Why Teachers Do What They Do In Their Classrooms: An Investigation by 6895iTx

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 30

									  Why Teachers Do What They Do In Their
Classrooms: An Investigation of Authoritative
                Teaching



          Katherine R. Raser
     Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey
         Background Reserach
• Strong emphasis on effective school reform
  since 1970s (Bell, 1983; Carpenter,2000)
• Factors that contribute to effective school
  reform:
  – School support for teachers (i.e. mentoring) (Berkley, 2002;
    Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1997)
  – Stable classrooms (Carpenter, 2000)
  – Effective classroom and teaching practices (Deci, et.al,
    1982; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Reeve, Bolt & Cai, 1999; Skinner & Belmont, 1993)
       Background Research
• Research on teaching has focused on effective
  teaching practices, including
      • Autonomy support (e.g. student
        independent work, and use of complex
        open-ended tasks)
        (Cai, Reeve, & Robinson, 2002; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Vallerand, Fortier, Michelle
        & Guay, 1997)

      • Emotional support (e.g. warmth, caring,
        and use of “unconventional assistance”)
        (Perry, 1998; Skinner & Belmont, 1993)
        Background Research
• Research on psychological constructs that support
  effective teaching practices:
      • Teaching efficacy
         – Positive student interactions
         – Task-focused lessons
         (Ashton, 1985; Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlback, 2002; Roeser & Midgley,
           1997)
      • Perceptions of school climate
         – student expectations
         – student and faculty relationships
         (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Newman, Rutter & Smith, 1989; Sutherland,1994)
      • Perceptions of contextual support for teaching
         – types of interactive decisions
         – complexity of lessons
         (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Kiesling, 1984; Lopus, 1990)
        Purpose of Research
• Teaching style - sets of teaching practices
  used to conduct a classroom (Walker
  2003; Wentzel, 2002)

• This study examines links between
  teaching style and selected personal and
  contextual factors theoretically related to
  teaching style.
             Teaching Style
• Grows from parenting style research (e.g.
  Baumrind 1983,1989); defined by:
     • demandingness (e.g. control, maturity demands)
     • responsiveness (e.g. warmth, nurturance, and
       communication)
• Teaching style may incorporate the
  components of demandingness and
  responsiveness (Walker, 2003; Wentzel,
  2002).
      Responsive and Demanding
         Teaching Practices
• Responsive              • Demanding teaching
  teaching practices:       practices:
  –   Emotional support     – Control
  –   Affective warmth      – Maturity demands
  –   Communication         – Direct interactions and
  –   Acceptance              requests
  –   Reciprocity           – Monitoring
      Responsive and Demanding
         Teaching Practices
• Responsive              • Demanding teaching
  teaching practices:       practices:
  –   Emotional support     – Control
  –   Affective warmth      – Maturity demands
  –   Communication         – Direct interactions and
  –   Acceptance              requests
  –   Reciprocity           – Monitoring

   Authoritative Teaching Style: Highly
   responsive and highly demanding
            Teaching Styles
                Low              High
                Responsiveness   Responsiveness


Low             Rejecting-     Permissive-
Demandingness   Neglecting     Indulgent
                Teaching Style Teaching Style
High            Authoritarian Authoritative
Demandingness   Teaching Style Teaching Style
                     Main Hypothesis
• Teachers who report an authoritative teaching style will record
   – higher levels of personal teaching efficacy,
   – more positive perceptions of school climate,
   – more positive perceptions of contextual support for teaching



 Personal
 Teaching
 Efficacy
              Perceptions
                   of                                 Teaching
                School                                  Style
Perceptions     Climate
     of
 Contextual
Support for
  Teaching
                Participants
•   53 teachers; Grades K – 7
•   1 private school & 5 public schools
•   50% response rate
•   41% taught less than 5 years
•   86% female
•   53% BA/BS as highest degree held.
               Procedure

• Principal or contact person distributed
  consent forms and questionnaires and
  collected them when completed.
• Participating teachers received $5 gift
  cards
               Pilot Work
• Pilot work summer 2004
  – Adapted and developed study measures
  – Assessed all measure reliabilities.
  – Made necessary changes
                       Measures
• Teaching Style: 2 scales developed for this study
  during pilot work.
   – Assesses: teacher-reported levels of responsiveness
     and demandingness:
      • Responsiveness - 8 items; α = .73
         – e.g. “I adjust my teaching strategies to the levels of the
           individual students”;)
      • Demandingess -5 items; α = .71
         – e.g. “I expect my students to maintain self-control”;)
   – 6-point frequency scale (1 = always 6 = never)
                       Measures
• Personal Teaching Efficacy: Personal Teaching
  Efficacy Scale (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler,& Brissie,
  (1992).
   – Assesses: how effective a teacher thinks he/she is in
     teaching.
   – 11 items; α = .81
      • E.g. “I am successful with the students in my class”
  – 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree 6 =
    strongly disagree)
                     Measures
• Perceptions of School Climate: adapted from
 Perceptions of School Climate scale (Hoy & Woolfolk,
 1993).
  – Assesses: the extent to which teachers think their school is
    a well organized and positive workplace.
  – 3 Subscales: Academic excellence, principal
    consideration, school morale
  – Total scale includes 15 items; α = .85
     • E.g., “Teachers at my school are friendly and approachable
       with each other.”
  – 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree 6 = strongly
    disagree)
                     Measures
• Contextual Support for Teaching: scale
  developed during pilot work
  – assesses: extent to which teachers feel that the
    school provides necessary resources for teaching.
  – 3 items; α = .59
     • E.g. “My school provides me with sufficient computers and
       technology.”
  – 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree 6 =
    strongly disagree)
                        Measures
• Teaching Style: teacher-reported levels of responsiveness and
  demandingness (scales developed during pilot work)
• Personal Teaching Efficacy: how effective a teacher thinks he/she
  is in teaching.
• School Climate: the extent to which teachers think their school is a
  well organized and positive workplace.
   – 3 Subscales: Academic excellence, principal consideration,
       school morale
• Contextual Support for Teaching: extent to which teachers feel
  that the school provides necessary resources for teaching (scale
  developed during pilot work)

• Good reliabilities for each measure
• 6-point response scale (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)
  Identification of Teaching Styles
• To distinguish between levels of
  responsiveness and demandingness, data
  were separated at 4.5
  – Data separated at 3.0 on responsiveness and
    demandingness yielded all authoritative
    teachers.
• Yields:
  – 41 authoritative teachers
  – 12 teachers of other styles
                     Results
• Teachers with authoritative teaching style
  – reported a more positive perception of school
   climate (t = 2.40; p<.05).
     • Post-hoc analysis - more positive perception of
       academic excellence subscale (t = 3.60; p<.01)
  – Correlated with school climate (r =.42)
     • Specifically, academic excellence (r = .41) and
       principal consideration (r = .37)
                   Results
• Grade level post-hoc analyses:
  – Teachers grades K-2 : higher personal self
    efficacy than teachers grades 5-7 (F [2, 48] =
    3.84, p<.05)
  – Teachers grade 3-4 : higher perceptions of
    contextual support for teaching than teachers
    grades K-2 (F [2, 49] = 4.24, p<.05)
                 Correlations Among Study
                          Variables
                 Authoritative    Responsiveness   Demanding-   Efficacy    School Climate   Contextual
                 Teaching Style                    ness                                      Support for
                                                                                             Teaching
Authoritative    --
Teaching Style

Responsiveness        .50*        --

Demanding-            .85**            .65**       --
ness

Efficacy               ns              .38**             ns     --

School Climate        .42*             ns               .44**        .34*   --

Contextual            ns               ns                ns           ns         .30*        --
Support
Mean                  10.75            4.80             5.08         4.54        5.22             4.71
SD                     .51              .43             .58           .47         .42              .81
Actual Range     9.67-11.67       3.25-5.5         3.60-6.00    3.18-5.55   4.00-6.00        2.33-6.00
Mean Trends: Personal Teaching
          Efficacy
Mean Trends: School Climate
Mean Trends: Contextual Support
         for Teaching
          Results Summary
• Authoritative teaching style differs from
  other teaching styles in teachers’
  perception of school climate, especially
  academic excellence.
• The means for all variables are in
  expected directions.
• Grade level differences: personal teaching
  efficacy and contextual support for
  teaching.
              Implications
• Promote academic excellence and an
  overall positive school climate.
  – Recognize student achievement on a school
    level
  – Have explicit expectations for individual
    students
  – Have academic excellence an ongoing
    emphasis
            Future Directions
• Additional research addressing limitations of this
  study:
  – School Demographics: more varied sample of
    schools
  – Number of years teaching: more varied sample of
    teachers
  – Reliance on self-report: include observation or
    interview data
  – Principal collection: participants completed
    questionnaires.
  – Sample Size: more participants
           Future Directions
• Future Steps
  – Examine development of teaching style in one
    school. Follow teachers in one school over
    short period of time.
  – Examine teaching style on pre-service
    teachers following them into first few teachers
    of teaching. Possibly in conjunction with
    formal mentoring program.
  – Examine teaching style links to teachers’
    parental involvement practices.
         Acknowledgements
• All participating schools and teachers
• Family-School Partnership Lab
  – Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey
  – Howard Sandler
  – Christa Green
  – Kristen Closson
  – Kelly Sheehan

								
To top