Examining Pedagogical Belief Changes in Teacher Education … · 2005-10-08 · Examining pedagogical belief changes / 6 change, engaging in self-reflection and regulation appear

Examining pedagogical belief changes / 1

Examining Pedagogical Belief Changes in Teacher EducationKathryn DiPietro

Lehigh University

Andrew Walker

Lehigh University

AbstractThis study is an investigation of the effects of intentional conceptual reflection and

progressive ideology applied as an instructional methodology on pre-service teachers’

pedagogical beliefs over one semester. Pedagogical belief change was measured in two ways.

Students took the Teacher’s Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker & Anderson, 1998)

before and after the class. A paired samples t-test revealed statistically significant (p < .01)

changes in their pedagogical beliefs although the practical significance of these findings is less

compelling. The researchers also used an a priori context analysis to code personal educational

philosophies written by students before and after the class. A Chi-square test of the changes

revealed no statistically significant change in pedagogical beliefs (p = .71). The disparity

between these findings is discussed along with future areas for research.

IntroductionOver the last several decades there has been a shift in beliefs about the fundamental goals

of education itself. These shifts are in response to societal changes, in particular, advancements

in technology (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). Over the past 30+ years, the world has changed. In

the 1970s, an informed citizen was a person who had acquired “basic skills—such as reading,

writing, and arithmetic—and an agreed upon body of information considered essential for


everyone” (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). Students entered grade leveled classrooms where desks

were organized in rows with the teachers’ desk prominently at the front of the room. Curriculum

was similarly organized around subject areas with a focus on specifically enumerated skills that

were hierarchically arranged, sequenced, and transmitted to learners by an expert or teacher.

Educational goals were to prepare students who had basic skills in academic content areas.

Technology in classrooms echoed those goals. Film strips, overheard projectors, educational

television programs were used to provide students with information related to knowledge and

skill acquisition. Predictably, assessment was focused on evaluation of and documentation of

levels of mastery of those skills. Teachers’ roles were to deliver content to students and

measuring their mastery of that content. Computers had found their way into some classrooms

and were used to augment acquisition of knowledge and skills. Over the last three decades, as

technology has permeated society, the needs of society have changed.

The demands of the Information Age coupled with the potential of technology require

that educational goals be expanded (Williams & Williams, 1997). In response to the

complexities of society, educational goals must also include the ability of children to “recognize

and solve problems, comprehend new phenomena, construct mental models of those phenomena,

and given a new situation, set goals and regulate their own learning” (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson,

1999). This calls for pedagogical shifts from teaching as “transmitting a body of knowledge that

is largely memorized to one that is largely process oriented” (Conway, 1997). Students ask

questions; identify issues or problems; hypothesize; gather; organize; explore; interpret; analyze;

evaluate; draw conclusions or generalizations; make decisions; perform tasks; resolve conflicts;

collaborate; evaluate; and communicate. Instructional strategies must also be re-defined to enable

children to attain academic standards as well as engage in more complex learning processes


(constructivist) such as those described above. Various educational organizations have responded

to these expanded educational goals by reorganizing standards and curriculum that stress

learning processes, inquiry, exploration, deep conceptual understandings, active construction of

knowledge, collaboration, metacogntion, self-evaluation, knowledge integration, and context

(National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996; United

States National Research Council, 1995). Similarly, teaching standards have changed (Council

of Chief State School Officers, 2004; Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2001). These

reforms require a very different set of teaching skills—skills that are progressive in their

orientation. Teachers set the stage for learning; challenge; re-direct; facilitate; probe; question;

create doubt or disequilibrium; model; provide resources; evaluate explanations; and assess

understandings and processes.

Despite this call for shifts in educational belief practices, there is evidence that suggests

pre-service teacher beliefs align with a transmissive model (Anderson, 1994; Florio-Ruane &

Lensmire, 1990; Kagan, 1992; Morine-Deshimer, 1993; North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory, 1994; Weber & Mitchell, 1996). An important question is whether or not their

beliefs can be change during the course of their teacher preparation programs. As an

intermediary step, this research focuses on changes during a single course.

Literature ReviewPersonal beliefs and attitudes influence actions and identity (Kagan, 1992; Morine-

Dershimer & Kent, 1999; Pajares, 1992). Witcher et al (2001) citing Doll (1996) identify two

major beliefs systems in current American public schools—transmissive and progressive.

Transmissive and progressive beliefs define opposite ends of a one-dimensional scale of

pedagogical beliefs. Pre-service teachers tend to have beliefs about knowledge, learning, and


teaching (pedagogical beliefs) that align with a transmissive model and view themselves as

information givers (Anderson, 1994; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Kagan, 1992; Morine-

Deshimer, 1993; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994; Weber & Mitchell,

1996)). Other studies such as those done by Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, (2000) and Witcher et al

(2001) find that student enter teacher preparation programs with eclectic pedagogical beliefs.

Although there is some disagreement in this literature, none of the studies show students entering

with the kind of progressive beliefs that align well with best practices as described above

(National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996; United

States National Research Council, 1995). These beliefs are particularly unyielding in part

because of a student’s history of experiences in education. These “early experiences strongly

influence final judgments, which become theories (beliefs) highly resistant to change” (Pajares,

1992, p. 325). The influence of educational experiences on pedagogical beliefs and practices is

well documented in the literature. Teachers tend to adopt instructional strategies that emulate

those they have experienced as learners even when the strategies are not pedagogically sound

(North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994). Personal beliefs and practices are also

garnered at the higher education level. Pedagogical beliefs in higher education are traditionally

teacher-centered and lecture-based; however, these practices “…have less to do with the proven

effectiveness of the particular practice than the desire to appear legitimate or conform to

normative expectations” (Jaffe, 2003, p 229). Thus, pre-service teachers may be further

acculturated to transmissive models in their content areas or general education courses before

beginning their teacher preparation classes.

While some studies indicate pedagogical beliefs are stable and resistant to change

(Kagan, 1992; Kennedy, 2000; Murphy, 2000) other studies present a more optimistic view


(Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999; Pajares, 1992). Challenging pre-service teachers prior

pedagogical beliefs by allowing them to explore alternative ideas and approaches individually

and as a learning community in education courses is one strategy that may facilitate pedagogical

belief change (Bullough, 1991; Resnick, 1987). Opportunities for pre-service teachers to observe

and practice alternate instructional methods in schools and classrooms that encourage self-

evaluation and reflection on practices as well as modeling, mentoring, and coaching play a

significant role in pre-service teacher belief change (Albion & Ertmer, 2002)

Critical to conceptual change is reflection (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992; Kilpatrick, 1985).

Reflection--that is intentionally, actively, and deliberately examining one’s experiences and

beliefs--contributes to conceptual change. Sinatra and Pintrich (2003) emphasize the role of the

learner’s intention in knowledge change. The idea of intentional conceptual change places the

impetus for making these shifts within the learner’s control and it is goal-directed (Sinatra &

Pintrich, 2003). Thus learners construct understandings in a mindful way, with intention to

examine, monitor and regulate their learning. This view, however, assumes that learners are

motivated and spontaneously revise their conceptual knowledge. Hatano & Inagaki (2003)

believe that expecting learners to engage in spontaneous self initiated examination of their

concept knowledge is unrealistic and, further, they explore the notion of conceptual change as

induced “through comprehension activity led by a teacher and supported by peers” (p. 408).

Under this assumption, intentional conceptual change is both highly personal and social.

In education, where pedagogical practices are regulated by beliefs that are formulated by

lived experiences over the course teachers’ cumulative school lives (Britzman, 1991), examining

pedagogical beliefs and assumptions, reflecting on prior personal experiences, setting goals for


change, engaging in self-reflection and regulation appear to be strategies that may facilitate

belief change and the development of new meanings (Boud, Keogh, and Walker, 1985).

Additionally there is evidence that teacher education programs that embrace and operate

within a more progressive orientation where pre-service teachers examine their own beliefs and

then build upon those, are able to report significant development including belief change

(Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon, 1998). Further, increasing opportunities throughout their

educational experiences for pre-service teachers to be embedded in activities that model

progressive pedagogy (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994) is a recommended

strategy for pedagogical belief change.

Research Question

Does situating pre-service teachers in a course that employs and models progressive

methodology, supports self-examination of and reflection on beliefs, and provides opportunities

to explore alternative ideas facilitate detectable change towards progressive pedagogical beliefs?

Research MethodsDesign

This study used a mixed methods approach and a quasi-experimental one group pretest-

posttest (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) research design. Pre- and post-pedagogical surveys were

analyzed using a paired samples t-test. Content analysis using an a priori coding scheme

(Stelmer, 2001) was used to examine student written personal educational philosophies pre- and

post-course.

Sample

Participants in this study were 25 students who had been accepted into graduate programs

in instructional design or teacher education and who were enrolled in a mandatory three-credit


course. The focus of the course was on learning theory; instructional philosophy;

practice/application of learning theory; technology operations and concepts; integration and

evaluation of technology-based learning products; literature research; and learner centered

approaches that focus on awareness of and the ability to use technology as a learning tool.

Students in the course had varied major areas of concentrations, including elementary education,

mathematics, science, social studies, language arts, and foreign languages, in addition to

instructional design. Of 35 students enrolled in the course 25 agreed to be part of the study. Of

these 25, complete data were available for 22 on the survey and 21 on the personal educational

philosophy papers.

ProceduresSurvey

On the first and last day of class, participants were asked to complete the Teacher’s

Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker & Anderson, 1998). Part J of the survey is aimed

at identifying pedagogical beliefs.

Personal educational philosophies and intentional reflection on pedagogical beliefs

The first day of class, participants were asked to reflect upon their personal teaching and

learning philosophies and to explicitly described their concept of the nature of knowing,

learning, teaching, the role of a teacher, the role of a student, curriculum, the ideal learning

environment, and how one can tell if learning has happened. These ideas comprised their

personal educational philosophies. Once developed, they shared their initial philosophies with

each other and then were asked to make revisions to their philosophies if listening to their peers

had sparked some ideas and they felt their philosophy needed revision. Ongoing throughout the

course, students were asked to keep reflective journals in which they identified assumptions that

they’d held about teaching and learning that they might be questioning or that they would like to


further explore. This allowed students to set personal goals for exploring concepts related to

pedagogical beliefs. This explicit examination of pedagogical beliefs was ongoing throughout the

course as students were asked to revised their pedagogical beliefs as needed, examine and

evaluate their learning processes, reflected on the outcomes of their learning, and identified

pedagogical beliefs that may warrant either change or further investigation, set goals for

themselves, and examine the outcomes of those goals. The students worked through this process

as various learning theories and instructional models were introduced and explored. Time was

built into each weekly meeting for students to discuss, collaborate, share and socially negotiate

the viability of their personal pedagogical beliefs. At the end of the course, participants were

asked to revisit and revise their personal teaching and learning philosophy.

Progressive Classroom Activities. Drawing on progressive ideology, all activities in the class

were designed to situate participants in learning experiences that would model progressive

methods. All learning activities were developed with five attributes of “meaningful learning” in

mind as defined (Jonassen et al., 1999):

• Active (Manipulation/Observant): Participants “actively [manipulate] the objects and

tools of the trade and [observe] the effects of what they have done” (Jonassen et al.,

1999).

• Constructive (Articulative/Reflective): Participants construct meaning by reflecting on

the process and articulating their experiences and conceptual understandings.

• Intentional (Reflective/Regulatory): Participants engage in intentional learning while

trying to achieve a cognitive goal, reflecting, evaluating, and articulating the process and

the “decisions they make, strategies they use, and the answers they found” (Jonassen et

al., 1999).


• Authentic (Complex/Contextual): Participants engage in learning activities that are

complex and contextual.

• Cooperative (Collaborative/Conversational): Participants engage in collaborative

activities during which they dialog about a task, the methods they will use to accomplish

the task, as well as seeking out alternative ideas and opinions.

An example of a learning activity that met this criteria was asking the participants to explore

and understand web-based inquiry by creating a web-based inquiry or WebQuest (Dodge, 1995),

and engaging them in the learning of the concept by having them complete an instructor created

WebQuest about WebQuests [url available upon request—removed for anonymity]. By actively

engaging in a WebQuest which explored the critical components of web-based inquiry,

participants were able to form and revise their constructs of web-based inquiry collaboratively

and further articulate their learning by creating their own WebQuest. This framework allowed for

active exploration of concepts and the acquisition of instruction and technology skills within the

context of using and applying them so that students both explored learning strategies and the use

of technology to support learning and did so while self-regulating and working cooperatively in

groups.

Materials

Items were used from the Teacher’s Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker &

Anderson, 1998). The instrument uses self-reporting to derive epistemological beliefs and

characterizes them on a scale that goes from transmissive-oriented to progressive-oriented

instruction. The idea behind the survey is that asking teachers about their beliefs with respect to

teaching and learning will reveal their underlying philosophy. Validity for the survey was


measured by comparing survey results with coded observation data, respondent interviews, and

artifacts like quizzes and assignments. Historically, the reliability of this scale has been strong,

with an alpha of 0.83 (Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000). It should be noted that reliability and

validity of these items was assessed using in-service teachers, which does not match up with the

population of pre-service teachers.

ResultsPre- and Post-Pedagogical Survey

As noted above, 3 of the 25 students failed to respond to a total of four questions. The

decision was made to not use mean replacement but instead drop these three participants from

the analysis. Given that these items were used with a new population (pre-service as opposed to

in-service teachers), a reliability analysis was run on the items using Cronbach’s alpha. The

resulting alpha of 0.45 is rather disappointing, suggesting that, at least for these particular pre-

service teachers, the items are not very consistent in their measurement of pedagogical beliefs.

Despite this low reliability, the decision was made to use the items as they were originally

designed. Responses from 19 variables were aggregated into a single variable measuring

teaching philosophy. Possible scores ranged from 19 (transmissive) to 102 (progressive). Note

that a score of 60 or 61 would place a respondent around the halfway point on the scale. Table 1

shows the means and standard deviations for the pre-survey and post-survey.

[Insert Table 1 here]

To examine differences between the pre and post survey, a paired samples T test was run

with an alpha level of .05. The expectation was that students would be more progressive in their

philosophy after the course of a semester, justifying the use of a one-tailed test. The results, t

(22) = 3.68, p < 0.01 show that students were more progressive in their philosophies after the


semester at a statistically significant level. The effect size for this difference is also large (d =

.82), as computed using the control group or pre-survey standard deviation. In terms of practical

significance, the story is less dramatic. The mean difference between the groups is 4.1, which

means only four increments towards the progressive end of the scale. Given that there are a total

of 83 increments in the scale, this is a small change. The importance of these differences will be

elaborated on in the discussion.

Pre- and Post-Educational Philosophies

A initial framework for conducting a content analysis on participants’ educational

philosophies was developed a priori (Weber, 1990) using an amalgamation of existing work

(Baylor, Kitsantas, & Hu, 2003; Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Grabe & Grabe, 2001; Jonassen et al.,

1999; Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000; Witcher et al., 2001). Statements within the philosophy

were coded as either transmissive or progressive. The ratio of progressive statements to total

statements was used to automatically generate a summary code with the following thresholds:

transmissive is less than or equal to .4; eclectic is less than or equal to .6; progressive is greater

than .6. This follows the proportion established by Witcher et al.( 2001).

Using the initial framework the authors independently coded nine of the pre- educational

philosophies (Table 2, Coding 1) and then compared their coding to check reliability using

Cohen’s Kappa (Stemler, 2001). Revisions to the initial framework were made based on the

analysis of the participants’ texts and a revised framework was created. At that time the rules for

coding were developed and instances were identified in the text and used to exemplify the rules

(Appendix B) (Mayring, 2000; Silverman, 2000).

Using the revised framework and rules, the authors added the remaining twelve pre-

philosophies to the first nine and then independently recoded all twenty-one and checked

reliability (Table 2, Coding 2). Slight modifications were made to the framework (Appendix A)


and rules six and seven were added (Appendix B). The authors coded the all twenty-one post-

philosophies (Table 2, Coding 3) and again checked reliability with a resulting Kappa of .63,

referred to as substantial by Stemler (2001) .


Once all the pre- and post-philosophies were coded, the frequency of progressive and

transmissive statements were added across both raters and used to generate a summary ratio

using the same thresholds described above. The resulting pre- and post frequencies are reported

in Table 5. These pre- and post- philosophy differences were analyzed using a Chi-square _2(4, N

= 21) = .69, p = .71. These results indicate no statistically significant change in pedagogical

beliefs.


DiscussionAs noted in the review of literature, students in the study have been developing their

philosophy about teaching over the course of much of their own educational career and

throughout their lives. Initial data from the survey seems to indicate that restructuring a class so

that participants are embedded in a progressive learning environment that fosters intentional

reflection in beliefs, can effect pedagogical beliefs. However, there are some limitations to the

survey. As noted above, the inter-item reliability of the measure is quite poor for this particular

sample. This presents a large area of concern because the changes that were found between the

pre- and post-surveys may in fact be an artifact of the measure as opposed to real changes in

pedagogical beliefs. Given the low reliability, an exploratory factor analysis was attempted in


order to extract components. Unfortunately, the factor loadings failed to meet the minimum

criteria of four or more loadings at the .6 level (Stevens, 2002). This should come as no great

surprise given that the measure had three constructs at best (transmissive, eclectic and

progressive) all of which are points along a single continuum. In order for the effectiveness of

the survey to be assessed with pre-service teachers, it should be administered to a larger sample

(preferably n=300) and analyzed with an exploratory factor analysis. Further, assuming the

statistically significant changes were reflective of actual shifts in pedagogical beliefs, it remains

that eclectic students were still eclectic at the end of the course.

In contrast to the survey, the pre- and post-philosophies did not show statistically

significant changes via chi-square analysis. However, it is important to note that several of the

cells fell below the accepted frequency benchmark of five. In addition, there were no occurrences

of transmissive oriented students in the post-philosophies, violating a second assumption of chi-

square. Despite the lack of statistical significance it is important to note that while there were

two cases of students moving from progressive to eclectic, there were three cases of students

moving from eclectic to progressive and two cases where students shifted their beliefs from

transmissive to progressive—a radical shift if contextualized within the framework of one course

over one semester.

The research design presents several threats to validity. Campbell & Stanley (1963) cite

history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, and regression as possible threats to internal

validity with a one-group pretest-posttest design. Given that the scores on the survey moved

away from the mean over time, regression to the mean is not a threat. In terms of the

pedagogical beliefs papers, the overwhelming majority of students were progressive, so effects

attributed to regression to the mean would actually favor the null hypothesis. It is also unlikely


that maturation played a role given that the participants are adults, and no significant historical

evens occurred over the course of the semester. Testing may have played a role for the survey

given that the same instrument was administered as a pre and post survey but the time between

was quite large. It is possible, but unlikely that any event altered participant perception during

the course of the study, making historical threats to validity unlikely. Perhaps the most likely

threat is related to instrumentation. While the instrument may not have changed, exposure to the

class may have changed participant’s understanding of the questions. That is, the observed

differences may not be due to a change in participant beliefs, but a change in their ability to

articulate, or respond to questions about their beliefs.

Our two sources of data, the survey and coded philosophies contrasted not only in terms

finding significant differences, but in terms of how the aligned to the constructs overall.

Specifically, the survey identified students as generally eclectic which aligns with Witcher et al.

(2001) whereas the coded philosophies identified the majority of students as progressive. In part,

these differences may be due to the nature of the skill. Although the survey asks students to

articulate their beliefs it is done with a controlled vocabulary, and provides set examples and

prompts that may not reflect personal pedagogical beliefs. In contrast, the educational

philosophies allowed for more freedom of expression. Based on the educational philosophies, it

is clear that students responded to the treatment differently. Future work that focuses on the

process of how students examine, reflect, and potentially change their pedagogical beliefs may

elaborate on these differences between students and between measures.

The real question seems to be how one’s pedagogical beliefs ultimately transfer into their

teaching practice. While there is evidence to support the correlation between beliefs and

instructional practices (Harste & Burke, 1977) of practicing teachers, the participants in this


study were not actually engaged in teaching but were pre-service teachers. One’s beliefs are

formulated by one’s experiences. The lack of experience with progressive pedagogy as a learner

(Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Jaffee, 2003; Pajares, 1992, Weber & Mitchell, 1996) and

even more critically as a teacher (all participants were pre-service teachers), limits fully

developed pedagogical beliefs.

In thinking about the development of values and beliefs, the ultimate goal in teacher

education is to align best teaching practices and pedagogical beliefs so that there is transfer into

the classroom. The participants in this study, however, were asked to describe, develop, discuss,

examine, and explore their own pedagogical beliefs as they developed their learning philosophies

as well as respond to a variety of pedagogical beliefs and instructional models on a survey

however, they were not asked to move beyond the level of responding or valuing, relatively low

level categories if one thinks about the affective domain. Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia (1964)

theorized the development of values and beliefs is along a continuum and developed a taxonomy

ordered according to the principle of internalization. According to this theory, beliefs are not

fully internalized until those values and beliefs are evident in actions. In the context of this study

that would mean a match between espoused pedagogical beliefs and teaching practices.

Participants in this study were asked to respond to questions aimed at identifying their

pedagogical beliefs. Essentially they were asked to do little more than respond and in some cases

place a value on pedagogical ideology and methods. Research suggests that despite the efforts of

teacher education institutions, the latent effects of acculturation into transmissive paradigms as

students persist and are evident in teaching practices (Lacey, 1977; Tabachnick & Zeichner,

1984). Although it is encouraging that the intervention was able to affect some pedagogical

belief changes, however modest, the important work that remains is determining how well these


belief changes translate into progressive teaching practices. In the framework of Krathwohl et al.

(1964), it remains to be seen if teacher education students exhibit their changed beliefs beyond

the level of responding to vignettes on a survey or articulating beliefs that are removed from

practice. In short, further study is needed on whether or not students transitioning to professional

life will explain, advocate for, and exemplify their beliefs within a school culture. Thus, a

longitudinal approach that both examines pedagogical beliefs and practice as well as

sustainability of constructivist beliefs and practices in K-12 classrooms is the next logical step in

this line of research.


ReferencesAlbion, P. R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the Foundations: The Role of Vision and Belief in

Teachers' Preparation for Integration of Technology. TechTrends, 46(5), 34-38.

Anderson, L. M. (1994). Reforming our courses and rethinking our roles. Paper presented at the

annaul meeting of Midwestern Association for the Teaching of Educational Psychology,

Chicago, IL.

Baylor, A. L., Kitsantas, A., & Hu, H. (2003). Two Tools To Facilitate Pre-Service Teachers'

Self-Regulation during Instructional Planning. TechTrends, 47(2), 45-49.

Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use and Teacher-

Directed Student Use (Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey No.

#1). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.

Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Teacher's Survey: Combined Versions 1-4. California:

Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of

California, Irvine.

Boud, D, Keogh, R, Walker, D (Eds) !987). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.

London, UK: Kogan Page.

Britzman, Deborah (1991). Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. C. A. N. I. (1999). In search of understanding the case for

constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1991). Exploring Personal Teaching Metaphors in Preservice Teacher

Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43-51.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for

research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Conway, J. (1997). Educational Technology's Effect on Models of Instruction. Retrieved

February 11, 2004, from http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from


http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Conso

rtium/

Cuban, L. (1997). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 14(2), 6-7.

Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A Technique for Internet-Based Learning. Distance Educator,

1(2), 10-13.

Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., Haymore, S., & Apple Computer Inc. (1990). Teacher beliefs and

practices part I: Patterns of change. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from

http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51/9a965ab9e83ffb/www.apple.com/education/k12/lea

dership/acot/pdf/rpt08.pdf

Fisher, M. M. (1997). The Voice of Experience: Inservice Teacher Technology Competency

Recommendations for Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal of Technology

and Teacher Education, 5(2-3), 139-147.

Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming Future Teachers' Ideas about Writing

Instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(3), 277-289.

Glaser, Barney G. (2003, October). Naturalist Inquiry and Grounded Theory [68 paragraphs].

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line

Journal], 5(1), Art. 7. Retrieved May 20, 2004 http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-

texte/1-04/1-04glaser-e.htm

Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2001). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (3rd ed.).

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hannafin, R. D., & Savenye, W. C. (1993). Technology in the Classroom: The Teacher's New

Role and Resistance to It. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26-31.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism : research reports and essays, 1985-1990.

Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both

teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading

theory research and practice, Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference

(pp. 32-40). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.


Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (2003). When is conceptual change intended?: A cognitive-

sociocultural view. In G.M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual

change (pp.407-427). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A.

Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-100).

New York: MacMillan.

Honey, M., Moeller, B., & Education, C. f. T. i. (1990). Teachers' Beliefs and Technology

Integration: Different Values, Different Understandings. (Technical Report No. 6). U.S.;

New York.

Jaffee, D. (2003). Virtual Transformation: Web-Based Technology and Pedagogical Change.

Teaching Sociology, 31(2), 227-236.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J, Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003) Learning to Solve Problems with

Technology: A constructivist perspective, 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, Inc.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of Research on Teacher Belief. Educational psychologist, 27,

65-90.

Kennedy, M. (2000). Learning to Teach in a Different Culture. Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice 6, no, 1, 75-100.

Kilpatrick, J. (1985). Reflection and recursion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 1-26.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the

classification of educational goals. New York McKay: McKay.

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Practicing vs Future Teachers: Comparisons and Correlates of

Computer Use. U.S.; South Dakota.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved

December 29, 2005 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-

00mayring-e.htm

McKenzie, J. (2001). Head of the class: How teachers learn technology best. American School

Board Journal, 188(1), 20-23.


Milken Family Foundation. (n.d.). Information Technology Underused in Teacher Education.

Retrieved February 11, 2004, from

http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=131

Morse, J. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook

of qualitative research (pp. 220- 235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in pre-service teachers. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 9, 15-26.

Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). Source of Teachers' Pedagogical Knowledge. In J.

Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge

(pp. 21-50). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Murphy, E. (2000). Strangers in a strange land: Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning

French as a second of foreign language in online learning environments. Unpublished

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universite' Laval, Montreal.

National Council of Teachers of English, & International Reading Association. (1996).

Standards for the English Language Arts: National Council of Teachers of English.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1994). Building Collaborative Education

Systems: New Roles for State Education and Higher Education Agencies. Retrieved

February 11, 2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/pbriefs/94/94-1ovr2.htm

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy

Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2001). General Standards and Specific Program

Guidelines for State Approval of Professional Educator Programs. Retrieved February

11, 2004, from http://www.teaching.state.pa.us/teaching/lib/teaching/354guide.pdf

President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997). Report to the President

on the Use of Technology To Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States. Corp

Author(s): President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Washington,

DC. Panel on Educational Technology. U.S.; District of Columbia.

Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-Compatible Beliefs and Practices

among U.S. Teachers (Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey No.

#4). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.


Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy

Press.

Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin &

Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769- 802). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage

Scheffler, F. L., & Logan, J. P. (1999). Computer Technology in Schools: What Teachers Should

Know and Be Able to Do. Journal of research on computing in education, 31(3), 305-

325.

Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing Talk and Text. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of

qualitative research (pp. 769- 802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional Conceptual Change.

Mahwah, NJ : L. Erlbaum.

Stemler, Steve (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research& Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved January 27, 2005 fromhttp://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17 .

Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The Impact of the Student Teaching Experience

on the Development of Teacher Perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-

36.

Todd, N. (1993). A Curriculum Model for Integrating Technology in Teacher Education

Courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(3), 5-11.

United States National Research Council. (1995). National Science Education Standards.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA.

Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (1996). Drawing Ourselves into Teaching: Studying the Images That

Shape and Distort Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(3), 303-313.

Wetzel, K. (1993). Models for Achieving Computer Competencies in Preservice Education.

Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(4), 4-6.


Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. et Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on

learning to teach : Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of

Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Williams, A., & Williams, P. J. (1997). Problem-based learning: An appropriate method for

technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(1), 91-104.

Witcher, A. E., Sewall, A. M., Arnold, L. D., & Travers, P. D. (2001). Teaching, Leading,

Learning: It's All about Philosophy. Clearing House, 74(5), 277-279.

Witcher, A. E., & Travers, P. (1999). The Witcher-Travers Survey of Educational Beliefs.

Retrieved January 12, 2005 from http://www.abacon.com/witcher-travers/


Appendix A

Final Famework for Content Analysis of Participants’ Philosophies

Category Transmissive ProgressiveWhat islearning?

• Reading, listening, and receivingexplanations directly.

• Content or facts learned.• Intellectual, development of the mind,

learning cultural heritage and totransmit permanent values.

• Actively working and applying ideas in a socialcontext.

• Develop the whole child, emphasize socialproblems & themes, and values that emergefrom social experience.

What facilitateslearning?

• Clear and concise presentation ofmaterial.

• Mistakes and confusion facilitate learning.• Engagement.

What is the roleof the Teacher?

• Planning a set of activities aroundparticular content.

• Present new information.• Identify questions.• Decide how to explore an issue or

solve a problem.• Teacher is the one who knows,

transmits knowledge to the studentwho does not yet know.

• Establishes the rules andconsequences.

• Facilitate student-designed efforts.• Elicit student opinions.• Guide, facilitator, and motivator.

What is the roleof the Student?

• Passive and reactive. Learnsinformation by absorbing from teacheror other source.

• Answer questions in textbook.• All students begin at the same point.• Receive information from the teacher.• Passive learner.

• Actively constructs knowledge by exploring,manipulating, comparing, reflecting,articulating.

• Self-evaluation.• Student initiation (active learners)• Students have different questions they seek to

answer.• Greater authority to decide content of learning.• Decide how to explore an issue or solve a

problem.• Articulate their own ideas in concrete context.• Self-directed, personally responsive.• Interact with Peers.• Make conjectures, explicitly work on issues

related to their own experiences and arguevarious points of view.

What should weteach and whoshould determineit?

• Fragmented, simplified, disciplinestaught in isolation, focus on breadth,emphasis on literacy and skills.Information delivery. Factual/literalthinking

• Teacher determined.• Academic offerings, liberal arts,

sequence and prescribe with emphasison reading, writing and arithmetic.

• Skills based for use at a later date.

• Relevant, authentic, complex, multidisciplinary,knowledge integration, focus on depth,emphasis on depth and application, inquiry-based. Information exchange. Process driven.

• Student interest, prior experience and currentunderstanding.

• Content and activities vary within a classroomand from student to student.

• Focus on thinking evaluating, decision-makingand planning and problem-solving.

• Academic, vocational and practical offerings.Based on needs, experiences and interest.

• Things of immediate value.


What is the ideallearningenvironment?

• Teacher centered, students workindependently. Information delivery.

• Does not involve social constructionideas.

• Quiet classroom with few distractions.

• Collaborative and conversational. Teacher asfacilitator. Student centered and driven.Information exchange.

• Systematically created social structures forlearning (debates, cooperative group projects).

• Interdependency with other students.How can we tellwhen learninghas happened?

• External to learner. Measurement offactual knowledge and discreet skillsgenerally at the end of the learningsequence.

• Based on group norms.

• Reflective and self-regulatory. On-going.Performance and application driven.

• Project based assessment.• Individualized criteria.


Appendix B

Rules for Using the Framework for Content Analysis of Participants’ Philosophies

# Rule Example1. Some statements may contain separate portions that align

to both transmissive and constructivist, code it as one ofeach. These should be coded as both T and P.

What facilitates learning? “Requirement for school, work or life functions.”Learning because it’s a requirement for school istransmissive and learning because it is a requirementfor work or life functions is progressive.

2. Some statements may fall into both categories with allelements able to align to both transmissive andprogressive perspectives. These should not be coded at all

What facilitates learning? “Other people’s stated or implied perceptions of one’sability to learn.” The central idea here is externalopinion. This aligns with transmissive because it givescredence to an external locus of control. This alignswith progressive because it deals with social cognitivefactors of learning.

3. Single code a set of ideas if they are talked about as awhole unit in the rubric below.

What should we teach and who should determine it?“Certain universal curriculums should be taught to allstudents including reading, writing, math . . .” Thisaligns with the “3 Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic)and should be coded as a single T).

4. If a statement is not clearly present in the rubric, don’tforce a code.

What should we teach and who should determine it? “A secondary curriculum can include religion,technology skills, physical training, social interaction,vocational skills and philosophical ideologies.” Socialinteraction and vocational skills align with P andshould be coded as such (2 P). Religion, technologyskills, physical training, and philosophical ideologiesdo not explicitly align with either and should not becoded.

5. Look for moderators to an idea. Has learning occurred? “Learned functional skills are easier to validate. Anindividual can be tested on his or her ability to executeor operate that which was taught.” At first glance thislooks like performance outcomes, but the word test isused and it is a measure of what is taught which areboth very transmissive, so this should be coded as asingle T.

6. If an idea or concept is attributed to another person andthen state the participants states his/her own opinion, onlycode his/her own opinion.

What is learning?“General definition: ‘A change in performance orpotential as a result of interaction with the world’(Driscoll 11)

My general definition: The acquisition of newknowledge and skills.”

7. If students are a factor in deciding curriculum, then codeit as P even if it more transmissive sources for curriculumare included as well (such as teachers, curriculumcoordinators, etc . . . ) because the students are asked fortheir insight.

What should we teach and who should determine it?“Several groups of people should have a say in what istaught: Community, students, parents, teachers, andgovernment groups.”


Tables and Figures

Table 1 Results from pre- and post-survey

Treatment n M SDpre-survey 22 64.9 5.1post survey 22 69.1 6.5

Table 2 Results of Cohen’s Kappa

Coding KappaCoding 1 (n = 9) = .50, p = .13Coding 2 (n = 21) = .57, p =.001Coding 3 (N = 42) = .63, p = .001

Table 3 Cross Tabulation of Pre- and Post- Philosophies Aggregate Scores

Aggregate PostT E P Total

T 0 0 2 2E 0 0 3 3P 0 2 14 16

Aggregate Pre

Total 0 2 19 42

Documents

Examining Pedagogical Belief Changes in Teacher Education … · 2005-10-08 · Examining pedagogical belief changes / 6 change, engaging in self-reflection and regulation appear