Research on Teaching - A Brief Overview (Continued)

Marzano et al (1992) classify and compare 20 'instructional programs' in terms of their relative emphasis on five dimensions of student learning (e.g., attitudes, knowledge acquisition, knowledge extension and refinement, knowledge use, and habits of mind). The dimensions of learning constructs are grounded in learning theory. Application of these constructs to classifying and comparing instructional practices, however, is problematic in the way presented by the framework's developers. For example, they treat Joyce, Weil, and Shower's description of multiple models of teaching as one 'instructional approach,' rather than as an array of teaching strategies that can be applied alone or in various combinations. In addition, they do not distinguish between complex instructional strategies such as Group Investigation and Concept Mapping and the less complex tactics such as Summarizing and Venn Diagrams and the even less complex instructional skills, such as those identified with Hunter's Instructional Theory into Practice (e.g., checking for understanding and adding wait time when framing questions).

Integration of instructional practice. We believe a critical conceptual and empirical gap exists in knowledge about teachers' integration of instructional practices. By instructional integration we mean the selection, conceptualization, and use of multiple teaching skills, tactics, and strategies (see following section for definition of terms) by teachers. In Models of Teaching, Joyce and Weil (1992), for example, emphasize that the various models or strategies for teaching may be 'combined', 'blended', and 'coordinated' in a program of study. What they mean by these words is not clear. They convincingly argue that the acquisition and enactment of a repertoire of teaching models is a hallmark of effective teaching. That is supported by research on student learning, Darling-Hammond, 1998; and the research on expert behaviour by Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993; and Perkins, 1995. Unfortunately they provide no illustrations of integration of the models in practice within the Models of Teaching text. They do, however, discuss the importance of connecting to other instructional processes (e.g., they discuss the relationship between the models of teaching and learning styles near the end of the text).

In a text recently completed by Joyce and Calhoun (1997), titled Learning to Teach Inductively, the authors imply the connection between the 'inquiry' and 'cooperative learning' models of teaching; however, the integration is not made explicit in the text about how those two strategies are integrated. Teachers and students who are not skilled at structuring and monitoring 'group work' will find 'group inquiry' more difficult than teachers who are skilled in structuring groups. For example, if teachers and students were skilled at implementing Group Investigation (a model of teaching described in Models of Teaching), then those students would more likely benefit from involvement in a 'group inquiry' project.

One recurring focus of discussion in the literature pertaining to teacher use of multiple teaching strategies is whether the implementation of different teaching approaches and strategies is philosophically, theoretically, and practically possible and desirable. Joyce and his colleagues argue strongly that no one model of teaching can effectively meet all the learner needs and curriculum goals that teachers face. Therefore, the wise and effective teacher will develop a reasonable degree of mastery and flexibility in the use of a variety of teaching models. They have also demonstrated through their research that teachers can learn and transfer multiple models of teaching into their routine classroom practice. They reject the notion that a teacher's style is in a sense inviolable, and that the best one might hope for is to help teachers become more skilled in their use of their preferred model. That is certainly reflected in our preservice teacher candidates' instructional efforts; they consistently integrate strategies such as Concept Attainment, Inductive Thinking, Cooperative Learning, Mind Mapping, Lesson Design.

For them, instructional integration is part of how one constructs a learning environment to meet the diverse needs of the learner.

Returning to the literature, theorists like Fenstermacher and Soltis (1986) and Miller and Seller (1990) discuss whether or not teachers can mix different teaching approaches (executive, therapist, liberationist) or curriculum positions/orientations (transmission, transaction, transformation). While acknowledging the philosophical and theoretical incompatibilities of these constructs, in both cases the authors conclude that it should be possible in practice for teachers to select teaching strategies aligned with different approaches or orientations, depending on the curriculum objectives and learner needs being addressed. That aside, they do not provide any empirical examples and analyses of teachers integrating teaching practices either within or across teaching approaches or curriculum orientations; although Miller and Seller specify criteria to aid teachers in selecting models to fit particular orientations.

Marzano et al (1992) suggest that their Dimensions of Learning framework could be employed by teacher educators and teachers to 'coordinate' the use of instructional practices in relation to desired student outcomes. Again, however, we are unaware of any published examples that demonstrate its application to the study and comparison of teachers' instructional thinking and behaviors related to planning and teaching.

Eggen, Kauchak, and Harder (1979) describe four instructional strategies in their book Strategies for Teachers. While they use terms like "synthesizing" and "hybridizing" the strategies, they do not actually explain or illustrate how the strategies can be integrated in practice. Similar to Marzano et al, they focus on classifying the strategies according to pedagogical purpose.

In a synthesis of effective schools research, Levine and Lezotte (1990) list effective instructional processes as one of the correlates, and report that effective teaching includes 'interweaving' and 'orchestrating' a variety of teaching methods. Unfortunately, they fail to identify how this actually occurs in practice.

Waxman and Walberg (1991) identify 26 separate instructional variables rated by practicing teachers as moderately or very important for learning. Paralleling the work mentioned previously, they do not discuss findings from research on the interaction of these variables in teachers' instructional decision-making -- for good reason -- it does not exist. In sum, present knowledge about instructional integration is more metaphorical than empirical, and we know even less about the actual consequences of instructional integration on student learning.

We hope this chapter has provided you with an introductory understanding of instruction and one way to conceptualize it. To illustrate effects of some innovations on student learning, we provide a one-page overview of the effects of certain instructional processes on student learning on the next page. An excellent source of these effect sizes can be found in the book: (Marzano, 2001).

Back	Top	Next