V GR WKH VWXGHQWV GHPRQVWUDWH D FOHDU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH WHDFKHUnV H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU DFKLHYHPHQW WKDW PD\ KDYH EHHQ VWDWHG H[SOLFLWO\ SULRU WR WKH REVHUYDWLRQ" $UH WKH OHDUQLQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU VWXGHQWV FKDOOHQJLQJ EXW ZLWKLQ WKHLU UHDFK" % $UH FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU HYLGHQW" +RZ DUH VWDQGDUGV HVWDEOLVKHG" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU PRGHO UHVSHFWIXO DQG DSSURSULDWH VWDQGDUGV RI EHKDYLRU"

PAGE 105

'R HVWDEOLVKHG VWDQGDUGV RI EHKDYLRU FRQYH\ D VHQVH RI UHVSHFW IRU WKH VWXGHQWV" +RZ DUH WKH VWDQGDUGV PDLQWDLQHG" +RZ GRHV WKH WHDFKHU UHVSRQG WR VHULRXV EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV" $UH KHU RU KLV UHVSRQVHV DSSURSULDWH" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU UHVSRQG WR LQDSSURSULDWH EHKDYLRU FRQVLVWHQWO\ DQG DSSURSULDWHO\" % +RZ PXFK FRQWURO GRHV WKH WHDFKHU KDYH RYHU WKH SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW" $UH DQ\ VDIHW\ YLRODWLRQV RU ULVNV HYLGHQW" 7R ZKDW H[WHQW LV WKHUH D PDWFK EHWZHHQ WKH OHVVRQ RU DFWLYLW\ DQG WKH IXUQLWXUH RU URRP FRQILJXUDWLRQ" ,V WKH VSDFH DUUDQJHG VR WKDW DOO VWXGHQWV LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH ZLWK VSHFLDO QHHGV KDYH DFFHVV WR WKH OHVVRQ" +RZ GRHV WKH URRP UHIOHFW WKH OHDUQLQJ WKDW WDNHV SODFH WKHUH" &O 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU FRPPXQLFDWH OHDUQLQJ JRDOV WR WKH VWXGHQWV HLWKHU H[SOLFLWO\ RU LPSOLFLWO\" $UH WKH GLUHFWLRQV WR VWXGHQWV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV FOHDU" +RZ GRHV WKH WHDFKHU KHOS VWXGHQWV RI GLIIHUHQW EDFNJURXQGV HWKQLF JURXSV ODQJXDJH JURXSV PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV VWXGHQWV ZLWK H[FHSWLRQDOLWLHVf XQGHUVWDQG WKH OHDUQLQJ JRDOV RI WKH OHVVRQ" +RZ GRHV WKH WHDFKHU KHOS VWXGHQWV RI GLIIHUHQW EDFNJURXQGV HWKQLF JURXSV ODQJXDJH JURXSV PDOHV DQG

PAGE 106

IHPDOHV VWXGHQWV ZLWK H[FHSWLRQDOLWLHVf XQGHUVWDQG WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV RI WKH OHVVRQ" $UH WKH VWXGHQWV DEOH WR FDUU\ RXW WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV" & 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU FRPPXQLFDWH FRQWHQW FOHDUO\ DQG DFFXUDWHO\" ,V WKLV GRQH HTXLWDEO\ IRU IHPDOHV DQG PDOHV VWXGHQWV RI GLIIHUHQW HWKQLF JURXSV VWXGHQWV RI GLIIHUHQW HFRQRPLF JURXSV VWXGHQWV ZLWK H[FHSWLRQDOLWLHV VWXGHQWV RI OLPLWHG (QJOLVK SURILFLHQF\" ,Q OHVVRQV WKDW DUH QRW WHDFKHUGLUHFWHG KDV WKH WHDFKHU VWUXFWXUHG WKH OHDUQLQJ HQYLURQPHQW RU SURFHVV LQ D ZD\ WKDW HQDEOHV VWXGHQWV WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH FRQWHQW $UH VWXGHQWV JHQHUDOO\ HQJDJHG ZLWK WKH FRQWHQW" 'RHV WKH OHVVRQ DV D ZKROH KDYH D FRKHUHQW VWUXFWXUH" & 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU UHFRJQL]H DQG XVH RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR KHOS VWXGHQWV H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ" ,V WKH WHDFKHU DEOH WR XVH WKH FXUUHQW FRQWHQW DSSURSULDWHO\ DV D VSULQJERDUG WR LQGHSHQGHQW FUHDWLYH RU FULWLFDO WKLQNLQJ" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU FKDOOHQJH VWXGHQWVn WKLQNLQJ LQ ZD\V UHOHYDQW WR WKHLU EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFHV" 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU VWUXFWXUH VSHFLILF OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV WKDW HQFRXUDJH VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ" & 'RHV WKH WHDFKHU PRQLWRU VWXGHQWVn XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQWHQW" ,V WKLV GRQ HTXLWDEO\"

PAGE 107

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n OHDUQLQJ"

PAGE 108

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

PAGE 109

$33(1',; & &$1','$7( 352),/( 7KH IROORZLQJ DUH TXHVWLRQV WR EH FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH SDUWLFLSDQW RI WKH VWXG\ :KDW LV \RXU DJH" D 8QGHU E F G H I RU RYHU :KDW LV \RXU JHQGHU" D )HPDOH E 0DOH +RZ GR \RX GHVFULEH \RXUVHOI" D $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ RU %ODFN E $VLDQ $PHULFDQ$VLDQ ([ -DSDQHVH &KLQHVH .RUHDQf F 6RXWKHDVW $VLDQ $PHULFDQ6RXWKHDVW $VLDQ ([ &DPERGLDQ +PRQJ .KPHU /DRWLDQ 9LHWQDPHVHf G 3DFLILF ,VODQG $PHULFDQ3DFLILF ,VODQGHU H 0H[LFDQ 0H[LFDQ $PHULFDQ RU &KLFDQR I 3XHUWR 5LFDQ J 2WKHU +LVSDQLF /DWLQR RU /DWLQ $PHULFDQ K 1DWLYH $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ RU $ODVNDQ 1DWLYH L :KLWH M 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f 4XHVWLRQV 3OHDVH SURYLGH WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ \RXU $&$'(0,& %$&.*5281' &KHFN DQG FRPSOHWH $// WKDW DSSO\f %DFKHORUnV GHJUHH D 1RW EHJXQ E ,Q SURJUHVV F &RPSOHWHG

PAGE 110

0DMRU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f 0LQRU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f 0DVWHUnV GHJUHH RU HTXLYDOHQW D 1RW EHJXQ E ,Q SURJUHVV F &RPSOHWHG 0DMRU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f 'RFWRUDWH RU HTXLYDOHQW D 1RW EHJXQ E ,Q SURJUHVV F &RPSOHWHG $UH \RX JRLQJ WKURXJK DQ DOWHUQDWHURXWH WHDFKHU WUDLQLQJ SURJUDP" D
PAGE 111

LK (QJOLVK DV D VHFRQG ODQJXDJH )RUHLJQ ODQJXDJH J +HDOWKSK\VLFDO HGXFDWLRQ K +RPH HFRQRPLFV L /DQJXDJH DUWVFRPPXQLFDWLRQV M 0DWKHPDWLFV N 3K\VLFDOELRORJLFDOFKHPLFDO VFLHQFHV O 6RFLDO VFLHQFHV P 6SHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ Q 9LVXDO DUWVPXVLFWKHDWUHGDQFH R 9RFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ S 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f :KLFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ EHVW GHVFULEHV \RXU &855(17 67$786" D 7HPSRUDU\ VXEVWLWXWH WHDFKHU DVVLJQHG RQ D GDLO\ EDVLVf E 3HUPDQHQW VXEVWLWXWH WHDFKHU DVVLJQHG RQ D ORQJn WHUP EDVLVf F 7HDFKHU ZLWK HPHUJHQF\WHPSRUDU\ OLFHQVH G 6WXGHQW WHDFKHU H )LUVW\HDU WHDFKHU I 7HDFKHU ZLWK RQH RU PRUH \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH J 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f

PAGE 112

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f 7HDFKHU 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDP LV RQH RI WKH SURJUDPV XQGHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ :H ZRXOG OLNH WR REVHUYH DV PDQ\ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV SURJUDP DV SRVVLEOH :H ZRXOG OLNH WR HQFRXUDJH \RX WR YROXQWHHU IRU WKLV SURMHFW EHFDXVH f ,W ZLOO KHOS SURYLGH YDOXDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKLV WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG f ,W ZLOO SURYLGH YDOXDEOH IHHGEDFN WR \RX SHUVRQDOO\ DERXW \RXU WHDFKLQJ WKURXJK D SURFHVV WKDW DOORZV IRU LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WHDFKHU DQG WKH REVHUYHU 7KH LQIRUPDWLRQ REWDLQHG WKURXJK WKH REVHUYDWLRQV ZLOO UHPDLQ VWULFWO\ FRQILGHQWLDO DQG WKHUHIRUH ZLOO QRW EH VKDUHG ZLWK SULQFLSDOV GLVWULFW SHUVRQQHO RU DQ\ QDPH RI XQLYHUVLW\f 7HDFKHU 3UHSDUDWLRQ 3URJUDP IDFXOW\ $OO GDWD FROOHFWHG IRU 3URMHFW 6($57& DUH DJJUHJDWHG DQG UHSRUWHG RQO\ LQ WHUP RI FDWHJRULHV RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV +RZHYHU WKH 6($57& VWDII PHPEHU WKDW FRQGXFWV WKH REVHUYDWLRQ ZLOO EH KDSS\ WR SURYLGH LQGLYLGXDOL]HG IHHGEDFN IRU \RXU RZQ LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KLV H[SHULHQFH DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ \RX JDLQ PD\ EH D YDOXDEOH DVVHW IRU \RX DV \RX

PAGE 113

FRPSOHWH \RXU SRUWIROLR IRU WKH 3URIHVVLRQDO 2ULHQWDWLRQ 3URJUDP 7KH H[SHULHQFH LV LQWHQGHG WR EH D PXWXDOO\ EHQHILFLDO RQH DQG QRW VWUHVVIXO IRU \RX LQ DQ\ ZD\
PAGE 114

$33(1',; ( 3$57,&,3$17 ,1)250(' &216(17 0\ QDPH LV 3DXO 6LQGHODU WKH SULQFLSDO LQYHVWLJDWRU RI 3URMHFW 6($57& :H DUH FRQGXFWLQJ DQ HYDOXDWLRQ RI WHDFKHU WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV LQ )ORULGD 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV HYDOXDWLRQ LV WR DVVHVV SURJUDPV WKDW RIIHU FHUWLILFDWLRQ LQ HGXFDWLRQ :H SODQ WR WDON ZLWK SURJUDP DGPLQLVWUDWRUV WUDLQLQJ SHUVRQQHO RU IDFXOW\ DV ZHOO DV SURJUDP SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KH HYDOXDWLRQ KDV WKUHH FRPSRQHQWV LQWHUYLHZV SURILOHV DQG REVHUYDWLRQV $V D SURJUDP SDUWLFLSDQW ZH DVN WKDW \RX HQJDJH LQ VHYHUDO OD\HUV RI DVVHVVPHQW )LUVW FRPSOHWH WZR SURILOHV 6HFRQG SHUPLW XV WR REVHUYH \RX ZKLOH \RX WHDFK 7KLUG SDUWLFLSDWH LQ SUHREVHUYDWLRQ DQG SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK DQ (YDOXDWLRQ 6SHFLDOLVW IURP RXU SURMHFW 7KHUH DUH QR NQRZQ ULVNV RU GLVFRPIRUWV WR EH H[SHFWHG DV D UHVXOW RI SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KHUH DUH DOVR QR GLUHFW EHQHILWV WR \RX DV WKH SDUWLFLSDQW 3URILOHV W\SLFDOO\ WDNH DERXW RQH KRXU WR DQVZHU DQG LQWHUYLHZV PD\ WDNH IURP WR PLQXWHV HDFK :H HVWLPDWH WKDW WKH REVHUYHG OHVVRQ ZLOO WDNH IURP WR PLQXWHV WR FRPSOHWH 2Q SURILOHV DQG LQWHUYLHZV \RX PD\ FKRRVH QRW WR DQVZHU DQ\ TXHVWLRQ ZKLFK \RX GR QRW ZLVK WR DQVZHU
PAGE 115

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f H[W 352-(&7 6($57& ,1)250(' &216(17 )250 )25 352*5$0 3$57,&,3$176 KDYH UHDG DQG XQGHUVWDQG WKH SURFHGXUH GHVFULEHG DERYH DJUHH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH SURFHGXUH DQG KDYH UHFHLYHG D FRS\ RI WKLV GHVFULSWLRQ 6LJQDWXUH 'DWH

PAGE 116

$33(1',; ) 5(&25' 2) (9,'(1&( 7KH IROORZLQJ LV DQ H[DPSOH RI RQH VHFWLRQ IURP WKH UHFRUG RI HYLGHQFH IRUP WKDW LV FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH DVVHVVRU $ %HFRPLQJ IDPLOLDU ZLWK UHOHYDQW DVSHFWV RI VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFHV DVVHVVRU SURYLGHV ZULWWHQ H[DPSOHV RI SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH HYLGHQFHf 6XPPDU\ 6WDWHPHQW DVVHVVRU ZULWHV D VWDWHPHQW WKDW LV DOLJQHG ZLWK WKH VFRULQJ UXOHV DQG PDWULFHVf (YDOXDWLRQ

PAGE 117

$33(1',; 35$;,6 ,,, 6&25,1* 58/(6 $1' 0$75,&(6 $ %HFRPLQJ IDPLOLDU ZLWK UHOHYDQW DVSHFWV RI VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFHV 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH WHDFKHU GHPRQVWUDWHV D ODFN RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZK\ LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR EHFRPH IDPLOLDU ZLWK VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV GRHV QRW NQRZ KRZ WR ILQG WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG ODFNV IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU GHPRQVWUDWHV VRPH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZK\ LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR EHFRPH IDPLOLDU ZLWK VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV GHVFULEHV RQH SURFHGXUH XVHG WR REWDLQ WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG KDV VRPH IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK WKH EDFNJURXQG DQG H[SHULHQFHV RI VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU GHPRQVWUDWHV D FRPSUHKHQVLYH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZK\ LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR EHFRPH IDPLOLDU ZLWK VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV GHVFULEHV VHYHUDO SURFHGXUHV XVHG WR REWDLQ WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG GHPRQVWUDWHV D FOHDU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHULHQFHV $ERYH OHYHO 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ RI LPSRUWDQFH RI EHFRPLQJ IDPLOLDU .QRZOHGJH RI KRZ WR EHFRPH IDPLOLDU /HYHO RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI VWXGHQWVn EDFNJURXQG H[SHULHQFHV /DFNV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 'RHVQnW NQRZ KRZ /DFNV IDPLOLDULW\ 6RPH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 'HVFULEHV RQH SURFHGXUH XVHG 6RPH IDPLOLDULW\ &RPSUHKHQVLYH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 'HVFULEHV VHYHUDO SURFHGXUHV XVHG &OHDU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ

PAGE 118

$ $UWLFXODWLQJ FOHDU OHDUQLQJ JRDOV IRU WKH OHVVRQ WKDW DUH DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VWXGHQWV 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH WHDFKHU GRHV QRW DUWLFXODWH FOHDU OHDUQLQJ JRDOV 25 WKH WHDFKHU KDV FKRVHQ JRDOV WKDW DUH LQDSSURSULDWH IRU WKH VWXGHQWV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU DUWLFXODWHV FOHDU OHDUQLQJ JRDOV WKDW DUH DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH VWXGHQWV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU DUWLFXODWHV FOHDU OHDUQLQJ JRDOV DQG SURYLGHV D ZHOOWKRXJKWRXW H[SODQDWLRQ RI ZK\ WKH\ DUH DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH VWXGHQWV 25 WKH WHDFKHU DUWLFXODWHV FOHDU OHDUQLQJ JRDOV WKDW DUH DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VWXGHQWV DQG DUH GLIIHUHQWLDWHG IRU JURXSV RU LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV $ERYH OHYHO &OHDU DUWLFXODWLRQ RI JRDOV $SSURSULDWHQHVV IRU VWXGHQWV 1RW &OHDU 25 ,QDSSURSULDWH &OHDU $SSURSULDWH LQ JHQHUDO &OHDU ([SODQDWLRQ RI ZK\ DSSURSULDWH IRU DOO VWXGHQWV 25 GLIIHUHQWLDWHG JRDOV

PAGE 119

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nW H[SODLQ 25 H[SODQDWLRQ LV LOORJLFDO 1$ ([SODLQV SUHYLRXV RU IXWXUH DFFXUDWHO\ 1$ ([SODLQV SUHYLRXV RU IXWXUH DFFXUDWHO\ ([SODLQV DFFXUDWHO\

PAGE 120

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

PAGE 121

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

PAGE 122

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

PAGE 123

% (VWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ UDSSRUW ZLWK VWXGHQWV 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH WHDFKHU GRHV QRW DWWHPSW WR HVWDEOLVK UDSSRUW ZLWK VWXGHQWV 25 WKH WHDFKHUnV DWWHPSWV DUH LQDSSURSULDWH $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU HVWDEOLVKHV D EDVLF OHYHO RI UDSSRUW ZLWK WKH VWXGHQWV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU VXFFHVVIXOO\ HVWDEOLVKHV UDSSRUW LQ ZD\V WKDW DUH DSSURSULDWH WR VWXGHQWVn GLYHUVH EDFNJURXQGV DQG QHHGV $ERYH OHYHO (VWDEOLVKPHQW RI UDSSRUW $SSURSULDWHQHVV WR VWXGHQWV 1R DWWHPSW LV PDGH 25 DWWHPSWV PDGH DUH LQDSSURSULDWH %DVLF OHYHO RI UDSSRUW LV HVWDEOLVKHG *HQHUDOO\ DSSURSULDWH QRW GLYHUVLILHG $WWHPSWV WR HVWDEOLVK UDSSRUW DUH VXFFHVVIXO $SSURSULDWH WR VWXGHQWVn GLYHUVH QHHGV DQG EDFNJURXQGV

PAGE 124

% &RPPXQLFDWLQJ FKDOOHQJLQJ OHDUQLQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV WR HDFK VWXGHQW 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH WHDFKHU FRPPXQLFDWHV H[SOLFLWO\ RU LPSOLFLWO\ WR LQGLYLGXDOV WR JURXSV ZLWKLQ WKH FODVV RU WR WKH FODVV DV D ZKROH WKDW WKH\ DUH LQFDSDEOH RI OHDUQLQJ RU WKDW WKH WHDFKHUn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

PAGE 125

% (VWDEOLVKLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ FRQVLVWHQW VWDQGDUGV RI FODVVURRP EHKDYLRU 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH WHDFKHU PDNHV QR DWWHPSW WR UHVSRQG WR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU 25 WKH WHDFKHUnV UHVSRQVH WR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU GRHV QRW GHPRQVWUDWH UHVSHFW IRU WKH VWXGHQWV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU PDNHV DSSURSULDWH DWWHPSWV WR UHVSRQG WR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU LQ ZD\V WKDW GHPRQVWUDWH UHVSHFW IRU WKH VWXGHQWV 25 WKHUH LV QR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU GXULQJ WKH OHVVRQ $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU OHYHO WKH WHDFKHU UHVSRQGV WR PLQRU PLVEHKDYLRU FRQVLVWHQWO\ DQG ZLWK UHDVRQDEOH VXFFHVV LQ ZD\V WKDW GHPRQVWUDWH UHVSHFW IRU VWXGHQWV 25 VWXGHQW EHKDYLRU GXULQJ WKH OHVVRQ LV FRQVLVWHQWO\ DSSURSULDWH $ERYH OHYHO 5HVSRQVH WR EHKDYLRU 5HVSHFW IRU VWXGHQWV 1R DWWHPSW WR UHVSRQG WR 25 UHVSRQVH GRHVQnW GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU GHPRQVWUDWH UHVSHFW $SSURSULDWH DWWHPSWV WR UHVSRQG WR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU 25 QR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU $WWHPSWV WR UHVSRQG GHPRQVWUDWH UHVSHFW &RQVLVWHQW UHDVRQDEO\ VXFFHVVIXO UHVSRQVHV WR GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRU DQG PLQRU PLVEHKDYLRU 25 VWXGHQW EHKDYLRU FRQVLVWHQWO\ DSSURSULDWH 5HVSRQVHV GHPRQVWUDWH UHVSHFW

PAGE 126

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nW LQWHUIHUH ZLWK OHDUQLQJ 6DIH 8VHG DV D UHVRXUFH DQG DOO VWXGHQWVn QHHGV DFFRPPRGDWHG 25 &DQQRW FRQWURO FRQGLWLRQV EXW HIIHFWLYHO\ DGMXVWV DFWLYLWLHV IRU HQYLURQPHQW

PAGE 127

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

PAGE 128

& 0DNLQJ FRQWHQW FRPSUHKHQVLEOH WR VWXGHQWV 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH FRQWHQW DSSHDUV WR EH LQFRPSUHKHQVLEOH WR WKH VWXGHQWV 25 WKH OHVVRQ FRQWDLQV VXEVWDQWLYH LQDFFXUDFLHV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH FRQWHQW LV DFFXUDWH DQG DSSHDUV WR EH FRPSUHKHQVLEOH WR WKH VWXGHQWV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU OHYHO WKH OHVVRQ DV D ZKROH KDV D ORJLFDO DQG FRKHUHQW VWUXFWXUH $ERYH OHYHO $FFXUDF\ RI FRQWHQW &RPSUHKHQVLELOn LW\ RI FRQWHQW /HVVRQ VWUXFWXUH ,QDFFXUDWH 25 DSSHDUV 1$ LQFRPSUHKHQVLEOH $FFXUDWH $SSHDUV FRPSUHKHQVLEOH 1$ $FFXUDWH $SSHDUV FRPSUHKHQVLEOH /RJLFDO DQG FRKHUHQW

PAGE 129

& (QFRXUDJLQJ VWXGHQWV WR H[WHQG WKHLU WKLQNLQJ 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 7KH WHDFKHU GLVFRXUDJHV VWXGHQWV IURP WKLQNLQJ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ FUHDWLYHO\ RU FULWLFDOO\ $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU HQFRXUDJHV VWXGHQWV WR WKLQN LQGHSHQGHQWO\ FUHDWLYHO\ RU FULWLFDOO\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH FRQWHQW EHLQJ VWXGLHG $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU XVHV DFWLYLWLHV RU VWUDWHJLHV WKDW DUH VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVLJQHG WR DFWLYHO\ HQFRXUDJH VWXGHQWV WR WKLQN LQGHSHQGHQWO\ FUHDWLYHO\ RU FULWLFDOO\ DERXW WKH FRQWHQW EHLQJ WDXJKW $ERYH OHYHO (QFRXUDJHPHQW RI LQGHSHQGHQW FUHDWLYH RU FULWLFDO WKLQNLQT 'LVFRXUDJHV (QFRXUDJHV ZLWKLQ H[LVWLQJ FRQWH[W RI OHVVRQ (QFRXUDJHV WKURXJK DFWLYLWLHV RU VWUDWHJLHV GHVLJQHG RU FKRVHQ ZLWK WKLV LQWHQW

PAGE 130

& 0RQLWRULQJ VWXGHQWVn XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI FRQWHQW WKURXJK D YDULHW\ RI PHDQV SURYLGLQJ IHHGEDFN WR VWXGHQWV WR DVVLVW OHDUQLQJ DQG DGMXVWLQJ OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV DV WKH VLWXDWLRQ GHPDQGV 6FRULQJ 5XL HV 7KH WHDFKHU PDNHV QR DWWHPSW WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU VWXGHQWV DUH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG JLYHV WKHP QR IHHGEDFN $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU PRQLWRUV WKH VWXGHQWVn XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQWHQW 7KH VWXGHQWV UHFHLYH IHHGEDFN DV QHFHVVDU\ $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU PRQLWRUV LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWVn RU JURXSV RI VWXGHQWVn XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH FRQWHQW DQG PDNHV DSSURSULDWH LQVWUXFWLRQDO DGMXVWPHQWV LI QHFHVVDU\ ,I DSSURSULDWH VWXGHQWV UHFHLYH VXEVWDQWLYH DQG VSHFLILF IHHGEDFN $ERYH OHYHO 0RQLWRULQJ 3URYLGLQJ IHHGEDFN $GMXVWLQJ 1R DWWHPSW 1RW SURYLGHG 1$ 0RQLWRUV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 3URYLGHV DV QHFHVVDU\ 1$ 0RQLWRUV LQGLYLGXDOVn RU JURXSVn XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 3URYLGHV DV QHFHVVDU\ VXEVWDQWLYH DQG VSHFLILF $GMXVWV DV QHFHVVDU\

PAGE 131

& 8VLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQDO WLPH HIIHFWLYHO\ 6FRULQJ 5XOHV 6XEVWDQWLDO DPRXQWV RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO WLPH DUH VSHQW RQ DFWLYLWLHV RI OLWWOH LQVWUXFWLRQDO YDOXH 25 WKH SDFLQJ RI WKH OHVVRQ LV LQDSSURSULDWH WR WKH FRQWHQW DQGRU WKH VWXGHQWV $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH SDFLQJ RI WKH OHVVRQ LV DSSURSULDWH IRU PRVW RI WKH VWXGHQWV 1RQLQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUDO PDWWHUV GR QRW RFFXS\ DQ H[FHVVLYH DPRXQW RI WLPH $ERYH OHYHO EXW EHORZ OHYHO 7KH WHDFKHU SURYLGHV VWXGHQWV ZLWK DFWLYLWLHV RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO YDOXH IRU WKH HQWLUH LQVWUXFWLRQDO WLPH DQG SDFHV WKHP DSSURSULDWHO\ $Q\ QHFHVVDU\ QRQLQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV DUH SHUIRUPHG HIILFLHQWO\ $ERYH OHYHO 8VH RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO WLPH 3DFLQJ 6XEVWDQWLDO WLPH RQ 25 SDFLQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI OLWWOH LQDSSURSULDWH LQVWUXFWLRQDO YDOXH 7LPH RQ QRQLQVWUXFWLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV QRW H[FHVVLYH 3DFLQJ DSSURSULDWH IRU PRVW VWXGHQWV (QWLUH LQVWUXFWLRQDO WLPH RQ DFWLYLWLHV RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO YDOXH QRQLQVWUXFWLRQDO SURFHGXUHV HIILFLHQW 3DFLQJ DSSURSULDWH

PAGE 132

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

PAGE 133

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nW VXJJHVW VSHFLILF SUDFWLFDO DFWLRQV EH\RQG WKRVH DOUHDG\ WULHG $WWHPSWV WR KHOS DQG VXJJHVWV VSHFLILF SUDFWLFDO DFWLRQV WKDW LQWHQGV WR WU\ ZLWK VSHFLILF VWXGHQWV

PAGE 134

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

PAGE 135

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f 1R NQRZOHGJH 25 QR DWWHPSW HYHQ LI FOHDUO\ QHFHVVDU\ 'HPRQVWUDWHV NQRZOHGJH /LQNV IRUPV WR YDULRXV SXUSRVHV 'HPRQVWUDWHV NQRZOHGJH :LWK UHIHUHQFH WR VSHFLILF VWXGHQWV GHVFULEHV VLWXDWLRQV WKDW FDOO IRU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG UHOHYDQW IRUPV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ

PAGE 136

$33(1',; + &/$66 352),/( 7KH IROORZLQJ DUH TXHVWLRQV WR EH FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH SDUWLFLSDQW RI WKH VWXG\ :KLFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ EHVW GHVFULEHV WKH /(9(/ RI WKH FODVV EHLQJ REVHUYHG" D 3UH.LQGHUJDUWHQ *UDGH E *UDGHV F *UDGHV G *UDGHV H 0RUH WKDQ RQH RI WKH OHYHOV DERYH SOHDVH VSHFLI\f :KLFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ EHVW GHVFULEHV WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH FODVV EHLQJ REVHUYHG" D %XVLQHVV E &RPSXWHU VFLHQFH F (QJOLVK DV D VHFRQG ODQJXDJH G )RUHLJQ ODQJXDJH H +HDOWKSK\VLFDO HGXFDWLRQ I +RPH HFRQRPLFV J /DQJXDJH DUWVFRPPXQLFDWLRQV K 0DWKHPDWLFV L 3K\VLFDOELRORJLFDOFKHPLFDO VFLHQFHV M 6RFLDO VFLHQFHV N 6SHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ O 9LVXDO DUWVPXVLFWKHDWUHGDQFH P 9RFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ Q 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f :KLFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ EHVW GHVFULEHV WKH DUHDV IURP ZKLFK \RXU VWXGHQWV FRPH" &KHFN $// WKDW DSSO\f D /RZ LQFRPH XUEDQ E 0LGGOH RU XSSHU LQFRPH XUEDQ F /RZ LQFRPH VXEXUEDQ G 0LGGOH RU XSSHU LQFRPH VXEXUEDQ H /RZ LQFRPH VPDOO WRZQ QRW VXEXUEDQf I 0LGGOH RU XSSHU LQFRPH VPDOO WRZQ QRW VXEXUEDQf

PAGE 137

J /RZ LQFRPH UXUDO K 0LGGOH RU XSSHU LQFRPH UXUDO :KDW LV WKH 727$/ 180%(5 RI VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ WKH FODVV WR EH REVHUYHG" D :KDW LV WKH QXPEHU RI 0$/( VWXGHQWV" E :KDW LV WKH QXPEHU RI )(0$/( VWXGHQWV" :KDW LV WKH $*( UDQJH IRU DOO RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV" :KDW LV WKH HVWLPDWHG QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV LGHQWLILHG LQ HDFK 5$&,$/(7+1,& *5283" D $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ RU %ODFN E $VLDQ $PHULFDQ$VLDQ ([ -DSDQHVH &KLQHVH .RUHDQf F 6RXWKHDVW $VLDQ $PHULFDQ6RXWKHDVW $VLDQ ([ &DPERGLDQ +PRQJ .KPHU /DRWLDQ 9LHWQDPHVHf G 3DFLILF ,VODQG $PHULFDQ3DFLILF ,VODQGHU H 0H[LFDQ 0H[LFDQ $PHULFDQ RU &KLFDQR I 3XHUWR 5LFDQ J 2WKHU +LVSDQLF /DWLQR RU /DWLQ $PHULFDQ K 1DWLYH $PHULFDQ $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ RU $ODVNDQ 1DWLYH L :KLWH M 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f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f

PAGE 138

,V WKHUH DQ\WKLQJ DERXW WKH /($51,1* (19,5210(17 WKDW \RX WKLQN PLJKW DIIHFW \RXU VWXGHQWV RU WKH VFKHGXOHG REVHUYDWLRQ HJ WKLV LV QRW \RXU RZQ FODVVURRP WKHUH LV D QHZ GLVSOD\ SHW RU HTXLSPHQW LQ WKH URRP WKHUH LV FRQVWUXFWLRQ JRLQJ RQ LQ WKH EXLOGLQJf" ,V VR SOHDVH QRWH :KDW DUH WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW &/$665220 5287,1(6 352&('85(6 58/(6 DQG (;3(&7$7,216 )25 678'(17 %(+$9,25 WKDW ZLOO EH LQ RSHUDWLRQ GXULQJ WKH REVHUYHG OHVVRQ HJ FROOHFWLQJ SDSHUV UHYLHZLQJ KRPHZRUN VDIHW\ SUHFDXWLRQVf" $UH WKHUH DQ\ &,5&8067$1&(6 WKDW WKH DVVHVVRU VKRXOG EH DZDUH RI LQ RUGHU WR XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW ZLOO RFFXU GXULQJ WKH VFKHGXOHG REVHUYDWLRQ HJ XVH RI VFKRROZLGH GLVFLSOLQH VFKRROZLGH SROLFLHV LQWHUUXSWLRQV EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQV RI FHUWDLQ VWXGHQWVf" ,I VR SOHDVH H[SODLQ ,Q WKH VSDFH EHORZ SOHDVH SURYLGH D VLPSOH 6.(7&+ RI WKH DUUDQJHPHQW RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO VSDFH IRU WKLV OHVVRQ HJ VWXGHQW GHVNV WHDFKHU GHVN VWXGHQW ZRUN VSDFH DUUDQJHPHQW RI SOD\LQJ ILHOG RU ODERUDWRU\f 3OHDVH DWWDFK D 6($7,1* &+$57 ZLWK WKH VWXGHQWVn QDPHV LI DYDLODEOH RU D /,67 RI VWXGHQWV IRU WKH FODVV WR EH REVHUYHG

PAGE 139

$33(1',; ,16758&7,21$/ 352),/( 7KH IROORZLQJ DUH TXHVWLRQV WR EH FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH SDUWLFLSDQW RI WKH VWXG\ :KDW DUH \RXU *2$/6 IRU VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ IRU WKLV FODVV SHULRG" ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV ZKDW FKDQJHV GR \RX KRSH ZLOO RFFXU LQ WKH VWXGHQWV DV D UHVXOW RI WKLV FODVV SHULRG" ,QFOXGH OHDUQLQJ JRDOV LQ DQ\ GRPDLQ WKDW LV UHOHYDQW WR WKH OHVVRQ HJ DFDGHPLF VRFLDO DIIHFWLYH FRJQLWLYH DHVWKHWLF DQGRU SV\FKRPRWRU JRDOVf :KHUH DSSURSULDWH LQ 3/$11,1* 7+,6 /(6621 KRZ KDYH \RX XVHG RU DFFRPPRGDWHG WKH GLYHUVH H[SHULHQFHV UHODWHG WR WKH FDWHJRULHV OLVWHG EHORZ WKDW \RXU VWXGHQWV EULQJ WR FODVV" D *HQGHU E 5DFHHWKQLFLW\ F (QJOLVK ODQJXDJH SURILFLHQF\ G (FRQRPLF VWDWXV H 6NLOO OHYHO I ([FHSWLRQDOLWLHV +RZ GRHV WKH &217(17 RI WKLV OHVVRQ EXLOG RQ ZKDW KDV EHHQ OHDUQHG 35(9,286/<" +RZ GRHV WKH &217(17 RI WKLV OHVVRQ UHODWH WR ZKDW VWXGHQWV ZLOO EH OHDUQLQJ LQ WKH )8785("

PAGE 140

:KDW WHDFKLQJ 0(7+2'6 KDYH \RX VHOHFWHG WR KHOS \RX DFKLHYH \RXU OHDUQLQJ JRDOV HJ WHDFKHU SUHVHQWDWLRQ SHHU WHDFKLQJ SURJUDPPHG LQVWUXFWLRQ HWFf" :KDW OHDUQLQJ $&7,9,7,(6 KDYH \RX SODQQHG IRU WKLV FODVV HJ JDPH WR OHDUQ PDS VNLOOV GUDZLQJ WKH DFWLRQ LQ D VWRU\ TXL] HWFf" %ULHIO\ RXWOLQH WKH VHTXHQFH RI DFWLYLWLHV DQG LQGLFDWH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ KRZ PXFK WLPH \RX SODQ WR VSHQG RQ HDFK :KDW LQVWUXFWLRQDO 0$7(5,$/6 LI DQ\ ZLOO \RX XVH WR KHOS \RXU VWXGHQWV UHDFK WKH VSHFLILHG OHDUQLQJ JRDOV" ,I DSSURSULDWH SOHDVH 67$3/( WR WKLV IRUP D FRS\ RI DQ\ VWXGHQW 0$7(5,$/6 \RX SODQ WR XVH ZLWK WKLV FODVV HJ PDS YRFDEXODU\ OLVW TXHVWLRQV WR EH DQVZHUHG SULQWHG LQVWUXFWLRQV KRPHZRUNf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f

PAGE 141

$33(1',; 35(2%6(59$7,21 ,17(59,(: 4XHVWLRQV WR EH DVNHG GXULQJ WKH SUHREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ ,nYH UHYLHZHG \RXU &/$66 DQG ,16758&7,21 SURILOHV 3OHDVH WDNH D IHZ PRPHQWV WR ORRN WKHP RYHU DQG WHOO PH LI WKHUH KDYH EHHQ DQ\ FKDQJHV LQ WKHVH VLQFH \RX FRPSOHWHG WKHP :K\ KDYH \RX FKRVHQ WKHVH *2$/6" +RZ GR WKH FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKLV OHVVRQ SDVW OHDUQLQJ DQG IXWXUH OHDUQLQJ UHIOHFW WKH 25*$1,=$7,21 RI WKH 68%-(&7 RU ',6&,3/,1( DV D ZKROH" D :KDW SULRU NQRZOHGJH DQG 6.,//6 GR VWXGHQWV QHHG LQ RUGHU WR EH VXFFHVVIXO LQ UHDFKLQJ WKH JRDOVf RI WKH OHVVRQ" E +RZ GR \RX EHFRPH )$0,/,$5 ZLWK WKH 35,25 .12:/('*( DQG 6.,//6 \RXU VWXGHQWV EULQJ WR WKLV DQG RWKHU OHVVRQV" D +RZ GR \RX EHFRPH )$0,/,$5 ZLWK \RXU VWXGHQWVn &8/785$/ 5(6285&(6 HJ H[SHULHQFHV RXWVLGH RI VFKRRO DSSURDFKHV WR OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV RI LQWHUDFWLQJ DQG UHODWLQJf" E +RZ GRHV WKLV OHVVRQ DFFRPPRGDWH DQG XVH \RXU VWXGHQWVn &8/785$/ 5(6285&(6"

PAGE 142

F :K\ DUH WKH DFFRPPRGDWLRQV \RX KDYH PDGH ,03257$17 WR VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ" :K\ KDYH \RX FKRVHQ WKHVH 7($&+,1* 0(7+2'6" :K\ KDYH \RX FKRVHQ WKHVH SDUWLFXODU OHDUQLQJ $&7,9,7,(6" :K\ KDYH \RX FKRVHQ WKHVH ,16758&7,21$/ 0$7(5,$/6" D :K\ KDYH \RX FKRVHQ WR (9$/8$7( VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ XVLQJ WKH VWUDWHJLHV \RXnYH GHVFULEHG" E ,I VWXGHQW RXWFRPHV DUH QRW JRLQJ WR EH HYDOXDWHG WRGD\ ZKHQ ZLOO WKLV RFFXU"

PAGE 143

$33(1',; 32672%6(59$7,21 ,17(59,(: 4XHVWLRQV WR EH DVNHG GXULQJ WKH SRVWREVHUYDWLRQ LQWHUYLHZ OD ,Q OLJKW RI \RXU ,16758&7,21$/ *2$/6 KRZ GR \RX WKLQN WKH OHVVRQ ZHQW" OE 'LG WKH VWXGHQWV OHDUQ ZKDW \RX ZDQWHG WKHP WR OHDUQ" +RZ GR \RX NQRZ WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV OHDUQHG RU GLG QRW OHDUQ ZKDW \RX ZDQWHG WKHP WR OHDUQ" OF :HUH WKH WHDFKLQJ 0(7+2'6 HIIHFWLYH" +RZ GR \RX NQRZ WKH\ ZHUH RU ZHUH QRW HIIHFWLYH" OG :HUH WKH $&7,9,7,(6 \RX XVHG KHOSIXO" +RZ GR \RX NQRZ WKH\ ZHUH RU ZHUH QRW KHOSIXO" OH :HUH WKH 0$7(5,$/6 \RX XVHG KHOSIXO" +RZ GR \RX NQRZ WKH\ ZHUH RU ZHUH QRW KHOSIXO" 'LG \RX '(3$57 IURP DQ\WKLQJ \RX KDG SODQQHG WR GR GXULQJ WKLV FODVV SHULRG" ,I VR ZKHQ DQG ZK\" D ,I \RX FRXOG WHDFK WKLV FODVV SHULRG RYHU DJDLQ WR WKH VDPH FODVV :KDW ZRXOG \RX GR ',))(5(17/<" :K\" E ,I \RX FRXOG WHDFK WKLV FODVV SHULRG RYHU DJDLQ WR WKH VDPH FODVV :KDW ZRXOG \RX GR WKH 6$0(" :K\" %DVHG RQ ZKDW KDSSHQHG WRGD\ ZKDW GR \RX SODQ WR GR QH[W ZLWK WKLV FODVV" D +RZ GR \RX WKLQN D FKLOG ZKR DSSHDUHG WR EH GRLQJ ZHOOf SHUIRUPHG WRGD\"

PAGE 144

E +RZ GR \RX DFFRXQW IRU WKLV SHUIRUPDQFH" F :KDW PLJKW \RX WU\ LQ WKH IXWXUH ZLWK WKH FKLOGf" D +RZ GR \RX WKLQN D FKLOG ZKR DSSHDUHG WR EH KDYLQJ SUREOHPVf SHUIRUPHG WRGD\" E +RZ GR \RX DFFRXQW IRU WKLV SHUIRUPDQFH" F :KDW PLJKW \RX WU\ LQ WKH IXWXUH ZLWK WKH FKLOGf" :KHQ \RX QHHG $66,67$1&( ZLWK \RXU WHDFKLQJ VNLOOV RU ZKHQ \RX KDYH 352%/(06 ZLWK D SDUWLFXODU VWXGHQW ZKRP GR \RX WDON ZLWK" 'R \RX &225',1$7( OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV ZLWK RWKHU WHDFKHUV" ,I VR ZK\ DQG KRZ" D :KDW IRUPV RI &20081,&$7,21 GR \RX XVH ZLWK WKH 3$5(176 25 *8$5',$16 RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKLV FODVV" E +RZ DQG XQGHU ZKDW FRQGLWLRQV GR \RX XVH WKHP" ,V WKHUH $1<7+,1* (/6( \RX IHHO VKRXOG NQRZ DERXW WRGD\nV OHVVRQ" KDYH VHYHUDO TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH OHVVRQ

PAGE 145

5()(5(1&(6 $GDPV 5 f )ROORZXS VWXGLHV RI WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ JUDGXDWHV ,Q 0 +DEHUPDQ t 0 %DFNXV (GVf $GYDQFHV LQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ 9RO SS f 1RUZRRG 1$EOH[ $QGUHZV 7 ( t %DUQHV 6 f $VVHVVPHQW RI WHDFKLQJ ,Q : 5 +RXVWRQ (Gf +DQGERRN RI UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 146

%XUGHQ 3 5 f 7HDFKHU GHYHORSPHQW ,Q : 5 +RXVWRQ (Gf +DQGERRN RI UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 147

DVVHVVPHQW FULWHULD 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 'Z\HU & $ t 9LOOHJDV $ 0 f *XLGLQJ FRQFHSWLRQV DQG DVVHVVPHQW SULQFLSOHV IRU 7KH 3UD[LV 6HULHV 3URIHVVLRQDO $VVHVVPHQW IRU %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHUVr1 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH (QJHOPDQQ 6 &DPLQH t 6WHHO\ f 0DNLQJ FRQQHFWLRQV LQ PDWKHPDWLFV -RXUQDO RI /HDUQLQJ 'LVDELOLWLHV (YHUWVRQ & 0 t *UHHQ / f 2EVHUYDWLRQ DV LQTXLU\ DQG PHWKRG ,Q 0 & :LWWURFN (Gf +DQGERRN RI UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ UG HG SS f 1HZ
PAGE 148

*RRG 7 / f &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQV 3RWHQWLDO DQG SUREOHPV ,Q : 5 'XFNHWW (Gf 2EVHUYDWLRQ DQG WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI WHDFKLQJ SS f 3KL 'HOWD .DSSD PRQRJUDSK *RRG 7 / t 0XOU\DQ & f 7HDFKHU UDWLQJV $ FDOO IRU WHDFKHU FRQWURO DQG VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ ,Q 0LOOPDQ t / 'DUOLQJ+DPPRQG (GVf 7KH QHZ KDQGERRN RI WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ $VVHVVLQJ HOHPHQWDU\ DQG VHFRQGDU\ WHDFKHUV SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH *RRGODG f $FFHVV WR NQRZOHGJH ,Q *RRGODG t 7 & /RYLWW (GVf ,QWHJUDWLQJ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 149

0F'RQDOG ) 0DUFK f $ WKHRU\ RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WHDFKHUV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 150

3RZHUV ( f $VVHVVLQJ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV (GXFDWRUVn DSSUDLVDO RI SURSRVHG HYDOXDWLRQ FULWHULD 5HVHDUFK 5HSRUW f 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 3XJDFK 0 & f 8QLI\LQJ WKH SUHVHUYLFH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WHDFKHUV ,Q : 6WDLQEDFN t 6 6WDLQEDFN (GVf &RQWURYHUVLDO LVVXHV FRQIURQWLQJ VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ 'LYHUJHQW SHUVSHFWLYHV SS f 1HHGKDP +HLJKWV 0$ $OO\Q t %DFRQ 3XJDFK 0 & t -RKQVRQ / f 7KH FKDOOHQJH RI LPSOHPHQWLQJ FROODERUDWLRQ EHWZHHQ JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ ([FHSWLRQDO &KLOGUHQ 5H\QROGV $ f :KDW LV FRPSHWHQW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKLQJ" $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 5RVHQIHOG 0 )UHHEHUJ 1 ( t %XNDWNR 3 f 7KH SURIHVVLRQDO IXQFWLRQV RI VHFRQGDU\ VFKRRO WHDFKHUV 5HVHDUFK 5HSRUW f 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 5RVHQIHOG 0 5H\QROGV $ t %XNDWNR 3 f 7KH SURIHVVLRQDO IXQFWLRQV RI HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO WHDFKHUV 5HVHDUFK 5HSRUW f 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 5RVHQIHOG 0 :LOGHU t %XNDWNR 3 f 7KH SURIHVVLRQDO IXQFWLRQV RI PLGGOH VFKRRO WHDFKHUV 5HVHDUFK 5HSRUW f 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 6FKQ f (GXFDWLQJ WKH UHIOHFWLYH SUDFWLWLRQHU 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 6FKXPDNHU % t 'HVKOHU ' f 9DOLGDWLRQ RI OHDUQLQJ VWUDWHJ\ LQWHUYHQWLRQV IRU VWXGHQWV ZLWK OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV 5HVXOWV RI D SURJUDPPDWLF UHVHDUFK HIIRUW ,Q % < / :RQJ (Gf ,QWHUYHQWLRQ UHVHDUFK ZLWK VWXGHQWV ZLWK OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV SS f 1HZ
PAGE 151

6KXOPDQ / 6 f $ XQLRQ RI LQVXIILFLHQFLHV 6WUDWHJLHV IRU WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW LQ D SHULRG RI HGXFDWLRQDO UHIRUP (GXFDWLRQDO /HDGHUVKLS 6KXOPDQ / 6 Df %OXH IUHHZD\V 7UDYHOLQJ WKH DOWHUQDWH URXWH ZLWK ELJFLW\ WHDFKHU WUDLQHHV -RXUQDO RI 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 6KXOPDQ / 6 Ef 7KH SDUDGR[ RI WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW ,Q 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH (76 ,QYLWDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH SS f 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 6KXOPDQ / 6 +DHUWHO ( + t %LUG 7 f 7RZDUG DOWHUQDWLYH DVVHVVPHQWV RI WHDFKLQJ $ UHSRUW RI ZRUN LQ SURJUHVV 6WDQIRUG &$ 7HDFKHU $VVHVVPHQW 3URMHFW 6WDQIRUG 8QLYHUVLW\ 6LQGHODU 3 3XJDFK 0 *ULIILQ & t 6HLGO % f 5HIRUPLQJ WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ &KDOOHQJLQJ WKH SKLORVRSK\ DQG SUDFWLFHV RI HGXFDWLQJ UHJXODU DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWRUV ,Q / 3DXO + 5RVVHOOL t (YDQV (GVf ,QWHJUDWLQJ VFKRRO UHVWUXFWXULQJ DQG VSHFLDO HGXFDWLRQ UHIRUP SS f )RUW :RUWK 7; +DUFRXUW %UDFH 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ 5HSRUW f *HRJUDSK\ SOD\V VWURQJ UROH LQ VHSDUDWH SODFHPHQWV 9RO 1R SS f 6WRGROVN\ 6 6 f &ODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ ,Q 0LOOPDQ t / 'DUOLQJ+DPPRQG (GVf 7KH QHZ KDQGERRN RI WHDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ $VVHVVLQJ HOHPHQWDU\ DQG VHFRQGDU\ WHDFKHUV SS f 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH 6ZDQVRQ + / f 6WUDWHJ\ LQVWUXFWLRQ 2YHUYLHZ RI SULQFLSOHV DQG SURFHGXUHV IRU HIIHFWLYH XVH /HDUQLQJ 'LVDELOLW\ 4XDUWHUO\ 6ZDQVRQ + / t &RRQH\ % f 0HPRU\ DQG OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV ,Q % < / :RQJ (Gf /HDUQLQJ DERXW OHDUQLQJ GLVDELOLWLHV SS f 6DQ 'LHJR &$ $FDGHPLF 3UHVV 7LPSDQH 3 0 f :LOO LPSURYLQJ WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW LPSURYH WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI FKLOGUHQ ,Q 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU WHDFKHU DVVHVVPHQW 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH (76 ,QYLWDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH SS f 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 8QUXK $ t 7XUQHU + ( f 6XSHUYLVLRQ IRU FKDQJH DQG LQQRYDWLRQ %RVWRQ +RXJKWRQ 0LIIOLQ

PAGE 152

9LOOHJDV $ 0 )HEUXDU\ f 7KH FRPSHWHQFH QHHGHG E\ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV LQ D PXOWLFXOWXUDO VRFLHW\ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJHV IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 6DQ $QWRQLR 7; :HVOH\ 6 5RVHQIHOG 0 t 6LPV*XQ]HQKDXVHU $ f $VVHVVLQJ WKH FODVVURRP SHUIRUPDQFH RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV 7HDFKHUVn MXGJPHQWV RI HYDOXDWLRQ FULWHULD 3ULQFHWRQ 1(GXFDWLRQDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH :LVH $ ( 'DUOLQJ+DPPRQG / 0F/DXJKOLQ 0 : t %HUQVWHLQ + 7 f 7HDFKHU HYDOXDWLRQ $ VWXG\ RI HIIHFWLYH SUDFWLFHV 6DQWD 0RQLFD &$ 7KH 5DQG &RUSRUDWLRQ :LWWURFN 0 & f 6WXGHQWVn WKRXJKW SURFHVVHV ,Q 0 & :LWWURFN (Gf +DQGERRN RI UHVHDUFK RQ WHDFKLQJ UG HG SS f 1HZ
PAGE 153

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

PAGE 154

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

PAGE 155

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fG:Wn e! >FURDG 0DU\ 7 URZQHOO $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ -8Oer-/ .DUHQ / .LOJRUH $VVLVWDQW 6FKRODU RI 6SHFLDO (GXFDWLRQ

PAGE 156

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

PAGE 157

/'  (! HGXFDWLRQ OLEUDU\ 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EDKQDGFVZ_SAYFJ2 INGEST_TIME 2014-04-14T19:17:57Z PACKAGE AA00014232_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


LD
1780
199
E3>
education
library
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08555 0050


THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER PREPARATION
ON CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE
OF BEGINNING TEACHERS
IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATION
By
MARY ROBERTSON EISELE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1996
UN1VERS1TV
OffUdW»'*"*8

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
They say it takes a whole village to raise a child.
Similarly, I found that it often takes family, friends, and
colleagues to reach the completion of a Ph.D. program. This
study was conducted with the assistance and support of
numerous individuals. My sincerest gratitude is extended to
all those who contributed.
First, the teachers and students who participated in
this study deserve an enormous amount of credit. Without
their willingness to allow me into their classrooms and their
flexibility in scheduling observations and interviews, this
study could never have been conducted. Their willingness to
participate in a study that may assist in better prepared
teachers for tomorrow's students is admirable. The hours I
spent in these classrooms has had a profound effect on my
views of the teaching and learning process.
This study was supported, in part, through Project
SEART-C at the University of Florida. I wish to thank Dr.
Paul Sindelar and Dr. Mary Sue Rennells for their guidance
and continued support throughout this project.
I wish to thank past and present doctoral students who
have endured, alongside me, all the trials and tribulations
of the doctoral program. Thanks, especially, to Dr. Maria
Blanes, Dr. LuAnn Jordon, Penny Travis, and Dr. David Allsopp
ii

for your support and continued encouragement that it can be
done! I owe a very, special thanks to Dr. Holly Lane. If it
were not for your persistence over the past year, I may still
be writing. Your support, encouragement, and friendship has
helped me over the last few obstacles and for that I will
always be grateful. I am sure that our grandparents are
looking upon us with smiling faces!
I wish to give a special thanks to Dr. Ann Daunic. She
gave so much of her time and talents to make this study
possible. Her critical assistance during this study is
immeasurable. Thanks for helping me to keep things in
perspective, for the endless support and laughs, and for the
many restaurant discussions. I hope that in the future we
can work together again.
The support and assistance that my committee provided
from my courses through the final submission of the
dissertation is endless. Drs. Karen Kilgore and Mary
Brownell, both early in their careers as teacher educators
and researchers themselves, have served as role models for me
throughout my program. Dr. Kilgore listened to me, gave me
direction, and encouraged me to remain close to teachers in
the field. With her unique position on Project PART, Dr.
Kilgore influenced many of my thoughts about collaboration
among teachers, schools, and universities. Dr. Brownell has
consistently challenged me to examine issues from many
different perspectives. Dr. Cary Reichard has guided me
through the doctoral program by remaining a steady influence

with lots of enthusiasm. Dr. Linda Lombardino encouraged me
to expand my interest in beginning reading and provided me
with ideas and resources that I have shared with many
preservice and inservice teachers. I am deeply indebted to
Dr. Patricia Ashton for her assistance and input throughout
this study. With her expertise and vision, Dr. Ashton
inspired me to conduct teacher education research.
My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Cecil Mercer, who
has been a teacher, a mentor, a colleague, and a friend. As
an undergraduate and master's student, Dr. Mercer served as a
role model for the power of teaching. His philosophy of
always doing what is best for students has remained with me
for many years. As my committee chairman, Dr. Mercer has
used his kindness, intellect, and humor to guide me through a
challenging program. You have and will continue to be a
powerful influence in my career as a teacher educator.
Finally, and most important, the love, support, and
encouragement that I have received from my family and close
friends have made this endeavor possible. My thanks to the
Mullins' family, my home away from home, your support has
been limitless. I express my deepest thanks to my parents
who instilled in me the importance of education and the
belief that I could accomplish anything. Most of all, I
thank Andrew. You have given me more love, patience, and
support than imaginable.
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Rationale for the Study 2
Scope of the Study 3
Delimitations 3
Limitations 3
Definition of Terms 4
Overview 6
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
Teacher Preparation 7
Differences in Preparation 7
Differences Between Teachers 9
Beginning Teacher Literature 10
Relevant Literature 11
Preactive 11
Interactive 13
Postactive 16
Limitations of Existing Research 17
Assessment of Beginning Teachers 18
Conclusions 19
Teacher Development Theory 20
Teachers' Developmental Stages 20
Summary of Developmental Stages 25
Teacher Evaluation 26
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation 26
Methods of Teacher Assessment 28
Teacher ratings 28
Self-assessments 29
Student achievement 29
Portfolio assessment 30
Simulations/performance exercises 30
Paper-and-pencil tests 31
Classroom observation 32
Summary 35
v

Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments 36
Purpose 36
Stage 1 38
Stage 2 38
Stage 3 38
Guiding Conceptions and Assessment Principles ... 39
Instrument Development 40
Praxis III Framework 42
Domain A: Organizing content knowledge
for student learning 42
Domain B: Creating an environment for
student learning 43
Domain C: Teaching for student learning... 43
Domain D: Teacher professionalism 44
Reflection and Performance 44
Assessment and Professional Development 45
Implications for Research 46
III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 48
Introduction 48
Description of the Null Hypothesis 48
Methods 49
Description of the Subjects 49
Sampling Procedures 49
Description of the Research Instrumentation 51
Data Collection Procedures 51
Validity and Reliability 52
Knowledge base 53
Criterion development 54
Description of the Procedures 55
Assessment Cycle 55
Preobservation interview 56
Classroom observation 56
Postobservation interview 57
Recording/scoring of evidence 57
Assessor Training 57
Treatment of the Data 59
IV RESULTS 60
Introduction 60
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics 61
Criterion and Domain Scores 63
Test of Hypothesis 65
Sources of Significant Differences 67
Criterion A3 67
Criterion B1 68
Criterion B4 68
Criterion C3 69
Criterion D3 70
Summary 71
vi

V DISCUSSION 72
Overview of Research Findings 72
Implications of the Research Findings 74
Theoretical Implications 74
Implications for Beginning Teacher Knowledge
Base 75
Preactive 76
Interactive 77
Postactive 79
Implications for Teacher Education 80
Limitations 84
Suggestions for Future Research 86
Summary 87
APPENDICES
A PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA 89
B QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSOR REFLECTION 91
C CANDIDATE PROFILE 99
D LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS 102
E PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT 104
F RECORD OF EVIDENCE 106
G PRAXIS III SCORING RULES AND MATRICES 107
H CLASS PROFILE 126
I INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE 129
J PREOBSERVATION INTERVIEW 131
K POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW 133
REFERENCES 135
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 143
vii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER PREPARATION
ON CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE
OF BEGINNING TEACHERS
IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATION
By
Mary Robertson Eisele
August 1996
Chairman: Cecil D. Mercer
Major Department: Special Education
Examining the performance of first-year classroom
teachers may be a useful way to determine the effects of
teacher preparation on those teachers' abilities to meet the
demands of their profession. This study is an examination of
effects of teacher preparation on the classroom performance
of beginning teachers in general and special education.
Several key aspects of classroom performance were examined:
(a) organizing content knowledge for student learning, (b)
creating an environment for student learning, (c) teaching
for student learning, and (d) teacher professionalism.
Assessments using Praxis III: Classroom Performance
Assessment were conducted on beginning teachers in special
education (N=25) and general education (N=22). Each
assessment cycle consisted of a preobservation interview, an
viii

observation, and a postobservation interview. Each teacher
was scored on the 19 criteria of Praxis III.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a
significant difference between general and special education
teachers. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were
conducted for each criterion. Significant differences
between general education and special education teachers were
detected on a total of 5 criteria on Praxis III. General
educators scored significantly higher on measures of a
teachers' ability (a) to demonstrate an understanding of the
connection between the content that was learned previously,
the current content, and the content that remains to be
learned in the future, (b) to encourage students to extend
their thinking, and (c) to build professional relationships
with colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate
learning activities for students. Special educators scored
significantly higher on criterion related to the creation of
a climate that promotes fairness and to establishing and
maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior.
Several implications for beginning teaching research and
teacher preparation emerge from these findings. This
approach to beginning teacher assessment promotes the
formation of a more complete picture of teaching and learning
in context. The emergence of research on the differences
between beginning general and special education teachers may
be especially useful to teacher educators as they could
IX

revise programs to better prepare preservice teachers for the
demands of their classrooms.
x

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem
Changes in society are reflected in schools today. The
demands of classroom teaching are different from what they
were even a few years ago. A clear understanding of the
demands of the teaching profession should drive the
development and refinement of teacher preparation programs.
Since the passage of Public Law 94-142 (Education of the
Handicapped Act) in 1975, schools have been charged with the
mission of educating all children and youth equitably.
Recent trends in the education of students with mild learning
and behavior problems have prompted an increase in
collaborative efforts between general and special education
teachers (Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Pugach & Johnson, 1989).
This type of collaboration, however, requires the joining of
groups of professionals who have differences in professional
knowledge structures due to the distinctive orientations of
general and special education teacher preparation (Sindelar,
et al., 1995). Traditionally, general education preparation
has focused on pedagogical and curricular concerns. In
contrast, special education preparation has emphasized
instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and
behavior management. A greater understanding of the
1

2
similarities and differences between the demands of teaching
in general and special education has implications for teacher
education programs.
Information that could lead to a clearer understanding
of the demands of teaching in general and special education
could come from a variety of sources. One source of
information would be the classroom performance of teachers in
general and special education. Examining the performance of
first-year classroom teachers may be a useful way to
determine the effects of teacher preparation on those
teachers' abilities to meet the demands of their profession.
Very little research has examined the effects of teacher
preparation on teacher performance.
Research emerging from teacher development theory has
provided a foundation for understanding teacher concerns at
the initial stages of development. At least two limitations
of this research are evident: (a) the research has been
conducted primarily with general education teachers and (b)
the effects of teacher preparation on teacher development
have received little attention. Teacher concerns at the
initial stages of teacher development may be different for
the two groups of teachers due to the differences in teacher
preparation.
Rationale for the Study
This study examines how differences in general and
special education teacher preparation programs affect the
ability of teachers to meet the demands of their classrooms.

3
The central purpose of the study was to compare the effects
of teacher preparation on the classroom performance of
beginning teachers in general and special education. Several
aspects of beginning teachers' classroom performance were
examined: (a) organizing content knowledge for student
learning, (b) creating an environment for student learning,
(c) teaching for student learning, and (d) teacher
professionalism.
Scope of the Study
This study was conducted within a limited scope. The
delimitations and limitations of this research are described
in the following sections.
Delimitations
This study was delimited by geographical location to
districts within the state of Florida. The research
participants were 47 first-year teachers who had graduated
from a teacher preparation program at one of four state
universities in Florida. Participant selection did not
include consideration of graduates of the other five state
universities. Additionally, several districts were
eliminated from the sample pool due to the time and expense
required to travel to them.
Limitations
This study was conducted with beginning general and
special education teachers during the second semester of
their first year of teaching. The teachers' beliefs, skills,
and knowledge prior to entering a teacher preparation program

4
were unknown and may have influenced the results of this
study. The nature of voluntary participation by the teachers
may further limit this study. In addition, differences in
teacher preparation programs were not assessed.
Consequently, differences between special and general
education teachers may or may not have been attributable to
differences in specific university programs. Finally, the
results of this study may not be generalized to teachers of
middle and high school students or teachers who graduated
from unified teacher preparation programs.
Definition of Terms
An understanding of the literature and procedures
discussed in this study requires a clarification of
terminology. The terms defined in this section are needed
for interpretation of this study.
Teacher assessment and teacher evaluation refer to a
multifaceted process that considers the way a teacher
performs a variety of tasks within a context, the meaning of
their performance in terms of that context, and often a
likely explanation for those performances. These terms will
be used interchangeably for the purposes of this study.
Beginning teacher and first-year teacher describe an
individual who is currently in the first year of teaching.
Experienced teacher is an individual who has typically
taught more than one year but does not necessarily imply that
the teacher is competent.

5
Teacher competence is the repertoire of competencies a
teacher possesses. As a teacher comes to possess more
competencies, it is said the teacher has become more
competent (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990).
Teacher competency is any single knowledge, skills, or
value position. The possession of these competencies is
believed to be related to teacher effectiveness.
Competencies refer to specific knowledge, behaviors, and
beliefs but not to the effects of these attributes on
students (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990).
Teacher effectiveness is the effect that the teacher's
performance has on pupils. Teacher effectiveness depends not
only on competence and performance, but also on the responses
pupils make. Effectiveness is defined in terms of the scores
the teachers' students achieve on tests or similar measures.
Just as competence cannot predict performance cannot predict
outcomes under different situations (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990) .
Teacher performance refers to the actual behavior of the
teacher while teaching. Teacher performance is specific to
the job situation; it depends on the competence of the
teacher, the context in which the teacher works, and the
teacher's ability to apply his or her competencies at any
given point in time (Madaus & Mehrens, 1990).
Teacher preparation program and teacher education
program are university programs designed with legal
authorization to prepare teachers. These terms will be used
interchangeably for the purposes of this study.

Overview
An investigation of the effects of teacher preparation
6
(special and general education) on beginning teachers'
classroom performance is the focus of this study. Chapter II
provides a review and analysis of relevant professional
literature in the areas of teacher preparation, beginning
teaching, teacher development theory, teacher evaluation, and
Praxis III. Chapter III presents a description of the
methods and procedures used in this study. The results
obtained from the Praxis III assessments are discussed in
Chapter IV. Chapter V includes (a) a discussion of the
results as they relate to previous research, (b) implications
for teacher development theory, beginning teaching knowledge
base, and teacher education, (c) limitations of the research,
and (d) recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Chapter II includes a summary and analysis of the
literature on teacher preparation, beginning teaching,
teacher development theory, teacher evaluation, and Praxis
III. The chapter concludes with a summary of the research
findings.
Teacher Preparation
Differences in Preparation
Pugach (1992) proposed that special educators and
elementary educators historically have held different
assumptions about teaching, learning, and teacher and student
roles. She added that basic organizing structures and
beliefs governing the two programs remain distinctly
different.
The origins of special education were closely tied to
psychology, in particular behavioral psychology. Through
this association, special education has established a firm
foundation in positivistic, behavioral approaches (Sindelar
et al., 1995). These approaches emphasize skill-based
instruction, rather than holistic instruction. Tasks are
broken into small units that are taught in isolation and
reformed to create a whole. Teacher educators of special
education have traditionally prepared teachers to focus on
student competencies within categories of disability. The
7

content of special education courses has emphasized almost
exclusively the individual and individual pathology.
Although general and special education teacher preparation
programs tend to address the same content and readings, which
adds coherence to the curricula, special education programs
seldom address curriculum beyond the teaching of reading and
basic mathematics (Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993) . In addition,
through a comprehensive study of teacher education, Goodlad
(1993) found that students in special education teacher
education programs expressed more confidence in their
abilities in individualized instruction and behavior
management.
Conversely, teacher educators in general education
traditionally have emphasized group process, rather than
individual student needs. Students in general education
teacher education programs perceived themselves as ill
equipped to deal with children with disabilities,
particularly in areas of individualized instruction and
behavior management (Goodlad, 1993). Preparation in general
education focuses on the scope and sequence of curriculum,
and more recently, holistic approaches to teaching and
learning. Traditionally, general education teacher
preparation programs have emphasized instructional methods
that can be described as implicit. These methods include
child-determined exploration, discovery learning, and
procedural knowledge instruction (Swanson & Cooney, 1991) .
In contrast, special education teacher preparation programs

have emphasized explicit methods of instruction. These
methods of instruction include direction instruction
9
(Camine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1990; Engelmann, Camine, &
Steely, 1991; Gersten, Camine, & Woodward, 1987), learning
strategies (Schumaker & Deshler, 1992; Swanson, 1989),
classwide peer tutoring (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989;
Maheady, 1991), and declarative knowledge instruction
(Swanson & Cooney, 1991).
Differences Between Teachers
Researchers have long recognized the differences between
general education and special education teacher preparation;
however, they have neglected the role of differences in
teacher education programs in the development of teacher
differences. Little is known about the knowledge possessed
by general and special education teachers about instruction,
especially for diverse learners. Blanton, Blanton, and Cross
(1994) conducted one of the first studies to investigate
similarities and differences between general and special
education teachers in how they think and make instructional
decisions. They reported that general and special education
teachers responded similarly when they identified student
strengths and the strategies they would use to provide
instruction. Yet the two groups of teachers differed in
their explanation of why they would use the strategy and
their roles in working with the student. Blanton et al.
suggested that special education teachers may possess a more
complex organization of knowledge from which they interpret

10
learning problems. This expanded knowledge base may allow
special education teachers to better identify and interpret
problems.
The differences in the instructional practices of
general and special education teachers appears to be based on
the differences in teacher preparation. Very little research
has examined the effects of teacher preparation on teacher
performance. This study examines how different program
philosophies and orientations (i.e., general education and
special education) affect the performance profiles of program
graduates.
Beginning Teacher Literature
Sound assessments for beginning teachers must be
grounded in the research on teaching (Reynolds, 1992) . By
documenting what is known about effective teachers and
particularly beginning teachers, assessment developers can
begin to specify what aspects of teaching should be
addressed. A review of the literature should be helpful in
addressing the following questions. What is competent
beginning teaching? What should we expect beginning teachers
to be able to do? Is the knowledge base of beginning
teachers different from experienced teachers? Should
assessments for beginning teachers and experienced teachers
differ?
Educational research uses a number of different methods
of inquiry. These different ways of studying teaching can
contribute to the definition of competent beginning teaching

11
(Fenstermacher, 1986) . Therefore, the literature for this
section represents major research programs that provide the
bulk of research on teaching (Shulman, 1986). These research
programs include process-product research, time and learning,
pupil cognition and the mediation of teaching, classroom
ecology, teacher cognition and decision making, and types of
knowledge (Wittrock, 1986).
Relevant Literature
Regardless of subject-matter, grade level, or
instructional method, teaching tasks can be divided into
three broad domains: preactive, interactive, and postactive
(Reynolds, 1992). Jackson (1968) identified preactive tasks
as that phase of teaching in which the teacher develops an
appropriate lesson plan or strategy and also sets objectives
for the lesson. Jackson called the implementation of this
lesson and objectives the interactive phase of teaching.
Postactive tasks include reflections after a teaching episode
as well as steps to improve teaching (Clark & Peterson,
1986) . Although these domains are distinct, the tasks
included may occur simultaneously or sequentially. The rest
of this section draws from a comprehensive analysis of
reviews of effective teaching and studies of learning to
teach, regardless of the teaching context (i.e., grade level,
subject matter).
Preactive. Research involving preactive teaching tasks
are typically descriptive in nature and focus on lesson or
strategy planning. Methods of inquiry in the thought

12
processes of a teacher may include thinking aloud, stimulated
recall, and journal keeping (Clark & Peterson, 1986). There
are key differences in the preactive tasks of beginning and
more experienced teachers. When planning a lesson, more
experienced teachers relate new information to students in a
way that connects to what their students already know (Porter
& Brophy, 1988). Experienced teachers' instruction of new
information is frequently integrated across content areas
(Porter & Brophy, 1988). Experienced teachers also choose
activities that take into consideration their students'
developmental levels, achievement levels, interests, and
background experience (Brophy & Good, 1986; Christenson,
Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1989; Corno & Snow, 1986). Becoming
familiar with students allows experienced teachers to set
appropriate expectations and clear learning goals (Brophy &
Good, 1986; Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978). Similarly, these
teachers set appropriate expectations for themselves and
believe that they can affect the learning of students;
whereas beginning teachers question their impact on student
achievement (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992) .
Most teacher planning involves the use of curricular
materials. Competent teachers select curricular materials
that are appropriate for the students' level and needs as
well as their interests. Typically, experienced teachers
take advantage of available materials and spend more time on
enriching the content (Porter & Brophy, 1988). Beginning
teachers have difficulty with the connection between

13
curricular material and instruction (Clark & Peterson, 1986).
Effective teachers are more consistent with evaluation of
student progress than beginning teachers (Porter & Brophy,
1988; Zigmond, Sansone, Miller, Donahoe, & Kohnke, 1986).
One major influence on teachers' preactive tasks is the
knowledge of their students. Experienced teachers give more
consideration to a student's prior knowledge of subject and
academic performance than do beginning teachers (Corno &
Snow, 1986; Fogarty, Wang, & Creek, 1983; Shulman, 1989).
Beginning teachers are more impractical about student
differences and view these differences as problematic
(Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, & Berliner, 1988; Fogarty,
Wang, & Creek, 1983; Shulman, 1989) .
In summary, the knowledge of subject-matter and students
underlies good planning. Experienced and beginning teachers
appear to differ in the depth of these types of knowledge.
Beginning teachers are less apt to consider subject-matter
and student differences in their planning.
Interactive. Most of the research on teaching entails
interactive teaching tasks, rather than preactive or
postactive ones. This is largely due to the popularity of
classroom observations as a source of assessment. The
interactive domain of teaching is the actual implementation
of a lesson or strategy. During this time, the teacher is
actively engaged with the students and content. Interactive
teaching tasks consists of (a) creating/managing the learning

14
environment, (b) presenting subject matter, and (c)
evaluating student learning (Reynolds, 1992).
When creating an environment for student learning,
competent teachers view themselves as classroom managers
(Brophy & Good, 1986). They possess positive qualities such
as withitness, empathy, and rapport (Brophy & Good, 1986).
As a classroom manager, the competent teacher establishes and
maintains consistent rules and routines (Doyle, 1986; Brophy
& Good, 1986; Zigmond et al., 1986). In matters of
discipline, competent teachers ignore minor misbehavior and
deal with severe disruptions through a variety of means.
Conversely, beginning teachers generally have difficulty with
discipline and maintaining consistent standards of behavior
(Doyle, 1986) . Researchers reason that beginning teachers
spend time primarily on solving problems, whereas competent
teachers define the problem and evaluate possible solutions
(Reynolds, 1992) . When determining the best instructional
arrangement (e.g., small group, peer tutoring, individualized
instruction), competent teachers base their decision on how
best to accomplish the goals of the lesson (Doyle, 1986;
Reynolds, 1992) . Beginning teachers have difficulty in their
selection of instructional grouping for given goals and
students. Moreover, beginning teachers seem unable to
ascertain what makes a lesson efficient.
The successful presentation of subject matter relies on
the quality of a teacher's subject-matter knowledge and
pedagogical-content knowledge (Shulman, 1987) . Beginning

15
teachers often have low levels of pedagogical-content
knowledge (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987). Competent
teachers use their pedagogical-content knowledge to assess
the readiness of their students before beginning new subject
matter. They focus on their students' preconceptions and
misconceptions. In turn, competent teachers use this
information to adapt the level and pace of instruction
(Christenson, Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1987) . Further,
experienced teachers vary their teaching strategies in
response to the ability levels of students more than
beginning teachers (Corno & Snow, 1986).
The lessons of competent teachers typically have common
characteristics, including clear expectations, appropriate
pacing, new learning related to prior learning, maintained
flow of activity, frequent monitoring of performance, and
feedback (Brophy & Good, 1986; Gersten, Camine, & Woodward,
1987; Zigmond et al., 1986). Beginning teachers may not
demonstrate this consistency in their instructional routines
because routines are not yet developed (Reynolds, 1992) .
Competent teachers use certain aspects to actively engage
students in lessons, which include orientation to the lesson,
guided practice, development of metacognitive strategies, and
effective questioning techniques (Gersten, Camine, &
Woodward, 1987; Porter & Brophy, 1988; Swanson, 1989; Zigmond
et al., 1986). When beginning teachers respond to students
experiencing difficulty in a lesson they generally do not
link the concept to related concepts (Borko & Livingston,

16
1989). They are also less effective in questioning
strategies and tend not to use this information to improve
their teaching (Reynolds, 1992) .
Competent teachers maintain consistent procedures for
monitoring student progress and have interventions to improve
student learning. They hold students accountable for
assignments and give clear expectations (Christenson,
Ysseldyke, & Thurlow, 1987; Porter & Brophy, 1988) . When
evaluating student work, competent teachers look for
completeness and accuracy, give feedback promptly, and
encourage self monitoring (Zigmond et al., 1986). In
addition, multiple forms of assessment are used to evaluate
their students.
Postactive. Competent teachers reflect on their own
teaching as well as student responses (Porter & Brophy, 1988;
Schón, 1987) . They use multiple forms of assessment to help
improve their teaching. The major distinction between
beginning and expert teachers is that novice teachers'
reflections are less focused than expert teachers'
reflections (Borko & Livingston, 1989). Beginning teachers
highlight events during the lesson such as their clarity of
examples used in the presentation or student participation;
whereas expert teachers target student understanding and
rarely mention their own effectiveness (Reynolds, 1992) .
Little evidence is available on the connection between
competent teaching and other postactive teaching tasks, which
include interaction with colleagues, affiliation with

17
organizations, enrollment in courses, and participation in
school activities (Reynolds, 1992) .
Limitations of Existing Research
Regardless of the method used to study effective
teaching, problems and criticisms abound. First, the
effective teaching literature, while the most vigorous and
productive of research programs, relies heavily on
correlational findings (see Brophy & Good, 1986) . In the
effective teaching research, the absence of an explanatory
theory of the relationships between teacher behavior and
student performance has been criticized. Critics of this
research typically sought to develop programs of research in
which a mediating variable (i.e., student as mediator of
instruction) was examined. Further limiting the effective
teaching research is the lack of varied settings. Most of
the studies were conducted in elementary grades with the
focus on reading and mathematics achievement.
A second limitation is research on teaching has largely
been conducted by researchers interested in teaching.
Omitted from this literature are studies by teachers and
teachers' perspectives on effective teaching. Teachers often
cite affective areas such as enhancing self-esteem and
meeting emotional needs as imperative jobs of elementary
teachers (Reynolds, 1992). Research on teaching, however,
tells us very little about the importance of these tasks.
Third, assessment developers cannot assume that the
findings of correlational and descriptive research give the

18
entire view of teaching. The value of educational research
is to help us understand and learn about a limited range of
educational phenomena, particularly when research is done
well. Continued research on effective teaching and learning
to teach will only improve our understanding of competent
beginning teaching.
Assessment of Beginning Teachers
Few would argue that beginning teachers need assessment
to a greater extent than experienced teachers. Fortunately,
beginning teachers are more likely to support teacher
assessments because of their initial positive attitudes
(Peterson, 1990). Peterson (1990) described four problems of
evaluation faced by beginning teachers. First, many
assessments are inaccurate and provide limited feedback to
the teachers. Second, principals have been given the
contradictory roles of judge and supporter. Third, formative
and summative evaluations are generally administered at the
same time and often by the same assessor. Fourth, the
feedback given to beginning teachers is generally not used to
shape their professional development plans. Recent
innovations of assessment systems enhance the effectiveness
of teacher assessment for beginning teachers (Peterson,
1984) . One of these innovations is the increasing popular
use of multiple data sources. No single line of evidence can
provide a comprehensive picture of what a competent beginning
teacher does (Medley et al., 1984). Current data sources for
assessment may include systematic observation, documentation

19
of professional activities, teacher tests, parent surveys,
pupil achievement data, peer review, and other individualized
data (Peterson, 1990).
Researchers have offered a few suggestions for beginning
teacher assessment. First, the time of formal evaluation is
important. Reynolds (1992) stated that beginning teachers
need time at the beginning of the school year to develop an
understanding of their students and the culture of their
school. Evaluation of competence should begin after a
semester of full-time teaching. A second suggestion is
beginning teacher assessments should be tailored to the
specific population (i.e., beginning teachers) under
consideration (Berliner, 1989). Those assessing beginning
teachers need an instrument that is capable of capturing the
best teaching as well as allowing for the struggles that
beginning teachers are inevitably going to face. The current
pass/no pass systems are not flexible enough to distinguish
among different levels of teaching. A system is needed that
is flexible enough to weigh different competencies, depending
upon whether the competencies would be apt to develop or
should have been attained through preservice training.
Conclusions
After her review of the research on effective teaching
and studies of learning to teach, Reynolds (1992) concluded
"beginning teachers often lack an adequate knowledge base of
understandings to perform teaching tasks in an effective
manner" (p.5). Beginning teachers differ from experienced

20
teachers not only in a knowledge base but on the needs of
assessment. Some considerations for assessment of beginning
teachers include (a) the use of multiple data sources, (b)
judgments of teacher performance, (c) teacher involvement,
and (d) feedback tied to professional development (Berliner,
1990) .
Teacher Development Theory
Knowledge of the developmental characteristics that
teachers exhibit during their careers can provide educators
with an understanding of the abilities and inadequacies of
teachers during different stages. Information about these
stages can serve as a foundation for (a) improving preservice
teacher education programs, (b) improving staff-development
programs, and (c) improving the assessment of teacher
performance.
Teachers' Developmental Stages
Several research studies have provided detail
descriptions of the various stages of teacher development.
The most prominent of these studies was conducted by Frances
Fuller and her colleagues (Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Bown,
1975) . Through her own research and reviews of similar
studies, Fuller concluded that teachers progress through four
stages in the process of becoming a teacher. The first stage
is the preteaching phase in which preservice teachers cannot
identify with teachers but rather more closely identify with
the pupils. In the second stage, or the early teaching
phase, teachers are primarily concerned with survival as
A

21
teacher along with some concern for the content of lessons
and class control. The third stage is characterized by the
teachers' concerns about their teaching performance and
situational demands that may be limiting or frustrating. In
the fourth stage teachers begin to show more concern for
their pupils. More emphasis can be seen on the social and
emotional needs of the pupils. Fuller and her colleagues
never established whether the proposed stages overlapped or
were clearly defined.
Similarly, Unruh and Turner (1970) proposed four stages
of teacher growth based on their experiences with teachers.
The preservice period was the initial stage that included
preparation at the high school and college level. Initial
teaching, the second stage, was proposed as the trial phase
that could last for 1 to 6 years. Although Unruh and Turner
do not explain why some teachers remain in this stage longer
than others, they noted that these teachers often have
difficulty with classroom management, organization,
evaluation, and curriculum development. In the third stage,
the teacher embarks on the security period which ranges
approximately from 6 to 15 years. During this phase,
teachers become secure in their commitment to teaching and
therefore often pursue ways to improve their knowledge. In
the final stage, maturity period, teachers continue to refine
their competence and effectiveness. These teachers have
reached a level at which they are confident of performing
their teaching duties.

22
Another 4-stage developmental process for teachers was
proposed by Katz (1972) . Based on her studies with preschool
teachers, Katz described the characteristics of each phase
and offered suggestions of assistance that would be relevant
to each stage of growth. In stage one, the survival stage,
teachers are focused primarily on survival as they experience
the differences between their expectations and the realities
of a classroom. Because teachers may feel insecure and
inadequately prepared, Katz suggested on-site support for
these teachers. Teachers in the second stage, consolidation
stage, now begin to remove the focus from themselves and
refocus on the students. This stage may continue from a
teacher's second year into the third year. Again Katz
recommends on-site support with additional assistance from
other professionals such as consultants and specialists. In
the third stage, renewal, teachers begin to seek out new ways
of teaching. These innovations may be found through
conferences, journals, and critiques of their own teaching.
Maturity, the fourth stage, is distinguished by the ability
of teachers to ask deeper and more abstract questions. Katz
suggests that assistance at this stage may consist of
attending seminars, reading books and journals, and
furthering education through a degree program.
After studying the behavior of teachers, Gregorc (1973)
and his colleagues described four stages of development:
becoming, growing, maturing, and fully functioning
professional. In the becoming stage, teachers demonstrate a

23
limited notion of their teaching duties. Teachers often feel
that their job is to share information with students and
complete the assigned book for a subject area. Initial
concepts of teaching, the educational process, and the role
of a school are just beginning to develop during this phase.
In the growing stage, these initial concepts become more
refined as teachers increase their knowledge about students,
materials, curricula, and their own teaching. Teachers
moving into the maturing stage have made a commitment to
teaching. They have reexamined their original concepts and
gained new insights to education, subject matter, and
themselves. Gregorc found that those teachers who reach the
fully functioning professional stage had made a definite
commitment to their profession. These teachers were able to
see their full potential as teachers as they consistently
tested and altered their concepts and beliefs.
In 1980, Yarger and Mertens posited a continuum of
career stages that teachers experience, based on their work
with teachers and teacher education. Similar to the work by
Katz, Yarger and Mertens also described types of programming
assistance that would be appropriate to each stage of
development. At Stages 1 and 2, the preeducation and
education student advances to a point of making a conscious
decision and commitment to becoming a teacher and develops
the basic skills necessary for this decision. In stage 3,
the teacher enters the first year of teaching and encounters
the demands of the teaching profession. Concerns at this

24
stage include classroom discipline, continuing development of
pedagogical skills, and receiving constructive feedback from
supervisors. During the second and third year of teaching,
stage 4, the teacher may still retain some of the initial
concerns, but new concerns emanate about content and gaps in
previous training. At stage 5, the teacher may have from 3
to 8 years of experience and thus becomes more stable.
Teachers at this point are more likely to have completed
advanced degrees and additional coursework. Teachers shift
their focus to content expertise and new professional roles.
Teachers with at least eight years of experience are seen in
stage 6. Yarger and Mertens described these teachers as
aware of their particular strengths and areas of expertise
and thereby having different professional needs.
Another theory of teachers' developmental stages was
suggested by McDonald (1982). This model consisted of four
stages including (a) the transition stage, (b) the exploring
stage, (c) the invention and experimenting stage, and (d) the
professional teaching stage. The transition stage was
characterized by a teacher's low sense of efficacy. This is
compounded with fundamental tasks of learning about students,
and learning how to manage and organize. In the invention
and experimenting stage, a teacher effectively manages
instruction and develops a sense of efficacy in using the
basic skills of teaching. This second stage involves the
teacher attempting new strategies, developing techniques, and
seeking professional growth. In the final stage,

25
professional teaching, the teacher has problem-solving skills
and often will assist other teachers in their professional
growth.
Summary of Developmental Stages
Examination of these theories concerning the stages of
teachers' development suggests three predominant stages for
inservice teachers. The first stage is distinguished by a
teacher's focus on self. Difficulty with students,
curricula, discipline, and organization seem to be common
issues of teachers in this initial phase of professional
growth. In the second stage, teachers begin to refocus their
attention on students and mastery of content. They become
more knowledgeable about their own teaching and its effects
on the students. The third or final stage represents a time
when teachers begin to feel secure about their teaching and
therefore attempt innovative ways to expand and enhance their
teaching skills.
A restriction of teacher development theory is the lack
of clarity in the range of competencies exhibited within each
stage. Although some teacher development theorists have
suggested characteristics of teacher performance for each
stage, it is not apparent how a range of competency may be
accounted for. Teachers do not fit neatly into one stage of
development; they may exhibit behaviors and skills
characteristic of other stages. For example, a teacher may
be highly skilled in one aspect of teaching (e.g., lesson
planning), yet the teacher's overall classroom performance

26
may indicate that she is functioning at the survival stage.
Theorists offer no explanation about the range of
competencies that may be exhibited within a single stage.
Research emerging from teacher development theory has
provided a foundation for understanding teacher concerns at
the initial stages of development. However, the effects of
teacher preparation on beginning teacher performance have
received little attention in teacher development research.
Because teacher preparation may have its greatest influence
on the initial stage of teacher development, teacher
educators should have more information on this particular
stage of development theory.
Teacher Evaluation
The much publicized decline in student performance has
called into question the competency of teachers. In response
to public demands of accountability, the educational
establishment has taken steps to improve teachers.
Evaluation processes have become a widespread solution for
ensuring teacher competency. The quality of evaluation
depends on the degree to which selected methods will provide
reliable and valid data for the primary purpose(s).
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation
The two major functions of evaluation are formative and
summative. Formative evaluation represents a process or
professional development. Formative evaluation provides
data, judgment, and suggestions to teachers to help in making
appropriate adjustments on their teaching performance.

27
Summative evaluation represents a product or accountability.
This type of evaluation serve administrative decisions such
as hiring, firing, promotion, certification, and salary.
Striking a balance between the two types of evaluation could
have profound implications for teacher professionalism and
education (Andrews & Barnes, 1990).
The first step in the process of evaluation, whether
formative or summative, is defining the purpose or multiple
purposes of the inquiry. Although teacher evaluation may
have explicit and specific purposes, the effects of the
evaluation may extend into unintended areas. For instance,
the dismissal of a teacher for incompetent performance has an
effect not only on that teacher but on other teachers in the
school as well. Natriello (1990) proposed three purposes for
teacher evaluation. The first purpose, to control or
influence the performance of a teacher, is to improve
performance that is already within an acceptable range for
that current teaching assignment. Many of these evaluation
systems use criteria that are based on effective teaching
research (Medley, Coker, & Soar, 1984) or on models of
clinical supervision (Goldsberry, 1984) . The second purpose
is to control movement in and out of positions (i.e., hiring,
firing, certification). Some examples of assessments are
pencil-and-paper examinations used by states (districts) to
screen applicants. The third purpose is to justify the
organizational control system. The emphasis is to convince

28
employees that the system is fair and equal, valid for
decision-making processes.
Methods of Teacher Assessment
The assessor may choose various methods to evaluate
teachers. The type of method chosen should be fair,
efficient, credible, and accurate (Millman, 1981) . Yet the
quality of the method depends heavily on the context and
manner in which the method is implemented. Evaluation of
teachers must identify and define possible contexts and take
into account their influences. Our selection of assessment
methods have grown significantly over the past 20 years. In
the following section, various sources of teaching evidence
are presented.
Teacher ratinas. Teacher rating scales were first used
in late 19th century. As interest in teacher effectiveness
increased in the early 20th century, thousands of studies
were conducted using rating scales (Good & Mulryan, 1990).
Teacher ratings quickly gained popularity among
administrators for summative evaluation purposes (i.e.,
promotion, transfer, dismissal, and merit). The increased
use of teacher rating scales was accompanied by a multitude
of problems (Medley & Mitzel, 1963), such as a lack of
criteria and objective measures for the ratings. Moreover,
the information obtained from teacher ratings has never
informed us of what should be rated and how rating is best
accomplished. Medley et al. (1984) acknowledged the strength

29
of rating instruments is in helping teachers to analyze and
improve their instruction.
Self-assessments. Self-assessments of teacher
performance are formative in nature with personal development
as their primary purpose. Self-assessments, including audio-
and videotapes, self-reports, questionnaires, and self-rating
forms, allow insight into a teacher's own strengths and
weaknesses. However, self-assessments have several
limitations, such as lack of objectivity, accuracy, and
reliability (Barber, 1990). Assessment may become a form of
justification, in which ineffective teachers may not realize
the true level at which they are performing. For example,
when novice teachers view videotapes of their own teaching,
they tend to have difficulty focusing on matters of
significance.
Student achievement. If the function of teaching is to
enhance student learning, then using student achievement as a
measure of teacher performance seems reasonable. Although
student achievement measures are used for both formative and
summative evaluations, using these measures for summative
evaluations results in more controversy simply because more
is at stake. Millman (1981) described three limitations of
using student achievement as a method of teacher assessment.
One limitation is that students differ in their levels of
academic aptitude and willingness to learn. Individual
differences among students are rarely taken into account with
student achievement measures. Another limitation is that

30
student achievement measures cannot tell how the teacher
planned and implemented the lesson and therefore are limited
in their usefulness for improving instruction. Finally, the
achievement tests may not be representative of what is being
taught or may only sample a set of the instruction goals.
This is particularly evident in secondary schools where the
measures of student achievement are not aligned with the
curriculum (Glass, 1990).
Portfolio assessment. The portfolio as an evaluation
instrument is an idea borrowed from other professions, such
as architecture, writing, and photography. Bird (1990)
discussed the potential of portfolio assessment for teacher
evaluation. He identified two purposes of portfolios:
contributing to personnel decisions and improving teacher
performance. A wide array of documents (e.g., photographs,
videotapes, written products, and lesson plans) could be
included in a teacher's portfolio. Portfolios are gaining
popularity because they provide opportunities to see a
teacher's work holistically and in context (Shulman, 1989).
Yet a different set of problems is inherent in portfolio
assessment. Shulman (1988) claimed that portfolios are often
too large and become a waste of time if contents do not
reveal how teachers actually teach in their classrooms.
Another problem is the lack of standard documentation
procedures.
Simulations/performance exercises. Simulations or
performance exercises are assessments that are conducted

31
outside of the classroom but are designed to simulate actual
practice. Stanford's Teacher Assessment Project, under the
direction of Lee Shulman, led the research and development of
performance exercises. These exercises included planning
lessons, commenting on videotapes of other teachers'
performances, critiquing textbooks, and correcting homework
papers (Shulman, Haertel, & Bird, 1988) . Performance
exercises can simulate the complexities of teaching and allow
for inferences about decision-making capabilities (Dwyer,
1993). The major limitation of these methods is that the
teacher is still removed from the actual contexts and thus
the direct relationship of teaching to learning is lost
(Dwyer, 1993; Haertel, 1990) . Other limitations of this
method are that it is expensive to administer, create, and
evaluate and that it samples the depth of a teacher's
knowledge rather than the breadth. In addition, performance
exercises are task specific so the validity and reliability
of these instruments are dependent on the type of task
demands (Shulman, 1988). There is growing interest in
performance exercises, but they are not yet widely accepted
due to the problems with this technique. Many efforts to use
simulation and performance exercises are addressing these
problems and are still in the development stages.
Paper-and-pencil tests. At least 46 states have adopted
teacher-competency tests as a prerequisite for teacher
certification (Darling-Hammond, 1990). The main advantage of
these conventional tests is that they can adequately sample

32
the breadth of teacher knowledge. Conventional tests are (a)
efficient, (b) easy to score, (c) highly reliable, and (d)
objective. They are incomplete, however, because they
measure isolated pieces of knowledge, omitting processes such
as judgment, problem solving, and decision making (Madaus &
Mehrens, 1990; Shulman, 1988) . In summary, paper-and-pencil
tests play an important role in teacher evaluation but fall
short of providing information to improve teacher
performance.
Classroom observation. Classroom observations are the
dominant method of teacher evaluation in elementary and
secondary schools today. To assess teacher behavior
(action), classroom observation seems to be the leading
method; however, observations are not without their
limitations. Most notably, researchers regard observations
as a limited tool in evaluating teacher's thinking (thought)
(Darling-Hammond, 1990; Medley et al., 1984; Shulman, 1988;
Stodolsky, 1990).
Classroom observation as a method of teacher assessment
can assume different forms, including behavior checklists,
category systems, summaries, and narrative records (See
Evertson & Green, 1986) . Observation systems may be open or
closed, each with unique characteristics. In open systems,
the assessor makes a full description of all behavior as it
occurs without any reference to interpretation. Examples of
open systems are narrative records and summaries. These
systems produce a rich description of classroom events and

33
provide specific examples for discussion or analysis. In
particular, narrative records have several advantages.
First, narrative records allow for a natural approach to
understanding the classroom. Second, narrative records can
preserve the original sequencing of behavior and the context
in which it occurs. This holistic approach is more
comprehensive than selective approaches such as category
systems which are discussed next (Evertson & Holley, 1981) .
In contrast, closed systems center on specific types or
patterns of behavior, as exemplified by behavior checklists
and category systems. Within a closed system, the assessor
records a behavior (or lack of behavior), event, or
interaction sequence (Stodolsky, 1990).
Another dimension of observation systems is whether they
are high inference or low inference. Low inference systems
require the assessor to identify behaviors that are codified.
The Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and the
Classroom Observations Keyed for Effectiveness Research
(COKER) are two examples of low inference systems. Although
these systems have strong reliability and require less
assessor training, the disadvantage is that teaching is
viewed as a sum of discrete behaviors. Conversely, high
inference systems emphasize teaching as a holistic activity
within the context of a particular classroom. High inference
systems demand more assessor training and suffer from lower
reliability. An example of a high inference system is the
Salt Lake City procedure (See Wise, Darling-Hammond,

34
McLaughlin, & Bernstein, 1984), in which each classroom is
considered a contextual unit. Instead of focusing on generic
competencies, the district's conception of teaching is that a
variety of instruction approaches are compatible with
effective teaching.
Although observation systems may potentially help
teachers conceptualize their teaching behaviors, they are
riddled with problems (Good, 1980). One problem is that
observation systems are adopted too casually by state
education agencies. Typically, one state develops a system
and other states become interested. Seldom are the purposes
and limitations of new systems explored prior to adoption. A
second problem is the simplicity of observation systems:
Only a few behaviors are measured. Most observation systems
assume that certain patterns of behavior are effective,
resulting in an overinterpretation of particular behaviors.
Another weakness of observation systems is their inability to
assess preactive teaching behaviors such as teacher thinking.
Most classroom observations use nominal systems of two
categories: satisfactory and unsatisfactory. Although these
categories may be useful for employment retention or
dismissal, they are glaringly inadequate at contributing
substantively to teachers' professional development, another
purpose of assessment.
Despite criticisms, classroom observations are likely to
be the centerpiece of systematic assessment processes.
Improvements, however, are still needed. First, greater

35
clarity about the place of effective teaching behavior in
quality teaching is imperative (Evertson & Holley, 1981) .
Second, researchers must determine optimum times in a
teacher's career for observation. Third, procedures for
observations need further refinement.
Summary
Peterson (1984) described two models of teacher
evaluation: discrepancy and emergent. The discrepancy model
defines a standard of good teaching and then compares
teachers to this standard. Teacher quality is judged by how
close teacher behavior matches behavior that is correlated
with high student outcomes. A problem with the discrepancy
model is that there is no universally agreed-upon description
of quality teaching. Another problem involves criteria or
methods that are unfair to particular individuals (e.g.,
standardized testing). Finally, the possession of minimum
competencies to meet a standard of teaching does not
guarantee their effective use in practice.
The emergent model asserts that teaching is contextually
and situationally dependent. When judging teacher
performance and effectiveness, an assessor must consider (a)
the complexity of teaching, (b) the value of teaching related
to specific students, and (c) the contextual dependency of
teaching. Emergent evaluations entail value judgments in the
form of a statement with supporting lines of evidence.
Methods of teacher assessment have strengths and
limitations based on the purposes of evaluation. Mehrens

36
(1990) stressed the importance of combining evaluation data
from multiple sources, particularly when career decisions are
made.
Because evaluations of teachers can lead to significant
decisions, assessment systems should provide the best data
possible. Conceivably, an ideal teacher assessment would
incorporate multiple sources of evidence about teachers and
their effects on students (Mehrens, 1990; Shulman, 1988;
Stodolsky, 1990). High-stakes decisions about teachers put
great demands on teacher assessment methods. Each method is
a lens into the complexity of teaching. In general, the more
lenses that are looked through, the better the decision is
likely to be (Mehrens, 1990). The following assessment
methods each have their own advantage. Pre- and post¬
observation interviews can provide additional information
about teacher planning and thinking. Paper-and-pencil tests
may be used to assess subject-matter knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge. Evidence of student learning
and attitudes may also be helpful. Finally, classroom
observations give us a view of the interaction, climate, and
rapport of the classroom that is available from no other
source.
Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments
Purpose
In 1987, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) created
and funded a group of test development leaders who were
instructed to turn educational and measurement goals into

37
reality. It was the job of one development leader, Carol
Anne Dwyer, to redesign the ETS assessment process for
licensing beginning teachers and, in turn, to create a new
generation of assessment methods. These new teacher
assessments were to benefit the individuals being assessed
and others who would make use of information regarding
beginning teacher performance. ETS expected the results of
this effort to be available by 1992. Several requirements
were made of this project. First, the project must function
from a solid research and development foundation and build on
technology and educational reform. Second, the project
should coalesce with other research and development efforts,
such as Stanford's Teacher Assessment Project, the Holmes
Group, the Rand Corporation, research at Michigan State
University, and the Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. Third, the answers to questions of measurement,
technology, and educational policy should have
generalizability to other assessment situations (Dwyer,
1989) .
The initial goal was to identify important events in the
process of becoming a teacher and develop multiple assessment
methods. At these times and with the appropriate methods,
individuals would be assessed on enabling skills, subject-
matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical-
content skills.
The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for
Beginning Teachersâ„¢ is a comprehensive series of classroom

38
performance assessments for beginning teachers. The
assessment consists of three stages that are part of the
licensing process. Each stage corresponds to events in a
teacher's career and in licensing decisions.
Stage 1. Stage 1 assessments are designed to be taken
as early as possible in a student's undergraduate program or
soon after the decision to become a teacher is made. Using a
computer-based approach, prospective teachers are evaluated
on enabling skills (i.e., reading, writing, and mathematics).
Practice tests are a special feature of the first stage
(Dwyer, 1991).
Stage 2. In the second stage, the Praxis II: Subject
Assessments assesses subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical
principles. These assessments utilize the more traditional
assessment methods of paper-and-pencil measures. Completion
of these assessments should take place at the end of teacher
preparation or formal coursework. Although Praxis II is
nationally developed and administered, individual states may
tailor some of the modules (Dwyer, 1991).
Stage 3. The third stage of the Praxis Series, Praxis
III: Classroom Performance Assessments, emphasizes
understanding and making judgments about the act of teaching.
Praxis III does not duplicate the assessment of subject-
matter knowledge (Praxis II) but assesses the application of
this knowledge in specific classroom settings. This final
assessment is designed to be administered toward the end of
an internship or during the first year of teaching for those

39
States requiring a performance-based assessment as a part of
licensing. Although Praxis III is predominantly a
performance-based assessment, a paper-and-pencil task is
required to provide classroom and instructional information.
The entire Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for
Beginning Teachersâ„¢ was developed for licensing decisions of
beginning teachers typically made by states or local
education agencies. Praxis III, however, was not intended
for use in making decisions about teachers who are already
licensed (Dwyer, 1994). Praxis III is the subject of the
remainder of this section, which includes a description of
the development of the knowledge base, the relationship
between assessment and professional development, the
instrument development, and the emerging uses.
Guiding Conceptions and Assessment Principles
A conception of teaching and, specifically, a conception
of effective teaching are fundamental to teacher assessment,
yet the conception is often not stated clearly by developers
because of empirical, theoretical, and value differences
about the characteristics of good teaching (Stodolsky, 1990) .
During the initial stages of the development of Praxis III,
the researchers found it necessary to state explicitly a
guiding conception of teaching and learning and a set of
criteria for assessment of beginning teaching. The guiding
conceptions are founded in Dwyer and Villegas's (1993)
multicultural view of teaching. They maintain that teaching
requires engaging students as active learners to promote

40
changes in their pre-existing knowledge. Additionally,
teachers must consider students' background, experiences,
interests, and abilities and must continually accommodate the
diverse needs of their students by modifying their teaching.
In operationalizing this conception, the developers of Praxis
III used three assessment principles (Dwyer, 1993). First,
teacher assessment should contribute to the understanding of
teaching. Teacher assessments should not only reflect the
view of teachers as professionals but should also reveal the
future direction of the profession. Second, teacher
assessment should represent the complexity of teaching and
learning, avoiding the prescription of a right way to teach..
Multiple assessment methods grounded in theory and practice
are necessary because teaching is complex and highly
interactive. Further, teacher assessment is a process that
entails a high degree of professional judgment. Third,
teacher assessment should promote equity among all teachers
and students.
Instrument Development
What aspects of teaching should be assessed? The
process of developing a knowledge base for Praxis III took
approximately 6 years. The goal of the developers was to
identify the knowledge base in research and practice and to
translate this knowledge base into criteria that illustrate
teaching and can be fairly and validly assessed. During this
process, three main sources were used: practitioners, the
research community, and state teacher licensing authorities

41
(Dwyer, 1993, 1994). These sources represent three
fundamentally different paradigms, because their basic
assumptions, methodologies, and values differ. With the
practicing teachers, three formal job analyses were conducted
on the requirements of elementary, middle, and high school
teaching. Practicing teachers were asked about the
importance of specific aspects of the work of beginning
teachers. Teachers were encouraged to make suggestions about
other aspects of teaching that they deemed significant. For
the research/theoretical perspective, a series of research
reviews about important knowledge and skills for beginning
and experienced teachers were conducted, with particular
emphasis on multicultural educational practices. For the
state perspective, a nationwide content analysis of state
performance assessment requirements was conducted.
From these main sources came the knowledge base that
Praxis developers drafted into an initial set of assessment
criteria. After several iterations of the criteria by a
national advisory panel including experienced teachers,
prominent teacher educators, and ETS staff, cycles of
fieldwork began. Most of the fieldwork was conducted in
Delaware and Minnesota with the help of teachers. These
teachers became involved in refining the assessment criteria
and scoring rules, developing the assessor training process,
and piloting the system.
Two important tests of quality were necessary before the
criteria were accepted. First, the criteria had to exemplify

42
the essentials of good professional practice that teachers
acknowledge. Several revisions resulted from a better
understanding of teachers' perception of their work (Powers,
1992; Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld,
Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, & Bukatko,
1992; Wesley, Rosenfeld, & Sims-Gunzenhauser, 1993). The
second test of quality was determining whether the criteria
reflected the relationship between teacher education and the
indicators of the requirements of teaching competency. To
some extent, the relationship is important for aligning
teachers' perceptions of their preparation with the realities
of their work.
Praxis TTI Framework
The results of intensive research and fieldwork were 19
specific assessment criteria grouped into four domains:
organizing content for student learning, creating an
environment for student learning, teaching for student
learning, and advancing teacher professionalism. Because the
underlying conception states that teaching is complex and
interactive, these domains should be thought of as
interrelated, not independent components (Dwyer, 1993). The
four domains are described briefly along with the specific
criteria composing each domain (See Appendix A). For further
description of each criterion, the reader is referred to
Dwyer (1994) or the Praxis III materials.
Domain A: Organizing content knowledge for student
learning. Application of content knowledge is the focus of

43
assessment in Domain A. With their students' background
knowledge and experience in mind, teachers must (a) decide on
learning goals, (b) sequence instruction for curricular
goals, (c) select appropriate methods, activities, and
materials, and (d) select evaluation strategies to reflect
learned goals. These criteria are assessed primarily through
teacher-prepared written documentation and semi-structured
interviews. Classroom observation may also contribute to the
assessment evidence.
Domain B: Creating an environment for student learning.
The focus of Domain B is on the personal interactions in the
classroom between teachers and students and among students.
Teachers address issues of (a) fairness, (b) rapport, (c)
challenging expectations, (d) standards of classroom
behavior, and (e) the safety of the physical environment.
Although classroom observations will provide the primary
evidence for this domain, supporting evidence may be used
from the semi-structured interviews.
Domain C: Teaching for student learning. Domain C
relates to the act of teaching in which the purpose is to
connect the students with the content. Content refers to the
knowledge, skills, perceptions, and values of subject matter.
Teachers provide evidence of (a) clear goals and procedures,
(b) comprehensible content, (c) extended student thinking,
(d) monitoring understanding, and (e) effective use of
instructional time. Most of the evidence for these criteria

44
will be drawn from classroom observation. Information gained
through interviews may enhance the evidence.
Domain D: Teacher professionalism. In this domain,
teachers evaluate their own effectiveness and discuss aspects
of the lesson. The assessor obtains information through a
postobservation interview. Questions will focus on (a)
meeting learning goals, (b) attaining a sense of efficacy,
(c) building professional relationships, and (d)
communicating with parents/guardians.
There are three main steps in the assessment process of
Praxis III. The first step involves the assessor collecting
data in a variety of ways: conferences, interviews,
observation, and documentation. In the next step, the
assessor reflects and analyzes the data collected. For the
final step, the assessor reaches a judgment about the
teacher's performance. To provide feedback to the teacher,
the assessor provides explanations and summary documentation.
Each criterion has a rating scale that includes illustrations
at each of three levels of performance. These are used as
guides by the assessor when interpreting data. Questions are
provided for assessor reflection (See Appendix B).
Reflection and Performance
Praxis III was designed under the assumption that
effective teaching requires both thought and action working
simultaneously. In keeping with this assumption, each domain
is examined from both perspectives (Dwyer, 1994) . Thus, an
examination of each domain requires multiple methods of

45
assessment (i.e., classroom observation, teacher-prepared
written documents, and semi-structured interviews).
Critical to a teacher's thought and action is the
conception that each perspective must be adapted to
accommodate the specific students in a particular teaching
situation. Effective teaching then relies on knowledge of
subject matter and students. Teacher assessment should focus
on how a teacher adapts instruction to four classroom context
variables: subject matter, students' individual differences,
students' developmental levels, and students' cultural
backgrounds. Consequently, teacher assessment should not
impose the use of any particular method of teaching.
Assessment and Professional Development
Praxis III has the primary purpose of a summative
evaluation—licensing beginning teachers. A formative role,
however, is needed. The developers of Praxis III believe the
following basic principle: assessment must be targeted on
the teacher's level of professional development. It is
unlikely that beginning teachers possesses all the knowledge
and skills of competent teachers. Teaching effectiveness
develops slowly and gradually. The process of acquiring
knowledge and skills of an expert teacher takes years.
Therefore assessments of beginning teachers should provide
sound information for professional development. In turn,
these assessments should be aligned with later assessments,
such as those by the National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS). The Praxis III performance assessment

46
criteria has been compared to (a) the early
adolescence/generalist standards of the NBPTS, (b) the model
standards for beginning teachers of the Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, and (c) the
outcome-based standards of the National Association of State
Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (Ingwerson,
1994) .
The formative information gained through Praxis III
should provide a learning experience for the beginning
teacher. If the ability to teach can be acquired, then
beginning teachers should be given the opportunity to
improve. Teacher assessments should contribute information
about the knowledge and skills that are being evaluated.
Imnlicatinns for Research
The literature reviewed in this chapter provides a
theoretical and empirical basis for this study. Little is
known about the effects of teacher preparation on the
classroom performance of beginning teachers. Researchers
have confirmed the differences between programs in general
and special education in terms of traditional program
characteristics. Recent studies have examined the
differences in how experienced general and special education
teachers think and make decisions.
The literature on effective teaching and learning to
teach has presented us with considerable information on what
beginning teachers know and do and what effective teachers
know and do. Reynolds (1992) stated that teacher assessment

47
developers are left with the task of deciding what competent
beginning teachers should know and do. More examination is
needed into how competent performance may differ across
teaching philosophies and orientations.
Teacher development theory provides a basis for
examining teachers in different stages of their development.
By starting to construct profiles of first-year teachers
through Praxis III, teacher educators could use this
developmental information to revise instructional content and
learning experiences to meet preservice teachers'
developmental needs and to promote further growth. In
addition, Praxis III may be used to delineate and solve the
problems and limitations of teacher development theory.
The current trend toward sound assessments for teacher
licensure has produced an innovative teacher assessment
system in The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for
Beginning Teachersâ„¢. The use of Praxis III for licensure
will have broad effects for teacher education.
This study begins to establish a research base by
examing the effects of teacher preparation on the classroom
performance of beginning teachers. As profiles of these
teachers begin to emerge, the role of teacher development
theory in teacher preparation may become more clear to
teacher educators.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of
teacher preparation on the classroom performance of beginning
teachers in special and general education. Several key
aspects of classroom performance were examined: (a)
organizing content knowledge for student learning, (b)
creating an environment for student learning, (c) teaching
for student learning, and (d) teacher professionalism. To
determine these effects, observations using Praxis III:
Classroom Performance Assessment were conducted. In this
chapter, the methods and procedures of the study are
presented. The chapter begins with a review of the
hypothesis. The second section presents the methods and
includes descriptions of the subjects and sampling
procedures. The subsequent sections include descriptions of
the research procedures and the treatment of data.
Description of the Null Hypothesis
The following null hypothesis was tested in the study:
There is no statistically significant difference between
beginning special education and beginning general education
teachers on measures of classroom performance.
The 19 criteria of Praxis III were used to test this
hypothesis.
48

49
Methods
Description of the Subjects
The sample consisted of 47 teachers teaching in public
elementary schools in Florida. Information about each
teacher was obtained through the completion of a candidate
profile (see Appendix C). Each teacher in the sample was a
graduate from a teacher preparation program at one of four
state universities: University of Florida (UF), Florida
State University (FSU), University of Central Florida (UCF),
and University of South Florida (USF). All teachers were
employed in positions for which they were certified (e.g.,
special education teacher with special education degree). As
first-year teachers, they were participants in the Florida
Professional Orientation Program (POP), a state required
beginning teacher program. All observations took place at
comprehensive elementary schools that included kindergarten
through fifth grade. Although most teachers in the study
taught all or most elementary school subjects, some special
and general education teachers had a primary teaching
assignment of reading/language arts or math/sciences.
Sampling Procedures
To identify a pool of beginning teachers, a list of
graduates and the districts in which they were employed was
obtained from the Florida Department of Education. The total
pool of qualified beginning teachers (general and special
education) was plotted on a map of the Florida districts.
Several districts were eliminated for the following reasons:

50
(a) unbalanced numbers of available general and special
education teachers, (b) unrepresentative numbers from the
four state universities, and (c) time and expense required
for travel. Next, a stratified, random sample of the
beginning teachers from the chosen districts was selected.
The population was stratified by university and type of
preservice teacher education program (i.e., special and
general education). The beginning teachers in the random
sample were sent a letter that included a brief explanation
of the study and a postcard to return if they would like to
participate (see Appendix D). Their permission was obtained
to meet the University of Florida Institutional Review Board
regulations (Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects)
(see Appendix E).
The number of postcards returned did not result in an
adequate sample size; therefore, follow-up phone calls were
made to enlist more participation. Telephone contact with
beginning teachers also provided the opportunity to determine
typical reasons that some chose not to participate. Those
reasons included (a) the number of required observations for
the beginning teacher program, (b) concern that their
teaching situations would not provide an accurate
illustration of what typically occurs in the classroom, and
(c) general feelings of stress.
Three factors were considered in determining the sample
size. First, the alpha level was set at a conservative level
(.05) so that the probability of a Type I error (rejecting a

51
true null hypothesis) was minimized. Second, without a
theoretical base from which to predict an effect size, the
effect size was conservatively estimated to be between .50
and .60. Third, power of .80 was targeted to adequately
detect any differences between the two groups. Therefore,
the sample size of 47 was considered acceptable (Shavelson,
1988).
Description of the Research Instrumentation
The research instrument used in the study, Praxis III:
Classroom Performance Assessment, is an assessment system
that uses three data-collection methods: direct observation
of classroom practice, written descriptions of the students
and what they are to learn, and interviews that are
structured around the classroom observation. Following the
postobservation interview, the assessor reviews all the notes
taken from the preobservation interview, observation, and
postobservation interview as well as the teacher-prepared
written documents.
Data Collection Procedures
Evidence is gathered for each criterion and may come
from any source within the assessment cycle. The assessor
compiles positive and/or negative evidence for each
criterion. The most pertinent evidence is then selected and
transferred to the Record of Evidence form (see Appendix F).
After careful consideration of the evidence for each
criterion, the assessor writes a summary statement connecting
the evidence to the scoring rules for that criterion. A

52
score is then assigned for each criterion based on the
scoring rules. The criterion score range is from 1.0 to 3.5
with a score at each .5 interval (e.g., 1.0, 1.5). Scoring
rules and scoring matrices for each criterion can be found in
Appendix G.
For each criterion, evidence should be (a) relevant to
the criterion, (b) free of bias, (c) an accurate
representation of events, and (d) of sufficient quantity to
support a judgment. A summary statement must summarize the
evidence cited, refer to all parts of the scoring rule, and
support the score assigned.
The time required for the assessment cycle varies for
each individual. The preobservation interview lasts
approximately 20 minutes. Following the interview, a
classroom observation is conducted that lasts a class period
or the length of a lesson. The postobservation interview
completes the cycle and requires from 20 to 30 minutes. One
to 2 hours is required by the assessor to score each domain.
Validity and Reliability
Praxis III was developed during 6 years of extensive
research by personnel at the Educational Testing Service
(ETS). The developers considered it essential to articulate
both a guiding conception of teaching and learning and a set
of criteria by which beginning teaching could be assessed.
The guiding conception, discussed in detail in Chapter II,
clarified the research and development effort that culminated
in the 19 Praxis III criteria.

53
Prior to determination of the 19 criteria, the
developers identified a knowledge base from which to
establish an initial set of assessment criteria. The
knowledge base was derived from three main sources of
evidence: practicing teachers, the research/theoretical
perspective, and teacher licensing requirements. This was
done to consider multiple perspectives rather than rely on
one paradigm of effective teaching.
Knowledge base. The first major source of information
in the development of the Praxis III assessment consisted of
praciticing teachers. The developers conducted large-scale
studies to determine important tasks required of beginning
teaching (see Rosenfeld, Freeberg, & Bukatko, 1992;
Rosenfeld, Reynolds, & Bukatko, 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, &
Bukatko, 1992) . Surveys were sent to teachers from
elementary, middle, and secondary levels. The respondents
were asked about the importance of specific tasks from their
own teaching as well as beginning teaching. Further, the
respondents were asked to identify other important aspects of
teaching that may not have been included in the survey.
The second source of information was a series of
research reviews. Guided by a panel of experts (e.g., D.
Berliner, R. Calfee, L. Delpit, and A. Hilliard), researchers
reviewed literature on effective teaching, effective
beginning teaching, and effective teaching in multicultural
classrooms. Thus theoretical perspectives and research

54
findings strengthened the knowledge base provided by
praciticing teachers.
The third source of evidence for the knowledge base was
an analysis of states' regulations and practices regarding
beginning teacher assessments. Through a nationwide content
analysis of state performance assessment requirements,
information was identified and compiled. Developers focused
on the requirements related to the assessment of actual
teaching rather than on other knowledge, skill, experience,
or educational attainment.
Criterion development. From the three sources described
above, a knowledge base for the assessment of beginning
teachers was formed. The development team used this
knowledge base to draft an initial set of assessment
criteria. At this point a National Advisory Committee
reviewed the research base and the draft assessment criteria.
Members advised the development team to bring the criteria
more in line with the guiding conceptions and organizing
framework. The team then developed several revised versions
of the assessment criteria and conducted small-scale pilot
studies to test their effectiveness in actual teaching
situations. From these studies, the criteria and the
assessment process underwent extensive changes. Large-scale
fieldwork was then conducted to further refine criteria.
During this phase of the research process, scoring rules were
developed and clarified by collaborating teachers and
researchers. Concurrent with the refinement of the

55
assessment criteria, field studies also focused on assessor
training. Several modifications were made to clarify
particular scoring rules and enhance note taking, coding, and
use of multiple sources of evidence. Additional assessors
were then trained using the finalized version of the Praxis
III assessment system. A more complete description of the
process of developing the criteria and the knowledge base for
each of the 19 assessment criteria can be found in Dwyer
(1994) .
A preliminary analysis of data collected during field
testing indicated a moderate to high level of inter-rater
agreement between paired assessors who observed the same
teaching event (Dwyer, 1994). To date, no inter-rater
reliability data have been published. ETS does not emphasize
inter-rater reliability; rather they stress the importance of
using certified assessors. Ultimately, therefore, the
validity of Praxis III rests on the rigor of the assessor
training (Klem, personal communication, 1994; Villegas,
1992) .
Description of the Procedures
Asses.sment__CYcl.e
The collection of data for this study was conducted
through an interactive process consisting of the four phases
of Praxis III; preobservation interview, classroom
observation, postobservation interview, and recording/scoring
of evidence. This set of phases is referred to as an

56
assessment cycle and was conducted for each beginning
teacher.
Preobservation interview. Prior to the preobservation
interview, the assessor provided each teacher with three
forms to complete: Candidate Profile (see Appendix C), Class
Profile (see Appendix H), and Instruction Profile (see
Appendix I). These forms supplied written documentation to
convey a sense of the general classroom context and
characteristics of the students in the class, as well as
specific information about the lesson to be observed. The
written documentation included a sketch of the classroom and
a seating chart to facilitate the questioning during the
interview. The purpose of the semi-structured,
preobservation interview was to provide insight into the
teacher's planning for the observed lesson. The assessor
asked a series of questions related to the Class Profile,
Instruction Profile, and the planned lesson. Questions
allowed for a free-flow response from the teacher (see
Appendix J). Notes were recorded by the assessor using a
laptop computer.
Classroom observation. During the observation of the
planned lesson, the assessor transcribed an account of the
unfolding events using a laptop computer. Teacher behavior,
student behavior, and teacher-student interaction during the
lesson was recorded. Summary statements restricted to
observable behavior were allowed. During this phase, no
judgments or interpretations were made.

57
Postobservation interview. The postobservation
interview was conducted as soon after the planned lesson as
possible. The purpose of this interview was to allow for
exploration of the teacher's rationales for his or her
decisions and practices as well as an opportunity for
reflection on his or her teaching practice. The assessor's
questions produced free-flow responses from the subjects (see
Appendix K). Again, laptop computers were used for taking
notes.
Recordinq/scoring of evidence. Following the data
collection, the assessor analyzed the data from all of the
sources. After a thorough analysis, the assessor evaluated
the beginning teacher using a set of specific criteria and
scoring rules to procure ratings for each of the criteria.
Assessors supported their professional judgments by citing
specific evidence for their ratings.
Assessor Training
Following intensive training by ETS personnel, each
assessor was able to document a teacher's performance and to
interpret and score collected data accurately in a wide
variety of classroom contexts. The degree of accuracy was
determined by how close the assessors' ratings were to the
preestablished scores. Assessor training consisted of 5 days
of highly interactive instruction using a wide range of
stimuli such as, videotapes, simulations, and printed
materials (e.g., sample records of evidence). Throughout the
training, participants receive feedback from the instructor,

58
other participants, and answer keys of the exercises. After
4 days of training, assessors conducted a field test of the
assessment system, then returned for a fifth day of targeted
skill reinforcement and consolidation. During their final
session, assessors demonstrated competency on an assessor
proficiency test. Competency was judged by how close the
assessors' ratings were to the preestablished scores. This
test was performance-based and allowed assessors to
demonstrate the entire range of assessment activities that
they will encounter in practice.
Assessors were specifically instructed that there is a
wide range of acceptable teaching styles that may or may not
match their own teaching preferences. Furthermore, training
personnel emphasized the importance of including documented
information about the classroom context into the ratings. In
particular, assessors were trained not to penalize teachers
in difficult teaching situations for circumstances beyond
their control.
Both assessors used in this study were trained at the
same time by ETS personnel. Several of those involved in
training the assessors were also involved in the development
of the instrument. Each of the assessors was a doctoral
student in the College of Education at the University of
Florida and each had gained some experience with Praxis III
prior to collecting data for this study.

59
Treatment of the Data
The major research question was to determine whether
there was significant differences between the two groups of
teachers on all 19 criteria of Praxis III. Because the
domains of Praxis III and their corresponding criteria were
designed to be interrelated to mirror the integrated nature
of teaching, these 19 measures are not assumed to be
statistically independent of each other (Dwyer, 1994). Thus,
a one-way, between-groups multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis. Because the MANOVA
indicated a significant difference between the two groups, a
series of one-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were
conducted for each criterion.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Tntrodncti on
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects
of teacher preparation on the classroom performance of
beginning teachers (special and general education) in several
key areas: (a) organizing content knowledge for student
learning, (b) creating an environment for student learning,
(c) teaching for student learning, and (d) teacher
professionalism. The general question of the study was as
follows: Do beginning special education teachers differ from
beginning general education teachers in their classroom
performance? To investigate this question, the classroom
performance of beginning special education teachers was
compared to the performance of beginning general education
teachers.
To determine the effects of teacher preparation on
classroom performance, observations using Praxis III were
conducted on 25 special education teachers and 22 general
education teachers who had graduated from four state
universities in Florida: University of Florida (UF), Florida
State University (FSU), University of Central Florida (UCF),
and University of South Florida (USF). All of the teachers
in both groups taught at the elementary level and were in
60

61
their first year of teaching. This chapter contains the
results of the statistical analyses of data from this study.
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics
The data were analyzed to determine if any differences
existed between the teacher preparation groups (general and
special education) on any of the measures. This section
includes a description of the analyses and the results.
Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of study
participants in the two groups. Chi-square analyses were
completed to determine if there were any preexisting
differences between the two groups of teachers with respect
to gender, age, race, and university.
The chi-square tests revealed no statistically
significant differences between special education teachers
and general education teachers. The majority of both groups
were female (96% and 86% respectively for special and general
education teachers). Among the special education teachers,
84% were under 34 years of age and 91% of the general
education teachers were in this age group. All (100%) of the
special education teachers and 95% of the general education
teachers were white. The distribution by university was
nearly even as exhibited by the chi-square and associated p-
value of 0.985. Therefore, the two groups are comparable
with respect to age, gender, race, and university attended.

62
Table 1
Distribution of Participants by Demographic Characteristics
Special
n
Education
%
General
n
Education
%
Gender
Female 24
96
19
86
Male 1
4
3
14
(Chi-square = 1.396, 1,
E = 0.237)
Age
<25 10
40
13
59
25-34 11
44
7
32
35-44 3
12
2
9
45-54 1
4
0
0
(Chi-square = 2.298, 3,
E = 0.513)
Race
White 25
100
21
95
Black 0
0
1
5
(Chi-square = 1.161, 1,
E = 0.281)
University
UF 9
36
7
32
FSU 4
16
4
18
UCF 6
24
6
27
USF 6
24
5
23
(Chi-square = 0.150, 3,
E = 0.985)
Total 25
100%
22
100%

63
Criterion and Domain Scores
The means and standard deviations of the 19 criterion
scores and domain scores were calculated for each group.
These figures are presented in Tables 2-6.
Table 2
Summary of Domain Scores bv Group
Domain
SDecial Educators(n=25)
General Educators(n=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
A
11.58
11.52
(2.03)
(1.57)
B
13.80
12.50
(1.60)
(1.78)
c
12.20
12.27
(1.68)
(2.16)
D
10.04
10.02
d-31)
d-48)
Table 3
Summary of Domain A Criterion Scores bv Group
Criterion
Soecial Educators(n=25)
General Educatorsfn=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
A1
2.64
2.52
(.511)
(.475)
A2
2.28
2.00
(.678)
(.672)
A3
2.02
2.43
(.489)
(.541)
A4
2.66
2.50
(.494)
(.345)
A5
1.98
2.09
(-568)
(.453)

64
Table 4
Summary of Domain B Criterion Scores bv Group
Criterion
Soecial Educators(n=25)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
General Educators(n=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Bl
2.64
2.20
(.468)
(.630)
B2
2.82
2.57
(.518)
(.541)
B3
2.56
2.25
(.565)
(.668)
B4
3.10
2.59
(.289)
(.590)
B5
2.68
2.89
(.430)
(.342)
Table 5
Summary of
Domain C Criterion Scores
bv Groun
Soecial Educators(n=25)
General Educators (n=22)
Mean
Mean
Criterion
(Std. Dev.)
(Std. Dev.)
Cl
2.40
2.34
(.577)
(.679)
C2
2.52
2.43
(.586)
(.642)
C3
1.80
2.30
(.479)
(.718)
C4
2.78
2.59
(.435)
(.549)
C5
2.70
2.61
(.408)
(.533)

Table 6
Summary of Domain D Criterion Scores by Group
65
Criterion
Snecial Educators(n=25)
Oeneral Educators (n=22)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
Dl
2.42
2.25
(.687)
(.783)
D2
2.52
2.45
(.510)
(.533)
D3
2.56
2.93
( .464)
(.417)
D4
2.54
2.39
(-431)
(-435)
Test of Hypothesis
A one-way, between-groups multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis that there
would be no differences between the groups on the 19
criteria. The MANOVA revealed significant differences
between groups on at least one variable [Hotelling's F(19,27)
= 2.791, E = 0.001].
Based on the results of Hotelling's MANOVA (e<0.05), the
mull hypothesis was rejected. Special education teachers
differed from general education teachers on at least one of
the criteria.
To determine which criteria were the sources of the
differences between special education and general education
teachers, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were

66
conducted for each criterion. Table 7 shows the results of
these analyses.
Table 7
Summary of Univariate Analysis of Variance for 19 Criteria
Dependent
Measure
F
df
E
A1
0.66
1,45
.421
A2
2.01
1,45
.163
A3
7.51
1,45
.009*
A4
1.61
1,45
.211
A5
0.54
1,45
.467
B1
7.35
1,45
.009*
B2
2.65
1,45
.110
B3
2.97
1,45
.092
B4
14.65
1,45
.000*
B5
3.25
1,45
.078
Cl
0.10
1,45
.749
C2
0.24
1,45
.625
C3
7.92
1,45
.007*
C4
1.73
1,45
.195
C5
0.39
1,45
.533
D1
0.63
1,45
.432
D2
0.19
1,45
.669
D3
8.27
1,45
.006*
D4
1.48
1,45
.231
*Significant at
the e<.05
level.

67
Sources of Significant Differences
The data collected through the interviews and
observations, as documented on the Records of Evidence, were
used to establish the scores for each criterion within Praxis
III. The criteria on which significant differences between
groups were obtained are described in this section. Examples
of teacher responses and behaviors are provided.
Criterion A3
Criterion A3 measured the teachers' ability to
demonstrate an understanding of the connections between the
content that was learned previously, the current content, and
the content that remains to be learned in the future.
General education teachers scored significantly higher than
special education teachers on this criterion.
General education teachers tended to explain accurately
how the content of the current lesson related to the content
of previous and future lessons, and they were also able to
explain how the current lesson fits within the structure of
the discipline. As a group, special education teachers were
less able to explain how the current lesson fits within the
larger goals of learning in the discipline. For example, in
a preobservation interview question about the organization of
the subject or discipline, one general education teacher
provided a detailed explanation of how the observed lesson on
planets and their order from the sun directly related to a
unit on astronomy that included stars, galaxies, and solar
systems. Given the same preobservation question, one special

68
educator responded by relating the current reading lesson to
prior lessons in which students learned letter names and
sounds.
Criterion R1
Criterion B1 examines the teachers1 creation of a
climate that promotes fairness. Special education teachers
scored significantly higher than general education teachers
on this criterion.
Special education teachers tended to be fair in their
treatment of and attention to students and actively
encouraged fairness among students during lesson
observations. For example, during the classroom observation,
one special educator responded quickly to demeaning
statements made by a student. The teacher encouraged the
students to show respect for each other by not using unfair
statements. Many general education teachers restricted equal
access to learning by overattending to certain students in
the class and excluding others during student-teacher
interactions. For example, one general educator consistently
ignored students who were off-task without attempting to
reengage them in the lesson.
Criterion B4
Criterion B4 focuses on establishing and maintaining
consistent standards of classroom behavior. Special
education teachers scored significantly higher than general
education teachers on this criterion.

69
During classroom observations, special education
teachers tended to respond to minor misbehavior consistently
and they experienced reasonable success in reducing those
behaviors. For example, several special educators responded
to students calling out answers by reminding them of the rule
and reinforcing those students that responded appropriately.
In contrast, general education teachers tended to respond
inconsistently to minor misbehavior and had less success in
reducing those behaviors. For example, several general
educators corrected the inappropriate behavior of students in
some instances, while allowing the same behavior to occur
uncorrected at other times.
Criterion C3
Criterion C3 examined the methods teachers use to extend
student thinking. General education teachers scored
significantly higher than special education teachers on this
criterion.
General education teachers tended to use activities that
were specifically designed to encourage students to think
independently, creatively, or critically about the lesson
content. These activities promoted the extension of student
thinking beyond the current lesson. For example, one general
education teacher conducted a lesson on letter writing. The
teacher designed a learning activity in which students would
write a letter to themselves. The students were to write
about (a) what they were looking forward to the next school
year, (b) what they would miss most about fifth grade, and

70
(c) what they saw themselves doing in the year 2002, after
graduation. The teacher planned to send the letters to her
students in the year 2002. This lesson required students to
think creatively about their lives in the present and future.
Special education teachers were more likely to encourage
students to think independently, creatively, or critically,
but this only occurred within the existing context of the
lesson. Some of the techniques that special educators used
during the observed lessons included asking open-ended
questions and making predictions about story outcomes.
Cri terlon D3
The focus of Criterion D3 was the building of
professional relationships with colleagues to share teaching
insights and to coordinate learning activities for students.
General education teachers scored significantly higher than
special education teachers on this criterion.
General education teachers tended to demonstrate
knowledge of available resources and to consult with
colleagues on matters related to student learning. They also
collaborated frequently with other teachers to coordinate
learning activities for their students. General educators
were likely to work with other teachers on their grade level
as well as teachers from other grade levels.
Special educators also demonstrated knowledge of
available resources and consulted with colleagues on matters
related to student learning, but they were less likely to
collaborate with colleagues to coordinate learning

71
activities. Several special education teachers noted that
the isolated and specialized nature of their job contributed
to their lack of opportunities for frequent, informal
collaboration.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of teacher preparation on classroom performance of beginning
teachers in general and special education. The dependent
measures were the 19 criteria on an instrument designed to
assess beginning teachers for licensure, PRAXIS III:
Classroom Performance Assessment.
A MANOVA was used to test the following null hypothesis:
There will be no statistically significant difference between
the groups on measures of classroom performance.
Significant differences between special and general education
teachers were detected, which resulted in the rejection of
the null hypothesis. These differences were detected on 5 of
the 19 criteria on Praxis III. General educators scored
significantly higher on measures of Criterion A3, C3, and D3.
Special educators score significantly higher on measures of
Criterion B1 and B4. The implications of these results are
discussed in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
teacher preparation on the classroom performance of beginning
teachers in general and special education. Several key
domains of classroom performance were examined: (a)
organizing content knowledge for student learning, (b)
creating an environment for student learning, (c) teaching
for student learning, and (d) teacher professionalism. One
hypothesis was formulated and tested. The general question
of the study was as follows: Does teacher preparation in
general education or special education affect the classroom
performance of beginning teachers? To determine these
effects, observations using Praxis III: Classroom
Performance Assessment were conducted.
Overview of Research Findings
In this section, the null hypothesis is reviewed, along
with the findings. An explanation of the relationship
between the hypothesis and the respective domains and
criteria of Praxis III is provided.
The 19 criteria of Praxis III were used to test the
hypothesis that there is no statistically significant
difference between beginning special education and beginning
general education teachers on measures of classroom
72

73
performance. Significant differences were indicated between
the two groups; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
These differences were detected on five criteria.
In Domain A, organizing content knowledge for student
learning, general educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion A3) that
related to the teacher's ability to demonstrate an
understanding of the connections between the content that was
learned previously, the current content, and the content that
remains to be learned in the future. On measures of creating
an environment for student learning, Domain B, special
educators scored significantly higher than general educators
on the criterion (Criterion Bl) that related to the creation
of a climate that promotes fairness. Special educators also
scored significantly higher than general educators on the
criterion (Criterion B4) that related to establishing and
maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior.
In Domain C, teaching for student learning, general
educators scored significantly higher than special educators
on the criterion (Criterion C3) that related to encouraging
students to extend their thinking. On measures of teacher
professionalism, Domain D, general educators scored
significantly higher than special educators on the criterion
(Criterion D3) that related to building professional
relationships with colleagues to share teaching insights and
to coordinate learning activities for students.

74
Implications of the Research Findings
Teacher development theory was applied to this study to
increase understanding of the initial stage of teacher
development. The following sections contain (a) theoretical
implications, (b) implications for beginning teacher
knowledge base, and (c) implications for teacher education.
Theoretical Implications
Although teachers appear to progress through several
stages of development in the process of becoming a competent
teacher, these stages are characterized by a variety of
behaviors. During a stage of development, a teacher may
exhibit a wide range of competency in classroom behaviors and
skills. This range of skills may be one reason for the lack
of clarity in the descriptions of the developmental-stage
models (Burden, 1990). Praxis III may provide teacher
development theorists with clearer descriptions of the
various characteristics of beginning teacher development.
Results of this study indicate that, while all of the
teachers appeared to be in the initial stage of teaching
(survival), some teaching behaviors and skills were different
for the two groups. For example, special education teachers
in this study exhibited strengths in establishing and
maintaining consistent standards of behavior in contrast to
the expectation of beginning teacher performance established
by teacher development theory. Clearly, the differences in
preparation of the special education teachers contributed to

75
this finding, but the theory of teacher development does not
consider preparation other than general education.
One responsibility of university field supervisors and
school administrators is to help preservice and inservice
teachers improve their instruction by facilitating their
development. With knowledge of the theory of teacher
development, supervisors could, perhaps, become more
effective in their use of Praxis III as a tool to promote
professional growth. Similarly, if these supervisors
understand the differences in teacher preparation between
special and general education, their ability to apply teacher
development theory in practice may be enhanced.
Teacher development theory characterizes the initial
stage of teaching as a survival stage. Teachers in this
stage tend to (a) have difficulty with curriculum
development, (b) struggle with evaluation of student
progress, and (c) be more concerned with their own
performance than with student learning (Burden, 1990). The
evidence from classroom observations and interviews indicates
that both groups exhibited characteristics of this initial
stage. Therefore, the findings of this study support
generalizations of teacher development theory to include
beginning special education teachers.
Implications for Beginning Teacher Knowledge Base
Although much is known about the differences between
beginning teachers and competent, experienced teachers,
researchers have done little to add to the current knowledge

76
base about competent beginning teachers. The results of
research conducted with Praxis III may assist researcher in
expanding the knowledge base and improving our understanding
of competent beginning teaching. In this study, the evidence
cited from interviews and observations supports the current
beginning teacher literature. Specific examples of teacher
behaviors and responses are provided and grouped by three
phases of teaching.
Preactive. When planning their lessons, both groups of
beginning teachers rarely took into consideration their
students' background experiences, prior skills, and
developmental levels. In choosing goals for these lessons,
general and special education teachers seldom provided a
thoughtful explanation of why the goals were appropriate for
all students nor did they differentiate these goals for
groups or individual students in the class (Brophy & Good,
1986; Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978). Both groups of
teachers were also unlikely to choose methods and activities
that allowed for differentiated learning experiences nor did
they provide an explanation of why the method or activity
chosen was appropriate to all students.
One of the lowest mean scores for both groups of
teachers was on their ability to create or select evaluation
strategies that are appropriate for students and aligned with
the goals of the lesson. Many teachers either had not
provided a plan for systematic evaluation of student learning
or had selected a plan that was clearly inappropriate to the

77
goals of the lesson (Porter & Brophy, 1988; Zigmond, Sansone,
Miller, Donahoe, & Kohnke, 1986). None of the teachers in
this study described how he or she would use the results of
the evaluation in planning future instruction. These
similarities between the two groups of teachers supports
previous research that beginning teachers are less apt to
consider student differences and subject matter in their
planning and are often inconsistent in their evaluation of
student progress.
Interactive. Most evidence of teaching tasks in the
interactive phase was detected during the observation. When
managing the learning environment, special education teachers
were very likely to be consistent in maintaining and
establishing rules and routines. This evidence contradicts
several beginning teacher studies that report beginning
teachers generally have difficulty with maintaining
consistent standards of behavior (Doyle, 1986). In fact,
both groups of teachers demonstrated competence with
establishing rapport with students and maintaining a safe
environment. In addition, special education teachers were
likely to demonstrate fairness in their interactions with
students. Perhaps, teacher education programs in Florida,
particularly special education teacher education programs,
emphasize the importance of creating a learning environment
more than programs in other areas of the country.
When presenting subject matter, both groups of teachers
were less likely to provide students with clear information

78
about the learning goals, either explicitly or implicitly.
They often used general statements to begin their lessons,
for example, a general education teacher stated, "This is
math. We are going to review some of the things we did
yesterday and the day before." In this particular case, the
learning goals was for students to demonstrate an
understanding of basic concepts in fractions (e.g., least
common multiple, greatest common factor). In their attempts
to make the content of the lesson comprehensible to students,
teachers form both groups experienced difficulty linking a
concept to related concepts, which is consistent with
previous findings by Borko and Livingston (1989). Further,
many of the teachers did not make instructional adjustments
based on their monitoring of student understanding. These
teachers tended to use feedback with students that was not
specific and substantive. For example, some special and
general education teachers only used statements like "Right,"
"That's good," and "No, that's not right." One general
education teacher provided little assistance to a groups of
students who had missed the previous day's lesson that was
essential to the understanding and completion of the observed
lesson. This teacher made nojOattempt to adjust the learning
activity even thought it was evident that the students were
not on track. This evidence supports previous findings by
Reynolds (1992) that beginning teachers are typically
ineffective in questioning strategies and tend not to use

79
this information about student understanding to improve their
teaching during the lesson.
Postactive. Teachers' responses during the
postobservation conference provided evidence to support
previous research on beginning teacher reflection of a lesson
(Reynolds, 1992). Both groups of teachers had difficulty
focusing their reflections. When asked to reflect on the
extent to which the learning goals were met, the teachers
often responded with statements about student participation
and ease of presentation. The teachers had difficulty
describing the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in
relation to the learning goals and student understanding.
Moreover, teachers from both groups rarely supported their
judgments with specific evidence from the observed lesson.
Although little research is available on the connection
between teaching and other professional tasks, such as
collaborating with colleagues. Domain D of Praxis III does
begin to shed some light on how these professional tasks may
relate to teaching. Both groups of teachers demonstrated
knowledge of school resources available to them and
frequently consulted with colleagues on matters related to
their students and instruction. Additionally, all teachers
demonstrated knowledge of forms of parental communication
that they used for various purposes (e.g., newsletters, phone
calls, daily notes, and conferences).
Blanton, Blanton, and Cross (1994) found that despite
efforts at the preservice and inservice level to increase

80
collaboration among teachers, communication between general
education and special education teachers remains infrequent
and possibly inadequate. Similar evidence was found in this
study. Although many teachers' responses indicated that
collaboration with colleagues did occur, the collaboration
tended to be intradisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary
in nature.
Implications for Teacher Education
The most common method used for follow-up studies of
graduates is the survey of beginning teachers' perceptions of
the value of their preparation. This method, while
convenient and efficient, may provide teacher education
programs with an incomplete picture of their effectiveness.
Teacher educators have found that these data often present a
fragmented picture regarding graduates' perceptions.
Further, researchers have noted that perceptions of
preparation by first-year teachers are unstable during the
first year of teaching (Adams, 1987) .
The purpose of program evaluation should be to develop
anil understanding of the relationships among a program's
contexts, inputs, processes, and products (Galluzzo & Craig,
1990). Currently, the missing piece in this understanding is
the product—graduates' performance in the field—an area
seldom evaluated by teacher preparation programs. Research
that focuses on beginning teachers' behaviors and skills can
provide details about the unique needs, strengths, and
problems of first-year teachers. The more teacher educators

81
understand these experiences the more capable they will be to
make decisions about the continuation, modification, or
termination of a teacher preparation program. Conducting
first-year performance research with instruments such as
Praxis III could (a) facilitate communication between schools
and universities, (b) advance what is known about teacher
education, and (c) raise important questions about issues and
practices that should be addressed.
Given the recent trend toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities in general classrooms, increased insight
into how teachers from different types of preparation
(general and special education) perform during their first
year of teaching is important. The trend toward inclusion
has resulted in the increased likelihood that teachers in
general and special education will collaborate about the
needs and goals of students with special needs (Pugach &
Johnson, 1989). The need for a common core of knowledge and
collaboration among discipline is reflected in the
development of unified teacher preparation programs such as
those at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the
University of Cincinnati. Knowledge of the possible
differences in beginning teacher performance due to
differences in teacher preparation may enhance the
collaboration among teacher educators.
General educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion A3) that
related to the teacher's ability to demonstrate an

82
understanding of the connections between the content that was
learned previously, the current content, and the content that
remains to be learned in the future. Perhaps this difference
is due to the emphasis on scope and sequence of content areas
in general education teacher preparation programs. General
education teachers were able to draw on knowledge of the
subject matter to explain where the observed lesson fits
within the broader scope of the discipline. Because special
education teacher preparation programs traditionally do not
require multiple courses in the content areas, teacher
educators of these programs may want to provide preservice
teachers with several resources on how to obtain the
structure or hierarchy of a content area.
Special educators scored significantly higher than
general educators on the criterion (Criterion Bl) that
related to the creation of a climate that promotes fairness.
Fairness in this sense means helping all students to have
equal access to learning and to feel equally valued in the
classroom. Special education courses often stress the
importance of individualized instruction, rather than the
group process emphasized in general education courses. This
difference in focus may be why special education teachers
were more likely to assure learning opportunities to all
students. In contrast, many general education teachers
demonstrated patterns of asking or allowing only some
students to respond to questions. Teacher educators in

83
general education could illustrate some ways that the teacher
could help all students have access to learning.
Special educators also scored significantly higher than
general educators on the criterion (Criterion B4) that
related to establishing and maintaining consistent standards
of classroom behavior. This difference is possibly due to
the attention behavior management receives in special
education teacher preparation programs. Goodlad (1993)
reported that students in special education programs
expressed more confidence in their abilities of behavior
management than do students in general education programs.
Teacher educators of general education might consider
incorporating a course on classroom management into their
preparation of teachers. This could be accomplished in
collaboration with the college's department of special
education.
General educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion C3) that
related to encouraging students to extend their thinking.
Most special education teachers in the study did not use an
activity that was specifically designed to actively encourage
students to extend their thinking about the content of the
lesson. They seemed to rely more on instructional techniques
such as asking open-ended questions. This emphasis on low-
level cognitive processes by special educators may be from a
preparation program that prepares teachers to focus on the
basic skills of reading, math, writing, and spelling.

84
Teacher educators in special education may want to assist
preservice teachers in designing activities or lessons that
specifically encourage students to extend their thinking.
General educators scored significantly higher than
special educators on the criterion (Criterion D3) that
related to building professional relationships with
colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate
learning activities for students. General education teachers
tended to consistently coordinate activities with other
colleagues, particularly grade level team members. These
results may be a product of either the school organization
structure, teacher's preparation particularly field
experience, or a combination of these factors. Schools are
most often organized into grade levels and opportunities for
collaboration are abundant for general education teachers.
In contrast, special education teachers often function in
isolation within schools limiting opportunities for
collaboration. The effect of teacher preparation on
collaboration of beginning teachers is probably most
influential during field experiences. The field experiences
where preservice teachers observe the effects of school
structure on collaboration may influence the likelihood of
collaboration efforts in their future teaching positions.
Limitations
This study had several limitations. The most
significant limitation is the lack of information about these
teachers' beliefs, skills, and knowledge prior to entering

85
their teacher preparation program. It is difficult to know
what influence these factors, or a combination of these
factors with preparation, may have had on their performance.
Addition ally, the type of teacher preparation was self-
selected by the teachers. That is, those who selected
special education as opposed to general education as a career
may exhibit different beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and
knowledge about teaching.
A second limitation is that only teachers at the
elementary level were considered for participation in the
study. The results of this study may not be generalized to
beginning teachers at the secondary level. This particular
limitation is consistent with the limitations of beginning
teacher research and teacher development theory. Both bodies
of research have focused primarily on elementary school
teachers. Teacher development theorists have found
significant differences between elementary and secondary
teachers. For example, elementary teachers report a greater
degree of concern about self, instructional tasks, and
student impact (Burden, 1990).
Another limitation of this study is the restricted
geographic location. Observations were limited to districts
in Florida and graduates of state universities in Florida.
Further, the effects of the bureaucratic structure of
education in Florida may contribute to differences and
similarities. For example, in the 1991-1992 school year
Florida ranked seventh in the nation for how likely districts

86
are to separate students with disabilities from their peers
(Special Education Report, 1996). The results may be
different in a state that is more likely to serve students
with disabilities in a regular classroom.
A fourth limitation of this study is voluntary
participation of the teachers. Teachers who volunteer to
participate in a study in which they are to be observed are
more likely to be confident in their teaching abilities and,
perhaps, more likely to be competent. The results might have
been different given a truly random sample of teachers.
Finally, the results of this study may have been
influenced by the differences in the contexts in which
special and general educators function. The teachers'
perceptions of the demands of their classrooms may have
affected their performance and the aspects of teaching that
they emphasized.
Suggestions for Future Research
Due to the lack of information about these teachers
prior to entering their teacher preparation program, a
longitudinal study may be warranted. This would allow
researchers to delineate any preexisting differences between
the two groups of teachers.
To study the effects of preparation for content areas,
additional research with teachers at the secondary level is
warranted. Additional studies should also focus on graduates
from other teacher preparation programs and various
geographic locations. Observations may be conducted on

87
graduates of unified teacher preparation programs as well.
Although this type of research involves extensive time and
energy on the part of the teacher, researchers should attempt
to achieve a more random sample in future studies, rather
than limiting the sample to volunteers.
Summary
This study was conducted to examine the effects of two
types of teacher preparation on the classroom performance of
beginning teachers. Teachers were observed using an
assessment instrument that was developed to evaluate
teachers' knowledge and skills in four domains: organizing
content knowledge for student learning, creating an
environment for student learning, teaching for student
learning, and teacher professionalism.
Special education teachers scored significantly higher
on criteria related to creating an environment for student
learning: creating a climate that promotes fairness and
establishing and maintaining consistent standards of
classroom behavior. General education teachers scored
significantly higher on criteria related to organizing
content knowledge, teaching for student learning, and teacher
professionalism. These criteria included (a) demonstration
of an understanding of the connections between the content
that was learned previously, the current content, and the
content that remains to be learned in the future, (b)
encouraging students to extend their thinking, and (c)
building professional relationships with colleagues to share

88
teaching insights and to coordinate learning activities for
students.
These findings hold several implications for teacher
development theory and the knowledge base on beginning
teaching. Reynolds (1992) asserted that assessment of
competent beginning teaching should exceed the research on
effective beginning teaching and the research on learning to
teach. Praxis III accomplishes this goal by reflecting the
view of teachers as professionals, by representing the
complexity of teaching and learning, and by promoting equity
among all teachers and students. The use of Praxis III in
this study revealed that the development of general and
special education teachers is somewhat different and does not
fit neatly into stages of teacher development. This approach
to beginning teacher assessment promotes the formation of a
more complete picture of teaching and learning in context.
The results of the study could inform teacher education
program development. The emergence of research on the
differences between beginning general and special education
teachers may be especially useful to teacher educators as
they could revise content to better prepare preservice
teachers for their first year of teaching.

APPENDIX A
PRAXIS III DOMAINS AND CRITERIA
Domain A
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Domain B
B1
B2
B3
Organizing content knowledge for student learning
Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of
students' background knowledge and experience
Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson
that are appropriate to the students
Demonstrating an understanding of the connections
between the content that was learned previously,
the current content, and the content that remains
to be learned in the future
Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning
activities, and instructional materials or other
resources that are appropriate to the students and
that are aligned with the goals of the lesson
Creating or selecting evaluation strategies that
are appropriate for the students and that are
aligned with the goals of the lesson
Creating an environment for student learning
Creating a climate that promotes fairness
Establishing and maintaining rapport with students
Communicating challenging learning expectations to
each student
89

90
B4
B5
Domain C
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Domain D
D1
D2
D3
D4
Establishing and maintaining consistent standards
of classroom behavior
Making the physical environment as safe and
conducive to learning as possible
Teaching for student learning
Making learning goals and instructional procedures
clear to students
Making content comprehensible to students
Encouraging students to extend their thinking
Monitoring students' understanding of content
through a variety of means, providing feedback to
students to assist learning, and adjusting learning
activities as the situation demands
Using instructional time effectively
Teacher professionalism
Reflecting on the extent to which the learning
goals were met
Demonstrating a sense of efficacy
Building professional relationships with colleagues
to share teaching insights and to coordinate
learning activities for students
Communicating with parents or guardians about
student learning

APPENDIX B
QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSOR REFLECTION
A1 How does the teacher find out about students' background
knowledge and experiences?
How does the teacher find out about students' foundation
for understanding of the content?
Is the teacher able to describe why it is important to
become familiar with students' background knowledge and
experiences?
Is the teacher's degree of familiarity with students'
background knowledge and experiences adequate in
relation to the number of students he or she teaches?
A2 Is the teacher able to state learning goals for the
current lesson?
Does the teacher state the goals in terms of student
outcomes, clearly distinguishing outcomes from
activities?
Does the teacher give a clear rationale for the stated
goals?
Does the teacher provide different goals for groups or
individual students?
Does the teacher provide an acceptable explanation of
why the differentiated goals are appropriate for groups
or individual students?
91

92
A3 Can the teacher explain how the content he or she has
planned for today connects to what the students have
previously learned?
Can the teacher explain how the content he or she
planned for today connects to what the students will
study in the future?
To what extent can the teacher explain how today's
lesson fits with larger goals of learning in the
discipline?
A4 Are the methods, activities, materials, and resources
selected by the teacher aligned with the goals of the
lesson?
Are the methods and activities appropriate to the
students' developmental levels? Do the materials and
activities provide for varied styles of participation?
Are the activities, materials, and resources appropriate
to the students' developmental levels? Do they reflect
the common and unique experiences of different ethnic
groups, of males and females, of different economic
groups, of groups with exceptionalities? Are the
activities, and resources appropriate for students of
limited English proficiency?
If a single activity is used, can the teacher provide a
sound explanation of why a single activity is
appropriate for all students/

93
Is there evidence that the teacher has considered
various methods, activities, and materials, and has
considered the advantages and disadvantages of each?
A5 How is the plan for evaluation aligned with the learning
goals of the lesson?
Is the plan for evaluation sufficiently systematic to
provide the teacher with useful information about the
extent to which learning goals have been met?
Is the evaluation appropriate to the students in the
class? What methods are used? How are students of
limited English proficiency and student with
exceptionalities provided with opportunities to display
their knowledge of content?
Can the teacher describe how he or she will use the
results of the evaluation in planning future
instruction?
B1 Is the teacher fair in interactions with students during
the observed class period?
In what ways does the teacher help students to have
access to learning?
In what ways does the teacher help the students feel
equally valued in the classroom?
Are there patterns of either exclusion or overattention
in student-teacher interactions?
Does the teacher show evidence of stereotyped views of
students?

94
Is the teacher inappropriately negative in remarks to
students?
Do students treat each other fairly?
Does the teacher respond appropriately to stereotype-
based, demeaning, or other unfair comments by students?
B2 Does the teacher attempt to relate positively to
students?
Does the teacher show concern for the students?
Does the teacher tailor personal interactions according
to the individual characteristics of students?
Do the teacher's attempts to establish rapport take into
account the students' backgrounds and experiences?
Are the teacher's attempts to establish rapport
appropriate to the students' developmental levels?
B3 How does the teacher show, by words, actions, or
attitude, that each student is capable of meaningful
achievement?
In what ways do the students demonstrate a clear
understanding of the teacher's expectations for
achievement that may have been stated explicitly prior
to the observation?
Are the learning expectations for students challenging
but within their reach?
B4 Are consistent standards of classroom behavior evident?
How are standards established?
Does the teacher model respectful and appropriate
standards of behavior?

95
Do established standards of behavior convey a sense of
respect for the students?
How are the standards maintained?
How does the teacher respond to serious behavior
problems? Are her or his responses appropriate?
Does the teacher respond to inappropriate behavior
consistently and appropriately?
B5 How much control does the teacher have over the physical
environment?
Are any safety violations or risks evident?
To what extent is there a match between the lesson or
activity and the furniture or room configuration?
Is the space arranged so that all students, including
those with special needs, have access to the lesson?
How does the room reflect the learning that takes place
there?
Cl Does the teacher communicate learning goals to the
students, either explicitly or implicitly?
Are the directions to students for instructional
procedures clear?
How does the teacher help students of different
backgrounds (ethnic groups, language groups, males and
females, students with exceptionalities) understand the
learning goals of the lesson?
How does the teacher help students of different
backgrounds (ethnic groups, language groups, males and

96
females, students with exceptionalities) understand the
instructional procedures of the lesson?
Are the students able to carry out the instructional
procedures?
C2 Does the teacher communicate content clearly and
accurately? Is this done equitably for females and
males, students of different ethnic groups, students of
different economic groups, students with
exceptionalities, students of limited English
proficiency?
In lessons that are not teacher-directed, has the
teacher structured the learning environment or process
in a way that enables students to understand the
content ?
Are students generally engaged with the content?
Does the lesson as a whole have a coherent structure?
C3 Does the teacher recognize and use opportunities to help
students extend their thinking?
Is the teacher able to use the current content
appropriately as a springboard to independent, creative,
or critical thinking?
Does the teacher challenge students' thinking in ways
relevant to their background knowledge and experiences?
Does the teacher structure specific learning activities
that encourage students to extend their thinking?
C4 Does the teacher monitor students' understanding of the
content? Is this don equitably?

97
Does the teacher provide substantive feedback to
students? Is this done equitably?
Does the teacher adjust learning activities as needed?
Is the adjustment equitable?
C5 Is the instruction paced in such a way that students
appear to be on task most of the time?
Is there evidence of established routines and procedures
that help the teacher maximize the time available for
instruction?
If a noninstructional interruption occurs, is
instruction resumed efficiently?
Do all students have meaningful work or activities for
the entire instructional time?
D1 What judgments does the teacher make about the extent to
which the goals were met? Are these judgments accurate?
How does the teacher support her or his judgment?
What explanation does the teacher give for deviations
from the instructional plan?
How does the teacher analyze the effectiveness of her or
his teaching strategies?
How does the teacher articulate ways in which insights
gained from this lesson could be used to improve future
instruction?
D2 In what ways does the teacher convey a sense of efficacy
with respect to students' learning?

98
What specific actions does the teacher suggest for
working with individual students who are not meeting the
learning goals?
D3 Does the teacher identify colleagues within the school
who can provide instructional help that is relevant to
the observed lesson or to students in the class?
If appropriate, does the teacher identify colleagues
whose participation is either necessary or helpful in
coordinating learning activities for students?
Does the teacher consult with colleagues on matters
related to learning and instruction or other
professional matters?
In what ways does the teacher collaborate with
colleagues outside his or her classroom to coordinate
learning activities or address other teaching concerns?
D4 Does the teacher demonstrate knowledge of how he or she
could communicate with parents or guardians?
Does the teacher communicate appropriately with paretns
or guardians in ways that are suitable for his or her
teaching situations?

APPENDIX C
CANDIDATE PROFILE
The following are questions to be completed by the
participant of the study.
1. What is your age?
a. Under 25
b. 25-34
c. 35-44
d. 45-54
e. 55-64
f. 65 or over
2.What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
3.How do you describe yourself?
a. African American or Black
b. Asian American/Asian (Ex.: Japanese, Chinese,
Korean)
c. Southeast Asian American/Southeast Asian (Ex.:
Cambodian, Hmong, Khmer, Laotian, Vietnamese)
d. Pacific Island American/Pacific Islander
e. Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano
f. Puerto Rican
g. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American
h. Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native
i. White
j. Other (please specify)
Questions 4-7
Please provide the following information regarding your
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND (Check and complete ALL that apply).
4.Bachelor's degree
a. Not begun
b. In progress
c. Completed
99

100
Major (please specify)
Minor (please specify)
5. Master's degree or equivalent
a. Not begun
b. In progress
c. Completed
Major (please specify)
6. Doctorate or equivalent
a. Not begun
b. In progress
c. Completed
7. Are you going through an alternate-route teacher
training program?
a. Yes
b. No
8. Which of the following best describes the type of
SCHOOL in which you are CURRENTLY teaching?
a. Primary elementary
b. Upper elementary
c. Comprehensive elementary
d. Middle
e. Junior high
f. Senior high
g. Comprehensive secondary
h. Other (please specify)
9. Which of the following best describes the LEVEL of your
primary teaching assignment?
a. Pre-Kindergarten - Grade 2
b. Grades 3-5
c. Grades 6-8
d. Grades 9-12
e. More than one of the levels above
(please specify)
10. Which of the following best describes the CONTENT of
your primary teaching assignment?
a. All or most elementary school subjects
b. All or most middle school subjects
c. Business
d. Computer science

i-h (D
101
English as a second language
Foreign language
g. Health/physical education
h. Home economics
i. Language arts/communications
j. Mathematics
k. Physical/biological/chemical sciences
l. Social sciences
m. Special education
n. Visual arts/music/theatre/dance
o. Vocational education
p. Other (please specify)
11. Which of the following best describes your CURRENT
STATUS?
a. Temporary substitute teacher (assigned on a daily
basis)
b. Permanent substitute teacher (assigned on a long¬
term basis)
c. Teacher with emergency/temporary license
d. Student teacher
e. First-year teacher
f. Teacher with one or more years of experience
g. Other (please specify)

APPENDIX D
LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS
January 25, 1994
firstname lastname
school
address
city, state zip code
Dear salute,
As we begin the new year, we hope that your school year
thus far has been a successful one. We are writing to ask
for your participation in an important and interesting
research endeavor. Project SEART-C, at the University of
Florida, is an investigation of teacher education programs in
Florida. In the current phase of the project, SEART-C staff
members are ready to begin observations of participants in
traditional programs. The (name of university) Teacher
Preparation Program is one of the programs under
consideration. We would like to observe as many of the
participants in this program as possible.
We would like to encourage you to volunteer for this
project because:
1) It will help provide valuable information regarding
the effectiveness of this teacher preparation program, and
2) It will provide valuable feedback to you personally
about your teaching through a process that allows for
interaction between the teacher and the observer.
The information obtained through the observations will
remain strictly confidential and therefore will not be shared
with principals, district personnel, or any (name of
university) Teacher Preparation Program faculty. All data
collected for Project SEART-C are aggregated and reported
only in term of categories of teacher education programs.
However, the SEART-C staff member that conducts the
observation will be happy to provide individualized feedback
for your own information. This experience and the
information you gain may be a valuable asset for you as you
102

103
complete your portfolio for the Professional Orientation
Program. The experience is intended to be a mutually
beneficial one and not stressful for you in any way.
Your participation would most likely require a total of
1 1/2 hours. That time would include (a) completing 2 forms
about your class and the lesson and (b) participating in 2
brief interviews, pre and post observation. If you agree to
participate, you will be fully informed as to the exact
nature of the observation process. You will be give a chance
to examine all materials the observer uses before the
observation process begins.
Please check the appropriate box on the enclosed self-
addressed postcard and return it to us. If you agree to
participate, we will contact you to set up a convenient
observation date. We appreciate your careful consideration
of this opportunity both to contribute to important research
and to participate in lifelong learning. If you have nay
questions regarding the research or your participation, feel
free to call Mary Eisele or Ann Daunic at the University of
Florida (904/392-0701, extension 279) at any time. We wish
you the best in the remainder of the 1994-95 school year.
Warmest regards,
Mary R. Eisele
Evaluation Specialist
Project SEART-C
Ann P. Daunic
Evaluation Specialist
Project SEART-C

APPENDIX E
PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT
My name is Paul Sindelar, the principal investigator of
Project SEART-C. We are conducting an evaluation of teacher
training programs in Florida. The purpose of this evaluation
is to assess programs that offer certification in education.
We plan to talk with program administrators, training
personnel or faculty, as well as program participants. The
evaluation has three components: interviews, profiles, and
observations.
As a program participant, we ask that you engage in
several layers of assessment. First, complete two profiles.
Second, permit us to observe you while you teach. Third
participate in preobservation and postobservation interviews
with an Evaluation Specialist from our project.
There are no known risks or discomforts to be expected
as a result of participating in this study. There are also
no direct benefits to you as the participant.
Profiles typically take about one hour to answer, and
interviews may take from 20 to 30 minutes each. We estimate
that the observed lesson will take from 20 to 50 minutes to
complete. On profiles and interviews, you may choose not to
answer any question which you do not wish to answer. Your
participation is voluntary, and you can withdraw from any
104

105
part of this study at any time without penalty.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer you any compensation for
participation.
Profiles, interviews, and observations will be coded for
the purpose of follow-up contact when necessary. Only
project staff and consultants will view these data. All data
will be numerically coded with no identifiable reference to
you and will be kept confidential. Data will be destroyed
after analysis, and all results will be reported in an
aggregate or group form.
If in the future you should have any questions about
this procedure you may contact me at (904) 392-0701 ext. 279.
PROJECT SEART-C INFORMED CONSENT FORM
FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
I have read and understand the procedure described
above. I agree to participate in the procedure and I have
received a copy of this description.
Signature
Date

APPENDIX F
RECORD OF EVIDENCE
The following is an example of one section from the record of
evidence form that is completed by the assessor.
A. Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students'
background knowledge and experiences.
(assessor provides written examples of positive and negative
evidence)
Summary Statement:
(assessor writes a statement that is aligned with the scoring
rules and matrices)
Evaluation:
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
106

APPENDIX G
PRAXIS III SCORING RULES AND MATRICES
A1 Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students'
background knowledge and experiences
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher demonstrates a lack of understanding of
why it is important to become familiar with
students' background experiences, does not know how
to find this information, and lacks familiarity
with students' background experiences.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher demonstrates some understanding of why
it is important to become familiar with students'
background experiences, describes one procedure
used to obtain this information, and has some
familiarity with the background and experiences of
students in the class.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher demonstrates a comprehensive
understanding of why it is important to become
familiar with students' background experiences,
describes several procedures used to obtain this
information, and demonstrates a clear understanding
of students' background knowledge and experiences.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Understanding of
importance of
becoming
familiar
Knowledge of how
to become
familiar
Level of
understanding of
students'
background
experiences
1.0
Lacks
understanding
Doesn't know how
Lacks
familiarity
2.0
Some
understanding
Describes one
procedure used
Some familiarity
3.0
Comprehensive
understanding
Describes
several
procedures used
Clear
understanding
107

108
A2 Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson that
are appropriate to the students
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher does not articulate clear learning
goals OR the teacher has chosen goals that are
inappropriate for the students.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher articulates clear learning goals that
are appropriate for the students.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher articulates clear learning goals and
provides a well-thought-out explanation of why they
are appropriate for the students OR the teacher
articulates clear learning goals that are
appropriate to the students and are differentiated
for groups or individual students in the class.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Clear articulation of
goals
Appropriateness for
students
1.0
Not Clear OR Inappropriate
2.0
Clear
Appropriate in general
3.0
Clear
Explanation of why
appropriate for all
students OR
differentiated goals

109
A3 Demonstrating an understanding of the connections
between the content that was learned previously, the
current content, and the content that remains to be
learned in the future
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher does not explain how the content of
this lesson relates to the content of previous or
future lessons OR the explanation given is
illogical or inaccurate.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher accurately explains how the content of
this lesson relates to the content of previous or
future lessons.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher accurately explains how the content of this
lesson fits within the structure of the discipline.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Explanation of relation
to previous and future
lessons
Fit within structure of
discipline
1.0
Doesn't explain OR
explanation is illogical
N/A
2.0
Explains previous or
future accurately
N/A
3.0
Explains previous or
future accurately
Explains accurately

110
A4 Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning
activities, and instructional materials or other
resources that are appropriate to the students and that
are aligned with the goals of the lesson
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher chooses methods, activities, or
materials that are unrelated to the goals of the
lesson OR the methods, activities, or materials are
clearly not appropriate to the students.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher chooses methods, activities, and
materials that are aligned with the goals of the
lesson and that are appropriate to the students in
general.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher chooses methods, activities, and materials
that allow a differentiated learning experience for
individuals or groups of students OR the teacher
provides a sound explanation of why the single
teaching method or learning activity in the lesson
is appropriate for all students.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Alignment with goals
Appropriateness for
students
1.0
Unrelated OR Inappropriate
2.0
Aligned with goals
Appropriate to students
in general
3.0
Aligned with goals
Allow for differentiated
learning experiences OR
sound explanation of why
single method or
activity is appropriate

Ill
A5 Creating or selecting evaluation strategies that are
appropriate for the students and that are aligned with
the goals of the lesson
.Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher has not provided for systematically-
evaluating student learning OR the evaluation
planned is clearly inappropriate either to the
goals of the lesson or to the students.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher has a plan for systematically
evaluating student learning that is aligned with
the goals of the lesson and appropriate to the
students.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher can describe how he or she will use the
results of the evaluation in planning future
instruction.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Plan for
systematic
evaluation
Appropriateness
for goals and
students
Use of results
for planning
1.0
Not provided OR
inappropriate
for goals or
students
N/A
2.0
Provided and
systematic
Appropriate for
goals and
students
N/A
3.0
Provided and
systematic
Appropriate for
goals and
students
Describes how
will use

112
B1 Creating a climate that promotes fairness
Scoring Rnl p.s
1.0 The teacher is unfair in the treatment of students
OR the teacher tolerates obviously unfair behavior
among students.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher is fair in the treatment of students
and does not accept obviously unfair behavior among
students.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher is fair in the treatment of students
and actively encourages fairness among students.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Teacher treatment of
students
Teacher handling of
fairness among students
1.0
Unfair to students OR tolerates
obviously unfair
behavior among students
2.0
Fair to students
Does not accept
obviously unfair
behavior among students
3.0
Fair to students
Actively encourages
fairness among students

113
B2 Establishing and maintaining rapport with students
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher does not attempt to establish rapport
with students OR the teacher's attempts are
inappropriate.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher establishes a basic level of rapport
with the students.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher successfully establishes rapport in
ways that are appropriate to students' diverse
backgrounds and needs.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Establishment of rapport
Appropriateness to
students
1.0
No attempt is made OR attempts made are
inappropriate
2.0
Basic level of rapport
is established
Generally appropriate,
not diversified
3.0
Attempts to establish
rapport are successful
Appropriate to students'
diverse needs and
backgrounds

114
B3 Communicating challenging learning expectations to each
student
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher communicates explicitly or implicitly
to individuals, to groups within the class, or to
the class as a whole that they are incapable of
learning or that the teacher's expectations for
their learning are very low.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher does nothing to communicate to any
student that he or she is incapable of meeting
learning expectations.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher actively encourages students to meet
challenging learning expectations.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Explicit or implicit communication to class,
groups, or any individual about learning
expectations
1.0
Communicates low expectations
2.0
Neutral; no neqative effects
3.0
Actively encourages students to meet challenging
expectations

115
B4 Establishing and maintaining consistent standards of
classroom behavior
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher makes no attempt to respond to
disruptive behavior OR the teacher's response to
disruptive behavior does not demonstrate respect
for the students.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher makes appropriate attempts to respond
to disruptive behavior in ways that demonstrate
respect for the students OR there is no disruptive
behavior during the lesson.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher responds to minor misbehavior consistently
and with reasonable success, in ways that
demonstrate respect for students OR student
behavior during the lesson is consistently
appropriate.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Response to behavior 1 Respect for students
1.0
No attempt to respond to OR response doesn't
disruptive behavior demonstrate respect
2.0
Appropriate attempts to
respond to disruptive
behavior OR no
disruptive behavior
Attempts to respond
demonstrate respect
3.0
Consistent, reasonably
successful responses to
disruptive behavior and
minor misbehavior OR
student behavior
consistently appropriate
Responses demonstrate
respect

116
B5 Making the physical environment as safe and conducive to
learning as possible
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher allows the physical environment to be
unsafe OR the teacher allows the physical
environment to interfere with learning.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher creates a physical environment that is
safe and does not interfere with learning.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher uses the physical environment as a
resource to facilitate learning. Provisions are
made to accommodate all students, including those
with special needs. If the teacher does not
control the physical environment, he or she
effectively adjusts the activities to the existing
physical environment.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Safety
Conduciveness to
learning
1.0
Allows unsafe conditions OR allows to
interfere with learning
2.0
Safe
Doesn't interfere with
learning
3.0
Safe
Used as a resource and
all students' needs
accommodated
OR
Cannot control conditions but effectively adjusts
activities for environment

117
Cl Making learning goals and instructional procedures clear
to students
.Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher provides the students with no
information, confusing information, or inaccurate
information about the learning goals or the
instructional procedures for the lesson.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The students receive accurate information about the
learning goals. The teacher provides the students
with clear, accurate information about the
instructional procedures for the lesson, and most
of the students seem to understand.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
students seem to understand the learning goals
fully. The teacher ensures that all students,
including those who may initially have trouble,
understand and can carry out the instructional
procedures for the lesson.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Learninq qoals | Instructional procedures
1.0
Students receive no OR students receive
information, confusing no information,
information, or confusing information,
inaccurate information or inaccurate
about goals information about
instructional procedures
to
O
Students receive
accurate information
Teacher provides clean,
accurate information;
most students seem to
understand
3.0
Students receive
accurate information and
seem to understand fullv
All students, including
those who have trouble
initially, can carry out

118
C2 Making content comprehensible to students
Scoring Rules
1.0 The content appears to be incomprehensible to the
students OR the lesson contains substantive
inaccuracies.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The content is accurate and appears to be
comprehensible to the students.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
lesson as a whole has a logical and coherent
structure.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Accuracy of
content
Comprehensibil¬
ity of content
Lesson structure
1.0
Inaccurate OR appears N/A
incomprehensible
2.0
Accurate
Appears
comprehensible
N/A
3.0
Accurate
Appears
comprehensible
Logical and
coherent

119
C3 Encouraging students to extend their thinking
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher discourages students from thinking
independently, creatively, or critically.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher encourages students to think
independently, creatively, or critically in the
context of the content being studied.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher uses activities or strategies that are
specifically designed to actively encourage
students to think independently, creatively, or
critically about the content being taught.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Encouragement of independent, creative, or
critical thinkinq
1.0
Discourages
2.0
Encourages within existing context of lesson
3.0
Encourages through activities or strategies
designed or chosen with this intent

120
C4 Monitoring students' understanding of content through a
variety of means, providing feedback to students to
assist learning, and adjusting learning activities as
the situation demands
Scoring Rui es
1.0 The teacher makes no attempt to determine whether
students are understanding and gives them no
feedback.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher monitors the students' understanding of
the content. The students receive feedback as
necessary.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher monitors individual students' or groups
of students' understanding of the content and makes
appropriate instructional adjustments if necessary.
If appropriate, students receive substantive and
specific feedback.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Monitoring
Providing
feedback
Adjusting
1.0
No attempt
Not provided
N/A
2.0
Monitors
understanding
Provides as
necessary
N/A
3.0
Monitors
individuals' or
groups'
understanding
Provides as
necessary;
substantive and
specific
Adjusts as
necessary

121
C5 Using instructional time effectively
Scoring Rules
1.0 Substantial amounts of instructional time are spent
on activities of little instructional value OR the
pacing of the lesson is inappropriate to the
content and/or the students.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The pacing of the lesson is appropriate for most of
the students. Noninstructional procedural matters
do not occupy an excessive amount of time.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher provides students with activities of
instructional value for the entire instructional
time and paces them appropriately. Any necessary
noninstructional procedures are performed
efficiently.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Use of instructional
time
Pacing
1.0
Substantial time on OR pacing
activities of little inappropriate
instructional value
2.0
Time on noninstructional
activities not excessive
Pacing appropriate for
most students
3.0
Entire instructional
time on activities of
instructional value;
noninstructional
procedures efficient
Pacing appropriate

122
D1 Reflecting on the extent to which the learning goals
were met
.Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher cannot accurately identify strengths
and weaknesses of the lesson in relation to the
learning goals.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher accurately describes the strengths and
weaknesses of the lesson in relation to the
learning goals and describes in general terms how
he or she could use the experience from this lesson
in future instruction.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher supports his or her judgments with specific
evidence from the observed lesson.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Identifying strengths
and weaknesses of lesson
Using this experience in
future
1.0
Cannot identify in N/A
relation to lesson goals
2.0
Describes accurately in
relation to lesson goals
Describes in general
terms how can use this
experience in future
instruction
3.0
Describes accurately in
relation to lesson goals
Describes how can use
this experience in
future instruction
Uses specific evidence to support judgments

123
D2 Demonstrating a sense of efficacy
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher makes no attempt to find ways to help
students who are not meeting the learning goals.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher attempts to find ways to help specific
students who are not meeting the learning goals,
but cannot suggest any specific, practical actions
that he or she has not already tried.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 The teacher suggests specific, practical actions
that he or she intends to take to help specific
students who are not meeting the learning goals.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Attempts to help students who are not meeting
learning qoals
1.0
No attempt
2.0
Attempts to help, but can't suggest specific,
practical actions beyond those already tried
3.0
Attempts to help and suggests specific, practical
actions that intends to try with specific students

124
D3 Building professional relationships with colleagues to
share teaching insights and to coordinate learning
activities for students
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher demonstrates no knowledge of resources
available through colleagues in the school or
district OR the teacher is aware of such resources,
but does not attempt to use them, despite an
obvious need.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher demonstrates knowledge of resources and
attempts to consult with colleagues when necessary
on matters related to learning and instruction.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher collaborates with colleagues outside of his
or her own classroom to coordinate learning
activities or to address other concerns related to
teaching.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Knowledge of resources
Professional
interactions related to
learning and instruction
1.0
No knowledge OR aware
but ignores them,
despite need
N/A
2.0
Demonstrates knowledge
Attempts to consult when
necessary
3.0
Demonstrates knowledge
Collaborates to
coordinate learning
activities or address
other teaching concerns

125
D4 Communicating with parents or guardians about student
learning
Scoring Rules
1.0 The teacher demonstrates no knowledge of forms of
communication that she or he can use to communicate
with parents or guardians OR the teacher makes no
attempt to communicate with parents or guardians,
even when it is clearly necessary to do so.
1.5 Above level 1.0, but below level 2.0
2.0 The teacher demonstrates knowledge of forms of
communication that she or he can use to communicate
with parents or guardians of students for various
purposes.
2.5 Above level 2.0, but below level 3.0
3.0 In addition to the requirements for level 2.0, the
teacher describes situations in which she or he has
communicated or would communicate with parents or
guardians regarding specific students and indicates
the forms of communication she or he has used or
would use.
3.5 Above level 3.0
Knowledge of forms of
communication with
parents or guardians
Attempts to communicate
(actual or hypothetical)
1.0
No knowledge OR no attempt, even
if clearly necessary
2.0
Demonstrates knowledge
Links forms to various
purposes
3.0
Demonstrates knowledge
With reference to
specific students,
describes situations
that call for
communication and
relevant forms of
communication

APPENDIX H
CLASS PROFILE
The following are questions to be completed by the
participant of the study.
1. Which of the following best describes the LEVEL of the
class being observed?
a. Pre-Kindergarten - Grade 2
b. Grades 3-5
c. Grades 6-8
d. Grades 9-12
e. More than one of the levels above
(please specify)
2. Which of the following best describes the content of
the class being observed?
a. Business
b. Computer science
c. English as a second language
d. Foreign language
e. Health/physical education
f. Home economics
g. Language arts/communications
h. Mathematics
i. Physical/biological/chemical sciences
j. Social sciences
k. Special education
l. Visual arts/music/theatre/dance
m. Vocational education
n. Other (please specify)
3. Which of the following best describes the areas from
which your students come? (Check ALL that apply.)
a.
Low income,
urban
b.
Middle or upper income.
urban
c.
Low income,
suburban
d.
Middle or upper income,
suburban
e.
Low income,
small town
(not suburban)
f.
Middle or upper income,
small town (not suburban)
126

127
g. Low income, rural
h. Middle or upper income, rural
4. What is the TOTAL NUMBER of students enrolled in the
class to be observed?
5a. What is the number of MALE students?
5b. What is the number of FEMALE students?
6. What is the AGE range for all of the students in the
class?
7. What is the estimated number of students identified in
each RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP?
a. African American or Black
b. Asian American/Asian (Ex.: Japanese, Chinese,
Korean)
c. Southeast Asian American/Southeast Asian (Ex.:
Cambodian, Hmong, Khmer, Laotian, Vietnamese)
d. Pacific Island American/Pacific Islander
e. Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano
f. Puerto Rican
g. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American
h. Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native
i. White
j . Other (please specify)
8. What is the estimated number of students in each of the
following LANGUAGE categories?
a. English language proficient
b. Limited English language proficient
9. Approximately what PERCENTAGE of your class can be
categorized as the following?
a. Above-average or advanced skill level
b. Average or intermediate skill level
c. Below-average skill level
10. Approximately how many students in this class have been
identified as having EXCEPTIONALITIES?
a. Blind or visually impaired
b. Deaf or hearing impaired
c. Developmentally disabled
d. Emotionally or behaviorally disabled
e. Gifted
f. Learning disabled
g. Physically disabled
h. Other (please specify)

128
11. Is there anything about the LEARNING ENVIRONMENT that
you think might affect your students or the scheduled
observation (e.g., this is not your own classroom; there
is a new display, pet, or equipment in the room; there
is construction going on in the building)? Is so,
please note.
12. What are the most important CLASSROOM ROUTINES,
PROCEDURES, RULES and EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT
BEHAVIOR that will be in operation during the observed
lesson (e.g., collecting papers, reviewing homework,
safety precautions)?
13. Are there any CIRCUMSTANCES that the assessor should
be aware of in order to understand what will occur
during the scheduled observation (e.g., use of
schoolwide discipline, schoolwide policies,
interruptions, behavior patterns of certain students)?
If so, please explain.
14. In the space below, please provide a simple SKETCH of
the arrangement of the instructional space for this
lesson (e.g., student desks, teacher desk, student work
space, arrangement of playing field or laboratory).
Please attach a SEATING CHART with the students'
names, if available, or a LIST of students for the class
to be observed.

APPENDIX I
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
The following are questions to be completed by the
participant of the study.
1. What are your GOALS for student learning for this class
period? In other words, what changes do you hope will
occur in the students as a result of this class period?
Include learning goals in any domain that is relevant to
the lesson (e.g., academic, social, affective,
cognitive, aesthetic, and/or psychomotor goals).
2. Where appropriate in PLANNING THIS LESSON, how have
you used or accommodated the diverse experiences,
related to the categories listed below, that your
students bring to class?
a. Gender
b. Race/ethnicity
c. English language proficiency
d. Economic status
e. Skill level
f. Exceptionalities
3. How does the CONTENT of this lesson build on what has
been learned PREVIOUSLY?
4. How does the CONTENT of this lesson relate to what
students will be learning in the FUTURE?
129

130
5. What teaching METHODS have you selected to help you
achieve your learning goals (e.g., teacher presentation,
peer teaching, programmed instruction, etc.)?
6. What learning ACTIVITIES have you planned for this
class (e.g., game to learn map skills, drawing the
action in a story, quiz, etc.)? Briefly outline the
sequence of activities and indicate approximately how
much time you plan to spend on each.
7. What instructional MATERIALS, if any, will you use to
help your students reach the specified learning goals?
If appropriate, please STAPLE to this form a copy of
any student MATERIALS you plan to use with this class
(e.g., map, vocabulary list, questions to be answered,
printed instructions, homework).
8. If you will be GROUPING students for this class period,
please provide the following information.
a. Group name or number, number of students, and basis
for group membership
b. Is this a TYPICAL grouping pattern for this class?
If not, please explain.
9. How will you know that the students have learned what
you intended them to learn? If appropriate, please
STAPLE to this form a copy of your EVALUATION PLAN or
INSTRUMENT (e.g., a list of oral questions, written
quiz, student demonstration of a skill, or any other
evaluation strategy you plan to use).

APPENDIX J
PREOBSERVATION INTERVIEW
Questions to be asked during the preobservation interview:
1. I've reviewed your CLASS and INSTRUCTION profiles.
Please take a few moments to look them over and tell me
if there have been any changes in these since you
completed them.
2. Why have you chosen these GOALS?
3. How do the connections between this lesson, past
learning, and future learning reflect the ORGANIZATION
of the SUBJECT or DISCIPLINE as a whole?
4a. What prior knowledge and SKILLS do students need in
order to be successful in reaching the goal(s) of the
lesson?
4b. How do you become FAMILIAR with the PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
and SKILLS your students bring to this and other
lessons?
5a. How do you become FAMILIAR with your students'
CULTURAL RESOURCES (e.g., experiences outside of
school, approaches to learning, styles of interacting
and relating)?
5b. How does this lesson accommodate and use your students'
CULTURAL RESOURCES?
131

132
5c. Why are the accommodations you have made IMPORTANT to
student learning?
6. Why have you chosen these TEACHING METHODS?
7. Why have you chosen these particular learning
ACTIVITIES?
8. Why have you chosen these INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS?
9a. Why have you chosen to EVALUATE student learning using
the strategies you've described?
9b. If student outcomes are not going to be evaluated today,
when will this occur?

APPENDIX K
POSTOBSERVATION INTERVIEW
Questions to be asked during the postobservation interview:
la. In light of your INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS, how do you
think the lesson went?
lb. Did the students learn what you wanted them to learn?
How do you know that the students learned or did not
learn what you wanted them to learn?
lc. Were the teaching METHODS effective? How do you know
they were or were not effective?
ld. Were the ACTIVITIES you used helpful? How do you know
they were or were not helpful?
le. Were the MATERIALS you used helpful? How do you know
they were or were not helpful?
2. Did you DEPART from anything you had planned to do
during this class period? If so, when and why?
3a. If you could teach this class period over again to the
same class: What would you do DIFFERENTLY? Why?
3b. If you could teach this class period over again to the
same class: What would you do the SAME? Why?
4. Based on what happened today, what do you plan to do
next with this class?
5a. How do you think (a child who appeared to be doing well)
performed today?
133

134
5b. How do you account for this performance?
5c. What might you try in the future with (the child)?
6a. How do you think (a child who appeared to be having
problems) performed today?
6b. How do you account for this performance?
6c. What might you try in the future with (the child)?
7. When you need ASSISTANCE with your teaching skills, or
when you have PROBLEMS with a particular student, whom
do you talk with?
8. Do you COORDINATE learning activities with other
teachers? If so, why and how?
9a. What forms of COMMUNICATION do you use with the
PARENTS OR GUARDIANS of the students in this class?
9b. How and under what conditions do you use them?
10. Is there ANYTHING ELSE you feel I should know about
today's lesson?
I have several questions about the lesson.
11.

REFERENCES
Adams, R. D. (1987) . Follow-up studies of teacher
education graduates. In M. Haberman & J. M. Backus (Eds.),
Advances in teacher education, (Vol. 3, pp. 181-201).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Andrews, T. E., & Barnes, S. (1990). Assessment of
teaching. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 569-598). New York: Macmillan.
Barber, L. W. (1990). Self-assessment. In J. Millman
& L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher
evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary teachers (pp.
216-228). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berliner, D. C. (1989). Implications of studies of
expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation.
In New directions for teacher assessment: Proceedings of the
1988 ETS Invitational Conference (pp. 39-68). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Bird, T. (1990). The schoolteacher's portfolio: An
essay on possibilities. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary teachers (pp. 241-256). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Blanton, L. P., Blanton, W. E., & Cross, L. S. (1994).
An exploratory study of how general and special education
teachers think and make instructional decisions about
students with special needs. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 62-74.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and
improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by
expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 26, 473-498.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992).
Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 37-60.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior
and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York:
Macmillan.
135

136
Burden, P. R. (1990). Teacher development. In W. R.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
311-328) . New York: Macmillan.
Camine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990).
Direct instruction reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., &
Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in
perceiving and processing visual classroom information.
Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 25-31.
Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L.
(1989) . Critical instructional factors for students with
mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special
Education, 10, 21-31.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers'
thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York:
Macmillan.
Corno, L, & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to
individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 605-
629). New York: Macmillan.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher evaluation in
transition: Emerging roles and evolving methods. In J.
Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of
teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary
teachers (pp. 17-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and
management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
Dwyer, C. A. (1989) . A new generation of tests for
licensing beginning teachers. In New directions for teacher
assessment: Proceedings of the 1988 ETS Invitational
Conference (pp. 13-28). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Dwyer, C. A. (1991). Measurement and research issues
in teacher assessment. Educational Psychologist, 26, 3-22.
Dwyer, C. A. (1993). Teaching and diversity: Meeting
the challenges for innovation teacher assessments. Journal
of Teacher Education, 93, 119-129.
Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base
for the Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments

137
assessment criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Dwyer, C. A., & Villegas, A. M. (1993). Guiding
conceptions and assessment principles for The Praxis Series:
Professional Assessment for Beginning Teachersâ„¢. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Engelmann, S., Camine, D. , & Steely, D. (1991).
Making connections in mathematics. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24, 292-303.
Evertson, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as
inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 90-109). New York:
Macmillan.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on
teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). New York:
Macmillan.
Fogarty, J. L., Wang, M. C., & Creek, R. (1983). A
descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers'
interactive instructional thoughts and actions. Journal of
Educational Research, 77, 22-32.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A
developmental conceptualization. American Educational
Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
Fuller, F. F., & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a
teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.) Teacher education (pp. 25-52).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Galuzzo, G. R., & Craig, J. R. (1990). Evaluation of
preservice teacher education programs. In W. R. Houston
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 599-
616). New York: Macmillan.
Gersten, R., Camine, D., Woodward, J. (1987). Direct
instruction research: The third decade. Remedial and
Special Education, 8, 48-56.
Glass, G. V. (1990). Using student test scores to
evaluate teachers. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary teachers (pp. 229-240) . Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Goldsberry, L. F. (1984). The realities of clinical
supervision. Educational Leadership, 41, 12-15.

138
Good, T. L. (1980). Classroom observations: Potential
and problems. In W. R. Duckett (Ed.), Observation and the
evaluation of teaching (pp. 2-45). Phi Delta Kappa
monograph.
Good, T. L., & Mulryan, C. (1990). Teacher ratings: A
call for teacher control and self-evaluation. In J. Millman
& L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher
evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary teachers (pp.
191-215) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goodlad, J. I. (1993). Access to knowledge. In J. I.
Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and
special education (pp. 1-22). New York: Macmillan.
Goodlad, J. I., & Lovitt, T. C. (1993). Integrating
general and special education. New York: Macmillan.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989).
Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.
Gregorc, A. F. (1973). Developing plans for
professional growth. NAASP Bulletin, 57, 1-8.
Grossman, P. L. (1990) . Why models matter: An
alternative view on professional growth in teaching. Review
of Educational Research, 62, 171-179.
Haertel, E. H. (1990). Performance tests, simulations,
and other methods. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary teachers (pp. 278-294) . Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ingwerson, L. (1994). A comparative view. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, Sc Winston.
Katz, L. G. (1972). Developmental stages of preschool
teachers. Elementary School Journal, 73, 50-54.
Madaus, G. , Sc Mehrens, W. A. (1990). Conventional
tests for licensure. In J. Millman Sc L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary teachers (pp. 257-276) . Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Maheady, L. (1991). Accommodating cultural,
linguistic, and academic diversity: Some peer-mediated
instructional options. Preventing School Failure, 36, 28-31.

139
McDonald, F. J. (March, 1982). A theory of the
professional development of teachers. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
Medley, D. M., Coker, H., & Soar, R. S. (1984).
Measurement-based evaluation of teacher performance. New
York: Longman.
Medley, D. M., & Mitzel, H. E. (1963). Measuring
classroom behavior by systematic observation. In N. L. Gage
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Mehrens, W. A. (1990) . Combining evaluation data from
multiple sources. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.),
The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary
and secondary teachers (pp. 322-336). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Millman, J. (1981). Introduction. In J. Millman
(Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 12-13). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Millman, J. (1981). Student achievement as a measure
of teacher competence. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of
teacher evaluation (pp. 146-166). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Natriello, G. (1990). Intended and unintended
consequences: Purposes and effects of teacher evaluation.
In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook
of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary
teachers (pp. 35-45) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peterson, K. (1984) . Methodological problems in
teacher education. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 17, 62-70.
Peterson, K. D. (1990) . Assistance and assessment for
beginning teachers. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary teachers (pp. 104-115). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978).
Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 15, 417-432.
Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of
research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the
Institute of Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership,
45, 74-85.

140
Powers, D. E. (1992). Assessing the classroom
performance of beginning teachers: Educators' appraisal of
proposed evaluation criteria (Research Report 92-56) .
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Pugach, M. C. (1992). Unifying the preservice
preparation of teachers. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback
(Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education:
Divergent perspectives (pp. 255-270). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1989). The challenge
of implementing collaboration between general and special
education. Exceptional Children, 17, 62-70.
Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning
teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational
Research, 62, 1-35.
Rosenfeld, M., Freeberg, N. E., & Bukatko, P. (1992).
The professional functions of secondary school teachers
(Research Report 92-47). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Rosenfeld, M., Reynolds, A., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The
professional functions of elementary school teachers
(Research Report 92-53). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Rosenfeld, M., Wilder, G., & Bukatko, P. (1992). The
professional functions of middle school teachers (Research
Report 92-46). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Schón, D. (1987). Educating the reflective
practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Validation
of learning strategy interventions for students with learning
disabilities: Results of a programmatic research effort. In
B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Intervention research with students with
learning disabilities (pp. 22-46) . New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Shavelson, R. J. (1988) . Statistical reasoning for the
behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs
in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.
C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:
Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
57, 4-21.

141
Shulman, L. S. (1988). A union of insufficiencies:
Strategies for teacher assessment in a period of educational
reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 36-41.
Shulman, L. S. (1989a). Blue freeways: Traveling the
alternate route with big-city teacher trainees. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40, 2-8.
Shulman, L. S. (1989b). The paradox of teacher
assessment. In New directions for teacher assessment:
Proceedings of the 1988 ETS Invitational Conference (pp. 13-
28). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Shulman, L. S., Haertel, E. H., & Bird, T. (1988).
Toward alternative assessments of teaching: A report of work
in progress. Stanford, CA: Teacher Assessment Project,
Stanford University.
Sindelar, P., Pugach, M., Griffin, C., & Seidl, B.
(1995). Reforming teacher education: Challenging the
philosophy and practices of educating regular and special
educators. In J. L. Paul, H. Rosselli, & D. Evans (Eds.),
Integrating school restructuring and special education reform
(pp. 140-166) . Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Special Education Report (1996). Geography plays
strong role in separate placements. Vol. 22, No. 1 (pp. 1-
5) .
Stodolsky, S. S. (1990). Classroom observation. In J.
Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of
teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary
teachers (pp. 175-190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swanson, H. L. (1989) . Strategy instruction: Overview
of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 12, 3-14.
Swanson, H. L., & Cooney, J. B. (1991). Memory and
learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning
about learning disabilities (pp. 104-122). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Timpane, P. M. (1989). Will improving teacher
assessment improve the education of children. In New
directions for teacher assessment: Proceedings of the 1988
ETS Invitational Conference (pp. 13-28). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Unruh, A., & Turner, H. E. (1970). Supervision for
change and innovation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

142
Villegas, A. M. (February, 1992). The competence
needed by beginning teachers in a multicultural society.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio,
TX.
Wesley, S., Rosenfeld, M., & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A.
(1993) . Assessing the classroom performance of beginning
teachers: Teachers' judgments of evaluation criteria.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., &
Bernstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of
effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand
Corporation.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students' thought processes.
In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed., pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.
Yarger, S. J., & Mertens, S. K. (1980). Testing the
waters of school-based education. In D. C. Corrigan & K. R.
Howey (Eds.), Concepts to guide the education of experienced
teachers. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Zigmond, N., Sansone, J., Miller, S. D., Donahue, K. A.,
& Kohnke, R. (1986). Teaching learning disabled students at
the secondary school level: What research says to teachers.
Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 108-115.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mary Robertson Eisele was born in Orlando, Florida, on
December 15, 1963. The oldest of two children, Mary
graduated from Gulf Breeze High School in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in 1981. Mary was one of the first graduates of the
PROTEACH program at the University of Florida. She received
a B.A. in special education with certifications in mental
retardation and learning disabilities in 1985. She received
a M.Ed. in special education with certifications in emotional
handicaps and reading from the University of Florida in 1986.
During the period from 1986 to 1992, Mary taught in
special education classes in Marion and Pinellas Counties in
Florida. Her teaching experience included teaching students
with mild intellectual, emotional/behavioral, and learning
disabilities. Most of her teaching experience was at the
elementary level.
While competing her doctoral studies at the University
of Florida, Mary served as a graduate teaching assistant and
as a graduate research assistant in the Department of Special
Education. She also served as an educational consultant to
general and special education teachers in several school
districts in the state of Florida.
143

144
During her doctoral program, Mary was also active in the
Special Education Association of Graduate Students, serving
as vice president. She is a member of the Learning
Disabilities Association of America and several divisions of
the Council for Exceptional Children.
In the future, Mary plans to continue her research in
the area of teacher education and the development of teacher
education programs. Her other areas of research interest
include beginning reading acquisition, university/school
collaboration, classroom management, and successful
integration of students with learning problems. She also
plans to teach at the university level and continue her work
with inservice teachers.

I certify that I have read this study and that, in my
opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
£>■ 7*)^^
Cecil D. Mercer, Cnair
Professor of Special Education
I certify that I have read this study and that, in my
opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor of Foundations of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that, in my
opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
T)/dWt' / >ú [croad.
Mary T. (¿rownell
Assistant Professor of Special Education
I certify that I have read this study and that, in my
opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
L
Karen L.
Assistant
V,o,
Kilgore
Scholar of Special Education

I certify that I have read this study and that, in my
opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
and Disorders
I certify that I have read this study and that, in my
opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Professof' of Special Education
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1996
Dean, Graduate School

LD
1780
199¿
E3é>
education
library
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA^
ii|i|imi 11050