Examining pedagogical belief changes / 1 Examining Pedagogical Belief Changes in Teacher Education Kathryn DiPietro Lehigh University Andrew Walker Lehigh University Abstract This study is an investigation of the effects of intentional conceptual reflection and progressive ideology applied as an instructional methodology on pre-service teachers’ pedagogical beliefs over one semester. Pedagogical belief change was measured in two ways. Students took the Teacher’s Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker & Anderson, 1998) before and after the class. A paired samples t-test revealed statistically significant (p < .01) changes in their pedagogical beliefs although the practical significance of these findings is less compelling. The researchers also used an a priori context analysis to code personal educational philosophies written by students before and after the class. A Chi-square test of the changes revealed no statistically significant change in pedagogical beliefs (p = .71). The disparity between these findings is discussed along with future areas for research. Introduction Over the last several decades there has been a shift in beliefs about the fundamental goals of education itself. These shifts are in response to societal changes, in particular, advancements in technology (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). Over the past 30+ years, the world has changed. In the 1970s, an informed citizen was a person who had acquired “basic skills—such as reading, writing, and arithmetic—and an agreed upon body of information considered essential for
26
Embed
Examining Pedagogical Belief Changes in Teacher Education … · 2005-10-08 · Examining pedagogical belief changes / 6 change, engaging in self-reflection and regulation appear
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 1
Examining Pedagogical Belief Changes in Teacher EducationKathryn DiPietro
Lehigh University
Andrew Walker
Lehigh University
AbstractThis study is an investigation of the effects of intentional conceptual reflection and
progressive ideology applied as an instructional methodology on pre-service teachers’
pedagogical beliefs over one semester. Pedagogical belief change was measured in two ways.
Students took the Teacher’s Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker & Anderson, 1998)
before and after the class. A paired samples t-test revealed statistically significant (p < .01)
changes in their pedagogical beliefs although the practical significance of these findings is less
compelling. The researchers also used an a priori context analysis to code personal educational
philosophies written by students before and after the class. A Chi-square test of the changes
revealed no statistically significant change in pedagogical beliefs (p = .71). The disparity
between these findings is discussed along with future areas for research.
IntroductionOver the last several decades there has been a shift in beliefs about the fundamental goals
of education itself. These shifts are in response to societal changes, in particular, advancements
in technology (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). Over the past 30+ years, the world has changed. In
the 1970s, an informed citizen was a person who had acquired “basic skills—such as reading,
writing, and arithmetic—and an agreed upon body of information considered essential for
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 2
everyone” (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). Students entered grade leveled classrooms where desks
were organized in rows with the teachers’ desk prominently at the front of the room. Curriculum
was similarly organized around subject areas with a focus on specifically enumerated skills that
were hierarchically arranged, sequenced, and transmitted to learners by an expert or teacher.
Educational goals were to prepare students who had basic skills in academic content areas.
Technology in classrooms echoed those goals. Film strips, overheard projectors, educational
television programs were used to provide students with information related to knowledge and
skill acquisition. Predictably, assessment was focused on evaluation of and documentation of
levels of mastery of those skills. Teachers’ roles were to deliver content to students and
measuring their mastery of that content. Computers had found their way into some classrooms
and were used to augment acquisition of knowledge and skills. Over the last three decades, as
technology has permeated society, the needs of society have changed.
The demands of the Information Age coupled with the potential of technology require
that educational goals be expanded (Williams & Williams, 1997). In response to the
complexities of society, educational goals must also include the ability of children to “recognize
and solve problems, comprehend new phenomena, construct mental models of those phenomena,
and given a new situation, set goals and regulate their own learning” (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson,
1999). This calls for pedagogical shifts from teaching as “transmitting a body of knowledge that
is largely memorized to one that is largely process oriented” (Conway, 1997). Students ask
National Council of Teachers of English, & International Reading Association. (1996).
Standards for the English Language Arts: National Council of Teachers of English.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1994). Building Collaborative Education
Systems: New Roles for State Education and Higher Education Agencies. Retrieved
February 11, 2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/pbriefs/94/94-1ovr2.htm
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy
Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2001). General Standards and Specific Program
Guidelines for State Approval of Professional Educator Programs. Retrieved February
11, 2004, from http://www.teaching.state.pa.us/teaching/lib/teaching/354guide.pdf
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997). Report to the President
on the Use of Technology To Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States. Corp
Author(s): President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Washington,
DC. Panel on Educational Technology. U.S.; District of Columbia.
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-Compatible Beliefs and Practices
among U.S. Teachers (Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey No.
#4). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 21
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin &
Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769- 802). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
Scheffler, F. L., & Logan, J. P. (1999). Computer Technology in Schools: What Teachers Should
Know and Be Able to Do. Journal of research on computing in education, 31(3), 305-
325.
Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing Talk and Text. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 769- 802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional Conceptual Change.
Mahwah, NJ : L. Erlbaum.
Stemler, Steve (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research& Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved January 27, 2005 fromhttp://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17 .
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The Impact of the Student Teaching Experience
on the Development of Teacher Perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-
36.
Todd, N. (1993). A Curriculum Model for Integrating Technology in Teacher Education
Courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(3), 5-11.
United States National Research Council. (1995). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA.
Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (1996). Drawing Ourselves into Teaching: Studying the Images That
Shape and Distort Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(3), 303-313.
Wetzel, K. (1993). Models for Achieving Computer Competencies in Preservice Education.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(4), 4-6.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 22
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. et Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on
learning to teach : Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.
Williams, A., & Williams, P. J. (1997). Problem-based learning: An appropriate method for
technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(1), 91-104.
Witcher, A. E., Sewall, A. M., Arnold, L. D., & Travers, P. D. (2001). Teaching, Leading,
Learning: It's All about Philosophy. Clearing House, 74(5), 277-279.
Witcher, A. E., & Travers, P. (1999). The Witcher-Travers Survey of Educational Beliefs.
Retrieved January 12, 2005 from http://www.abacon.com/witcher-travers/
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 23
Appendix A
Final Famework for Content Analysis of Participants’ Philosophies
Category Transmissive ProgressiveWhat islearning?
• Reading, listening, and receivingexplanations directly.
• Content or facts learned.• Intellectual, development of the mind,
learning cultural heritage and totransmit permanent values.
• Actively working and applying ideas in a socialcontext.
• Develop the whole child, emphasize socialproblems & themes, and values that emergefrom social experience.
What facilitateslearning?
• Clear and concise presentation ofmaterial.
• Mistakes and confusion facilitate learning.• Engagement.
What is the roleof the Teacher?
• Planning a set of activities aroundparticular content.
• Present new information.• Identify questions.• Decide how to explore an issue or
solve a problem.• Teacher is the one who knows,
transmits knowledge to the studentwho does not yet know.
• Passive and reactive. Learnsinformation by absorbing from teacheror other source.
• Answer questions in textbook.• All students begin at the same point.• Receive information from the teacher.• Passive learner.
• Actively constructs knowledge by exploring,manipulating, comparing, reflecting,articulating.
• Self-evaluation.• Student initiation (active learners)• Students have different questions they seek to
answer.• Greater authority to decide content of learning.• Decide how to explore an issue or solve a
problem.• Articulate their own ideas in concrete context.• Self-directed, personally responsive.• Interact with Peers.• Make conjectures, explicitly work on issues
related to their own experiences and arguevarious points of view.
What should weteach and whoshould determineit?
• Fragmented, simplified, disciplinestaught in isolation, focus on breadth,emphasis on literacy and skills.Information delivery. Factual/literalthinking
• Teacher determined.• Academic offerings, liberal arts,
sequence and prescribe with emphasison reading, writing and arithmetic.
• Skills based for use at a later date.
• Relevant, authentic, complex, multidisciplinary,knowledge integration, focus on depth,emphasis on depth and application, inquiry-based. Information exchange. Process driven.
• Student interest, prior experience and currentunderstanding.
• Content and activities vary within a classroomand from student to student.
• Focus on thinking evaluating, decision-makingand planning and problem-solving.
• Academic, vocational and practical offerings.Based on needs, experiences and interest.
• Things of immediate value.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 24
What is the ideallearningenvironment?
• Teacher centered, students workindependently. Information delivery.
• Does not involve social constructionideas.
• Quiet classroom with few distractions.
• Collaborative and conversational. Teacher asfacilitator. Student centered and driven.Information exchange.
• Systematically created social structures forlearning (debates, cooperative group projects).
• Interdependency with other students.How can we tellwhen learninghas happened?
• External to learner. Measurement offactual knowledge and discreet skillsgenerally at the end of the learningsequence.
• Based on group norms.
• Reflective and self-regulatory. On-going.Performance and application driven.
• Project based assessment.• Individualized criteria.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 25
Appendix B
Rules for Using the Framework for Content Analysis of Participants’ Philosophies
# Rule Example1. Some statements may contain separate portions that align
to both transmissive and constructivist, code it as one ofeach. These should be coded as both T and P.
What facilitates learning? “Requirement for school, work or life functions.”Learning because it’s a requirement for school istransmissive and learning because it is a requirementfor work or life functions is progressive.
2. Some statements may fall into both categories with allelements able to align to both transmissive andprogressive perspectives. These should not be coded at all
What facilitates learning? “Other people’s stated or implied perceptions of one’sability to learn.” The central idea here is externalopinion. This aligns with transmissive because it givescredence to an external locus of control. This alignswith progressive because it deals with social cognitivefactors of learning.
3. Single code a set of ideas if they are talked about as awhole unit in the rubric below.
What should we teach and who should determine it?“Certain universal curriculums should be taught to allstudents including reading, writing, math . . .” Thisaligns with the “3 Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic)and should be coded as a single T).
4. If a statement is not clearly present in the rubric, don’tforce a code.
What should we teach and who should determine it? “A secondary curriculum can include religion,technology skills, physical training, social interaction,vocational skills and philosophical ideologies.” Socialinteraction and vocational skills align with P andshould be coded as such (2 P). Religion, technologyskills, physical training, and philosophical ideologiesdo not explicitly align with either and should not becoded.
5. Look for moderators to an idea. Has learning occurred? “Learned functional skills are easier to validate. Anindividual can be tested on his or her ability to executeor operate that which was taught.” At first glance thislooks like performance outcomes, but the word test isused and it is a measure of what is taught which areboth very transmissive, so this should be coded as asingle T.
6. If an idea or concept is attributed to another person andthen state the participants states his/her own opinion, onlycode his/her own opinion.
What is learning?“General definition: ‘A change in performance orpotential as a result of interaction with the world’(Driscoll 11)
My general definition: The acquisition of newknowledge and skills.”
7. If students are a factor in deciding curriculum, then codeit as P even if it more transmissive sources for curriculumare included as well (such as teachers, curriculumcoordinators, etc . . . ) because the students are asked fortheir insight.
What should we teach and who should determine it?“Several groups of people should have a say in what istaught: Community, students, parents, teachers, andgovernment groups.”
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 26
Tables and Figures
Table 1 Results from pre- and post-survey
Treatment n M SDpre-survey 22 64.9 5.1post survey 22 69.1 6.5
Table 2 Results of Cohen’s Kappa
Coding KappaCoding 1 (n = 9) = .50, p = .13Coding 2 (n = 21) = .57, p =.001Coding 3 (N = 42) = .63, p = .001
Table 3 Cross Tabulation of Pre- and Post- Philosophies Aggregate Scores