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
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
questions; identify issues or problems; hypothesize; gather; organize; explore; interpret; analyze;
evaluate; draw conclusions or generalizations; make decisions; perform tasks; resolve conflicts;
collaborate; evaluate; and communicate. Instructional strategies must also be re-defined to enable
children to attain academic standards as well as engage in more complex learning processes
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 3
(constructivist) such as those described above. Various educational organizations have responded
to these expanded educational goals by reorganizing standards and curriculum that stress
learning processes, inquiry, exploration, deep conceptual understandings, active construction of
knowledge, collaboration, metacogntion, self-evaluation, knowledge integration, and context
(National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996; United
States National Research Council, 1995). Similarly, teaching standards have changed (Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2004; Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2001). These
reforms require a very different set of teaching skills—skills that are progressive in their
orientation. Teachers set the stage for learning; challenge; re-direct; facilitate; probe; question;
create doubt or disequilibrium; model; provide resources; evaluate explanations; and assess
understandings and processes.
Despite this call for shifts in educational belief practices, there is evidence that suggests
pre-service teacher beliefs align with a transmissive model (Anderson, 1994; Florio-Ruane &
Lensmire, 1990; Kagan, 1992; Morine-Deshimer, 1993; North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory, 1994; Weber & Mitchell, 1996). An important question is whether or not their
beliefs can be change during the course of their teacher preparation programs. As an
intermediary step, this research focuses on changes during a single course.
Literature Review
Personal beliefs and attitudes influence actions and identity (Kagan, 1992; MorineDershimer & Kent, 1999; Pajares, 1992). Witcher et al (2001) citing Doll (1996) identify two
major beliefs systems in current American public schools—transmissive and progressive.
Transmissive and progressive beliefs define opposite ends of a one-dimensional scale of
pedagogical beliefs. Pre-service teachers tend to have beliefs about knowledge, learning, and
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 4
teaching (pedagogical beliefs) that align with a transmissive model and view themselves as
information givers (Anderson, 1994; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Kagan, 1992; MorineDeshimer, 1993; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994; Weber & Mitchell,
1996)). Other studies such as those done by Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, (2000) and Witcher et al
(2001) find that student enter teacher preparation programs with eclectic pedagogical beliefs.
Although there is some disagreement in this literature, none of the studies show students entering
with the kind of progressive beliefs that align well with best practices as described above
(National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996; United
States National Research Council, 1995). These beliefs are particularly unyielding in part
because of a student’s history of experiences in education. These “early experiences strongly
influence final judgments, which become theories (beliefs) highly resistant to change” (Pajares,
1992, p. 325). The influence of educational experiences on pedagogical beliefs and practices is
well documented in the literature. Teachers tend to adopt instructional strategies that emulate
those they have experienced as learners even when the strategies are not pedagogically sound
(North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994). Personal beliefs and practices are also
garnered at the higher education level. Pedagogical beliefs in higher education are traditionally
teacher-centered and lecture-based; however, these practices “…have less to do with the proven
effectiveness of the particular practice than the desire to appear legitimate or conform to
normative expectations” (Jaffe, 2003, p 229). Thus, pre-service teachers may be further
acculturated to transmissive models in their content areas or general education courses before
beginning their teacher preparation classes.
While some studies indicate pedagogical beliefs are stable and resistant to change
(Kagan, 1992; Kennedy, 2000; Murphy, 2000) other studies present a more optimistic view
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 5
(Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999; Pajares, 1992). Challenging pre-service teachers prior
pedagogical beliefs by allowing them to explore alternative ideas and approaches individually
and as a learning community in education courses is one strategy that may facilitate pedagogical
belief change (Bullough, 1991; Resnick, 1987). Opportunities for pre-service teachers to observe
and practice alternate instructional methods in schools and classrooms that encourage selfevaluation and reflection on practices as well as modeling, mentoring, and coaching play a
significant role in pre-service teacher belief change (Albion & Ertmer, 2002)
Critical to conceptual change is reflection (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992; Kilpatrick, 1985).
Reflection--that is intentionally, actively, and deliberately examining one’s experiences and
beliefs--contributes to conceptual change. Sinatra and Pintrich (2003) emphasize the role of the
learner’s intention in knowledge change. The idea of intentional conceptual change places the
impetus for making these shifts within the learner’s control and it is goal-directed (Sinatra &
Pintrich, 2003). Thus learners construct understandings in a mindful way, with intention to
examine, monitor and regulate their learning. This view, however, assumes that learners are
motivated and spontaneously revise their conceptual knowledge. Hatano & Inagaki (2003)
believe that expecting learners to engage in spontaneous self initiated examination of their
concept knowledge is unrealistic and, further, they explore the notion of conceptual change as
induced “through comprehension activity led by a teacher and supported by peers” (p. 408).
Under this assumption, intentional conceptual change is both highly personal and social.
In education, where pedagogical practices are regulated by beliefs that are formulated by
lived experiences over the course teachers’ cumulative school lives (Britzman, 1991), examining
pedagogical beliefs and assumptions, reflecting on prior personal experiences, setting goals for
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 6
change, engaging in self-reflection and regulation appear to be strategies that may facilitate
belief change and the development of new meanings (Boud, Keogh, and Walker, 1985).
Additionally there is evidence that teacher education programs that embrace and operate
within a more progressive orientation where pre-service teachers examine their own beliefs and
then build upon those, are able to report significant development including belief change
(Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon, 1998). Further, increasing opportunities throughout their
educational experiences for pre-service teachers to be embedded in activities that model
progressive pedagogy (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994) is a recommended
strategy for pedagogical belief change.
Research Question
Does situating pre-service teachers in a course that employs and models progressive
methodology, supports self-examination of and reflection on beliefs, and provides opportunities
to explore alternative ideas facilitate detectable change towards progressive pedagogical beliefs?
Research Methods
Design
This study used a mixed methods approach and a quasi-experimental one group pretestposttest (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) research design. Pre- and post-pedagogical surveys were
analyzed using a paired samples t-test. Content analysis using an a priori coding scheme
(Stelmer, 2001) was used to examine student written personal educational philosophies pre- and
post-course.
Sample
Participants in this study were 25 students who had been accepted into graduate programs
in instructional design or teacher education and who were enrolled in a mandatory three-credit
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 7
course. The focus of the course was on learning theory; instructional philosophy;
practice/application of learning theory; technology operations and concepts; integration and
evaluation of technology-based learning products; literature research; and learner centered
approaches that focus on awareness of and the ability to use technology as a learning tool.
Students in the course had varied major areas of concentrations, including elementary education,
mathematics, science, social studies, language arts, and foreign languages, in addition to
instructional design. Of 35 students enrolled in the course 25 agreed to be part of the study. Of
these 25, complete data were available for 22 on the survey and 21 on the personal educational
philosophy papers.
Procedures
Survey
On the first and last day of class, participants were asked to complete the Teacher’s
Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker & Anderson, 1998). Part J of the survey is aimed
at identifying pedagogical beliefs.
Personal educational philosophies and intentional reflection on pedagogical beliefs
The first day of class, participants were asked to reflect upon their personal teaching and
learning philosophies and to explicitly described their concept of the nature of knowing,
learning, teaching, the role of a teacher, the role of a student, curriculum, the ideal learning
environment, and how one can tell if learning has happened. These ideas comprised their
personal educational philosophies. Once developed, they shared their initial philosophies with
each other and then were asked to make revisions to their philosophies if listening to their peers
had sparked some ideas and they felt their philosophy needed revision. Ongoing throughout the
course, students were asked to keep reflective journals in which they identified assumptions that
they’d held about teaching and learning that they might be questioning or that they would like to
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 8
further explore. This allowed students to set personal goals for exploring concepts related to
pedagogical beliefs. This explicit examination of pedagogical beliefs was ongoing throughout the
course as students were asked to revised their pedagogical beliefs as needed, examine and
evaluate their learning processes, reflected on the outcomes of their learning, and identified
pedagogical beliefs that may warrant either change or further investigation, set goals for
themselves, and examine the outcomes of those goals. The students worked through this process
as various learning theories and instructional models were introduced and explored. Time was
built into each weekly meeting for students to discuss, collaborate, share and socially negotiate
the viability of their personal pedagogical beliefs. At the end of the course, participants were
asked to revisit and revise their personal teaching and learning philosophy.
Progressive Classroom Activities. Drawing on progressive ideology, all activities in the class
were designed to situate participants in learning experiences that would model progressive
methods. All learning activities were developed with five attributes of “meaningful learning” in
mind as defined (Jonassen et al., 1999):
•
Active (Manipulation/Observant): Participants “actively [manipulate] the objects and
tools of the trade and [observe] the effects of what they have done” (Jonassen et al.,
1999).
•
Constructive (Articulative/Reflective): Participants construct meaning by reflecting on
the process and articulating their experiences and conceptual understandings.
•
Intentional (Reflective/Regulatory): Participants engage in intentional learning while
trying to achieve a cognitive goal, reflecting, evaluating, and articulating the process and
the “decisions they make, strategies they use, and the answers they found” (Jonassen et
al., 1999).
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 9
•
Authentic (Complex/Contextual): Participants engage in learning activities that are
complex and contextual.
•
Cooperative (Collaborative/Conversational): Participants engage in collaborative
activities during which they dialog about a task, the methods they will use to accomplish
the task, as well as seeking out alternative ideas and opinions.
An example of a learning activity that met this criteria was asking the participants to explore
and understand web-based inquiry by creating a web-based inquiry or WebQuest (Dodge, 1995),
and engaging them in the learning of the concept by having them complete an instructor created
WebQuest about WebQuests [url available upon request—removed for anonymity]. By actively
engaging in a WebQuest which explored the critical components of web-based inquiry,
participants were able to form and revise their constructs of web-based inquiry collaboratively
and further articulate their learning by creating their own WebQuest. This framework allowed for
active exploration of concepts and the acquisition of instruction and technology skills within the
context of using and applying them so that students both explored learning strategies and the use
of technology to support learning and did so while self-regulating and working cooperatively in
groups.
Materials
Items were used from the Teacher’s Survey: Combined Versions 1-4 Part J (Becker &
Anderson, 1998). The instrument uses self-reporting to derive epistemological beliefs and
characterizes them on a scale that goes from transmissive-oriented to progressive-oriented
instruction. The idea behind the survey is that asking teachers about their beliefs with respect to
teaching and learning will reveal their underlying philosophy. Validity for the survey was
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 10
measured by comparing survey results with coded observation data, respondent interviews, and
artifacts like quizzes and assignments. Historically, the reliability of this scale has been strong,
with an alpha of 0.83 (Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000). It should be noted that reliability and
validity of these items was assessed using in-service teachers, which does not match up with the
population of pre-service teachers.
Results
Pre- and Post-Pedagogical Survey
As noted above, 3 of the 25 students failed to respond to a total of four questions. The
decision was made to not use mean replacement but instead drop these three participants from
the analysis. Given that these items were used with a new population (pre-service as opposed to
in-service teachers), a reliability analysis was run on the items using Cronbach’s alpha. The
resulting alpha of 0.45 is rather disappointing, suggesting that, at least for these particular preservice teachers, the items are not very consistent in their measurement of pedagogical beliefs.
Despite this low reliability, the decision was made to use the items as they were originally
designed. Responses from 19 variables were aggregated into a single variable measuring
teaching philosophy. Possible scores ranged from 19 (transmissive) to 102 (progressive). Note
that a score of 60 or 61 would place a respondent around the halfway point on the scale. Table 1
shows the means and standard deviations for the pre-survey and post-survey.
[Insert Table 1 here]
To examine differences between the pre and post survey, a paired samples T test was run
with an alpha level of .05. The expectation was that students would be more progressive in their
philosophy after the course of a semester, justifying the use of a one-tailed test. The results, t
(22) = 3.68, p < 0.01 show that students were more progressive in their philosophies after the
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 11
semester at a statistically significant level. The effect size for this difference is also large (d =
.82), as computed using the control group or pre-survey standard deviation. In terms of practical
significance, the story is less dramatic. The mean difference between the groups is 4.1, which
means only four increments towards the progressive end of the scale. Given that there are a total
of 83 increments in the scale, this is a small change. The importance of these differences will be
elaborated on in the discussion.
Pre- and Post-Educational Philosophies
A initial framework for conducting a content analysis on participants’ educational
philosophies was developed a priori (Weber, 1990) using an amalgamation of existing work
(Baylor, Kitsantas, & Hu, 2003; Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Grabe & Grabe, 2001; Jonassen et al.,
1999; Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000; Witcher et al., 2001). Statements within the philosophy
were coded as either transmissive or progressive. The ratio of progressive statements to total
statements was used to automatically generate a summary code with the following thresholds:
transmissive is less than or equal to .4; eclectic is less than or equal to .6; progressive is greater
than .6. This follows the proportion established by Witcher et al.( 2001).
Using the initial framework the authors independently coded nine of the pre- educational
philosophies (Table 2, Coding 1) and then compared their coding to check reliability using
Cohen’s Kappa (Stemler, 2001). Revisions to the initial framework were made based on the
analysis of the participants’ texts and a revised framework was created. At that time the rules for
coding were developed and instances were identified in the text and used to exemplify the rules
(Appendix B) (Mayring, 2000; Silverman, 2000).
Using the revised framework and rules, the authors added the remaining twelve prephilosophies to the first nine and then independently recoded all twenty-one and checked
reliability (Table 2, Coding 2). Slight modifications were made to the framework (Appendix A)
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 12
and rules six and seven were added (Appendix B). The authors coded the all twenty-one postphilosophies (Table 2, Coding 3) and again checked reliability with a resulting Kappa of .63,
referred to as substantial by Stemler (2001) .
[Insert Table 2 here]
Once all the pre- and post-philosophies were coded, the frequency of progressive and
transmissive statements were added across both raters and used to generate a summary ratio
using the same thresholds described above. The resulting pre- and post frequencies are reported
in Table 5. These pre- and post- philosophy differences were analyzed using a Chi-square _2(4, N
= 21) = .69, p = .71. These results indicate no statistically significant change in pedagogical
beliefs.
[Insert Table 3 here]
Discussion
As noted in the review of literature, students in the study have been developing their
philosophy about teaching over the course of much of their own educational career and
throughout their lives. Initial data from the survey seems to indicate that restructuring a class so
that participants are embedded in a progressive learning environment that fosters intentional
reflection in beliefs, can effect pedagogical beliefs. However, there are some limitations to the
survey. As noted above, the inter-item reliability of the measure is quite poor for this particular
sample. This presents a large area of concern because the changes that were found between the
pre- and post-surveys may in fact be an artifact of the measure as opposed to real changes in
pedagogical beliefs. Given the low reliability, an exploratory factor analysis was attempted in
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 13
order to extract components. Unfortunately, the factor loadings failed to meet the minimum
criteria of four or more loadings at the .6 level (Stevens, 2002). This should come as no great
surprise given that the measure had three constructs at best (transmissive, eclectic and
progressive) all of which are points along a single continuum. In order for the effectiveness of
the survey to be assessed with pre-service teachers, it should be administered to a larger sample
(preferably n=300) and analyzed with an exploratory factor analysis. Further, assuming the
statistically significant changes were reflective of actual shifts in pedagogical beliefs, it remains
that eclectic students were still eclectic at the end of the course.
In contrast to the survey, the pre- and post-philosophies did not show statistically
significant changes via chi-square analysis. However, it is important to note that several of the
cells fell below the accepted frequency benchmark of five. In addition, there were no occurrences
of transmissive oriented students in the post-philosophies, violating a second assumption of chisquare. Despite the lack of statistical significance it is important to note that while there were
two cases of students moving from progressive to eclectic, there were three cases of students
moving from eclectic to progressive and two cases where students shifted their beliefs from
transmissive to progressive—a radical shift if contextualized within the framework of one course
over one semester.
The research design presents several threats to validity. Campbell & Stanley (1963) cite
history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, and regression as possible threats to internal
validity with a one-group pretest-posttest design. Given that the scores on the survey moved
away from the mean over time, regression to the mean is not a threat. In terms of the
pedagogical beliefs papers, the overwhelming majority of students were progressive, so effects
attributed to regression to the mean would actually favor the null hypothesis. It is also unlikely
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 14
that maturation played a role given that the participants are adults, and no significant historical
evens occurred over the course of the semester. Testing may have played a role for the survey
given that the same instrument was administered as a pre and post survey but the time between
was quite large. It is possible, but unlikely that any event altered participant perception during
the course of the study, making historical threats to validity unlikely. Perhaps the most likely
threat is related to instrumentation. While the instrument may not have changed, exposure to the
class may have changed participant’s understanding of the questions. That is, the observed
differences may not be due to a change in participant beliefs, but a change in their ability to
articulate, or respond to questions about their beliefs.
Our two sources of data, the survey and coded philosophies contrasted not only in terms
finding significant differences, but in terms of how the aligned to the constructs overall.
Specifically, the survey identified students as generally eclectic which aligns with Witcher et al.
(2001) whereas the coded philosophies identified the majority of students as progressive. In part,
these differences may be due to the nature of the skill. Although the survey asks students to
articulate their beliefs it is done with a controlled vocabulary, and provides set examples and
prompts that may not reflect personal pedagogical beliefs. In contrast, the educational
philosophies allowed for more freedom of expression. Based on the educational philosophies, it
is clear that students responded to the treatment differently. Future work that focuses on the
process of how students examine, reflect, and potentially change their pedagogical beliefs may
elaborate on these differences between students and between measures.
The real question seems to be how one’s pedagogical beliefs ultimately transfer into their
teaching practice. While there is evidence to support the correlation between beliefs and
instructional practices (Harste & Burke, 1977) of practicing teachers, the participants in this
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 15
study were not actually engaged in teaching but were pre-service teachers. One’s beliefs are
formulated by one’s experiences. The lack of experience with progressive pedagogy as a learner
(Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Jaffee, 2003; Pajares, 1992, Weber & Mitchell, 1996) and
even more critically as a teacher (all participants were pre-service teachers), limits fully
developed pedagogical beliefs.
In thinking about the development of values and beliefs, the ultimate goal in teacher
education is to align best teaching practices and pedagogical beliefs so that there is transfer into
the classroom. The participants in this study, however, were asked to describe, develop, discuss,
examine, and explore their own pedagogical beliefs as they developed their learning philosophies
as well as respond to a variety of pedagogical beliefs and instructional models on a survey
however, they were not asked to move beyond the level of responding or valuing, relatively low
level categories if one thinks about the affective domain. Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia (1964)
theorized the development of values and beliefs is along a continuum and developed a taxonomy
ordered according to the principle of internalization. According to this theory, beliefs are not
fully internalized until those values and beliefs are evident in actions. In the context of this study
that would mean a match between espoused pedagogical beliefs and teaching practices.
Participants in this study were asked to respond to questions aimed at identifying their
pedagogical beliefs. Essentially they were asked to do little more than respond and in some cases
place a value on pedagogical ideology and methods. Research suggests that despite the efforts of
teacher education institutions, the latent effects of acculturation into transmissive paradigms as
students persist and are evident in teaching practices (Lacey, 1977; Tabachnick & Zeichner,
1984). Although it is encouraging that the intervention was able to affect some pedagogical
belief changes, however modest, the important work that remains is determining how well these
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 16
belief changes translate into progressive teaching practices. In the framework of Krathwohl et al.
(1964), it remains to be seen if teacher education students exhibit their changed beliefs beyond
the level of responding to vignettes on a survey or articulating beliefs that are removed from
practice. In short, further study is needed on whether or not students transitioning to professional
life will explain, advocate for, and exemplify their beliefs within a school culture. Thus, a
longitudinal approach that both examines pedagogical beliefs and practice as well as
sustainability of constructivist beliefs and practices in K-12 classrooms is the next logical step in
this line of research.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 17
References
Albion, P. R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the Foundations: The Role of Vision and Belief in
Teachers' Preparation for Integration of Technology. TechTrends, 46(5), 34-38.
Anderson, L. M. (1994). Reforming our courses and rethinking our roles. Paper presented at the
annaul meeting of Midwestern Association for the Teaching of Educational Psychology,
Chicago, IL.
Baylor, A. L., Kitsantas, A., & Hu, H. (2003). Two Tools To Facilitate Pre-Service Teachers'
Self-Regulation during Instructional Planning. TechTrends, 47(2), 45-49.
Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use and TeacherDirected Student Use (Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey No.
#1). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Teacher's Survey: Combined Versions 1-4. California:
Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of
California, Irvine.
Boud, D, Keogh, R, Walker, D (Eds) !987). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.
London, UK: Kogan Page.
Britzman, Deborah (1991). Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. C. A. N. I. (1999). In search of understanding the case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1991). Exploring Personal Teaching Metaphors in Preservice Teacher
Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43-51.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Conway, J. (1997). Educational Technology's Effect on Models of Instruction. Retrieved
February 11, 2004, from http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 18
http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Conso
rtium/
Cuban, L. (1997). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 14(2), 6-7.
Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A Technique for Internet-Based Learning. Distance Educator,
1(2), 10-13.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., Haymore, S., & Apple Computer Inc. (1990). Teacher beliefs and
practices part I: Patterns of change. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from
http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51/9a965ab9e83ffb/www.apple.com/education/k12/lea
dership/acot/pdf/rpt08.pdf
Fisher, M. M. (1997). The Voice of Experience: Inservice Teacher Technology Competency
Recommendations for Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 5(2-3), 139-147.
Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming Future Teachers' Ideas about Writing
Instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(3), 277-289.
Glaser, Barney G. (2003, October). Naturalist Inquiry and Grounded Theory [68 paragraphs].
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line
Journal], 5(1), Art. 7. Retrieved May 20, 2004 http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqstexte/1-04/1-04glaser-e.htm
Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2001). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (3rd ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hannafin, R. D., & Savenye, W. C. (1993). Technology in the Classroom: The Teacher's New
Role and Resistance to It. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26-31.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism : research reports and essays, 1985-1990.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.
Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both
teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading
theory research and practice, Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference
(pp. 32-40). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 19
Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (2003). When is conceptual change intended?: A cognitivesociocultural view. In G.M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual
change (pp.407-427). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-100).
New York: MacMillan.
Honey, M., Moeller, B., & Education, C. f. T. i. (1990). Teachers' Beliefs and Technology
Integration: Different Values, Different Understandings. (Technical Report No. 6). U.S.;
New York.
Jaffee, D. (2003). Virtual Transformation: Web-Based Technology and Pedagogical Change.
Teaching Sociology, 31(2), 227-236.
Jonassen, D., Howland, J, Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003) Learning to Solve Problems with
Technology: A constructivist perspective, 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of Research on Teacher Belief. Educational psychologist, 27,
65-90.
Kennedy, M. (2000). Learning to Teach in a Different Culture. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice 6, no, 1, 75-100.
Kilpatrick, J. (1985). Reflection and recursion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 1-26.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the
classification of educational goals. New York McKay: McKay.
Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen.
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Practicing vs Future Teachers: Comparisons and Correlates of
Computer Use. U.S.; South Dakota.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved
December 29, 2005 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/200mayring-e.htm
McKenzie, J. (2001). Head of the class: How teachers learn technology best. American School
Board Journal, 188(1), 20-23.
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 20
Milken Family Foundation. (n.d.). Information Technology Underused in Teacher Education.
Retrieved February 11, 2004, from
http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=131
Morse, J. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 220- 235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in pre-service teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 9, 15-26.
Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). Source of Teachers' Pedagogical Knowledge. In J.
Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(pp. 21-50). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Murphy, E. (2000). Strangers in a strange land: Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning
French as a second of foreign language in online learning environments. Unpublished
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universite' Laval, Montreal.
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), 305325.
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 from
http://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), 2836.
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
What is
learning?
•
•
•
What facilitates
learning?
What is the role
of the Teacher?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is the role
of the Student?
•
•
•
•
•
Transmissive
Reading, listening, and receiving
explanations directly.
Content or facts learned.
Intellectual, development of the mind,
learning cultural heritage and to
transmit permanent values.
Clear and concise presentation of
material.
Planning a set of activities around
particular 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 student
who does not yet know.
Establishes the rules and
consequences.
Passive and reactive. Learns
information by absorbing from teacher
or other source.
Answer questions in textbook.
All students begin at the same point.
Receive information from the teacher.
Passive learner.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mistakes and confusion facilitate learning.
Engagement.
Facilitate student-designed efforts.
Elicit student opinions.
Guide, facilitator, and motivator.
•
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 argue
various points of view.
Relevant, authentic, complex, multidisciplinary,
knowledge integration, focus on depth,
emphasis on depth and application, inquirybased. Information exchange. Process driven.
Student interest, prior experience and current
understanding.
Content and activities vary within a classroom
and from student to student.
Focus on thinking evaluating, decision-making
and planning and problem-solving.
Academic, vocational and practical offerings.
Based on needs, experiences and interest.
Things of immediate value.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What should we
teach and who
should determine
it?
•
•
•
•
Fragmented, simplified, disciplines
taught in isolation, focus on breadth,
emphasis on literacy and skills.
Information delivery. Factual/literal
thinking
Teacher determined.
Academic offerings, liberal arts,
sequence and prescribe with emphasis
on reading, writing and arithmetic.
Skills based for use at a later date.
Progressive
Actively working and applying ideas in a social
context.
Develop the whole child, emphasize social
problems & themes, and values that emerge
from social experience.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 24
What is the ideal
learning
environment?
•
•
•
How can we tell
when learning
has happened?
•
•
Teacher centered, students work
independently. Information delivery.
Does not involve social construction
ideas.
Quiet classroom with few distractions.
External to learner. Measurement of
factual knowledge and discreet skills
generally at the end of the learning
sequence.
Based on group norms.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaborative and conversational. Teacher as
facilitator. Student centered and driven.
Information exchange.
Systematically created social structures for
learning (debates, cooperative group projects).
Interdependency with other students.
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
#
1.
Rule
Some statements may contain separate portions that align
to both transmissive and constructivist, code it as one of
each. These should be coded as both T and P.
2.
Some statements may fall into both categories with all
elements able to align to both transmissive and
progressive perspectives. These should not be coded at all
3.
Single code a set of ideas if they are talked about as a
whole unit in the rubric below.
4.
If a statement is not clearly present in the rubric, don’t
force a code.
5.
Look for moderators to an idea.
6.
If an idea or concept is attributed to another person and
then state the participants states his/her own opinion, only
code his/her own opinion.
7.
If students are a factor in deciding curriculum, then code
it as P even if it more transmissive sources for curriculum
are included as well (such as teachers, curriculum
coordinators, etc . . . ) because the students are asked for
their insight.
Example
What facilitates learning?
“Requirement for school, work or life functions.”
Learning because it’s a requirement for school is
transmissive and learning because it is a requirement
for work or life functions is progressive.
What facilitates learning?
“Other people’s stated or implied perceptions of one’s
ability to learn.” The central idea here is external
opinion. This aligns with transmissive because it gives
credence to an external locus of control. This aligns
with progressive because it deals with social cognitive
factors of learning.
What should we teach and who should determine it?
“Certain universal curriculums should be taught to all
students including reading, writing, math . . .” This
aligns with the “3 Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic)
and should be coded as a single T).
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.” Social
interaction and vocational skills align with P and
should be coded as such (2 P). Religion, technology
skills, physical training, and philosophical ideologies
do not explicitly align with either and should not be
coded.
Has learning occurred?
“Learned functional skills are easier to validate. An
individual can be tested on his or her ability to execute
or operate that which was taught.” At first glance this
looks like performance outcomes, but the word test is
used and it is a measure of what is taught which are
both very transmissive, so this should be coded as a
single T.
What is learning?
“General definition: ‘A change in performance or
potential as a result of interaction with the world’
(Driscoll 11)
My general definition: The acquisition of new
knowledge and skills.”
What should we teach and who should determine it?
“Several groups of people should have a say in what is
taught: Community, students, parents, teachers, and
government groups.”
Examining pedagogical belief changes / 26
Tables and Figures
Table 1 Results from pre- and post-survey
Treatment
pre-survey
post survey
n
22
22
M
64.9
69.1
SD
5.1
6.5
Table 2 Results of Cohen’s Kappa
Coding
Coding 1
Coding 2
Coding 3
Kappa
(n = 9) = .50, p = .13
(n = 21) = .57, p =.001
(N = 42) = .63, p = .001
Table 3 Cross Tabulation of Pre- and Post- Philosophies Aggregate Scores
T
Aggregate Pre
E
P
Total
T
0
0
0
0
Aggregate Post
E
P
Total
0
2
2
0
3
3
2
14
16
2
19
42