CHAPTER 2 EXAMINING PUPIL ATTAINMENT AND PUPIL PROGRESS WITHIN THE
2.2 An Overview of Teacher Effectiveness Research
Teacher effectiveness research is rooted in the psychological, the behavioural and the pedagogical aspects of teaching and ―…is essentially concerned with how best to bring about the desired pupil learning by some educational activity‖ (Kyriacou, 1997:9). Up to the 1960‘s, teacher effectiveness research was dominated by presage-product studies.
These studies sought to identify the link between teacher attributes such as sex, age and teacher training with pupil outcome (Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; Kyriacou, 1997;
Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Borich (1996) attributes the difficulty in eliciting a direct association between teacher attributes and pupil outcome to the broadness of the definition of teacher experience. On the other hand, Chilodue (1996) elicited a significant relationship between teacher attributes and pupil outcome. Interestingly, he interpreted this relationship as to the different interpretation of teacher experience across cultures. Presage-product studies were dubbed as ―black-box‖ research because they largely ignored teaching activity that was taking place in classrooms (McNamara, 1980).
During the process-product phase, the concept that successful teachers teach pupils in diverse ways than less successful teachers became central to the examination of teacher effects. Teaching-style studies developed dichotomies such as ―non-directive versus directive‖ (Tuckman, 1968) or ―progressive versus traditional‖ (Bennett, 1976). In the ORACLE study (Galton, Simon & Croll, 1980), the association between teaching style and pupil outcome was minimal. Croll (1996) re-analysed this data and found a weak but positive correlation of 0.29 between whole-class, small-group interaction and pupil progress. Studies that linked teaching styles with pupil outcome soon went out of fashion due to conceptual limitations. In fact, it is erroneous for a teaching style to vary over time and then associate this with pupil progress (Goldstein, 1979). Campbell et al.
(2004) argue that investigating single teacher behaviours, rather than a cluster of behaviours as in teaching styles, is more useful because it is easier for teachers to
address issues related to one behaviour at a time. An important development that occurred during the process-product phase refers to the examination of the effect of teaching conditions such as classroom climate, whole-class direct and interactive methods and diverse teaching strategies (Good et al., 1990; Rosenshine, 1979). During this phase, pupils were tested at the beginning and at the end of a study. This methodological development allowed the comparison of pupil outcomes over time.
Researchers also observed teachers by administering structured instruments and/or questionnaires which facilitated the collation of richer forms of data.
From the late 1990‘s onwards, teacher effectiveness research has been characterized by constructivist approaches to teaching (Campbell et al., 2004). Recognition that teaching is a constructivist activity and is better served by direct methods and interactive approaches implies acknowledging the importance of factors broader to instruction such as: teaching conditions, the curriculum, teaching methods, classroom organization and time. Constructivism is as much a ―philosophical position as an educational strategy‖ (Mujis & Reynolds, 2011:77). Constructivism implies that knowledge is constructed rather than perceived. In schools, this implies that pupils construct knowledge for themselves rather than merely receiving knowledge from the teacher. This implies that individual pupils learn things differently. Since learning is constructed and not received this implies that the way in which teachers guide and lead pupils, by the approaches, methods and strategies that they adopt and implement during lessons, is of paramount importance in supporting and fostering pupil learning.
Teacher effectiveness research has also advanced by acknowledging the influence of direct instructional methods such as clear and structured presentations, pacing, modelling, use of conceptual mapping, interactive questioning, preparation and organization of seatwork, feedback about seatwork and possibly the differentiation of seatwork (Mujis & Reynolds, 2011). However direct instruction alone ―is not necessarily the best strategy to use in all circumstances‖ (Mujis & Reynolds, 2011:50).
This implies that learning (and teaching) are active, dynamic and more complex processes that search for meaning and that meaning is constructed within the social reality of the classroom which lies nested within the broader social reality of the school (Mujis & Reynolds, 2011). Therefore learning is contextualized by the practice of teaching. In turn, teaching should aim to contextualize learning in ways that enhance
the development of pupils. A constructivist approach to teaching also implies that teaching is interactive. Mujis and Reynolds (2011) discuss how interactivity implies that teachers know when and how to use different types of questioning such as open, closed, process and/or product question to elicit a response for pupils after engaging pupils at an appropriate cognitive level. An interactive approach when teaching also implies that teachers know how to offer feedback when a pupils answers correctly to a question, when a pupil answers correctly but exhibits hesitation, when a pupil answers incorrectly or when a pupil answers part of a question correctly. The use of prompting, the amount of wait-time allocated by teachers to pupils to answer questions and the use of probing even when pupils supply the correct answers are also strategies employed by teachers who adopt interactive teaching approaches.
Consequently, increased knowledge about the educational benefits of teachers adopting direct methods coupled with interactive approaches has led to a recognition that the evaluation of teacher quality should: be approached from different input, process and output angles. Inputs are what teachers bring to the position of teaching. The background of teachers, qualifications, their experiences and their beliefs are amongst the contextual characteristics associated with teachers and teaching. Outputs refer to the outcomes associated with the array and complexity of teacher and teaching processes. Teacher outcomes, when considered as the result of classroom processes, are usually defined in terms of pupils‘ standardised gain on standardised tests of achievement. Teachers‘ contributions to the school as a community of teaching (and learning), the taking on of leadership roles and good relations with parents are also amongst the other outcomes that are related to teaching (Goe, Bell & Little, 2008).
Teacher processes generally refer to the classroom interaction that occurs between teacher and pupils. In this way, Goe, Bell and Little (2008) argue for a broader conceptualization of teacher effectiveness by referring to the responsibilities of teachers within schools. Fenstermacher and Richardson (2005:190-191), describe why teachers should not be held solely responsible for pupil outcomes:
…it makes sense to think of successful teaching arising solely from the actions of a teacher…Yet we all know that learners are not passive recipients of information directed at them. Learning does not arise solely on the basis of teacher activity.
Dynamic, complex and constructivist understandings of teaching, schooling and education raise the following question: are teachers effective across school-taught subjects as well as teaching and learning domains? Besides implying a differential concept of educational and school effectiveness, this question also implies a differentiated concept of teacher effectiveness (Campbell et al., 2004). An approach that is consistent with a broader conceptualisation of teacher effectiveness whereby pupil outcomes are viewed as influenced by various factors that extend ―beyond the classroom‖ (2004: 58) and beyond the behavioural to include teaching dimensions such as subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, teacher beliefs and teachers‘ sense of self-efficacy. Campbell et al. (2004:50) describe this phase as ―more congruent with developments in psychology and a phase that is sympathetic about the constructivist nature of teacher beliefs, teacher behaviours and teacher knowledge.‖ Therefore, evaluation of the quality of teacher activity and/or practice should also examine teacher beliefs besides teacher behaviours, the quality of lessons as organized by teachers as well as teacher pedagogy.
Despite the diverse approaches to teacher effectiveness research, there is consensus as to the characteristics of an effective teacher. Porter and Brophy (1988) described effective teachers as teachers who: are clear about instructional goals, are knowledgeable about the curriculum and strategies to teach the curriculum content, communicate to pupils what is expected of them and give reasons for this, use instructional materials to clarify the curriculum content, adapt instruction to pupils‘
individual needs, give pupils opportunities to master their learning, teach towards both lower and higher order cognitive objectives, monitor pupil understanding through feedback, integrate instruction across subject areas, and who are responsible for pupil outcome and who reflect about their practice. Mortimore et al. (1988) described effective teachers as teachers who: order the activities for the day, spend more time communicating with pupils about content rather than routines, limit disruption by keeping lower levels of noise and movement, focus lessons, spend more time asking questions especially higher-order questions, allow pupils responsibility for their work, maintain high levels of pupil involvement, have a positive classroom climate and who praise and encourage pupils. More recently, Campbell et al. (2003:58) described the main factors and characteristics associated with effective teachers (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 – Factors and Characteristics Associated with Effective Teaching Examined factors and characteristics
Presage-product Psychological factors: personality characteristics, attitude, experience and aptitude/achievement
Process-product Teacher behavior factors:
Quantity of academic activity
Quantity/pacing of instruction: effective teachers prioritise and cover objectives to facilitate learning with minimal frustration.
Classroom management: effective teachers organize/manage the classroom environment efficiently for learning. Engagement rates are maximised.
Actual teaching process: students spend most of their time taught/supervised rather than working alone. Teacher talk is academic.
Quality of organized lessons
Giving information: structuring/clarity of presentation.
Asking questions: cognitive level of questions, type of questions, clarity of questions and wait-time following questions.
Providing feedback: the way teachers monitor pupil responses and how they react to correct, partly correct, or, incorrect questions.
Classroom climate
Businesslike and supportive environment
“Beyond the classroom”
Pedagogical factors: subject knowledge, knowledge, teacher beliefs and self-efficacy