• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Effect of Post-Organizers on Preservice Teachers' Content Knowledge and Understanding of Effective Teaching Behaviors

Posted on: Thursday, 6 October 2005, 06:00 CDT

By Butz, Janet A; Miller, Susan Peterson; Butz, Craig

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 2 types of post-organizers on undergraduate students' content knowledge and understanding of effective teaching behaviors. Students enrolled in the same methods course were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental post-organizer group. The control and experimental students attended all class sessions together and received the same instruction for the first 130 minutes of class. The control and experimental students were then separated for the last 15 minutes of each class session. The control group participated in post-organizers that involved review of the content taught during class. The experimental group participated in post- organizers that involved review of the effective teaching behaviors that were modeled during class. No significant difference between the groups was noted regarding content knowledge, but a significant difference was found between the groups related to understanding effective teaching behaviors. Implications for college level instruction are discussed.

Throughout the past decade, much has been written about the need for improvements within teacher preparation programs (Ishler, 1994; Judge & Oreshkina, 2004; Pollard & Tomlin, 1995; Smith, 1988). Specifically, educators and researchers have discussed the need to make teacher preparation programs more responsive to the demands placed on beginning teachers as they enter their induction year within public schools. Much is now known about validated curricula, validated instructional practices, and effective teaching behaviors (Ellis & Fouts, 1997; Kameenui & Carnine, 1998; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994; Vogler, 2002). In fact, more is known now than ever before about teaching and learning. Thus, teacher educators are motivated to integrate this research-based information into their methods course work. They are wrestling, however, with how to organize these courses so that students learn both the course content (e.g., specific reading comprehension strategies, specific methods for monitoring student progress, specific generalization strategies) and the more general processes of effective teaching (e.g., providing specific academic praise, using factual and analysis level questioning, providing feedback, reviewing). Methods courses seem to be the logical place to integrate information about validated curricula and instructional practices with what is known about effective teaching. Merging these knowledge bases is likely to result in the preparation of successful teachers who obtain high achievement from their students.

The challenge involved in blending both course content and information about effective teaching behaviors primarily revolves around time issues. The hours allotted to methods courses are limited, so important decisions must be made regarding how to effectively and efficiently use the time that is available.

Although much research has been conducted related to effective teaching in public school settings (Brophy & Good, 1986; Coppedge, 1993; McLeskey & Waldron, 2004; Zeigler, 1993), data related to teaching effectiveness in higher education is limited to student and faculty members' perceptions of effectiveness rather than specific measures of student learning.

In a review of 31 studies, Feldman (1988) found that students and faculty placed high importance on teachers being prepared and organized, clear and understandable, and sensitive to class level and progress. Both students and faculty placed moderate importance on teachers being open to class discussion and the opinions of others.

Keller, Mattie, Vodanovich, and Piotrowski (1991) investigated perceptions of university teaching effectiveness among traditional (aged 17-19) and nontraditional (aged 27-65) students. The younger students rated reviewing before exams, moving around the classroom, and being available to students outside of class as significantly more important than the older students did. The older students rated making practical applications to real problems and showing enthusiasm and love for subject as significantly more important than the younger students did. Both groups were similar in their beliefs regarding the importance of providing many examples, providing outlines for the class, knowing students' names, giving students credit whenever possible, varying voice tone, allowing students to challenge, using humor, and providing discussion time in class.

No studies were located regarding efficiency of time usage in university classes, although several educators (McNeal, 1998; Murray & Murray, 1992) have noted the importance of structured closure at the end of each class. Specifically, they suggest that key concepts should be consolidated and summarized to enhance student learning. The limited number of studies related to effective teaching behaviors in college classes and the absence of studies related to time efficiency in higher education classes may reflect the belief that university students can learn course content even if they do not think the instructor is very good (Basow, 1990). University students who are preparing to become teachers, however, may benefit greatly from seeing effective and efficient instruction modeled in their methods classes. Educators and researchers (Allinder, 2001; Bass & Chambless, 1994; Bouas, 1996; Ellsworth, 1993; Hawkes, 1991; Shapson & Smith, 1999) have advocated for the use of modeling within teacher preparation courses, yet very few teacher educators have embraced this practice. There continues to be an over-reliance on lecture without modeling and demonstration (Ellsworth, 1993; Lyon, Vaassen, &Toomey, 1989). Specifically, Goubeaud and Yan (2004) found that among teacher educators (N = 524), 50.5% used lectures, 27.9% used discussion, 15.4% used labor or applied activities, and 6.1% used group work as their main instructional methods.

Perhaps the greatest barrier associated with modeling in teacher preparation courses involves the perception that modeling and demonstrating instructional methodology takes time away from the delivery of content and therefore less coverage of course matetial occurs. It seems, however, that telling students about instructional methods without demonstrating the generic teaching behaviors that need to be in place for the instructional methods to be effective is a tremendous oversight. Empirical research is needed to investigate specific ways to integrate the modeling of effective teaching behaviors into methods courses without detracting from important course content. A potential way to address this challenge is for university instructors to demonstrate generic effective teaching behaviors while delivering the course content related to instructional methodology. Thus, future teachers will learn methods course content while simultaneously observing effective teaching behaviors. Such an approach may help preservice students link theory to practice (Stalberte, 1996; Strawderman & Lindsey, 1995) and prepare them to meet performance-based standards, established by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Evaluation (NCATE), in subsequent field experiences (Elliott, 1996). If the adage is true that individuals tend to teach the way they are taught, then it is critical for preservice teachers to receive the best instruction possible during : their preparation programs.

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the potential benefits of modeling research-based effective teaching behaviors and using post-organizers while providing instruction in an undergraduate special education methods course. Specifically, two types of post-organizers were compared, and the effects on student learning were measured.

Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study were 25 students (8 males and 17 females) enrolled in a learning strategies class for upper-division undergraduate students. The participants' ages ranged from 19 to 50, and their grade point averages ranged from 1.84 to 3.95 (M = 3.06). All 25 students were majoring in special education with the intent of teaching students with disabilities after completing a bachelor of science degree. In addition to working on a degree in special education, most of the participants were employed on a part-time basis. Specific demographic information for participants by group is reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Participant Demographics by Group

Setting and Course Context

This investigation examined the experiences of students enrolled in a 3-credit hour course introducing research-based methods for teaching students with disabilities. Specifically, the course was designed to provide a general overview of the Strategy Instruction Model (SIM) developed at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) and to provide intensive training in three of the curriculum strategies: The Paraphrasing Strategy (Schumaker, Denton, & Deshler, 1984), The Test-Taking Strategy (Hughes, Schumaker, Deshler, & Mercer, 1993), and The Word Identification Strategy (Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Beals, 1996). These instructional strategies are designed to teach school-aged students how to comprehend narrative text, improve test scores, and decode unknown words.

A v\ariety of instructional procedures were used to teach the university course content. Included among these were lecture, class discussion, small group application activities, demonstration lessons, multimedia presentations, and a field-based implementation project. Each student's course grade was based on class participation, demonstration of one strategy lesson in class, implementation of one of the strategies through a 20+ hour field- based project, and two quizzes. Two instructors were assigned to teach the course. One instructor was an associate professor in the Department of Special Education and a certified professional developer of SIM. The other instructor was a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special Education and a potential professional developer of SIM (i.e., working on requirements to become certified).

Instrumentation

A total of five instruments were used in this study: Student Profile, Announced Quiz One, Announced Quiz Two, Unannounced Content Quiz, and Unannounced Effective Teaching Behavior Quiz.

Student Profile. The Student Profile is a researcher-constructed form designed to elicit demographic data from the study subjects. Items included on the Student Profile were these: (a) birth date, (b) gender, (c) class standing, (d) credit hours enrolled in during the semester, (e) specific courses previously taken, (f) overall grade point average, (g) current employment and work hours per week, (h) previous or current employment with a school district, and (i) type of position.

Announced Quiz One. Announced Quiz One was an objective quiz that students knew they were going to take. The quiz included 30 multiple- choice questions (worth 3 points each) and 5 true/false questions (worth 2 points each) for a total of 100 points. The questions addressed course content covered during the first six class sessions (i.e., overview of the learning strategies instructional approach and the Paraphrasing Strategy). Points earned on this quiz counted toward students' grades in the course.

Announced Quiz Two. Announced Quiz Two was an objective quiz that students knew they were going to take. The quiz included 30 multiple- choice questions (worth 3 points each) and 5 true/false questions (worth 2 points each) for a total of 100 points. The questions addressed course content covered during the 18th through 11th class sessions (i.e., the Test-Taking Strategy and modifying strategy instruction for elementary level students). Points earned on this quiz counted toward students' grades in the course.

Unannounced Content Quiz. Unannounced Content Quiz was a fill-in- the-blank and short answer quiz worth a total of 35 points. The quiz addressed the content covered during the first 10 weeks of the course. Students did not know ahead of time that they were going to take this quiz and therefore did not prepare for it. Points earned on the quiz did not count toward students' grades in the course.

Unannounced Effective Teaching Behavior Quiz. Unannounced Effective Teaching Behavior Quiz included fill-in-the-blank and listing questions worth a total of 25 points. The quiz addressed students' knowledge related to effective teaching behaviors. Students did not know ahead of time that they were going to take this quiz and therefore did not prepare for it. Points earned on the quiz did not count toward students' grades in the course.

Procedures

The 25 students enrolled in the undergraduate methods course were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups, resulting in 13 subjects in the experimental group and 12 subjects in the control group. The 150-minute class met once a week for 15 weeks. Data collection for this study took place during the first 12 weeks of the course.

The experimental and control group subjects received content instruction together as a whole intact class for the first 130 minutes of each class session. The course instructors team-taught the content instruction using multimedia PowerPoint presentations, small group application activities, and class-wide group discussions. In addition to facilitating the delivery and understanding of course content, the instructors demonstrated two to three effective teaching behaviors during each class session.

The effective teaching behaviors were taken from the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) instrument (Coalition for the Development of the Florida Performance Measurement System, 1983). The instrument specifies 19 research-based, effective teaching indicators that relate to instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, communication (verbal and non-verbal), and management of student conduct. Reliability (i.e., .80 or above for total scores and subscales) and content validity for this instrument are very strong (Micceri, 1984). The Appendix details the effective teaching behaviors that were demonstrated each week of class.

During the last 20 minutes of each class session, the experimental and control groups were separated and received two different types of post-organizers. A total of 5 minutes was allotted for transition time, leaving 15 minutes for post- organizers. The 1st week the more experienced instructor stayed in the classroom with the experimental group, and the less experienced instructor took the control group to another classroom in the College of Education. The 2nd week the more experienced instructor stayed in the classroom with the control group, and the less experienced instructor took the experimental group to another classroom. The instructors alternated groups each week to prevent any bias that might have occurred as a result of having the more experienced instructor always leading a particular group.

Experimental group post-organizer. The experimental group received a 15-minute post-organizer that involved reviewing the effective teaching behaviors that were demonstrated during the 130- minute class session. During the first post-organizer, the instructor obtained a commitment from the students indicating they would not discuss what they had done during the last 15 minutes of class with students in the other group. The instructor began the post-organizer by saying, "At the end of each class session throughout this semester, we're going to spend 15 minutes talking about the effective teaching behaviors that were demonstrated in class. Tell me what effective teaching behaviors you saw demonstrated today." After calling on several students to share what they had observed, the instructor asked specific questions to review the effective teaching behaviors demonstrated during the class session. Each week the experimental group post-organizer began with students identifying the effective teaching behaviors that had been demonstrated. The instructor used questions to ensure that students recognized the effective teaching behaviors that were target behaviors for that particular class session (see Appendix).

Control group post-organizer. The control group received a 15- minute post-organizer that involved reviewing the content that was covered during the 130-minute class session. During the first post- organizer, the instructor obtained a commitment from the students indicating they also would not discuss what they had done during the last 15 minutes of class with students in the other group. The instructor began the post-organizer by saying, "At the end of each class session throughout this semester, we're going to spend 15 minutes reviewing the content that was presented in class. Tell me what you learned about the learning strategy curriculum today." After calling on several students to share what they had learned, the instructor asked specific questions to review the content covered during the class session. Each week the control group post- organizer began with students sharing what they had learned during the class session. The instructor used questions to ensure that students understood the most critical content covered in that particular class session.

Demonstration Lessons

Four class sessions (Weeks 5, 6, 10, 11) were used to give all students enrolled in the class an opportunity to team-teach (demonstrate) one 30-minute learning strategy lesson. Half of the students taught lessons from the Paraphrasing Strategy on Weeks 5 and 6 (immediately following class instruction on the Paraphrasing Strategy) and half of the students taught lessons from the Test- Taking Strategy on Weeks 10 and 11 (immediately following class instruction on the Test-Taking Strategy). Students were permitted to select their team teacher and the lesson they wanted to teach. However, no two teaching teams were allowed to demonstrate the same lesson. A sign-up sheet was brought to class early in the semester to ensure that no lessons were duplicated.

At the conclusion of the 30-minute demonstration lessons, the class provided positive feedback to the team teachers. The class as a whole, including the two course instructors, identified effective teaching behaviors demonstrated during the lessons. Positive and corrective feedback was given in written form to each student.

During the last 15 minutes of Weeks 5 and 6, the control and experimental groups again participated in their usual post- organizer format; the control group reviewed the content presented in the demonstration lessons, and the experimental group reviewed effective teaching behaviors. The 15-minute post-organizers implemented in Week 10 were comprehensive reviews. The control group reviewed cumulative course content using 23 study questions that they answered and discussed as a group. The experimental group reviewed all the effective teaching indicators targeted during weekly class sessions using a copy of the FPMS instrument. This instrument listed 19 effective teacher behaviors. The control group members were permitted to keep the list of questions, and the experimental group members were permitted to keep the copy of the FPMS ins\trument.

Quizzes

Study-related quizzes and posttests were administered during Weeks 7, 11, and 12. Announced Quiz One was administered during Week 7. The Unannounced Content Quiz and the Unannounced Effective Teaching Behavior Quiz were administered during Week 11 after the demonstration lessons were implemented. Students were given 20 minutes to complete these quizzes. Announced Quiz Two was administered during Week 12.

Results

A multivariate analysis of variance was performed on three dependent variables-Announced Quiz One (learning strategy and paraphrasing content), Announced Quiz Two (modifications for younger students and test-taking content), and the Unannounced Content Quiz- to determine whether the groups differed in their understanding of the course content. With the use of Wilk's criterion, the combined dependent measures were not significantly affected by group, F(3, 21) = .680, p > .50. Box's test of equality was conducted and the assumption of homogeneity of variance for the MANOVA was met, p > .05. No statistically significant differences were noted between the means of the two groups in the two Announced Content Quizzes or the Unannounced Content Quiz. A statistically significant difference was found between the groups on the Unannounced Effective Teaching Behavior Quiz, F(3, 21) = 26.363, p < .005, ES =.534.

An independent means t test was performed on the Effective Teaching Behavior Quiz scores of the two groups to determine whether the groups differed in their understanding of effective teaching behaviors. A statistically significant difference was noted in the mean scores of the two groups, t(23) = 5.14, p < .005, favoring the experimental group (see Table 2).

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, F and t Scores for Quizzes by Group

Discussion

The results of this study indicated that undergraduate students can learn and perform equally well on measures of content knowledge, regardless of whether or not they receive specific post-organizer reviews of the content. This was true for both announced and unannounced quizzes. Results also indicated that a systematic instructor plan for modeling effective teaching behaviors combined with a 15-minute post-organizer review of the demonstrated behaviors was beneficial for increasing students' knowledge about effective teaching. These findings support the recommendations of several researchers (Allinder, 2001; Goubeaud & Yan, 2004; Shapson & Smith, 1999) to integrate modeling into teacher preparation programs. The current findings, however, also provide important information related to the conditions under which modeling is effective. Simply demonstrating the behaviors without a post-organizer review was insufficient in terms of increasing students' ability to identify these behaviors. This was true in spite of having brief, whole- class discussions of effective teaching behaviors used by peer teachers during their demonstration lessons in Weeks 5, 6, 10, and 11. The study findings also have implications for the way in which college instructors allocate their time during methods classes. Specifically, students benefit from discussing the process of teaching as well as the course content. Postorganizers that focussed on review of class demonstrations were more beneficial than post- organizers that focussed on review of content presented through lecture and discussion. Thus, university instructors should intentionally allocate time for discussion of effective teaching processes to facilitate greater overall learning among their students. Modeling, without time to explicitly discuss what was modeled, was insufficient.

Based on this research, an effective and efficient way for teacher educators to promote both content knowledge and knowledge about effective teaching behaviors is to model effective teaching behaviors while delivering the course content and then use post- organizer time (e.g., 15 minutes) to discuss behaviors that were modeled. The post-organizer for students in the experimental group ensured they understood the significance of the teaching behaviors that had been modeled during the delivery of course content. Without this type of post-organizer (i.e., explicitly linked to what was modeled), students acquired less knowledge related to effective teaching behaviors.

Caution must be exercised, however, when evaluating the potential effects of increased knowledge about effective teaching behaviors. Teacher educators should not assume that ability to recognize and identify effective teaching behaviors automatically translates to ability to implement them.

Additional research should be conducted to further explore the relationship between knowledge about effective teaching behaviors and the ability to demonstrate them. Methods courses that extend beyond the acquisition of knowledge about validated practices into the arena of performance competencies will be more beneficial to students in the long run. Researchers and educators need to explore effective and efficient ways to ensure that students learn the course content, learn effective teaching behaviors, and most importantly, learn how to integrate the two. Acquisition of these competencies in methods courses will increase candidates' likelihood of successful preservice field experiences and potentially enhance their performance as practicing teachers.

References

Allinder, R. M. (2001). Effects of modeling on attitudes and perceptions of preservice special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 362-372.

Basow, S. A. (1990). Effects of teacher expressiveness: Mediated by teacher sex-typing? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 599- 602.

Bass, J. A., & Chambless, M. (1994). Modeling in teacher education: The effects on writing attitude. Action in Teacher Education, 16, 37-44.

Bouas, M. J. (1996). Are we giving cooperative learning enough attention in preservice teacher education? Teacher Education Quarterly, 23, 45-58.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: MacMillan.

Coalition for the Development of the Florida Performance Measurement System. (1983). Teacher evaluation project (final report for 1982-83). Tallahassee, FL: Department of Education, Office of Teacher Education, Certification, and Staff Development.

Coppedge, F. (1993). Excellence in education: Meeting the challenge with effective practice. NASSP-Bulletin, 77(554), 34-41.

Elliott, E. (1996). What performance based standards mean for teacher preparation. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 57-59.

Ellis, A. K., & Fouts, J. T. (1997). Research on educational innovations (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Ellsworth, N. J. (1993). Trainees' perceptions of types of instructional practices modeled in an urban teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 34-41.

Feldman, K. A. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students and faculty's view: Matched or mismatched priorities? Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 291-344.

Goubeaud, K., & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators' teaching methods, assessments, and grading: A comparison of higher education faculty's instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 1- 16.

Hawkes, B. B. (1991). Teacher locus of control: Who is responsible? Education, 3(4), 475-479.

Hughes, C. A., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). The test-taking strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

Ishler, R. E. (1994). Improved teacher preparations. National Forum, 7-4(4), 3.

Judge, S., & Oreshkina, M. (2004). Special education teacher preparation in Belgium, Russia, and United States: A comparative study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 240-250.

Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.

Keller, J. W., Mattie, N., Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (1991). Teaching effectiveness: Comparisons between traditional and nontraditional college students. Innovative Higher Education, 15, 177-184.

Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Beals, V. L. (1996). The word identification strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Lyon, G. R., Vaassen, M., & Toomey, F. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of their undergraduate and graduate preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 164-169.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Effective instruction for special education (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2004). Three conceptions of teacher learning: Exploring the relationship between knowledge and the practice of teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 3-14.

McNeal, A. P. (1998). Death of the talking heads. College Teaching, 46(3), 90-92.

Micceri, T. (1984). Establishing the reliability of the Florida performance measurement system's research based observation instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED254549)

Murray, J. P., & Murray, J. I. (1992). How do I lecture thee? College Teaching, 40(3), 109-113.

Pollard, R., & Tomlin, M. E. (1995). The use of expert teachers to improve education. Education, 116(1), 3-6.

Schumaker, J. B., Demon, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Shapson, S. M., & Smith, N. (1999). Transformative teaching: An agenda for faculties of education. Education Canada, 39, 4-6.

Smith, D. C. (1988). The urgent agenda: Reform of pre-service teacher preparation. The Clearing House, 61(7), 300-313.

Stalberte, T. S. (1996). Applied learning internship and cooperative opportunities. Black Collegian, 27(1), 68-70.

Strawderman, C., & Lindsey, P. (1995). Keeping up with the times: Reform in teacher education. Jour\nal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 95-101.

Vogler, K. E. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state-mandated student performance assessment on teachers' instructional practices. Education, 123(1), 39-55.

Zeigler, J. W. (1993). Identifying effective teaching practices: The learner's perspective. NASSP-Bulletin, 76(549), 112-115.

Janet A. Butz, Susan Peterson Miller, and Craig Butz Special Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Appendix

Appendix

Copyright Ball State University Summer 2005

Source: Teacher Educator, The

More News in this Category