1_dunnrakes - national forum journals - dr. kritsonis

8/14/2019 1_dunnrakes - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - DR. KRITSONIS

1/22

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

I THINK I CAN: AN ANALYSIS OF THE

INFLUENCE OF TEACHER EFFICACY ON

LEARNER-CENTERED BELIEFS

Karee E. Dunn

University of Arkansas

Glenda C. Rakes

University of Tennessee at Martin

ABSTRACT

For more than ten years, national agencies and educators have advocated for learner-

centered reform in schools (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium, 1992; National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education Unit

Standards, 2006), yet, little change has occurred (Cuban, 2007). As with any educational

innovation or paradigm, a number of intervening variables may exist. The purpose of

this study was to examine the influence teacher efficacy might have on teachers' learner-

centered beliefs. Learner-centered beliefs were used as a proxy for learner-centered

behavior, because beliefs are often the best indicator of future action (Ajzen, 1996, 2002;

Bandura, 1986). Results indicated that teacher efficacy significantly influenced learner-

centered beliefs. These results and their implications are discussed.

Introduction

s students in the United States continue to lag behind theirinternational counterparts, researchers continue to examine a

number of variables that play a role in promoting student

success (Darling-Hammond, 2007). A great deal of valuable research

examines what teachers should do to create successful learningenvironments (i.e., Bacon, 2005; ChanLin, 2007), yet too little

attention is paid to the teachers themselves. In most cases a new

innovation is touted as the great hope for reading, science, or

A

4


2/22

5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

mathematics achievement; then teachers are given a two-day training

session during which large amounts of surface level knowledge is

disseminated (Belzer, 2005). Teachers then return to the classroom go back to their previous routines, and administrators are surprised,

disappointed, and frustrated by the lack of innovation implementation.

However, if more attention were paid to what teachers bring to professional development opportunities and what variables lead to

action in the classroom from the transfer of knowledge about an

innovation, teachers might be more likely to engage in the practicespresented during professional development. This, in turn, may lead to

more pleasant surprises for administrators and policy makers. As

Darling-Hammond (1996) more eloquently stated, If a caringqualified teacher for every child is the most important ingredient in

education reform, then it should no longer be the factor most

frequently overlooked (p. 194).

For more than ten years, national agencies and educators have

advocated for learner-centered reform in schools (Interstate New

Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1992; National Councilfor the Accreditation of Teacher Education Unit Standards, 2006).

However, little real change has occurred (Cuban, 2007). Although

teachers are introduced to the foundational learner-centered theories inteacher education preparation programs and learner-centered

innovations throughout in-service professional development, many

teachers still engage in one-size-fits-all teacher-centered practices.

Perhaps one possible explanation for the lack of connection betweentheory and practice can be framed through conceptual change theory.

Conceptual change theory highlights the importance of addressing

both cold facts and hot emotions and beliefs in the learning process(Pintrich, Boyle, & Marx, 1993). Sinatra (2005) describes this as a

warming trend when applied to learning. Perhaps if a warming trend is

applied to teacher professional development, more learner-centeredaction would result.


3/22

Karee E. Dunn & Glenda C. Rakes 6

The purpose of the present study was to examine the warming

influence of teacher efficacy on learner-centered beliefs. Learner-

centered beliefs were selected for the purposes of this study as anindicator of learner-centeredness because we did not have access to the

teachers during the teaching process. The assumption that beliefs mayserve as a proxy for behavior is based on Bandura's (1986) social

cognitive theory as well as a research base that supports the idea thatone's beliefs are the best predictor of future action (i.e., Ajzen, 1996,

2002; Glasman & Albarracn, 2006). Furthermore, the selection of

learner-centered beliefs as a proxy for learner-centered behavior issupported by a body of literature that indicates that learner-centered

beliefs are potent predictors of learner-centered behaviors (Deemer,

2004; Lotter, 2004; McCombs, 2002; Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996;Zielinski & Preston, 1992).

Learner-Centered Education

To understand learner-centered beliefs, one must first

understand what "learner-centered" means. Learner-centered educationis based on the American Psychological Associations (APA, 1997) 14-

learner-centered principles (see Table 1). Learner-centered education

reflects a paradigm shift from the traditional teacher-centeredclassroom format in which teachers lecture and students sit passively

in rows while taking notes and tests. By comparison, learner-centered

teachers are aware of, responsive to, and respectful of the diverse

needs students present in the classroom (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).From this perspective, teachers incorporate strategies that support

success foralllearners within and beyond the classroom. For example,

learner-centered teachers provide time for critical reflection and allowstudents to have input into the selection of classroom activities. In

learner-centered classrooms, students are encouraged to question not

only the subject matter, but also why they are expected to learn thematerial or how it is taught.


4/22


Table 1

Learner-Centered Psychological Principles1

COGNITIVE AND METACOGNITIVE FACTORS

Principle 1: Nature of the learning process.

The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is anintentional process of constructing meaning from information and

experience.

Principle 2: Goals of the learning process.The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional

guidance, can create meaningful, coherent representations of

knowledge.

Principle 3: Construction of knowledge.The successful learner can link new information with existing

knowledge in meaningful ways.

Principle 4:Strategic thinkingThe successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and

reasoning strategies to achieve complex learning goals.

Principle 5:Thinking about thinkingHigher order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations

facilitate creative and critical thinking.

Principle 6:Context of learning

Learning is influenced by environmental factors, including culture,

technology, and instructional practices.

1 APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997,

November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A frameworkfor school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.


5/22


MOTIVATIONAL AND AFFECTIVE FACTORS

Principle 7: Motivational and emotional influences on learningWhat and how much is learned is influenced by the learners

motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is influenced by the

individuals emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals, and habits ofthinking.

Principle 8: Intrinsic motivation to learn

The learners creativity, higher order thinking, and natural curiosity allcontribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by

tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to personal interests,

and providing for personal choice and control.

Principle 9:Effects of motivation on effortAcquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended

learner effort and guided practice. Without learners motivation to

learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion.

DEVELOPMENTAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS

Principle 10: Developmental influence on learningAs individuals develop, they encounter different opportunities and experience

different constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential

development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains

is taken into account.

Principle 11: Social influences on learningLearning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations,

and communication with others.


6/22


INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCESFACTORS

Principle 12: Individual differences in learningLearners have different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for

learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity.

Principle 13: Learning and diversity

Learning is most effective when differences in learners linguistic,

cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account.

Principle 14: Standards and assessment

Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the

learner and learning progressincluding diagnostic, process, and

outcome assessmentare integral parts of the learning process.

In teacher-centered classrooms, the burden of student learning

is placed on the teacher. The teacher must disseminate information forstudents to absorb. Conversely, in learner-centered classrooms the

onus of learning is transferred from the teacher to the learner. The

learner-centered teacher is responsible for creating a learningenvironment that supports the learning process for all students. In

learner-centered classrooms, the student is responsible for learning

material, and the teacher is responsible for attending to the uniquecharacteristics that a student presents as he or she creates effective

learning environments (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).

Thus, learner-centered classrooms have evolved beyond the

one-size-fits-all, teacher-centered, lecture-oriented view of learningand have moved towards custom-built classrooms for optimal

learning. This means that for one year or for one topic, a teacher may

vary lesson plans to incorporate various methodology such as jig-sawgroups, Web Quests, or lecture to better suit the idiosyncrasies of his

or her students (Fogarty, 1995). Although the transfer of learner-

centered theory into practice is challenging (Lohr & Eikleberry, 2007),student benefits make it well worth the effort. In fact, research

indicates that, from kindergarten to graduate school, students in

learner-centered classrooms are more motivated and academically


7/22


successful when compared to students in more teacher-centered

classrooms (McCombs & Quiat, 1999).

Although there is a great deal of research that supports the

importance of each individual learner-centered principle and the positive student outcomes that manifest in learner-centered

classrooms, little learner-centered change has occurred over the lastten years (Cuban 2007). Labree (2004) and Vogler (2006) suggest that

the lack of learner-centered school change can be linked to the

preexisting beliefs that many teachers hold that may interfere withlearner-centered action. More specifically, many teachers believe that

teaching is a process of transmitting knowledge and dispensing

information (Pajares, 1992, 1993), which is in staunch contradictionwith learner-centered education. Therefore, it is important to further

explore teachers' beliefs about teaching and what influences those

beliefs.

Teacher Beliefs

For the purposes of this study, teacher beliefs are defined as an

individual's perception of information about a specific object or idea

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The predictive power of beliefs with regardto specific behaviors has been widely researched and documented (i.e.

Ajzen, 1996, 2002; Glasman & Albarracn, 2006; Huang, 2003).

Although the investigation of beliefs in isolation is valuable, it is also

important to investigate the interplay of teacher beliefs within thecontext of larger belief systems because beliefs do not exist in a

vacuum (Fives & Buehl, 2008). By better understanding the interplay

of beliefs, we may then uncover the nature of the influence such beliefprofiles have on behavior. Therefore, we investigated the influence of

teacher efficacy on learner-centered beliefs.


8/22


Teacher Efficacy Beliefs

Teacher efficacy reflects a teacher's self-reflective appraisal ofhis or her ability to bring about desired student outcomes (Tschannen-

Moran & Hoy, 2001). This deceivingly simple construct has become acornerstone in the investigation of teacher beliefs and behavior (Fives,

2005). Teacher efficacy is based on the social cognitive theory ofBandura (1986, 1997), which espouses that one's cognitive beliefs

affect one's behavior. Thus, if a teacher fails to believe that he or she

possesses the requisite teaching abilities needed to engage in newteaching practices, such as learner-centered instruction, then that

teacher is unlikely to engage in those classroom innovations.

Research links teacher efficacy with a number of outcomes,

such as student achievement (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004;

Ross & Cousins, 1993) and the implementation of new teaching ideasthat involve risk, difficulty, and shared student control, all of which areappropriate in describing learner-centered education (Ross, 1998). The

self-reflective cognitive belief of efficacy has also been donned an

excellent indicator of future action (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Dunn(2007) found a small, but significant relationship between cumulative

teacher efficacy and efficacy for student engagement with regard to

learner-centered beliefs in a small sample of urban teachers; however,further investigation is needed to better establish the influence of

teacher efficacy on learner-centered beliefs.

Efficacy is a powerful construct that is important to theclassroom and professional development. Its importance is amplified

by its trainable nature. Efficacy can be addressed through various

types of professional development such as modeling, masteryexperiences, and vicarious learning (Bandura, 1997) as well as peer

coaching (Bruce & Ross, 2008). Before effort is put forth to address

efficacy and well as learner-centered beliefs in professionaldevelopment, it is first important to establish a relationship between

these two constructs in teachers.


9/22


Thus, the authors sought to better understand the influence of

teacher efficacy on teachers' learner-centered beliefs. This study is

important because if learner-centered beliefs predict learner-centeredaction, and teacher efficacy informs learner-centered beliefs and

action, a new view of the dynamic between learner-centered beliefsand teacher efficacy may lead to the development of more effective

teacher professional development.

Statement of the Problem

Because teachers who report higher levels of efficacy are more

attuned to their students needs and characteristics, we hypothesizedthat teachers who report higher-level efficacy beliefs would also report

higher levels of learner-centered beliefs. As a result, our research

question was as follows: Does teacher efficacy for studentengagement, instructional strategies, and classroom managementinfluence their learner-centered beliefs?

Methodology

The convenience sample for this study consisted of 74 graduate

students enrolled in a masters program in education at a public mid-southern university that is accredited by the National Council for the

Accreditation of Teacher Education. All subjects were employed as

PK-12 teachers. A summary of demographic information is presented

in Table 2.


10/22


Table 2

Respondent Demographics

Variable n percent

Sex

Male 11 14.9Female 63 85.1

Grade Taught

5-6 13 17.6

Middle School 18 24.37-9 05 06.8

7-12 14 18.9

10-12 24 32.4

Highest Degree Earned

Bachelors 52 70.3Masters 19 25.7

Specialist 2 2.7

Doctorate 1 1.4

School Location

Urban 7 9.5

Rural 56 75.7

Suburban 11 14.9

Years Teaching Experience

1 year 11 14.92 years 8 10.8

3 years 11 14.9

4 years 9 12.25 years 6 8.1

6 - 10 years 13 17.6

11 - 15 years 7 9.5

16 - 20 years 7 9.521 - 25 years 2 2.8

Note:N=74.


11/22


Procedures

After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board,subjects were invited to participate via email, provided with the URL

for the survey, and asked to complete the measures along withquestions regarding basic demographic information. Subjects

completed a Web-based version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale(TSES) and the Teacher Beliefs Survey (TBS). All responses were

voluntary and anonymous. No individually identifiable information

was collected from respondents.

Instruments

Teacher Beliefs Survey

The learner-centered beliefs subscale of the TBS was used inthis study to assess learner-centeredness in this sample of teachers.

This measure was selected for the current study for two reasons. First,

it aligns with the definition of learner-centeredness used for this study.Second, it has been extensively used with thousands of teachers. The

learner-centered beliefs subscale of the TBS is based on APAs (1997)

14 learner-centered psychological principles (see Table 1), which provide the framework for learner-centered education. The TBS

employs a four point Likert scale and consists of 14 statements.

Participants respond to each of the 14 statements based on the extent

to which they agree or disagree with each item (McCombs & Whisler,1997). This measure was verified in a validation study with more than

1,707 undergraduate students (McCombs, 2002). The reliability

coefficient for this measure is .86.


12/22


Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES).

Teacher efficacy was assessed with the TSES developed byTschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998). The TSES was selected for

this study because it aligns with the definition and conceptualization ofteacher efficacy used in this study. This measure was also selected

because it goes beyond the general assessment of teacher efficacy andmeasures efficacy for instructional practices, classroom management,

and student engagement. Teachers respond to each item based on their

opinion about how much they can exert influence a given situation.The nine responses range from nothing, very little, some influence,

quite a bit, or to a great deal.

In this study, the 12-item short form of the TSES was used toprevent participant fatigue and to encourage greater survey completion

rates (Stanton, Sinar, Balzer, & Smith, 2002). In addition, the short

form of the TSES has similar reliability coefficients as the longer 24-item measure (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The reliabilities of thethree subscales ranged from .81 to .86. The TSES consists of a 9-point

Likert scale measure. Other studies that have examined the reliability

of the TSES have found substantial reliabilities (e.g., Benton-Borghi,2006; Knoblauch, 2004).

Data Analysis

In order to examine the influence of scores on the three TSES

subscales on the learner-centered subscale from the TBS, the data wereanalyzed using multiple regression. The TBS scores were entered as

the dependent variable and the three TSES subscale scores (efficacy

for instructional practices, classroom management, and studentengagement) were entered as the independent or predictor variables.

The significance and size of the coefficient of determination were

examined to determine if the set of independent variables had asignificant influence on teachers learner-centered beliefs. Further, the

magnitude of impact for each independent variable was examined.


13/22


Results

Each measure was reliable. Cronbachs alpha measured theinternal consistency of items on the surveys. The reliability alpha for

the learner-centered beliefs subscale of the TBS was .75. Thereliability alpha for the TSES efficacy for instructional practices,

classroom management, and student engagement subscales were .88,.89, and .91 respectively.

Multiple linear regression was used to determine whetherefficacy for instructional practices, classroom management, and

student engagement influenced teachers learner-centered beliefs. The

independent variables were teacher efficacy for instructional practices,classroom management, and student engagement. The dependent

variable was learner-centered beliefs. The sample size for the analyses

was 74 primarily rural mid-southern teachers. The means, standarddeviations, and correlations are displayed in Table 2.


14/22


Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Regression ofEfficacy for Instructional Practices, Classroom Management, and

Student Engagement and Learner-Centered Beliefs

(N = 74)

The three independent variables were entered into the

regression equation simultaneously. Preliminary examination of the

results indicated there was no extreme multicollinearity in the data (all

variance inflation factors were less than 3). Exploratory analysis also

indicated that the assumptions underlying the application of multiplelinear regression (independence, normality, heteroschedasticity, and

linearity) were met. The regression results indicated that the set ofindependent variables significantly influenced 16% of the variance in

learner-centered beliefs (F (3, 70) = 4.44, p < .01). None of the

independent variables had a significant unique influence on learner-centered beliefs.

1 2 3 4

1 L.C. Beliefs 1.00

2 Eff. Stud. Eng. .36 1.00

3 Eff. Ins. Strat. .37 .71 1.00

4 Eff. Class Man. .25 .72 .70 1.00

Mean 3.21 25.53 27.01 28.08Standard Deviation .33 5.36 5.07 5.03


15/22


Discussion

The results of this study supported the hypothesis that teacherefficacy does influence teachers' learner-centered beliefs. More

specifically, the results indicated that collectively, teacher efficacy forinstructional practices, classroom management, and student

engagement significantly influenced learner-centered beliefs. Thisresults differ slightly from Dunns (2007) findings that demonstrated a

small but significant correlation between cumulative teacher efficacy

and efficacy for student engagement with regard to learner-centeredbeliefs in a small sample of urban teachers. For the sample of teachers

who responded to the present study, it appears that the collective

influence of the three teacher efficacy subscales was more potent thanthat of any single scale. The difference in the results may be due to the

nature of the demographics of the two sample populations (e.g., rural

vs. urban).

This finding also supports Ross' (1998) assertion that teachers

with lower efficacy are more resistant to teaching ideas that involve

risk, difficulty, and shared student control, all of which arecharacteristic of learner-centered teaching. This may be a reflection of

their belief that they do not possess the requisite skills needed to

engage in more challenging teaching tasks like those involved inlearner-centered education. The results of the current study support

this position by further substantiating the influence of teacher efficacy

on learner-centered beliefs, which is important in establishing a need

to address these teacher beliefs in professional development aimed atcreating more learner-centered teachers and classrooms.

Limitations

This study was limited in scope due to the nature of the small

sample size. The findings may not be generalized to the greater teachereducation student population due to the lack of standardization in

training practices in teacher education programs and in-service

professional development across the country. In light of these


16/22


limitations, future research should examine this relationship in larger

populations in different areas of the country.

Implications for Future Research

The finding that teacher efficacy significantly influences teacherlearner-centered beliefs is important because efficacy training may be

provided in many forms, with research providing strong support for

peer modeling as a highly effective technique (Bandura, 1997; Bruce& Ross, 2008). Future research should investigate the implementation

of both peer modeling as well as the effects of other interventions on

both teacher efficacy and learner-centered beliefs. As intimated earlier,future research should investigate the effects of incorporating teacher

efficacy training in professional development efforts that focus on the

promotion of learner-centered innovations.

Another avenue for future research could be the development of

an efficacy scale that assesses efficacy specifically for learner-centered

teaching. The TSES used in this study was developed to assess generalaspects of teaching efficacy. In addition, future research should also

investigate other variables that may influence teachers learner-

centered beliefs such as experiences participating in and observinglearner-centered classrooms. Teachers epistemological beliefs may

also provide further insight into misconceptions teachers may hold

about how individuals learn that may interfere with the adoption of

learner-centered beliefs.

By providing those involved in teacher training with a better

understanding of variables that influence learner-centered beliefs,instruments that assess these beliefs (i.e., TSES, TBS), and means of

influencing these beliefs, researchers may find a productive path to

designing effective professional development needed to encourageleaner-centeredness in teachers and promote learner-centered

educational reform.


17/22


Conclusion

The results of this study highlight the importance of furtherinvestigating and addressing teachers efficacy in any attempt to

persuade teachers to adopt learner-centered beliefs. Until teachersadopt learner-centered beliefs, they are unlikely to engage in learner-

centered practices (Deemer, 2004; Lotter, 2004; McCombs, 2002;Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996; Zielinski & Preston, 1992). This

study also supports research that indicates that unless teachers are

confident in their teaching abilities, they are unlikely to adopt beliefsthat lead to the adoption of challenging new learner-centered teaching

practices. As a result, this study draws attention to the need to be

address teacher efficacy during any inservice professionaldevelopment program designed to encourage more learner-

centeredness in teachers.

To achieve a learner-centered paradigm shift in schools, futureresearch should investigate means of addressing teacher efficacy

through specific training interventions as well as the effects of this

type of training on both teacher efficacy and learner-centered beliefs.As a result, professional development stakeholders may make

noticable progress in their efforts to provide a caring and qualified

learner-centered teacher for every child.


18/22


REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1996). The directive influence of attitudes on behavior. In P.

M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action:Linking motivation and cognition to behavior(pp. 385403).

New York: Guilford Press.Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of

control, and the theory of planned behavior.Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.American Psychological Association (APA) (1997).Learner-centered

psychological principles: A framework for school reform and

redesign (Rev. Ed.).Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from

www.apa.org/ed/lcp2/lcp14.html

Bacon, D. R. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-relatedlearning.Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 248-267.

Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bruce, C. D., & Ross, J. A. (2008). A model for increasing reformimplementation and teacher efficacy: Teacher peer coaching in

grades 3 and 6 mathematics. Canadian Journal of Education,31(2), 346-371.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

W. H. Freeman and Company.

Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2006). Teaching every student in the 21st

century: Teacher efficacy and technology. (Doctoraldissertation, The Ohio State University, 2006).DissertationAbstracts International, 67(07A), 2540.

Belzer, A. (2005). Improving professional development systems:Recommendations from the Pennsylvania adult basic and

literacy education professional development system evaluation.

Adult Basic Education, 15(1), 33-55.
http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp2/lcp14.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/ed/lcp2/lcp14.html


19/22


Bruce, C. D., & Ross, J. A. (2008). A model for increasing reform

implementation and teacher efficacy: Teacher peer coaching in

grades 3 and 6 mathematics. CanadianJournal of Education,

31(2), 346-370.

ChanLin, L. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-basedlearning in science.Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, 45(1), 55-65.Cuban, L. (2007). Hugging the middle: Teaching in an era of testing

and accountability, 1980-2005.EducationPolicy Analysis

Archives, 15(1), 33-57.Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking

teacher development.Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: HowAmericas commitment to equity will determine our future.

Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.

Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high schoolclassrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs andclassroom environments.Educational Research, 46(1), 73-90.

Dunn, K. E. (2007). Teacher beliefs: An exploration of the relationship

of teacher efficacy and years teaching to teachers' learner-centered beliefs.National Forum of Applied EducationalResearch, 20(3), 1-18.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude, intention and

behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fives, H. (2005).Exploring the relationships of teachers efficacy,

knowledge, and pedagogical beliefs: A multimethod study.(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Maryland, 2003).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 3188.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers belief?Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers'

knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 33, 134-176.Fogarty, R. (1995).Best practices for the learner-centered

classroom: A collection of articles. Arlington Heights, IL:

Skylight Training and Publishing.


20/22


Glasman, L. R., & Albarracn, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that

predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-

behavior relation.Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778-882.Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective

efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments and, empiricalevidence, and future directions.Educational Researcher,

33(3), 3-13.Huang, J. (2003). A study of novice elementary school teachers'

teaching beliefs and their performances in teaching. Bulletin

of Educational Research, 49(1), 171-197.Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (1992).

Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and

development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, D.C:Council of Chief State School Officers.

Knoblauch, D. E. (2004). Contextual factors and the development of

student teachers sense of efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation, TheOhio State University, 2004).Dissertation Abstracts

International, 65(09A), 3343.

Labaree, D. F. (2004). The Ed schools romance with progressivism.

Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2004, 89-117.Pajares, F. (1993). Pre-service teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher

education.Action in Teacher Education, 15(2), 45-54.

Lohr, L. L., & Eikleberry, C. (2007). Learner-centered usability. Toolsfor creating a learner-friendly instructional environment.

Performance Improvement, 40(4), 24-27.

Lotter, C. (2004). Pre-service science teachers concerns through

classroom observations and student teaching: Special focus oninquiry teaching. ScienceEducator, 13(1), 29-38.

McCombs, B. L. (February 2002). The learner-centered framework:

A research-validated rational for defining healthy

educational environments. University of Denver Research

Institute: Talking paper for education committee hearing.

Sacramento, CA. Retrieved November 5, 2007, fromhttp://www.amersports.org/library/reports/9.html


21/22


McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered

classroom and school: Strategies for increasing studentmotivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCombs, B. L., & Quiat, M. A. (1999).A study of the learner-

centeredness of the Community for Learning (CFL)Program. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for

Research in Human Development in Education. RetrievedOctober 30, 2007, from

http://www.temple.edu/Lss/pdf/spotlights/ 500/ spot500.pdf

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2006).

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Unit Standards. Retrieved April 16, 2007, fromhttp://www.ncate.org/institutions/unitstandardsrubrics.asp?ch=4

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research:

Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational

Research, 62(3), 307-332.Pajares, F. (1993). Pre-service teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher

education.Action in Teacher Education, 15(2), 45-54.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. B. (1993). Beyond cold

conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs andclassroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual

change.Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Ross, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy.

Advances in Research on Teaching, 7, 49-74.

Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on

teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. The

Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-60.Ross, J., & Cousins, J. B. (1993). Enhancing secondary school

students' acquisition of correlational reasoning skills.Research

in Science and Technology Education, 11, 191-206.

Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher

predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 12, 385-400.Sinatra, G. (2005). The "warming trend" in conceptual change

research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.Educational

Psychologist, 40(2), 107-115.


22/22


Stanton, J. M, Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues

and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales.

Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167-194.Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy:

Capturing an elusive construct.Teaching and TeacherEducation, 17, 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacherefficacy: Its meaning and measure.Review of EducationalResearch, 68(2), 202-248.

Vogler, K. E. (2006). Impact of high school graduation examination onTennessee science teachers instructional practices.American

Secondary Education,35(1), 33-57.

Zielinski, E. J., & Preston, D. (1992, March). The evolution of pre-

service science teachers concerns about teaching. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of

Research in Science Teaching. Boston: MA.

1_dunnrakes - national forum journals - dr. kritsonis

Documents