Preservice Teachers' Explanations of Their Teaching Behavior.

The purpose of this study was to utilize a post-observation interview with 37 elementary and middle grades student teachers relating to items on the North Carolina Teacher Performance Appraisal Instrument(NCTAPI). The post-observation interview provided elementary and middle grades student teachers an opportunity to explain their reasons for choosing a teaching practice, especially when their choice was incongruous with what was taught in the professional education courses and inconsonant with research on teaching. Results of the eight major functions on the NCTPAI identified by student teachers as receiving frequent emphasis in their professional education courses revealed that, on all major functions, the majority of student teachers made choices inconsistent with what had been taught in professional education classes and what was congruent with research findings. Moreover, student teachers' explanations regarding their motivation for selecting a particular choice disclosed a low influence of university training on their decision.

The problem of getting preservice student teachers to mesh theory taught in professional education courses with practice during their field experiences is documented in the research (Lortie, 1975; Hodges, 1982; Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Tabachnik & Zeichner, 1984). Many student teachers do not combine practice with research during their field experiences and make decisions contrary to what was taught in professional education courses and what is known about effective teaching research.

Despite the universities and colleges revamping and improving course offerings, increasing program requirements and emphasizing effective teaching techniques often utilized in local K-12 schools, the controversy over the low utilization of what was learned at the university and what preprofessional teachers actually practiced from their university coursework during their field experiences continues (Calderhead, 1991).

The low utilization of techniques learned at the university and implemented during field experiences is important because today, more and more, universities are held accountable, during the first two years, for the performance of students completing their teacher preparation program. Moreover, Tabachnik and Zeichner (1984) challenged researchers to examine what occurred during field experiences, i.e., how professional life was interpreted and acted upon by student teachers. As we learn more about what teachers need to know and how their growth in knowledge of teaching develops, this information should be included in our preservice program (Grossman & Richert, 1988; Ryan, 1995).

The purpose of this study was to utilize a post-observation interview relating to items on the North Carolina Teacher Performance Appraisal Instrument. The post-observation interview provided student teachers an opportunity to explain their reasons for choosing a teaching practice, especially when their choice was incongruous with what was taught in the professional education courses and inconsonant with research on teaching.

Literature related to socialization of preservice teachers and knowledge growth in learning to teach form the theoretical framework of this study. Research on teacher socialization has focused on the prior experiences preservice teachers have had with schools and schooling and how this prior experience influences their views about teaching and learning, particularly during their preservice education. Student teachers model the teaching performance of their previous teachers by synthesizing teaching behaviors from various teachers they have had into their idea of the teacher they would like to be (Ross, 1987). In fact, prior experience with schools is a more powerful socializing agent than teacher preparation training at the universities (Lortie, 1975). Coursework may hold the promise of imparting knowledge about teaching, yet teachers have traditionally and consistently denied the influence of their formal coursework, stating that what they learned about teaching during professional preparation, they learned through field experiences (Lortie, 1975; Grossman and Richert, 1988; Ryan, 1995; Curtner-Smith, 1999).

Several studies investigated the impact that methods courses or formal teacher education has on field experiences (Hodges, 1982; Katz & Ruths, 1982). One approach is the limited impact or low influence of formal teacher preparation on subsequent performance of student teachers during field experiences. There are researchers who challenge the widely held view of the low impact of formal teacher education training and espouse the view of the high impact of formal teacher education training (Hollingsworth, 1986; Grossman & Richert, 1988). The present study takes its point of departure from Hodges' (1982) study which examines the low impact of professional education courses during field experiences.

Methodology

Subjects

The subjects for this study were 40 elementary and middle grades student teachers who were enrolled in a public university located in the southeast during their student teaching semester. Three of the subjects withdrew from student teaching. Completed data were obtained from 37 female student teachers. All elementary and middle grades student teachers were given the NCTPAI (North Carolina Teacher Performance Appraisal Instrument) to ascertain the extent to which the major teaching functions on the NCTPAI had been emphasized in their professional education courses. That is, to determine the student teachers' familiarity with, exposure to and implementation of these major functions. The final sample was based on the number of preservice teachers indicating that the major function on the NCTPAI had been emphasized frequently (5 or more times) in their classes.

Procedures

The researcher utilized a post observation, semistructured interview following a 30-45 minute lesson taught by the student teachers. The interview questions related to the major teaching functions on the NCTPAI identified by the subjects. The questions were designed to help student teachers explain the reasons for their choices, especially when their choices were contrary to what was taught in the professional education courses and what was consistent with research findings. Preservice teachers identified major functions such as Management of Student Behavior (Practices 2.2 and 2.5), Instructional Presentation (Practices 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3.11), Instructional Feedback (Practices 5.4) and Facilitating Instruction (Practices 6.1, 6.4) as being emphasized in their professional education courses frequently (5 or more times). There are 8 major functions on the NCTPAI and 28 specific practices. It is the functions, not the practices, that are evaluated and the practices interact within and across functions (Holdzkom, 1987). The NCTPAI is one instrument used to evaluate all teachers in the state. Following a lesson, the student teacher was interviewed regarding the major functions. Preservice teachers were asked two questions: (1) What was your motivation? (I.e., why did you decide to make this choice if your choice was inconsistent with research and what was taught in your formal teacher preparation courses?); and (2) Why did you ignore it?, (I.e., if your choice was inconsistent with what was taught during the formal teacher preparation period). Each student teacher was interviewed two times. Data analysis included tabulating the results of the major functions on the NCTPAI identified as being emphasized in professional education courses and analyzing the responses given to the post-observation, semistructured interview. Tabulations of student teachers' responses relative to the frequency of exposure to and implementation of the practices and major functions on the NCTPAI in their teacher preparation courses revealed the following: Management of Student Behavior (85%), Instructional Presentation (91%), Instructional Feedback (77%) and Facilitating Instruction (87%).

Results

Management of Student Behavior Sixty-five percent of the student teachers selected choices in Management of Student Behavior which were inconsistent with what had been taught in formal teacher preparation courses and what was consistent with research on effective teaching. For example, 86% of the student teachers selected Practice 2.2 (Teacher has established a set of rules and procedures that govern student verbal participation) as having had frequent exposure in their professional education courses. Yet, only 35 percent of student teachers made decisions congruent with training in their formal teacher preparation program and research for that practice. Similar results were found for Practice 2.5 (Teacher stops inappropriate behavior promptly) in that only 29 percent of preservice teachers responded in accordance with what was taught in professional education courses.

Instructional Presentation

Student teachers made choices independent of what was taught in their formal teacher preparation program in Instructional Presentation (65%). Practice 3. l(Teacher begins lesson with a review) and Practice 3.2 (Teacher introduces lessons and states objectives) yielded high degrees of incongruence (65%) respectively between what was taught in professional education courses and what student teachers actually practiced on the field. Fifty-seven percent of the student teachers failed to make choices that were aligned with the training in professional education courses and research with respect to Practice 3.6 (Teacher assigns tasks children can handle), 3.7 (Teacher asks appropriate levels of questions) and 3.11 (Teacher summarizes lesson at the end of activity). An even higher percentage of student teachers (76%) made choices incompatible with training and research for Practice 3.5 (Teacher provides relevant examples and demonstrations). Compare the percentage of student teachers (90%) selecting instructional presentation as being frequently presented in their professional education courses with low utilization of these practices by preservice teachers during student teaching.

Instructional Feedback

The options that student teachers selected with respect to instructional feedback were at variance with professional education training and research. Sixty-six percent of the preservice teachers did not respond consistent with their training. While student teachers indicated on the NCTPAI survey that instructional feedback had received frequent exposure (78%) in their professional education courses, only 34 percent utilized instructional feedback in their teaching.

Facilitating Instruction

Selections made by student teachers for facilitating instructions disclosed that 66 percent of the student teachers failed to utilize practices suggested in their professional education courses. Student teachers rated facilitating instruction as receiving considerable exposure in their professional education courses (87%) but exercised low utilization of this practice. It is important to point out that it is the Major Functions not the Practices which are evaluated; however, if the student teachers choose too many incorrect choices within a practice, it is unlikely that they would receive the minimum (at standard) rating for that function.

Discussion

It appears that many of the selections made by student teachers and their explanations for their decisions were often unrelated to what was taught in the formal teacher preparation program. Many of the choices not only were unrelated to what was taught in the professional education courses but were also inconsistent with the research. Management of Student Behavior

Even though students had established rules and procedures governing student verbal participation and talk, student teachers did not adhere to research based practices. Several student teachers were able to identify the incongruence between their choice and research on student behavior (i.e., Class rules are supposed to minimize class time devoted to behavior and maximize students time on task)(Cangelosi, 1989). One student even commented that she knew that she was supposed to react to misbehavior in a way that least disrupted the flow of classroom activity. When the student teachers were asked why they made the choice if it was inconsistent, most of them could not describe their reasons.

A larger than expected percentage (61%) of student teachers failed to stop inappropriate behavior promptly without embarrassing the student. What was disconcerting was to find out that even though the student teachers could provide reasons why their choices were inconsistent with research, they could not really explain their behaviors, i.e., thereby suggesting their lack of fully comprehending the complexities involved in the teaching process.

Instructional Presentation

It was our expectation that when student teachers made choices inconsistent with what was taught in professional education courses and what is known about effective teaching practices that preprofessional teachers would be able to "remember" what was learned at the university. The explanations given by the student teachers did not appear to relate to very much that had been taught in the professional education courses. There was overwhelming evidence to support that the majority of the student teachers "abandoned" effective teaching strategies aimed at managing instructional presentations.

Facilitating Instruction and Instructional Feedback

Responses given by student teachers manifest a strong acceptance of the cooperating teacher's influence and advice regarding Facilitating Instruction. Additionally, preservice teachers did not provide sustaining feedback after an incorrect response by probing, repeating the question, giving a clue or allowing more time.

There are several limitations to consider in generalizing the results of the study. While the findings from this study are consonant with much of the research (Feiman-Nemser, 1986; Calderhead, 1991), it is important to point out that the NCTPAI does not address all of the many aspects of teaching that go on in a classroom. There are many other practices that are important but not addressed by the NCTPAI. Furthermore, it was difficult to determine the extent to which the student teachers had been exposed to the major functions and practices on the NCTPAI in their professional education courses, even though they checked Frequently, Sometimes, Never, and Don't Know.

These limitations acknowledged, there appears to be some implications for this study. Certainly more congruence between the curriculum and methods of teaching in the university and the methods of teaching utilized by the cooperating schools is needed. There needs to be a stronger collaboration between the local schools and the university with respect to helping the student teacher reflect more on their field experiences. Moreover, the universities need to include a strong cognitive component with all teacher preparation programs as well as provide enough opportunities for the student teachers to see a variety of teachers and experience a variety of teaching styles. These experiences may be accomplished through viewing and analyzing teaching situations, simulated case studies, improving student teachers' classroom observational techniques and helping preservice teachers understand how students learn the subject matter and the problems they will encounter in learning the material. Perhaps if student teachers get a better understanding of their subject and how students learn and have an opportunity to view and analyze a variety of teaching prior to student teaching (such as longer internships in Professional Development Schools), it is hoped that preservice teachers would make choices consistent with what was taught in the formal teacher preparation program, especially during their internship.

References

Calderhead, J. & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers' early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 43-51.

Cangelosi, J.S. (1988). Classroom management strategies: Gaining and maintaining students' cooperation. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Curtner-Smith, M.(1995). The more things change the more they stay the same: Factors influencing teachers' interpretations and delivery of national curriculum physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 75-99.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1986). When is student teaching teacher education? (Research Series No. 178). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.

Grossman, P. & Richert, A. (1988). Unacknowledge knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 53-62.

Hodges, C. (1982). Implementing methods: If you can't blame the cooperating teacher, whom can you blame? Journal of Teacher Education, 25(6), 25-29.

Holdzkom, D. (1987). Appraising teacher performance in North Carolina. Educational Leadership, 44(7), 40-44.

Hollingsworth, S. (1988). Making field-based programs work: A three-level approach to reading education. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 28-36.

Katz, L. & Raths, J. (1982), The best of intentions for the education of teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 4, 8-16.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ross, E. W. (1987). Teacher perspective development: A study of preservice social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Studies Education, 15(4),225-243.

Ryan, C.(1995). Initial primary teacher education in a multinational group: A european dimension. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 289-306.

Tabachnik, B.R. & Zeichner, K. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36.

Teaching Functions and Practices

1. Major Function: Management of Instructional Time

1.1 Teacher has materials, supplies, and equipment ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity.

1.2 Teacher gets the class started quickly.

1.3 Teacher gets students on task quickly at the beginning of each lesson or instructional activity.

1.4 Teacher maintains a high level of student time-on-task.

2. Major Function: Management of Student Behavior

2.1 Teacher has established a set of rules and procedures that govern the handling of routine administrative matters.

2.2 Teacher has established a set of rules and procedures that govern student verbal participation and talk during different types of activities--whole class instruction, small-group instruction, and so on.

2.3 Teacher has established a set of rules and procedures that govern student movement in the classroom during different types of instructional activities.

2.4 Teacher frequently monitors the behavior of all students during whole-class, small-group, and seatwork activities and during transitions between instructional activities.

2.5 Teacher stops inappropriate behavior promptly and consistently, yet maintains the dignity of the student.

3. Major Function: Instructional Presentation

3.1 Teacher begins lesson or instructional activity with a review of previous material.

3.2 Teacher introduces the lesson or instructional activity and specifies learning objectives when appropriate.

3.3 Teacher speaks fluently and precisely.

3.4 Teacher presents the lesson or instructional activity using concepts and language understandable to the students.

3.5 Teacher provides relevant examples and demonstrations to illustrate concepts and skills.

3.6 Teacher assigns tasks that students handle with a high rate of success.

3.7 Teacher asks appropriate levels of questions that students handle with a high rate of success.

3.8 Teacher conducts lesson or instruction al activity at a brisk pace, slowing presentations when necessary for student understanding but avoiding unnecessary slowdowns.

3.9 Teacher makes transitions between lessons and between instructional activities within lessons efficiently and smoothly.

3.10 Teacher makes sure that the assignment is lear.

3.11 Teacher summarizes the main point(s) of the lesson at the end of the lesson or instructional activity.

4. Major Function: Instructional Monitoring of Student Performance

4.1 Teacher maintains clear, firm, and reasonable work standards and due dates.

4.2 Teacher circulates during classwork to check all students' performance.

4.3 Teacher routinely uses oral, written, and other work products to check student progress.

4.4 Teacher poses questions clearly and one at a time.

5. Major Function: Instructional Feedback

5.1 Teacher provides feedback on the correctness or incorrectness of in-class work to encourage student growth.

5.2 Teacher regularly provides prompt feedback on assigned out-of-class work.

5.3 Teacher affirms a correct oral response appropriately, and moves on.

5.4 Teacher provides sustaining feedback after an incorrect response or no response by probing, repeating the questions, giving a clue, or allowing more time.

6. Major Function: Facilitating Instruction

6.1 Teacher has an instructional plan that is compatible with the school and system-wide curricular goals.

6.2 Teacher uses diagnostic information obtained from tests and other assessment procedures to develop and revise objective and/or tasks.

6.3 Teacher maintains accurate records to document student performance. 6.4 Teacher has an instructional plan that matches/aligns objectives, learning strategies, assessment, and student needs at the appropriate level of difficulty.

6.5 Teacher uses available human and material resources to support the instructional program.

7. Major Function: Communicating Within the Educational Environment

7.1 Teacher treats all students in a fair and equitable manner.

7.2 Teacher interacts effectively with students, co-workers, parents, and community.

8. Major Function: Performing Non-instructional Duties

8.1 Teacher carries out non-instructional duties as assigned and/or as need is perceived.

8.2 Teacher adheres to established laws, policies, rules, and regulations.

8.3 Teacher follows a plan for professional development and demonstrates evidence of growth.

Number of Times Major Teaching Functions Emphasized in Education Courses

Major Functions     Frequently   Sometimes   Never   Don't Know

Management of Student Behavior
       2.2          86%          11%         --      3%
       2.5          93%          5%          --      7%

Instructional Presentation
       3.1          90%          3.2%        --      6.8%
       3.2          98%          2%          --      --
       3.5          87%          13%         --
       3.11         97%          3%          --      --

Instructional Monitoring
       4.4          86%          8.5%        --      5.5%

Instructional Feedback
       5.4          78%          22%         --      --

Faciltating Instruction
       6.1          92%          6%          --      2%
       6.4          87%          6%          --      7%

N=37

Dr. Charlotte Boger, Associate Professor, Fayetteville State University. Dr. David Boger, Professor, NCA&T State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Charlotte Boger, School of Education, 1200 Murchyinson Road, Newbold Station, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-4298.