TEACHER PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS AND USE OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AT SCHOOLS IN GOOD STANDING VERSUS FAILING SCHOOLS

從教師角度研究教學策略在信譽良好學校及信譽不良學校的實施及有效性

10.6151/CERQ.2017.2501.03

黃金雁(Jinyan Huang)；Kurt J. Minervino

effective schools ； instructional strategies ； generalizability theory ； effectiveness of teaching ； likelihood of implementation ； 有效學校 ； 教學策略 ； 概化理論 ； 教學有效性 ； 實施可能性

當代教育研究季刊

25卷1期（2017 / 03 / 01）

79 - 107

英文

Purpose The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine K-12 teacher perceptions about the instructional strategies in terms of the likelihood that they would implement in their classroom teaching as well as the effectiveness of these instructional strategies in both schools in good standing and schools not in good standing. Design/methodology/approach Using SPSS and generalizability theory analyses, this study examined how 73 teachers at a variety of public K-12 schools (i.e., schools in good standing and schools not in good standing) in Western New York would employ and evaluate the perceived effectiveness of 13 teaching strategies. Findings The results show that some instructional strategies are more likely to be utilized and perceived to be more effective in high performing schools; the same should be employed at schools that are not in good standing. Policy implications for continued professional development and implementation of highly effective teaching practices can be made and substantiated by the statistical results of this study. Originality/value The results of this study have important educational policy implications. It is suggested that the State Education Department increases funding to schools which are not in good standing to allow for more resources to assist with the diversified needs of their student population.

研究目的　本量化研究從K-12 教師角度分析在信譽良好學校及信譽不良學校實施各種教學策略的有效性及可能性。研究設計／方法／取徑　本研究使用SPSS 和概化理論分析了來自紐約州西部公立學校（含信譽良好學校及信譽不良學校）73 名K-12 教師實施13 種教學策略的可能性及有效性。研究發現或結論　研究結果表明在信譽良好學校某些教學策略更易實施且更有效；這些策略應同樣在信譽不良學校實施。本研究統計結果暗示應制定持續職業發展及實施有效教學策略政策。研究原創性／價值性　本研究對教育政策制定有重要意義。紐約州教育部應該增加對不良學校的教育經費撥款，使之享有更多教育資源來滿足學生不同的需求。

1. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press.
2. Hanson, J., & Ahorn, A. (2008). Differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Retrieved from http://design.test.olt.ubc.ca/Differentiated_Instruction_and_Understanding_by_Design
3. NYSED. (2016). Office of teaching initiatives/teacher certification. Retrieved from New York State Education Department website: http://www.nysed.gov/
4. Ellis, E. (2004). What's the big deal about graphic organizers? Retrieved from https://mcsold1.monet.k12.ca.us/Academics/el712/Graphic%20Organizers/Q%20and%20A%20about%20G%20O.pdf
5. Bloch, R.,Norman, G.(2012).Generalizability theory for the perplexed: A practical introduction and guide: AMEE Guide No. 68.Medical Teacher,34(11),960-992.
6. Brennan, R. L.(2001).Generalizability theory: Statistics for social science and public policy.New York, NY:Springer Verlag.
7. Cobb, R. B.,Abate, S.,Baker, D.(1999).Effects on students of a 44 junior high school block scheduling program.Education Policy Analysis Archives,7(3),1-23.
8. Crick, J. E.,Brennan, R. L.(1983).GENOVA: A general purpose analysis of variance system.Iowa City, IA:American College Testing Program.
9. Cronbach, L. J.,Gleser, G. C.,Nanda, H.,Rajaratnam, N.(1972).The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles.New York, NY:Wiley.
10. Darling-Hammond, L.,Barron, B.,Pearson, P. D.,Schoenfeld, A. H.,Stage, E. K.,Zimmerman, T. D.,Chen, M.(2008).Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding.New York, NY:Wiley.
11. Exley, K.,Dennick, R.(2010).Giving a lecture: From presenting to teaching.New York, NY:Routledge.
12. Fletcher, R. K.(1997).A study of the block scheduling movement in six high schools in the Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee.Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Academy of Sciences,Sewanee, TN:
13. Gormley, K.,McDermott, P.(2014).Differentiating literacy instruction-There's an app for that.The Language and Literacy Spectrum,24,49-75.
14. Hamdy, M.,Urich, T.(1998).Perceptions of teachers in South Florida toward block scheduling.NASSP Bulletin,82(596),79-82.
15. Harasim, L.(2011).Learning theory: Design and educational technology.New York, NY:Routledge.
16. Hunter, M.(1984).Mastery teaching.Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
17. Hussin, H.(2010).Dimensions of questioning in the classroom: Teachers' questioning and classroom interaction.New York, NY:Springer Verlag.
18. Iding, M.,Crosby, M. E.,Speitel, T.(2002).Teachers and technology: Beliefs and practices.International Journal of Instructional Media,29(2),153-171.
19. Knight, S. L.,De Leon, N. J.,Smith, R. G.(1999).Using multiple data sources to evaluate an alternative scheduling model.The High School Journal,83(1),1-13.
20. Lewin, L.(2010).Teaching comprehension with questioning strategies that motivate middle school readers.New York, NY:Scholastic.
21. Lewis, A.(2011).The art of lecturing.New York, NY:B & R Samizdat Express.
22. Lightweis, S. K.(2013).College success: A fresh look at differentiated instruction and other student-centered strategies.College Quarterly,16(3),72-81.
23. Lunenburg, F. C.,Irby, B. J.(2011).Instructional strategies to facilitate learning.International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,6(4),1-12.
24. Maltese, A. V.,Dexter, K. M.,Tai, R. H.,Sadler, P. M.(2007).Breaking from tradition: Unfulfilled promises of block scheduling in science.Science Educator,16(1),1-7.
25. Marzano, R. J.,Brown, J. L.(2010).A handbook on the art and science of teaching.Alexandria, VA:Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26. Minott, M. A.(2010).Portfolio development, reflection, personal instructional theory and the scholarship of teaching and learning.College Quarterly,13(2),21-27.
27. Neville, E.(2010).Utilizing a school-university collaborative partnership to design, present and support pre-K-12 coursework on differentiated instruction.School-University Partnership,4(2),92-95.
28. Piaget, J.(1973).To understand is to invent: The future of education.New York, NY:Grossman.
29. Polka, W. S.(2002).Designing and implementing personal course portfolios: A practical strategy to initiate, develop and personalize effective classroom interactions and implement constructivist's principles.Educational Planning,14(1),13-20.
30. Polka, W. S.,VanHusen, M. J.,Young, W. M.,Minervino, K. J.(2016).Facilitating greater instructional differentiation via research-based teacher reflection and site-based procedural guidelines.Educational Researcher: Theory & Practice,28(1),37-52.
31. Rakes, G. C.,Fields, V. S.,Cox, K. E.(2006).The influence of teachers' technology use on instructional practices.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(4),411-426.
32. Richardson, V.(Ed.)(1997).Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings.Washington, DC:Falmer Press.
33. Rodriguez-Valls, F.(2009).Culturally relevant poetry: Creating esperanza (hope) with stanzas.Multicultural Education,17(1),11-14.
34. Shavelson, R. J.,Webb, N. M.(1991).Generalizability theory: A primer.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
35. Shavelson, R. J.,Webb, N. M.,Rowley, G. L.(1989).Generalizability theory.American Psychologist,44(6),922-932.
36. Shippen, M. E.,Flores, M. M.,Crites, S. A.,Patterson, D.,Ramsey, M.,Houchins, D. E.,Jolivette, K.(2011).Classroom structure and teacher efficacy in serving students with disabilities: Differences in elementary and secondary teachers.International Journal of Special Education,26(3),36-44.
37. Slavin, R. E.(2011).Educational psychology: Theory and practice.Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
38. Stanford, B.,Reeves, S.(2009).Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, and universal design for learning.Teaching Exceptional Children Plus,5(6),2-9.
39. Stanford, P.,Crowe, M. W.,Flice, H.(2010).Differentiating with technology.Teaching Exceptional Children Plus,6(4),2-9.
40. Tomlinson, C. A.(2005).The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.Upper Saddle, NJ:Merrill Prentice Hall/ASCD.
41. Zollman, A.(2009).Students use graphic organizers to improve mathematical problem-solving communications.Middle School Journal,41(2),4-12.