Factors influencing preservice teachers' variation in use of instructional methods: Why is teacher efficacy not a significant contributor?

Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall 2001 by Gerges, Gassia

Thousands of studies were conducted between 1960 and 1980 to determine which teaching method produced the greatest gains in student achievement. Researchers compared and contrasted a number of approaches to teaching and concluded that there is no single instructional method that is most effective in all teaching situations (Anderson, 1959, Keislar & Shulman, 1966; Peterson & Walberg, 1979). In order to meet the multiple learning goals, teachers must practice alternative techniques in the delivery of instruction. In fact, today it is more important that teachers vary their practice since students are now more culturally diverse (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 1996), and continue to be diverse in their learning needs (Hallahan & Kaufman, 1997), learning styles (Dunn & Griggs, 1988), cognitive style (Shuell, 1981), and intelligence (Gardner, 1993).

In his research and reflections on American education, John Goodlad (1984) contended that schools have two main functions: to develop students' thinking skills for productive participation in society, and to socialize them into a social and political democracy. In order to meet those goals, teachers must possess what Shulman (1987) termed "pedagogical content knowledge." Like other professionals who possess a body of knowledge unique to their profession, teachers need to master the essential content, skills, and strategies required for effective teaching. Thus, the goal of teacher preparation programs across the country is to provide prospective teachers with the knowledge, skills, and strategies necessary for effective, and even, exemplary teaching. Teachers' attitudes and beliefs have also been found to contribute to their effectiveness as educators (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tracz & Gibson, 1986). In particular, teacher beliefs about their personal effectiveness or efficacy appear to discriminate between more-and less-effective teachers (Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Volkman, Scheffier & Dana, 1992). Research has also indicated that teachers' efficacy beliefs influence students' motivation (Midgely, Feldlaufer & Eccles, 1989) and their achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tracz & Gibson, 1986). A number of studies have also linked teachers' strong feelings of efficacy with classroom behaviors associated with effective teaching (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) as well as willingness and effectiveness in implementing instructional innovation (Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988).

Despite the fact that conventional wisdom and research have pointed to the need for teachers to vary instruction, there is no available data relating teacher efficacy to extent of instructional variation. It is important to understand what factors influence teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward the implementation of a variety of instructional models and strategies. This study was undertaken in an attempt to generate some reliable descriptive information with regard to a possible relationship between preservice teachers' sense of efficacy and use of instructional variation.

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the relationship, if any, between the teacher efficacy of preservice teachers and the extent to which they vary their instructional practices. This study also sought to identify the factors other than efficacy which influence preservice teachers' attitudes toward practicing varied methods and techniques in the delivery of instruction. The specific research questions explored were: (1) Is there a relationship between preservice teachers' teaching efficacy and the extent to which they vary their teaching practices? and (2) What factors other than efficacy might be contributing to the degree of instructional variation exhibited by preservice teachers?

Methodology

The 32 perservice teacher participants in this study were enrolled in a five-year teacher education program. Program course work included a year-long methods course in which participants were exposed to instructional strategies, including models of teaching (direct instruction, concept attainment, concept development, inquiry, cooperative learning, and synectics). When the study began, the participants were either undergraduate students in their fifth year of study or graduate students in their sixth year of study, all working toward licensure at the elementary level. None of the participants had prior formal teaching experience and all were scheduled to complete two seven-week, full-time student teaching assignments. Each student teacher was required to develop and implement a ten-day unit of instruction for each of the two student teaching assignments. The unit of instruction consisted of a series of interconnected lessons focusing on a general topic selected by the student teacher with the guidance of the cooperating teacher.

The input of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor was assessed using the Instructional Unit Cover Sheet, a four-item self-report survey developed by the researcher. The instrument was designed to assess the cooperating teacher's and university supervisor's input with regard to the topic of the instructional unit, daily lesson plans, instructional methods, and resources. The extent of the cooperating teacher's and university supervisor's input in the development of the unit ranged from "no input" to "lots of input." Instructional units with "lots" or "some" input from the cooperating teacher or university supervisor with regard to instructional methods and lesson plans were not included due to the need to have units planned primarily by the preservice teachers as evidence of their tendency to vary instruction. The extent of the cooperating teacher's and university supervisor's input with regard to unit topic and instructional resources was not taken into consideration in the selection of units for the study.