Pedagogical Knowledge Beliefs 1 Running head - CiteSeer

Pedagogical Knowledge Beliefs 1

Running head: PEDAGOGOCAL KNOWLEDGE BELIEFS

What Teachers Believe: Exploring Beliefs about Pedagogical Knowledge

Helenrose Fives

Texas Tech University

Michelle M. Buehl

University of Memphis

Draft

Paper presented in a session at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association

2004 Honolulu, HI.

Please direct all correspondence regarding this paper to: Helenrose Fives at Texas Tech

University College of Education, Box 41071 Lubbock, TX 79409-1071 or

[email protected].


What Teachers Believe: Exploring Beliefs about Pedagogical Knowledge

Schools are places of knowledge where the less knowledgeable individuals in society

come, or are sent, to become more knowledgeable. While there is great debate with regard to the

content of said knowledge (e.g., academic content, social skills, or societal norms and values) as

well as how the less knowledgeable become knowledgeable (e.g., through the transmission,

construction, or discovery of knowledge), this process typically involves others, often individuals

who are in some way more knowledgeable. We typically refer to those less knowledgeable

individuals as students and the more knowledgeable individuals as teachers.

The cognitive revolution in the educational and psychological literatures in the 1960s and

1970s ushered in a new era of research, which focused on exploring the nature and development

of knowledge in great depth (e.g., Alexander, 1997; Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz,

1977). As part of this exploration, researchers have considered the role of students’ and teachers’

beliefs in relation to learning and teaching (e.g., self-efficacy in relation to academic

performance and teaching practice: Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001;

beliefs about student ability in relation to student motivation and teacher perceptions: Dweck,

2002; Stipek, 2002). Further, there is a growing body of literature related to students’ beliefs

about the nature of knowledge (i.e., epistemological beliefs; Schommer, 1990; Hofer, 1993).

This body of work suggests that students’ epistemological beliefs are a multilayered system of

beliefs and that these beliefs appear to be influential in the learning process (e.g., Buehl &

Alexander, 2001; Paulsen & Feldman, 1999; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992).

The knowledge and beliefs of teachers have also received attention. However, there is a

paucity of research examining teachers’ beliefs about knowledge, particularly their beliefs about

pedagogical knowledge. Further, there have been repeated calls for more qualitative work related


to teachers’ beliefs (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Munby, 1984). Consequently, in this

investigation, we used the literatures related to pedagogy and students’ epistemological beliefs as

frameworks for qualitatively exploring teachers’ beliefs about pedagogical knowledge.

Overview of Current Epistemological Beliefs Literature

Within the epistemological belief literature, there has been considerable discussion about

the nature and function of students’ epistemological beliefs. In particular, researchers are

concerned with the dimensionality and specificity of students’ epistemological beliefs.

Additionally, students’ epistemological beliefs have been related to a variety of learning

processes and outcomes (e.g., conceptual change, strategy use, and academic performance;

Hofer, 2000; Qian & Alvermann, 1994; Ryan, 1984). This research highlights the importance of

this set of beliefs. We hold that a similar analysis of teachers’ beliefs about knowledge may also

be fruitful for understanding teachers’ cognitions and improving teachers’ development and

training. That is, we wish to use the frameworks developed in the study of students’

epistemological beliefs to teachers. Consequently, in this overview, we focus on issues related to

the structure and specificity of beliefs.

Dimensionality of beliefs

Students are believed to possess distinct beliefs about different aspects of knowledge that

are more or less independent. For instance, Schommer (1990), who proposed the initial

multidimensional model of epistemological beliefs, hypothesized that students possessed beliefs

about the simplicity of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, source of knowledge, speed of

knowledge acquisition, and the extent to which the ability to acquire knowledge is innate or

fixed. A measure, the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ), was developed to assess

these five dimensions (Schommer, 1990). Schommer and her colleagues found evidence of belief


factors pertaining to the certainty and simplicity of knowledge as well as the speed of knowledge

acquisition and the innateness of the ability to acquire knowledge in various high school and

college samples (e.g., Schommer, 1990, 1993; Schommer et al., 1992).

Since Schommer’s initial work, other researchers have used the SEQ or developed their

own measures to assess various aspects of students’ epistemological beliefs. For example, Hofer

and Pintrich (1997) argued that Schommer’s factors pertaining to beliefs about the speed of

knowledge acquisition and the innateness of ability were not epistemological beliefs. Instead,

they proposed that these factors represented beliefs about learning and intelligence.

Consequently, Hofer (2000) developed a measure to assess an alternative multidimensional

model of epistemological beliefs. Specifically, she proposed that students possessed beliefs about

certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge, source of knowledge, and the justification for

knowing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Hofer, 2000). Through exploratory factor analysis, Hofer

identified factors related to the certainty/simplicity of knowledge, authority as the source of

knowledge, personal justification for knowing, and the attainability of truth.

Given this interest in the dimensionality of epistemological beliefs, there has been a

proliferation of measures and identified epistemological belief factors. In a recent review of the

literature, Buehl (2003) overviewed measures of students’ epistemological beliefs and the

identified belief factors. She found that epistemological belief factors could be classified into

five broad categories:

♦ Beliefs about the Structure of Knowledge (i.e., is knowledge simple or complex, isolated

or integrated?)

♦ Beliefs about the Stability of Knowledge (i.e., is knowledge certain or tentative?)


♦ Beliefs about the Sources of Knowledge (i.e., does knowledge originate from an external

source or personal experience?)

♦ Beliefs about the Nature of Knowledge Acquisition (i.e., is knowledge acquired quickly

or gradually; is the process easy or effortful?)

♦ Beliefs about the Ability to Acquire Knowledge (i.e., is the ability to learn fixed or

developed over time?)

Although there is some debate (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) as to whether beliefs about the

nature of knowledge acquisition and beliefs about the ability to acquire knowledge are

epistemological beliefs, they were included in an effort to represent the current literature.

Further, there is considerable similarity between the identified categories and Schommer’s initial

scheme. This is due, in part, to the widespread use of various forms of her instrument (e.g.,

Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson, 1993; Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Qian & Alvermann, 1995).

Specificity of epistemological beliefs.

In addition to the multidimensionality of epistemological beliefs, researchers have also

explored the layers or specificity of epistemological beliefs. Initially, much of the

epistemological belief literature focused on students’ general knowledge beliefs (e.g.,

Schommer, 1990; Schraw, Dunkle, & Bendixen, 1995). More recently, attention has been

devoted to the domain-specificity of epistemological beliefs. That is, evidence suggests that

students’ epistemological beliefs vary depending on the domain or task under consideration. For

instance, Buehl and colleagues identified multidimensional and domain-specific beliefs for the

domains of history and mathematics Within each domain there were specific factors pertaining to

individuals’ beliefs about the integration of knowledge and the need for effort to acquire


knowledge within the respective domains. Similarly, Hofer (2000) identified domain-specific

belief factors relative to psychology and science.

Further, there has been discussion about the relation between the general epistemological

beliefs and the more domain-specific epistemological beliefs (e.g., Buehl and Alexander, 2000).

Specifically, there is growing acceptance for the proposition that domain general and domain-

specific beliefs co-exist in a complex network of beliefs. That is, individuals possess general

knowledge beliefs that guide them as well as more specific knowledge beliefs that are activated

or become salient in certain tasks or conditions (e.g., Limon, 2003).

Overview of the Teacher Belief Literature

Despite developments with respect to the dimensionality and specificity of

epistemological beliefs, this literature has focused almost solely on the beliefs of students.

Further, although beliefs about knowledge in specific academic domains have been considered,

individuals’ beliefs about knowledge in professional domains have not been addressed. In

particular, understanding the teachers’ knowledge beliefs may be particularly informative to

teacher training and education.

With respect to the nature of teachers’ knowledge, Shulman (1986) identified seven

forms of knowledge that compose teachers’ knowledge base (e.g., knowledge of the child,

content knowledge). Other categorization schemes have been proposed and various researchers

have explored what teachers know and how they use their knowledge in real and hypothetical

situations (e.g., Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001; Holt-Reynolds, 2000; Jordan & Stanovich,

2003; Tsai, 2002). Further, there is a plethora of studies addressing teachers’ beliefs on a wide

range of education-related topics. Specifically, teachers’ beliefs about motivation (e.g., Stipek,

Givvin, Salmon & MacGyvers, 2001), adolescent development (Buchanan, Eccles, Flanagan,


Midgley, 1990), instructional practices (e.g., Borko, Davinroy, Bliem, & Cumbo, 2000) and

classroom management (e.g., Weinstein, 1998) represent just a few of the studies that have

investigated teachers’ beliefs. Additionally, Pajares (1992) and Kagan (1992) contend teachers’

beliefs about knowledge and how students acquire knowledge are central to their planning and

decision making processes with regard to instruction. Further, Kagan (1992) argues that teacher

beliefs or store of personal knowledge lies “at the very heart of teaching” (p. 85).

Despite the centrality and importance of teachers’ beliefs, relatively few studies have

investigated teachers’ beliefs about knowledge. Further, the investigations that have been

conducted tend to focus on pre-service teachers’ beliefs about knowledge as a general construct

or with respect to a particular academic domain (e.g., Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995).

However, as noted by Shulman (1986), effective teachers possess more than vast amounts of

content knowledge. They also have understanding of how to teach (i.e., general pedagogical

knowledge). Although this form of knowledge is often not well articulated and, some might

argue, is more implicit than explicit, teachers’ understanding of pedagogy is an important aspect

of effective teaching and successful learning. However, little attention has been devoted to

understanding teachers’ beliefs about this form of knowledge.

Overview of the Current Investigation

The current investigation attempts to address some of the gaps in the belief literature.

Specifically, we are extending the framework used to investigate students’ epistemological

beliefs to practicing and preservice teachers. This extension represents a foray into assessing

beliefs about knowledge in a professional domain, as opposed to an academic domain. Further,

in this investigation, we take a mixed method approach to exploring teachers’ beliefs. In doing


so, we hoped to gain insight into the content of teachers’ knowledge beliefs as well as the

structure of these beliefs.

Here we present two studies addressing teachers’ beliefs about pedagogical knowledge.

The first investigation examined these beliefs as one aspect of a larger study investigating the

relations among teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and efficacy (Fives, 2003). Results from the larger

study indicated that pedagogical beliefs were more influential than anticipated. Specifically,

preservice and practicing teachers’ beliefs about the importance of teaching knowledge were

significantly related to efficacy beliefs. However, the measure represented only one component

of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge beliefs. Consequently, in the second investigation, we

explored teachers’ beliefs about pedagogical knowledge through the use of an open-end

questionnaire. The purpose of the open-ended questionnaire was to identify themes in teachers’

responses and provide a basis for developing a Likert scale measure. In this presentation, we

present the initial measure and the factor structure that emerged from the data and the themes

that emerged from the open-ended questionnaire.

Study I

Method

Participants. Preservice (122) and practicing (102) teachers participated in the first study.

Preservice teachers attending required education courses at a large university in the mid-Atlantic

region of the United States were recruited for this study. Similarly, practicing teachers sought

through master’s level courses, as well as via professional development workshops, and through

professional contacts within specific schools.

The preservice teachers were predominately females (83%). They described themselves

as European American (64%), having Multiple Ethnicities (13.3%), Asian American (5.8%),


European (3.3%), Hispanic American (2.5%), Hispanic (2.5%), Other (2.5%), Native American

(1.7%), African (0.8%), Asian (0.8%), Caribbean (0.8%), Middle Eastern (0.8%), and Middle

Eastern American (0.8%). Participating preservice teachers included university underclassmen

(10.8%), university upperclassmen (75.8%), individuals with bachelor’s degrees enrolled in

university courses (10.9%), as well as individuals with degrees at or beyond the master’s level

(2.5%). These participants planned to teach at the elementary (48.3%), middle-school (18.3%),

or high-school (33.3%) levels.

As was the case for the preservice teachers, practicing teachers were predominately

female (77.5%). These participants reported a range of ethnicities including European American

(77.5%), Multiple Ethnicities (7.8%), European (4.9%), Hispanic American (2.9%), Asian

American (2.0%), Asian (1%), Hispanic (1%), Native American (1%), Middle Eastern American

(1%), and Pacific Islander (1%). Practicing teachers included individuals with bachelor’s degrees

(26.5%), bachelor’s plus graduate hours (21.6%), master’s degrees (42.2%), and master’s plus

graduate hours (9.8%). These teachers taught in elementary schools (35.3%), middle schools

(33.3%), and in high schools (31.4%) that were public (71.6%) or private (28.4%) in affiliation.

Pedagogical knowledge belief measure (PKBM). The original pedagogical beliefs

measure (PKBM) was developed to assess beliefs about teaching and pedagogical knowledge.

The measure was intended to gauge beliefs pertaining to three conceptual areas: knowledge type,

knowledge content, and teaching ability (Appendix 1). Three items (D, E, and F) were designed

to measure the perceived importance participants placed on three areas of pedagogical

knowledge: instructional practices, student engagement, and classroom management. These

knowledge areas were identified by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) as central

components of teachers’ work and serve as the basis for their teacher efficacy scale. For


example, item E, “As long as teachers know how to manage a classroom, students will learn,”

was intended to assess beliefs about the import of classroom management knowledge. Next, four

items (C, G, H, and I) were designed to address beliefs about the value of declarative,

conditional, and procedural knowledge (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991). For example, item

H, “Knowing how to use and implement teaching techniques is the hallmark of a good teacher”

assessed the value participants’ placed on procedural knowledge. Finally, seven items (A, B, J,

K, L, M, N) pertained to beliefs about teaching as an innate ability or as a learned skill. These

final seven items were intended to ascertain whether individuals believed the ability to teach was

an innate talent or a learned skill. A sample item is “Teaching is a talent. Some people have it,

and some people do not.”

Respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with these 14 statements

using a 9-point continuum where 1 represented no agreement and 9 indicated complete

agreement. Higher scores reflected more sophisticated beliefs. Sophisticated beliefs were

understood as those that reflected respondents’ understanding of diverse forms of pedagogical

knowledge, and perceptions of teaching as a complex, demanding, and learned profession. To

maintain this scoring pattern, four items (A, B, E, and K) were reverse coded. For example, for

item K “Expertise in teaching can be developed after only a few years of practice” 1 was scored

as high and 9 as low.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis was employed to ascertain the whether the expected factors

emerged for the PKBM and reliability coefficients were calculated for data from the emergent

factors. Exploratory analysis suggested that a one-, two-, three-, four-, or five-factor solution

may be appropriate, using the Eigenvalues greater than 1 rule. However, examination of the


scree plot and the apriori expectations about the measure suggested the further exploration of the

one-, two-, and three-factor solutions. Examination of factor loadings indicated that a two-factor

solution made the most theoretical sense for this measure. This solution allowed for the

identification of two theoretically meaningful factors (Table 1). Items with loading .350 or

higher were retained on each factor.

The first factor, knowledge beliefs (items D, F, G, H, and I), reflected beliefs about

knowledge related to teaching. This factor emphasized beliefs about the importance of

declarative and procedural knowledge as well as the specific knowledge content of instructional

practices and student motivation. A score for knowledge beliefs was computed as the unweighted

mean of responses for the five items, allowing maximum score of 9. A high score on this

subscale indicated a greater valuing of teaching or pedagogical knowledge. This subscale yielded

a mean of 6.27, a standard deviation of 1.1, and a reliability of .72.

The second factor, teaching ability beliefs (items A, B, and J), reflects individuals’ beliefs

about the nature of teaching abilities. This factor seems to emphasize the importance of a

“talent,” “instinct,” or gift for teaching. The unweighted mean of these three items was

calculated as the score for teaching ability beliefs, with a maximum score of 9. A low score on

this subscale indicated a stronger belief in the nature of teaching ability to be innate, a talent or

instinct. This sub-scale yielded a mean of 6.44, a standard deviation of 1.04, and a reliability of -

.07.

Discussion

This PKBM did not provide an adequate assessment of teachers’ beliefs. Specifically, in

addition to the statistical concerns associated with this instrument (i.e., low reliability of the

second factor, and negative factor loadings), there are additional concerns. First, there are


concerns with the item wording in that single items are assessing multiple constructs. For

example, the four items constructed to assess participants procedural, conditional, and

declarative knowledge also contained information as to knowledge content. Specifically, item H

(Knowing how to use and implement teaching techniques is the hallmark of a good teacher) was

intended to assess the perceived value of procedural knowledge. However this item also

identified “teaching techniques” as important. Thus, it is unclear if respondents are valuing the

procedural or declarative nature of this item. Of if it is the combination of these two that is most

influential.

Second, two of the items (i.e., J and M) allowed for a broad array in interpretation such

that it is difficult to interpret what responses to these items actually meant. For example, item M

states “it is easy to recognize quality teaching.” This could mean that quality teaching is such a

frequent occurrence one cannot help but find it. Or it can refer to teachers’ beliefs about the

ability to evaluate teaching, such that when one sees “quality teaching,” it is easy to identify it as

such.

However, in spite of these concerns, two theoretically sound factors emerged indicating

that this is a fruitful area for future research. Specifically, results suggest that teachers hold

beliefs about the value of knowledge used in their profession. Moreover, these beliefs were

significantly related to other important variable (i.e., efficacy, strategic performance). Given the

potential role and importance of these beliefs, it is essential to study them in greater detail.

However, to adequately address these beliefs and explore their role in the development and

practice of teachers, we need to understand the nature of these beliefs more fully.


Study II

Method

Participants. Preservice (53) and practicing (44) teachers participated in Study II.

Preservice teachers were recruited from education courses at two large, state universities, one in

the southeast region of the United States and one in the mid-south region of the United States.

Similarly, practicing teachers were sought through master’s level courses, as well as through

professional contacts within specific schools in these two regions.

The majority of the preservice teachers were females (70%). With respect to ethnicity,

69.8% described themselves as European American and 24.5% described themselves as African

America. Other ethnicities in this sample included Asian American (1.9%) and Hispanic (1.9%),

With respect to the education level of the preservice teachers, 43.4% were university juniors and

seniors, 5.7% had received their bachelor’s degree, 39.6% had received a bachelor’s degree and

had completed some additional course work, and 11.3% had a masters degree These participants

expressed an interest in teaching at that elementary (34.0%) or high school (28.3%) levels with

only a small percentage indicating that they wanted to teach middle school (5.7%). Additionally,

32.1% of the participants did not report whether they wanted to teach at the elementary, middle

school, or high school level

As was the case for the preservice teachers, practicing teachers were predominately

female (77.3%) and reported their ethnicity as Anglo-American (77.3%). Other ethnicities

represented in our sample of practicing teachers included African Americans (13.6%), Asian

Americans (2.3%), Mexican Americans (4.5%), and individuals who reported their ethnicity as

Mixed or Other (2.3%). The majority of our practicing teachers (54.2%) had some education

beyond their bachelor’s degree and a sizable number of teachers (34.2%) had completed course


work at or beyond the masters level, whereas only three teachers (5.6%) held only an

undergraduate degree with no additional education.

Researchers’ Paradigm. As educational psychologists schooled in specific literature

bases and familiar with each other’s research we approached the current investigation and data

gathered with a preexisting framework and understanding of the nature of beliefs. Specifically,

we contend that knowledge beliefs (i.e. epistemological beliefs) are multidimensional. We also

maintain that these beliefs are domain-specific. That is, individuals’ beliefs vary depending on

the domain under consideration.

Thus, as we embarked on an exhaustive and fine-tuned coding of the data these pre-

existing beliefs were at play. Still, we endeavored keep these beliefs in abeyance (not ignorance)

in our initial and secondary analyses of the data. Specifically, we actively questioned our

decisions, particularly, when themes common to these areas seemed to emerge. That is, we

engaged in both self questioning at an individual level, peer questioning of each others’ coding

and theme identification, and broader discussions of these issues at a collaborative level.

Additionally, by coding the data at the concept level (discussed in the methods section to follow)

we refrained from abstracting to larger themes until much later in the analysis process. In this

way, we attempted to make the data as transparent as possible so that themes would emerge from

the data rather than be imposed.

Open-Ended Pedagogical Belief Questionnaire (OPBQ). A twelve-item, predominantly

open-ended, questionnaire was developed to assess preservice and practicing teachers’ beliefs

about the nature of teaching, as well as the structure, stability, source, and content of teachers’

knowledge. For the current analysis, specifically, explored responses to the items pertaining to

beliefs about the nature of the ability to teach and the source of teacher knowledge (i.e., Item 2:


“Is teaching a talent people are born with? Please explain.”; Item 7: “Where does knowledge of

how to teach come from?; and Item 9: Can someone learn how to be an effective teacher?”).

Participants’ responses were also investigated for the questions pertaining to beliefs about the

content of teachers’ knowledge (i.e., Item 4: “What knowledge is necessary to be an effective

teacher?” and Item 8: “What knowledge do teachers hold that is unique to the profession?”).

Data Analysis. Data were subjected to a 5-stage coding and categorization process. First,

we transcribed all of the data collected into a spreadsheet. At this time we reviewed the data and

made broad field notes as to possible codes or coding strategies. Second, we then read through

the data quickly to identify the items we felt best addressed the current research purpose and

questions.

Third, we developed our initial or primary codes and coded the data by item group,

utilizing the constant comparison method in order to thoroughly represent the data collected

(LeCompte & Prissle, 1993). At this stage of data analysis we chose to develop exhaustive

coding schemes for the items in an effort to organize the data and allow themes to emerge

organically from the data. That is, allow common issues, concepts, responses, and ideas to

develop through our code use of descriptive code generation rather than imposing broad or

overarching codes early in the process that might hide some of the subtleties that existed in our

participants’ responses. For these reasons, we chose to code at the concept level, such that, each

complete idea, thought, or concept reported by participants’ received a code. Additionally, when

participants’ entire statement seemed to be reflective of an overall idea or theme we also coded

this. Concepts were identified in the data by underlining and an asterisk was used to indicate if

there was an overall theme to the participant’s statement. Each concept was then coded.


To ensure accurate coding of items throughout this emergent process, we engaged in the

alternating and recursive coding schedule outlined in Table 2. All data were coded by two

researchers (i.e., the authors). In Table 2, we use the conventions of Researcher 1 and Researcher

2; in practice we alternated these roles with the analysis of each item. Additionally, to code the

data, we first organized the data into three lots with equal numbers of preservice and practicing

teachers in each lot. Lot A included 20% of the data, Lots B and C each included 40% of the

data. Essentially, the coding process involved alternatively coding and developing codes, then

sharing and applying them to the next lot of data. Through this process each item was examined

a minimum of three times, with the more finely tuned coding sheet applied each time. This

process resulted in 120 primary codes for item 1, 179 primary codes for items 2, 7, 9

collectively, and 128 primary codes for items 4 and 8 collectively. Discussion of the content of

the codes and emergent themes is offered in the results and discussion section of this manuscript.

The fourth stage of data analysis involved generating large categories from the codes

developed in stage three. In this stage, we independently engaged in a physical sort of the codes

for each item or item set. Using sort cards for each primary code, we mixed them together

randomly, and then organized like codes and meaningful themes into piles. We each generated

our own categories and sub-categories based on this process. At this time, the primary codes

were allowed to be cross-referenced in multiple categories or subcategories, in order to best

represent the data. Following this process we then shared and discussed our categorization

schemes. Any categories identified by both researchers were retained, with minor modifications

and agreement on category title and code content when necessary. Categories or sub-categories

unique to either of our schemes were discussed and we collaboratively determined which best

represented the data and addressed the research questions.


It was during this fourth stage that our initial or primary codes were collapsed into larger

more meaningful secondary codes. Through the processes described in the previous paragraph

similar codes, grouped into categories or sub-categories were collapsed into secondary codes

(subcategories). We consider these secondary codes to be more reflective of the overall sense of

participants’ reposes and the data that was gathered. Further, it was at this point in data analysis

that we were able to step back and examine the depth of data relative to each of the primary

codes generated.

In the fifth and final stage of analysis we re-examined the categories identified in stage 4

in light of the research questions and our combined knowledge of epistemology and pedagogy.

During this stage we engaged in an “analytic selection process,” that is we examined the wealth

of organized data, and emergent themes relative to the specific research questions posed in this

manuscript. Therefore, the purpose of this stage was to identify emergent themes relative to our

research questions and to describe our perception of the beliefs presented by the study

participants

Results and Discussion

In our initial coding and analysis of the data, we identified a variety of themes and issues

worthy of discussion and additional consideration. However, for the current investigation, we

chose to focus on a selected set of topics. Specifically, we used the findings from the initial

Likert-scale measure to narrow our focus. Consequently, we chose to explore the individuals’

beliefs about teachers’ ability to teach and the value they place on the different types of

knowledge required for teaching. Those issues are directly related to the two factors that

emerged from the PKBM discussed in Study I. Additionally, in our coding and analysis of the

responses, we were struck by the number of references made to the different trait-like skills and


qualities individuals believed that teachers needed to possess. We found this particularly

interesting given that we never inquired about the qualities needed for teaching. Subsequently,

we present a discussion of this topic as well.

Beliefs about the ability to teach. In Study I, items were developed to address the origins

of ability to teach. That is, items were developed to address whether teaching was an innate

ability (i.e., items A and B) or if teaching is a skill that is acquired (items J, L and K). As

previously discussed, the items did not behave as expected. For example, even though items

were coded such that higher scores represented a stronger belief that teaching is a learned ability,

there was a negative loading. This made it difficult to interpret second factor (Factor 2), which

had items A, J, and B load on it (Table 1). Further, the reliability coefficient for data from this

factor was extremely low.

Despite these findings and various confounds with the items, it is interesting that a factor

related to the origins of teaching ability did emerge. We viewed this as evidence of teachers’

beliefs about teaching ability but recognized that the instrument was too problematic to assess

these beliefs properly. Consequently, we wanted to explore these beliefs in greater depth through

the use of an open-ended questionnaire. Further, our intention was to use insight gained from the

more qualitative assessment of teachers’ beliefs to develop a more appropriate and adequate

Likert scale measure.

In the questionnaire, we asked pre-service and practicing teachers to share their views

about the ability to teach. We explicitly asked if teaching was a talent (i.e., item 2: “Is teaching a

talent people are born with? Please explain.”), and whether someone can learn how to teach (i.e.,

item 9: “Can someone learn how to be an effective teacher. Please explain.”). We also inquired

about the source of teachers’ knowledge (i.e., item7: Where does the knowledge of how to teach


come from?”). We viewed these items as addressing beliefs about the origins of the ability to

teach as well as the source of teachers’ knowledge. Consequently, we chose to code and analyze

individuals’ responses to these items together.

Table 3 represents the themes/categories that emerged from the data as well as the

secondary codes that we extracted and sample responses. Categorization of the emergent codes

revealed that individuals possess a wide array of beliefs about the ability to teach. On the PKBM

items were dichotomously split with respect to the ability to teach as an innate talent or a learned

skill. Participants’ responses to the open-ended questionnaire indicate that the previous measure

did not represent the full spectrum of beliefs about the ability to teach. That is, instead of a

dichotomy, individuals’ beliefs about the ability to teach appear to exist along a continuum.

Although this continuum is anchored by beliefs that the ability to teach is innate or learned, there

are also more mixed views.

As seen in Table 3, individuals referred to an innate ability to teach using various terms.

Some spoke in terms of innate or inborn abilities while others referred to natural talent. Although

this specific terminology is likely due to the wording of our question, other individuals spoke of

the innate ability to teach in terms of instincts, personality types, or developmental stages. These

findings suggest that the ability to teach is viewed as an innate ability. We know from the

attribution literature that students with fixed ability beliefs frequently attribute their success or

failure to innate tendencies or traits, such as “being born smart” (e.g., Weiner, 2000).

Theoretically, the same attribution in teachers, that teaching is innate, may have the same

repercussions as fixed ability beliefs in students. Namely, that nothing can be done to improve on

these abilities.


This has important implications for the training and retention of teachers. For instance, if

pre-service teachers (i.e., education students) believe that the ability to teach is an innate talent,

they may be less receptive to the information presented in their education programs. Further,

when difficulties are encountered in the classroom, individuals who hold innate views of

teaching abilities, may experience threats to their sense of teaching efficacy and be more likely to

leave the profession. Indeed, some of our respondents explicitly stated that those who do not

have the talent to teach “won’t stick it out” or “should not be in the classroom.” This view of

teaching also has implications for the mentoring of student teachers as well as new teachers. That

is, veteran teachers may be less likely to offer support and assistance to those they perceive as

“not having it.” Of course, perhaps we do not really want such people working with developing

teachers.

In contrast to a strictly innate view of the ability to teach, there were also more mixed

views about the ability to teach. For instance, a theme emerged that we refer to as, Requires

Polish. This set of responses represents the view that although some aspects of the ability to

teach are innate, others are not. Specifically, some individuals indicated that they believed that

some people possess certain innate or inborn qualities or tendencies (e.g., passion,

understanding, and love of children) that make a person more inclined to develop an ability to

teach. Additionally, there were individuals who believed that although the ability to teach was

innate, some degree of training or “polishing” was also required. In our view, this perspective on

the ability to teach may be more adaptive to pre-service and practicing teachers. That is,

individuals with this belief may be more likely to recognize the value of formal training and be

more persistent when difficulties in the classroom are encountered.


A second “hybrid” view of the ability to teach was also identified in which individuals

expressed the belief that the ability to teach was both innate and learned. However, in contrast to

the previous theme, Requires Polish, in which individuals held that the ability was partially

innate and partially learned for a single individual, this theme, Innate for Some, Learned for

Others, represents the view that although some individuals have innate talent or ability for

teaching, other individuals can learn and develop the ability to teach. Consequently, we view

this perspective on the ability to teach as even more adaptive to the development of prospective

teachers.

As illustrated in Table 3, there were individuals who chose not to take a stand on the

issue of whether the ability to teach was innate or learned. That is, they stated that they were

“unsure” or did not agree with the statement that the ability to teach was inborn. These

individuals stand in contrast to the next group of respondents, who clearly felt that the ability to

teach was learned (i.e., the Learned emergent theme). Some of these individuals went so far as to

state that the ability to teach was not an inborn talent. Instead, they expressed the belief that the

ability to teach is a learned skill that requires training. We view this approach as being most

adaptive to teacher preparation and training. That is, we hold that individuals who perceived the

need to learn how to teach as being the most receptive to teacher training. Further, it is our

contention that such individuals may be the most resilient when obstacles or difficulties are

encountered in the classroom. Instead of viewing a situation as a failure that reflects upon their

inherent ability to teach, individuals who believe teaching is a learned skill may be more likely to

view difficulties in the classroom as learning opportunities that can lead to further growth and

development.


Finally, there was one emergent theme that we felt did not fall along the continuum of

innate to learned. Specifically, some individuals viewed the ability to teach as “a calling.” We

felt that this choice of words indicated that, to these individuals, the ability to teach was neither

innate nor learned, but that they were called to teach or gifted with the abilty by a higher power.

This perspective is also represented by referring to teaching as a “God-given gift.” We

distinguish these responses from the Innate theme, because, such a Calling or Gift indicates that

a force beyond the individual is responsible for teaching ability. Moreover, the adaptability of

this belief construct is somewhat uncertain. It may be that individuals’ with this belief system are

akin to innate learners. That is, these individuals may beliefs that teaching, as a “Gift from God”

does not need to be learned or even polished. In contrast, others who see teaching as a calling, or

vocation, may well recognize a need to pursue study and learn how to fulfill this call in a way

that would give glory to their God. While, such conclusions are beyond the data gathered in this

study, these are important issues to consider when working with preservice and practicing

teachers.

Overall, the responses we garnered from our respondents with respect to their beliefs

about the ability to teach indicate that individuals’ beliefs about this issue are not easily

dichotomized. Consequently, responding to Likert items that only represent one aspect of the

continuum (e.g., ability is innate) may not fully represent individuals’ beliefs about teaching.

Further, examining responses to such items in relation to other constructs (e.g., teacher efficacy)

and teacher practices may not provide an adequate representation of the relations between

teachers’ beliefs and practices.

We also examined our findings in light of the epistemological belief literature.

Specifically, we contend that the identified beliefs most closely correspond to beliefs about the


acquisition of knowledge rather than source. We make this connection because similar to beliefs

about the nature of knowledge acquisition (i.e., the ability to learn) these responses address

beliefs about the ability to teach. That is, is it innate or learned? Although this set of beliefs may

not be truly epistemological belief (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich), we view individuals’ beliefs about

the ability to teach as an important component of teachers’ belief systems.

Teacher knowledge: Knowledge necessary and unique to teaching. The pedagogical

knowledge belief measure presented in Study I contained several items that were meant to assess

individuals’ valuing of the different forms of knowledge (i.e., declarative, procedural, and

conditional knowledge). As previously discussed these items contained multiple ideas (i.e.,

references to the different forms of knowledge as well as different types of pedagogical

knowledge). Although some of the items relating to the different forms of knowledge loaded on

the same factor (i.e., Factor 1), items pertaining to different types of pedagogical knowledge (i.e.,

knowledge of instruction, engagement and management) also loaded on this factor.

Consequently, it was not possible to determine how individuals valued declarative, procedural,

and conditional knowledge. However, in examining the items that did load on Factor 1, it was

apparent that the factor pertained to pedagogical knowledge. Further, in the larger investigation

(Fives, 2003), this factor was significantly related to teacher efficacy.

In light of the findings in Study I, we felt that teachers’ beliefs about the content of the

knowledge required for teaching needed to be explored in greater depth. Specifically, we were

interested in how teachers valued the different bodies of knowledge that individuals need to

teach. To address this issue of the value or importance of knowledge in Study II, we chose to ask

our respondents about what knowledge they viewed as necessary for or unique to teaching. Our

reasoning was that individuals would report the knowledge they valued. Of course, this may not


have held true for all individuals (e.g., a preservice teacher may have felt compelled to list child

development after taking a course in the subject). However, our primary goal in Study II was to

gather data to construct a measure that represented the different types of knowledge that

individuals may value. The extent to which individuals actually value the different types of

knowledge can be explored in future investigations.

To address the issue of what knowledge our respondents believed was important for

teaching, we analyzed the responses to two questions (i.e., “What knowledge is necessary for

effective teaching? Please explain.” and “What knowledge do teachers hold that is unique to the

teaching profession?”). Codes were simultaneously developed and applied to the responses to

both questions. The themes that emerged from our coding of the data are presented in Table 4.

The table also includes the secondary codes that emerged from our initial coding of the data and

illustrative examples.

The table indicates that individuals reported many different types of knowledge as

important for teaching. For instance, as anticipated, multiple individuals reported that teachers

need to know how to control or manage a classroom. There were also some individuals that

mentioned the need for other administrative and time management skills such as the ability to

multi-task and organize a classroom. Consequently, we chose to include these secondary codes

together under the heading Management and Organizational Knowledge.

Individuals also made many references to the specific knowledge of how to teach (i.e.,

Pedagogical Knowledge). After examining the codes that represented this emergent theme, we

noticed specific secondary codes. Specifically, as expected there were various references to

specific knowledge of how to teach (e.g., need to know how to present information in multiple

ways, know techniques, practices, and strategies). However, we noted that many of these


responses were somewhat vague. For example, individuals mentioned the need for strategies and

techniques but they did not offer specific strategies or techniques that are needed. Further, there

were some individuals who simply stated that teachers need to know how to teach. Of course, the

vagueness of the responses may be due to the assessment tool and how the questions were asked.

Even so, respondents were much more specific in indicating other types of knowledge (e.g.,

Knowledge of Children).

In addition to knowledge of techniques, methods, and strategies for teaching, we grouped

together responses related to knowledge of Motivation and Assessment, respectively. Relatively

few individuals gave responses that fell into either of these subcategories. We were surprised by

this finding for several reasons. First, student engagement is one of the three central components

that that served as the basis for Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy’s (2001) measure of

teacher efficacy. Thus, although teachers’ beliefs about their ability to promote student

engagement and motivation are viewed as an important part of teacher efficacy, preservice and

inservice teachers do not necessarily espouse the same beliefs. Further, our respondents referred

to additional forms of knowledge and other skills and abilities that are not represented on the

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy teacher efficacy measure. Consequently, this raises the

issue of how representative that scale is of the different types of knowledge and skills teachers

need in a classroom.

Second, given the current emphasis placed on testing and test scores, we anticipated that

more individuals would have referred to knowledge of assessment. However, the lack of

responses in this area may be indicative of how little teachers value testing. As evidence of this,

one of the respondents referred to the need for teachers to know about the limitations of

standardized tests.


Finally, within the theme of Knowledge of Pedagogy, there was a secondary code that

pertained to Reaching Students and Maximizing Learning. We viewed the types of knowledge

included in this sub-category as distinct from knowledge of methods and practices. Specifically,

references were often made to reaching the needs of a variety of learners, including those with

learning disabilities, and how to get students to learn.

A third theme that emerged from our data pertained to the need for teachers to have

content knowledge. Further, there was also reference made to the need to know the best way to

deliver the content within a given domain (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge). Additionally,

references were made to the need for teachers’ to know the curriculum of the school. We found

it interesting that these forms of knowledge mentioned by our respondents mirrored some of the

forms for teacher knowledge identified by Shulman (1986).

In addition to knowledge of Management and Organization, Pedagogy, and Content,

there were also a considerable number of respondents who noted the need for teachers to have

knowledge about children. Our analysis of the primary codes that were extracted from the data

indicated that there were different types of Knowledge of Children that respondents valued. For

instance, respondents spoke of the need for understand and know about children in general. This

secondary code included such topics as understanding how children develop and learn as well as

understanding and knowing how to accommodate individual differences. However, in these

responses, individual seemed to be talking about general knowledge of learners. Other

respondents referenced the need for teachers to know the specific students in their classes (e.g.,

knowing their home life and background, knowing and accepting individual needs of your

students).


As a final emergent theme, we have a miscellaneous or catch-all category. Specifically,

there were several types of knowledge that did not fit into easily into the secondary codes that

emerged so easily for most of these data (e.g., knowledge of current events and pop culture).

Further, these responses did not occur very often. Consequently, we chose to represent them in

an Other category to indicate that there are additional forms of knowledge that are valued. There

were just no clear patterns or large number of such responses in this data set. The one exception

to this was responses pertaining to the need for teachers to possess knowledge about themselves.

However, there was only one primary code related to this type of knowledge and we had an

internal debate as how unique this form of knowledge is to teaching. Thus, we chose to include

Knowledge of Self with the Other forms of knowledge.

In examining the types of knowledge our respondents cited as the necessary or unique to

teaching, we were pleased by the different types of knowledge that were mentioned. Further, we

noted similarities between the responses from our participants and other teacher knowledge

categorization schemes (e.g., Shulman, 1986), as well as standardized teacher assessments that

purport to assess teacher knowledge (e.g., TeXeS). However, in closing this section on how

preservice and practicing teachers value the knowledge needed for teaching, it is important to

also note that there were 4 participants (i.e. 4%), 3 of whom were practicing teachers who held

that there was nothing unique about the knowledge required for teaching. Additionally, 6

respondents (i.e., 6%, largely undergraduates) indicated that they did not know how to answer

the question. That is, 10% of our participants did not know what knowledge was necessary or

unique to the teaching profession. We found this particularly disheartening given that all

participants were preservice or practicing teachers. We wondered what the implications were for

how these individuals viewed themselves as professionals and what the implications are for


teacher education. That is, if there is no knowledge that is unique to teaching, what is the value

of teacher education classes and programs? This issue deserves further exploration.

Beliefs about skills and qualities. A recurrent theme in the data collected was a need for

teachers to have certain skills and/or qualities. Although our questionnaire asked participants to

explain whether teaching is a talent or if it can be learned, as well as the knowledge unique to

teaching and necessary for effective practice, and the source of teaching knowledge, across all of

the responses participants continued to refer to qualities and skills teachers need. Thus, while

unanticipated prior to the study, this became a strong theme in the data collected. Table 5

provides the emergent themes, secondary codes, and sample responses, which represent these

findings. Specifically, we divided these responses into two large categories: skills and qualities.

Here, skills refer to more cognitively based or thinking abilities including: communication or

people skills and ingenuity. In contrast, by qualities, we mean more affective or feeling traits

including, nurturance or care, enthusiasm, integrity and dedication. In this section we briefly

discuss the emergent themes and the underlying data they represent. Followed by a discussion of

how these findings may influence our understanding of teachers’ beliefs about pedagogical

knowledge.

Participants in this study repeatedly responded that teachers needed, had, or could

develop communication and people skills that held great sway on teaching effectiveness.

Specifically, participants identified three areas of communication skills that were requisite for

teaching. For the sake of data consolidation we felt that these three skill subsets were reflective

of an overall need for communication skills. These three subsets included: oration or

presentation skills, people skills, and listening skills.


Participants described a need for teachers to be “a good orator,” to be able to explain

things well, and to be able to “get their point across.” These, and other responses, highlighted an

overall need for participants to communicate information to an audience, class, or learner. Also

included were comments that teachers needed to “deliver content” and “reach the majority” of

their students. Hence, this subset of skills represented the need for teachers to make themselves

known, to express themselves in such a way that they are readily understood by a variety of

students.

A second skill subset reflecting communications skills, included responses generated

around the idea of “people skills.” In fact, this very phrase, people skills, was used repeatedly by

participants in the study. However, rarely did participants explain what they meant by this

expression. In conjunction these responses we also included comments about rapport building,

relationship building, social skills, and an ability to anticipate students’ needs, actions, or

statements. Thus, we inferred that when participants stated that teachers need or have “people

skills” they were intending something more than the mere ability to present or deliver

information in an understandable way, rather, people skills, to us, implied a more meaningful

means of engaging with others such that you can, through relationships, identify their needs and

meet them. Thus, it seems according to the data gathered here, that teachers are expected to do

more than present information or insure that students learn, teachers must also understand and be

able to relate to students and through these relationships facilitate learning

Finally, our participants also indicated that teachers’ must have Listening skills or need to

be a good listener. This seems to balance the first set of skills discussed, Oration/Presentation. It

is interesting to note that for these respondents, communications seemed to be divided into the

two subsets of presentation and listening. Rather than demonstrating that communication


involves the combination of both of these skill sets. Moreover, a far larger majority of

participants identified the need for the first set of skills, in fact in the construct analysis we used

twice as many descriptors to code data relative to the presentation of information than we did for

listening. This may suggest that when considering the teaching activity participants focus far

more on the information that teachers give rather than the importance and potential influence of

the information that they receive from their students.

A second set of skills identified by the participants in this study seemed to reflect a need

for or ability for Ingenuity in teachers. Here, ingenuity conveys the need for individuals’ use

their own “wits” and “know-how” to deal with the challenges they face. Moreover, inherent in

this theme is the notion that the challenges they face are new, and therefore, do not have a

predetermined resolution that could be identified and applied to their situation. Included in this

theme are participants’ responses that fall in the subcategories (secondary codes) of creativity,

flexibility, and stress management were included in this theme. It was interesting to note that

while many respondents felt that “creativity” was necessary for teaching, few elaborated on why

this might be. In contrast, many of the participants articulating a need for flexibility elaborated

on this issue. Participants’ described a need to “think on the spot,” and multitask.

Also included in the Ingenuity category was the secondary category of “stress

management.” We included it with this section, because it seemed to reflect a need on the part of

teachers to be resilient, to need to accommodate the needs of the job rather than be

accommodated. This secondary code was used a limited number of times, thus, few respondents

identified this as a needed are of knowledge or unique knowledge. Still, it lends credence to the

overall notion that teachers must have the wherewithal to deal with daily challenges.


We also forward that three affective qualities emerged from the data collected.

Specifically, participants repeatedly referred to the need for teachers to have, demonstrate and/or

develop particular feelings that were deemed necessary for effective teaching and at time a

unique form of knowledge for teachers. We identified there emerged themes reflecting teacher

qualities: nurturance/care; enthusiasm, and integrity and dedication. However, the first two

themes were afforded far more attention by our respondents than did the third.

The Nurturance/Care theme was apparent throughout all of the data collected. This theme

incorporates responses from the secondary codes of caring/compassionate, love children

(people), patience, and more than relaying information. In essence this theme incorporated those

statements in which respondents identified a need for teachers to hold affection for their student

and to act on that affection in meaningful ways (e.g., show you care).

The second quality theme that emerged, Enthusiasm, reflected a belief among

participants that teachers must have a great deal of motivation and positive feeling about their

job. Included in this theme are the beliefs that teachers must love teaching, love their content, be

passionate and optimistic, and want to make a difference. The third and final quality theme that

emerged, Integrity and Dedication, highlighted the perceived belief that teacher must be

committed to teaching, as well as fair and respecting of their students.

Beyond the boundaries of the present data lies the question of why so many respondents

perceive these affection-oriented feelings to be necessary for effective teaching. In fact one

participant commented that the kind of caring teachers have for kids is different than nurses and

psychologists—she referred to it as everyday care. Why must teachers “love kids,” “love

teaching,” “have passion,” and be “willing to make a difference”? What’s more why did so many

respondents use these types of replies when asked what knowledge do teachers hold that is


“unique” to teaching? Don’t pediatricians and dentists need to love kids too? Shouldn’t lawyers,

accountants, and postal carries be “willing to make a difference?” Why these issues repeatedly

emerged in this study warrants a much deeper examination of teachers’ affective feelings toward

teaching and the apparent need to emotionalize the profession.

Conclusions

The purpose of this two part investigation was identify important themes in preservice

and practicing teachers beliefs about teaching and pedagogical knowledge in order to better

inform us in the future construction of a Likert scale measure of teacher beliefs. Thus, we would

like to conclude this manuscript by offering a framework for the development of such an

instrument or instruments.

Given the results of the first study, the extensive data gathered in the second study, and

the theoretical and empirical literature on epistemology, it is evident that any instrument

designed to tap in to these beliefs must be multifaceted in nature and comprised of several sub-

scales. Specifically, based on the data presented here we offer an initial framework including

four subscales. These four sub-scales include: 1) beliefs about the ability to teach and the source

of teaching (pedagogical) knowledge, 2) beliefs about the importance of specific pedagogical

knowledge, 3) beliefs about the need of teachers for specific cognitive skills or abilities, and 4)

beliefs about the need of teachers for specific affective qualities. Table 6 outlines these sub-

scales and the content each would contain.

The first study presented here identified two teacher belief factors, one reflecting beliefs

about the acquisition of teaching knowledge and beliefs about the importance of pedagogical

knowledge content, these reflect the first two sub-scales forwarded in the previous paragraph.

However, we would make substantial adjustments to the construction of new subscales intended


to tap into these belief areas. First, for the nature of teaching ability subscale, we now recognize

an important need to offer respondents more options in this belief area. The PBKM instrument

discussed in Study I offer participants a dichotomous choice: teaching ability was innate (a

talent) or it was not (i.e., it was learned). However, in Study II, it became evident that preservice

and practicing teachers’ beliefs about this issue are not dichotomous, rather, these beliefs are

more complex than either or, with individuals believing teaching to be a talent that requires

additional training or polishing, believing that some people have a talent but others must learn,

and having a mixed or uncertain perspective. Additionally, some participants in Study II

considered teaching to be a calling. The inclusion of items reflective of this belief may be allow

us to better understand the nature of this belief construct, and whether persons holding it adapt a

more innate/fixed or more learned/ability orientation to the acquisition of teaching knowledge.

In addition to beliefs about the origins of the ability to teach, we are also interested in

exploring individuals’ beliefs about the sources of teaching knowledge in more depth. Data

pertaining to this issue was gathered using the OEPKBQ. However, we are still in the process of

analyzing the data and extracting relevant themes. Preliminary analysis suggests that preservice

and practicing teachers attribute their knowledge as coming from many different sourced (e.g.,

observation, personal experience, and formal bodies of knowledge). After exploring these open-

ended responses in more depth, we anticipate that we will also construct a subscale pertaining to

the sources of teachers’ knowledge. In our view, this would address some of the more

epistemological issues related to teachers’ knowledge.

The second sub-scale we propose would assess teachers’ beliefs about the importance of

various forms of teaching knowledge. That is, we would assess teachers’ beliefs about classroom

management and organization, pedagogy, content, and children. Specifically, we would separate


out specific knowledge bases within each of these broad categories of teacher knowledge. For

example, the term classroom management means many things to many people, rather than using

this global construct we would include more specific indicators that tap into this broad

knowledge base. Thus, we would assess issues of control and discipline, but also of movement

management in the classroom, with-it-ness, multi-tasking, and administration. We would make

similar efforts with the other areas identified.

The final two sub-scales offered are based solely on the themes that emerged from the

data gathered in Study II. These two sub-scales would assess teachers’ beliefs regarding the

cognitive skills (sub-scale 3) and affective qualities (sub-scale 4) were identified by participants

throughout the data. It will be interesting to see how these skills and qualities relate to other

important constructs frequently assessed in teachers such as teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997),

teacher burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981), teacher commitment Coldarci, (1992), and pupil

control beliefs (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).

In addition to the subscales offered here as a result of the present study, the extensive

data analysis conducted in Study II resulted in the emergence of other prevalent themes in

teachers’ beliefs. These additional subscales might include assessment of teachers beliefs about

the act of teaching (i.e., teaching as transfer, presentation, sharing, construction), the purpose of

teaching (i.e., to create learners, to better society, to help the individual), and perspectives on

teachers and teaching knowledge (i.e., teachers are special, teachers are not valued, teachers are

not nothing special). A detailed analysis and explanation of these themes is beyond the scope of

the present paper. However, we look forward to elaborating on them in more detail in the future.

This investigation has empirical and practical implications. Empirically, knowledge of

these beliefs will allow us to develop a measure of pedagogical knowledge beliefs and explore


these beliefs in relation to teachers’ practice, motivation, and development. Practically,

knowledge of these beliefs will allow teacher educators to specifically address misconceptions

and naïve beliefs that may hinder the development of effective teaching practice. Indeed, beliefs,

particularly teachers’ beliefs about teaching knowledge, are a difficult construct to assess.

However, the importance of these beliefs in learning and behavior underscores the need for this

pursuit.


References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. [Special Issue on

Knowledge and Beliefs] Educational Psychological Review, 13, 385-418.

Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge:

Domain general or domain specific? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415-

449.

Borko, H., Davinroy, K.H., Bliem, C.L., & Cumbo, K. B. (2000). Exploring and supporting

teacher change: Two third-grade teachers' experiences in a mathematics and literacy staff

development project. Elementary School Journal, 100, 273-306.

Brookhart, S.M. & Freeman, D.J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review

of Educational Research, 62, p. 37-60.

Buchanan, Christy M., Eccles, Jacquelyn S., Flanagan, Constance, Midgley, Carol, et al. (1990).

Parents' and teachers' beliefs about adolescents: Effects of sex and experience. Journal of

Youth & Adolescence, 19, pp. 363-394.

Coldarci, T. (1992). Teachers sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of

Experimental Education. 60, 323-334.

Enochs, L.G., Scharmann, L.C., & Riggs, I.M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to

preservice elementary science teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science

Education, 79, 63-75.

Fives, H. (2003). Exploring the relationships of teachers’ efficacy, knowledge, and pedagogical

beliefs: A multimethod study. Doctoral Dissertation.


Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs

about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational

Research, 67, 88-140.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective

teachers' beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 21-32.

Jehng, J. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students' epistemological

beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23-35.

Jordan, A. & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers' personal epistemological beliefs about students

with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in

Special Educational Needs, 3, 1-14.

Kagen, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27,

65-90.

Kardash, C. A. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological

beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88, 260-271.

LeCompte, M.D., & Pressle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative research design in

educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of teachers’ beliefs, Journal for Research

in Science teaching. 21, 27-38.


Munby, H.; Russell, T.; Martin, A. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it developes. In V.

Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th Edition), pp. 877-904).

Washington, D.C.: AERA

Maslach, D. & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of

Occupational Behavior. 2, 99-113.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-322.

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning.

Journal of Staff, Program, & Organizational Development, 16(2), 83-91.

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in

secondary school students' learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 87, 282-292.

Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological

standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248-258.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among

secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and math text

comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84, 435-443.


Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and

ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523-538.

Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M. & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and

practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213-

226.

Tsai, C.C. (2002). Nested Epistemologies: Science Teachers' Beliefs of Teaching, Learning and

Science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 771- 783.

Weinstein, C.S. (1998). "I want to be nice, but I have to be mean": Exploring prospective

teachers' conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 153-

163.

Woolfolk, A.E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about

control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.


Table 1

Pedagogical Belief Measure: Principal Axis Factor Analysis

Item

Letter Statement 1 2

H. Knowing how to use and implement teaching techniques is the hallmark of a

good teacher. .709 -.129

G. When I read a professional article, I am most interested in learning what new

teaching techniques are available. .616 -.081

F. Knowledge about instructional practices is the most important knowledge a

teacher can have. .541 .055

I. It is important to understand the theory behind teaching techniques. .524 .137

D. Knowledge about how to motivate students is essential for teaching. .513 -.082

A. Teaching is a talent. Some people have it, and some people do not.* .077 .954

J. Anyone can be a teacher. -.006 -.410

B. Good teachers get through most of their day on instinct.* .051 .369

M. It is easy to recognize quality teaching. .328 .011

N. The best teachers are passionate about their work. .324 .136

C. Expert subject-matter knowledge is necessary for effective teaching. .298 .055

L. Teaching is a skill that can only be learned and developed through practice. .249 .154

E. As long as teachers know how to manage a classroom students will learn.* -.152 .011

K. Expertise in teaching can be developed after only a few years of practice.* -.127 -.041

*Indicates reversed coded items


Table 2

Coding Schedule for Stage 3 of Data Analysis

Stage 3: Exhaustive Analysis of Data Person Responsible

Step Data Analyzed Researcher 1 Researcher 2

1 Lot A • Independently review and develop codes. • Collaboratively consolidate codes.

2 Lot B

• Apply codes • Generate new codes when

necessary • Broadly categorize codes by

theme.

3 Lot A • Apply codes developed in Step 2.

4 Lot C

• Apply codes from Step 2 • Generate new codes when

necessary • Broadly categorize codes by

theme.

Lots A & B Apply codes from Step 4 to Lots A & B Data

5

Lot C • Apply codes from Step 4 to Lot C Data.

6 Lots A, B, C

• Compare coding completed by both researchers.

• Consolidate such that the most fine-tuned coding is maintained.


Table 3 Beliefs about the Ability to Teach

Is the Ability To Teach Innate, Learned, or Something Else?

Emergent Theme Secondary Codes Used Sample Response

Inborn I feel that some people are born with the ability to teach and some aren't. You must be able to get your point across logically and be able to control your classroom. It is an art you must have within you, not anything you can pick up.

Talent I believe that some people are born with a talent for teaching, and some may not be. Those who are and pursue that career are the teachers out there who excel in the profession. Those who are not probably don't do as well and may not "stick" with the profession.

Instinct I do feel that some people have a natural instinct to teach. It's not for everyone. You must have a desire to want students to grasp the info. And you must be patient.

Personality I suppose- though it [teaching] may be that "good" teachers simply possess a high number of personality traits which help them be good teachers- empathy, love of learning, enthusiasm, patience, etc.

Developmental No. It [teaching] is not inherently in some people. I feel there is a developmental stage you reach where you feel confident in sharing what you know with others.

Innate

Everyone can teach Teaching is something everyone can do. Some are born with the ability to have a greater success in a classroom. It takes a special person to successfully pass on information (induce learning)


Table 3 cont’d



Born with other qualities that help teaching

Yes and no [is teaching innate?]. I feel gifted at exhortation, but have developed that gift into pedagogy.

Requires Polish

Part innate and part learned Some comes [teaching ability] from the tendencies we are born with and some comes from the education we get.

For some innate, for others learned I believe that some people have a natural ability to teach. However, with education and practice the rest of us can do perfectly well.

Innate for Some Learned for Others

Some are better at learning to teach than others

No, teaching is acquired through experience. The skills needed are not innately in each of us. However some are just naturally better than others.

Not sure if inborn I'm not sure people are 'born' with this talent. However, qualities developed within a person lend itself toward wanting to teach.

Unsure

Don’t exactly agree that teaching inborn I do not exactly agree w/ this statement but I do think that teachers are "called to teach" and some training is needed.


Table 3 cont’d



Not inborn No, you do have to have the born ability to be patient and understanding when dealing with children, but your skills are learned in college courses and from student teaching.

Not a talent I don't think teaching is a talent teachers are born with. It is a privilege to be a teacher. I think most people start teaching because of vicarious learning. I liked the way my son's teachers are and watching them teach, inspired me to become a teacher.

Requires training Yes, like I said in another questions- no one is born w/ a "teaching gene". Training is needed.

Learned

Learned (can learn) No [teaching is not innate]. I think teaching can be acquired and learned because of a desire to teach. If someone truly wants to be a teacher they can apply themselves and learn how to share this with others.


Table 3 Cont’d



Calling I believe so [teaching is innate]. Anyone can teach a particular topic, but to teach is a calling to me. I knew that every since I was a little girl that I was going to be a teacher. I feel it in my bones! There is nothing else that I'd rather be. Some people teach but they are not called to teach, that's why they don' stick with it but if you are born a teacher, you'll retire a teacher.

God-given gift or talent Teaching is a gift from God. Some are just born with it. I think that through observational learning and through taking the required education courses in college, you can better improve your skills and therefore become more effective.

Calling or Gift

Know you’re meant to be a teacher I believe it [teaching] is [innate]. Many people think they can teach until they get in the classroom. Many people that teach knew they were meant to be teachers for a long time.


Table 4 Belief about the Knowledge Necessary for and Unique to Teaching

What Knowledge is Necessary for Effective Teaching? What Knowledge is Unique to Teaching?


Control

You need to have the knowledge of how to have and enforce a classroom management system and what you should do if school policy is broken. Also, an effective teacher needs to know how different children learn so that each method of teaching can be produced in her classroom. She also needs to know the warning signs of common learning disorders.

Management & Organizational Knowledge

Time/Administrative Teachers must be able to learn how to multitask and organize. They must be able to adapt and be creative. They must be able to understand and be comfortable with a variety of teaching and learning styles.

Methods and Practices How to “read” students and knowing (or guessing) about which techniques will work best with which students.

Assessment How to create tests. How to assess students.

Motivation

Teachers find - seek out - keys to learning - they discover what motivates and use that to their advantage. They also, at some point, reach the realization that school is not fore everyone and at the same time - that they may have one of the single largest impacts upon a student's life. It will become unique in that teacher will also teach an assembly line course of food - content - going against all that current American thinking /business teachers us is important for change.

Knowledge of Pedagogy

Reach Students/ Maximize Learning

How to deliver information in a way that it can be acquired by learners with various styles of learning in a timely fashion and cause them to retain the knowledge.


Table 4 cont’d

What Knowledge is Necessary for Effective Teaching? What Knowledge is Unique to Teaching?


Content Knowledge For effective teaching the most important knowledge is of the content area, but as well it is important to have knowledge of educational issues and of those you are teaching.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge -content specific pedagogy; -effective classroom practices; -teachers know their subjects they teach and how to teach the material to students, they know how to make knowledge accessible to students; -teacher preparation; -conducting hands-on learning activities; -knowledge about managing and mentoring student learning.

Content Knowledge

Curriculum Curriculum is very important. State TEKS - very important and how to capture the audience's attention, and of course content.

Learners (general)

You need to know your learners-their strengths and weaknesses, their learning styles. You need to know your content and a variety of techniques from presenting information to best meet the needs of a variety of learners. You need the support of your system and administration including staff development, materials, support staff, planning time. Lastly, the freedom to experiment and learn from you successes and mistakes.

Knowledge of Children

Students (own) Activating students' prior knowledge; Knowing your students' interests, abilities, etc…; Knowing how to care for your students.

Self One must first understand their personal strengths and weaknesses. Then, they must understand how and when people learn, and when they are able to acquire different levels of knowledge. They must also have the leadership ability to control their classroom/learning environment. Self/Other

Knowledge Other Different strategies for reaching all types of students; A strong base of the content

area one is teaching; People skills; Common sense; How to be creative; Humor.


Table 5 Teaching Skills and Qualities

Teaching Skills and Qualities

Emergent Theme Secondary Codes Sample Response

Oration, Presentation Yes. I believe people are born with the talent, as (true) teachers can articulate very well the subject being taught, to their student(s)

People Skills

Yes, some will ultimately be better than others, because they possess better social skills and are more personable, but teaching can be learn [ed] -from practice to trial and error -- you can learn other aspects of teaching like discipline, classroom management. And knowing these will help you to become more effective to your students.

Communication/ People

Listening Be a listener and be open to your students’ suggestions. If you listen they will listen.

Adaptability Flexibility …Good teachers can 'think on the spot" and adjust strategies/ plans to better meet the need of the moment. The natural ability to do this is usually due to innate abilities nurtured & developed from birth…

Creativity I believe teachers possess certain characteristics that others do not embody. Teachers are creative, caring, organized, responsible, and hard-working.

Skill

s (C

ogni

tive/

Thin

king

abi

litie

s)

Stress Management 1) subject matter first; 2) understanding development of child or adolescent; 3) practical knowledge of teaching, such as classroom management; stress management..


Table 5 Cont’d



Caring, Compassionate

Yes. It's like learning to garden - you might acquire all the tools but not know the processes or appropriate timing. These are things that can be learned to equip you to become a gardener - an effective gardener. The same is true of teaching. On can be taught what the tools are and how and when to use them, enabling him/her to become an effective teacher. However, head-knowledge, alone, will not make a good teacher. "Heart-knowledge" - if you will - is crucial to understanding and feeling empathy with our students so we can meet them where they are and encourage them to reach their full potential.

Love Children (people) I definitely think you need to have a love for children and a desire to help student succeed in life.

Patience …You have to have patience and love people and it will have to be something you want to do and see yourself doing. Q

ualit

ies (

Aff

ectiv

e/Fe

elin

g A

bilit

ies)

Nurturance/Care

More than relaying information …Teachers have to care not just relay information.


Table 5 Cont’d.



Passion, Optimism

To know that you need to be passionate about your job. Teaching isn't just standing in front of a class talking. You're going to have to be there for your students and help them along the way. You have to let them know you care about them and show them that you love them. You have to be willing to make a difference in one's life.

Love of Learning

Love Teaching

Yes, [learning is innate] a person can know all theories and terms for being a teacher. It takes a special person who has a love of learning, teaching, and people to be a teacher, not everyone has that ability.

Love Subject If a person has the love of a subject and the personality of wanting to give, plus the ability to be very flexible becoming an effective teacher is possible.

Enthusiasm

Want to Make a Difference Yes, but they must first have a desire to want to help others.

Commitment, Dedication Knowledge of how students learn, what are affective teaching strategies, patience, caring and dedication is important.

Fair: giving what learners need

Good behavior management skills. One must understand that fair does not mean that everyone is treated the same. Fair means that each child gets what he/she needs. Understanding of how to accommodate the learning disabled children in your classroom. Understanding how to spot weaknesses for referrals. Mentoring in the teaching field. Q

ualit

ies (

Aff

ectiv

e/Fe

elin

g A

bilit

ies)

Integrity & Dedication

Respect for Students

(1) Hopefully, knowledge about the characteristics, skills and potentials of each student with whom they work. (2) Maintaining respect for each student and meeting them at the point of their immediate interests. If a teacher could accomplish each of these he/she could have a tremendous impact on students and on the world. Most students attend public schools; so at some point, each one in the community will have contact with you as a teacher. That allows us the opportunity to affect lives during their most formative and impressionable years. Few other professions have this privilege.


Table 6

Framework for Pedagogical Knowledge Beliefs Instrument

Framework for Instrument Assessing Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge Beliefs

Subscale Item Content Teaching is… 1. Ability to

Acquire Teaching Knowledge

innate partly innate but requires training.

innate for some and learned for others.

is learned. a calling

It is most important that teachers know… 2. Importance of specific pedagogical knowledge

classroom management and organization.

pedagogy. content and pedagogical content knowledge.

children in general; their students in particular.

Teachers must have… 3. Needs for Cognitive Skills have communication and people

skills. have ingenuity.

Teachers must… 4. Needs for Affective Qualities care/nurture. have enthusiasm be committed


Appendix 1 Pedagogical Knowledge Beliefs

Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. A. Teaching is a talent. Some people have it, and some people do not.

1--------------2--------------3-------------4----------------5--------------6--------------7--------------8-------------9 Do Not Disagree Agree Completely Agree At all Agree

B. Good teachers get through most of their day on instinct.


C. Expert subject-matter knowledge is necessary for effective teaching.


D. Knowledge about how to motivate students is essential for teaching.


E. As long as teachers know how to manage a classroom students will learn.


F. Knowledge about instructional practices is the most important knowledge a teacher can

have. 1--------------2--------------3-------------4----------------5--------------6--------------7--------------8-------------9 Do Not Disagree Agree Completely Agree At all Agree

G. When I read a professional article, I am most interested in learning what new teaching techniques are available. 1--------------2--------------3-------------4----------------5--------------6--------------7--------------8-------------9 Do Not Disagree Agree Completely Agree At all Agree

H. Knowing how to use and implement teaching techniques is the hallmark of a good

teacher. 1--------------2--------------3-------------4----------------5--------------6--------------7--------------8-------------9 Do Not Disagree Agree Completely Agree At all Agree


I. It is important to understand the theory behind teaching techniques.


J. Anyone can be a teacher.


K. Expertise in teaching can be developed after only a few years of practice.


L. Teaching is a skill that can only be learned and developed through practice. 1--------------2--------------3-------------4----------------5--------------6--------------7--------------8-------------9 Do Not Disagree Agree Completely Agree At all Agree

M. It is easy to recognize quality teaching.


N. The best teachers are passionate about their work.



Appendix 2

Pedagogical Beliefs Questionnaire

Directions: Respond to the following questions based on your beliefs. There are, no right or wrong answers. If you need additional space, please use the back of the page. Please respond to the questions in the order that they are presented. DO NOT examine or respond to the questions out of order (i.e., do not look forward or backward as you respond).

1. What is teaching?

2. Is teaching a talent people are born with? Please explain.

3. What do you believe is the purpose of schools?

4. What knowledge is necessary for effective teaching? Please be specific.

5. Describe your philosophy of teaching.

6. In the next 20 years… a. How much do you think the knowledge needed for effective teaching will change?

b. In what way(s) do you think the knowledge needed for teaching will change? Please

provide specific examples.

7. Where does knowledge of how to teach come from?

8. What knowledge do teachers hold that is unique to the teaching profession?

9. Can someone learn how to be an effective teacher? Please explain.

10. If you could design your own teacher education program what elements would you include? Please explain.

11. Choose one or more of the following that best represents your beliefs about teaching?

Please explain your selection(s). c. Teaching is an art. d. Teaching is a science. e. Teaching is persuasion. f. Teaching is transmission. g. Teaching is transformation. h. Teaching is modeling. i. Teaching is scaffolding. j. Teaching is __________________.

(add your own)


12. The following Teacher Goals have been identified in a variety of research studies. Please rank these goals in order of importance based on your own belief system from 1 (most important) to 13 (least important).

Teachers should emphasize… ____ Equality among students

____ The products of learning

____ Instruction based on student interests

____ Student independence

____ Learning standards

____ Content specific knowledge

____ Academic excellence

____ Critical thinking in students

____ Life-long learning

____ Generalized skills and abilities

____ Instruction based on subject matter

____ The process of learning

____ Student creativity

Documents

Pedagogical Knowledge Beliefs 1 Running head - CiteSeer