دانلود پایان نامه درباره In، not، interviews

دانلود پایان نامه ارشد

(mathematics). Version two, for practicing teachers, had eight sub-scales to measure internal/external orientations in these domains: (1) the teacher herself/himself (2) the pupils in the school (3) the subject matter at school (mathematics) and (4) the school context. In both versions, items were scored on a five-point scale (strong disagreement to strong agreement). Version one was administered on 138 student teachers in three different colleges.
Study four was carried out on the graduates of the SOL program (n=37). In this study, they were compared with graduates of another program (n=36), which were more subject matter oriented. Graduates of both groups had been teaching between 1 and 10 years. Using the IEO scale (teachers’ version), the researchers compared their reflective attitudes. In addition, they compared the graduates’ inclination towards innovation and their job satisfaction by means of a teacher questionnaire (they do not give details). The quality of teachers’ interpersonal relationships with the students in their classes was measured through student perceptions (they do not give details), and was then compared with the teachers’ perceptions to determine the difference between them.
The researchers believed that each of the four studies provided some information to answer question number three, the way to recognize reflective teachers. They listed four attributes of reflective student teachers: (1) the reflective student teacher is capable of structuring situations and problems, and considers it important to do so; (2) the reflective student teacher uses certain standard questions when structuring experiences; (3) the reflective student teacher has no trouble answering the question of what he or she wants to learn; and (4) the reflective student teacher can adequately describe and analyze his or her own functioning in the interpersonal relationships with others.
Followed by these attributes, they list some characteristics of reflective practitioners, which they call correlates.
These characteristics are in some cases the consequences of the critical attributes, and in other cases the antecedents. They may even be related to the critical attributes in a circular manner, in that they reinforce the critical attribute and are, in turn, reinforced by it. The correlates are, however, not a generic aspect of reflection. (p. 62)
According to these correlates, reflective teachers have better interpersonal relationships with students than other teachers, and develop a high degree of job satisfaction. They also consider it important to train autonomous students. Additionally, they have strong feelings of personal security and self-efficacy and focus on the students in their reflections about their teaching. However, they focus on the self when they have a low sense of self-efficacy. What is more, reflective student teachers appear to talk or write relatively easily about their experiences. Last of all, female student teachers reflect more on their relationships with fellow students and less on subject matter (mathematics) than men do.
Korthagen and Wubbles highlight a few comments. In these comments, they mention that older student teachers tend to reflect less on their fellow students and their relationships with them. What is more, they “found no indication of a link between reflectivity and inclination towards innovation” (p. 67).
As mentioned earlier in this section, the study done by Korthagen and Wubbles is the closest in content to this research, in that its variables are also the focus in the current research. Their study centers on reflective teaching and on the way to find the characteristics of reflective teachers, they study the relationship between reflection and self-efficacy. It also considers internal/external orientations of teachers based on locus of control. As mentioned in section 2.3.1.1, locus of control is based on the first theory of efficacy, which was proposed by Rotter.
To measure self-efficacy, however, they used an adaptation of “Brekelmans (1989) of a questionnaire of Cloetta & Heidinger (1981)” (p. 65). No data on the validity or the factor analysis of this questionnaire, which is in Dutch, could be located. Another problem regarding the instruments used in their research is that they stated that they used “a teacher questionnaire” (p. 57) to measure innovation and job satisfaction, whereas no information regarding this questionnaire was disclosed.
Although the research done by Korthagen and Wubbles deals with reflective teaching and efficacy, further research of that kind is needed in the field of ELT, as their focus was on mathematics. This is not to consider the instrumentation problems that were stated above.
The second study reviewed in this section is Janet Lynn Norton’s Locus of Control and Reflective Thinking in Pre-service Teachers (1997). The purpose of her research, as it is also reflected in the topic, was to examine the relationship between reflective thinking and locus of control. She was also seeking to find out if locus of control was a significant predictor of reflective thinking. The study was done on 12 pre-service teachers (11 females, 1 male) from a private, selective university. As the participant population was small, Norton employed both qualitative and quantitative research techniques to achieve validity, reliability, and generalizability in her study. She achieved triangulation through (1) numerical indices of locus of control, (2) content analysis of interviews and weekly dialogue journals, and (3) limited quantification of interview and journal comments.
As for instruments in her study, two instruments were used to collect empirical data from participants.
The Pedagogical Language Acquisition & Conceptual Development Taxonomy of Teacher Reflective Thought (RPT Taxonomy) (Simmons, Sparks, Starko, Pasch, & Colton, 1989) was used to assess the reflective thinking ability of pre-service teachers as evidenced in their weekly journals… Secondly, The Locus of Control Scale for Teachers, a 20-item, Likert scale questionnaire, was administered to determine participants’ locus of control orientations. (pp. 403-404)
The results of the quantitative study failed to substantiate strong, positive correlations between reflective thinking and locus of control. “In addition, results from a series of regression models indicated locus of control was, during the fifth week of the semester, a significant predictor of reflective thinking; however, it was not a consistent predictor of reflective thinking” (p. 405). In the qualitative study, on the other hand, comments from participants suggested that reflective thinking and locus of control were strongly related.
The study could have resulted in findings that were more empirical if the following considerations had been taken into account. For one thing, although Norton used both qualitative and quantitative measures to cover for the small size of her participating subjects, generalizability of the study is questionable as it was done on only 12 participants. Another problem is that she used Locus of Control Scale to measure teacher efficacy, an instrument that is rarely employed by researchers (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
The third study reviewed is entitled Reflection and Self-Efficacy: Enhancing the Retention of Qualified Teachers from a Teacher Education Perspective carried out by Deborah S. Yost (2006). Aiming to find out the relationship between reflection, self-efficacy, and teacher retention, Yost tried to find out (1) what major obstacles successful novice teachers faced during their first year of teaching, (2) what teacher education or other factors shaped their current views and successes, and (3) to what extend these teachers are able to use critical reflection as a problem-solving tool.
As she believed that the realities of teachers’ daily work and experiences were complex, she designed a qualitative research to capture the complexity. The study was triangulated through interviews with principals supervising the teachers, interviews with second year teachers, and observations of their teaching performance. Yost maintained internal and external validity using alternative constructs. For instance,
to increase dependability an audit trail was used which documented procedures, field notes, code notes, coded transcripts, and personal documents supplied by the participants. To increase objectivity, the interview protocols were reviewed and feedback provided by several education professors, graduate students, and teachers not associated with the study. Moreover, to enhance confirmability the teachers were sent copies of the data analysis section of the study and asked to note any distortion. (p. 63)
Yost collected data in two stages: once over a two-month period in the fall of 2000, when the participants were doing their second year of teaching; and a second time in 2004, five years after graduation from the teacher education program. During the first phase, interviews were tape-recorded. Field notes were taken throughout the interviews and videotaped observations. She used a computer program to facilitate the coding process. The process of coding resulted in six major themes (learning, practice, personal qualities, first year, values, and administration) and 43 sub-themes.
In the second phase of data collection teachers were sent a questionnaire that requested information on their current teaching position, education-related activities, and graduate program pursuits. However, only 8 out of 10 questionnaires were returned for analysis.
The 10 participants of the study (aged 22-25) were selected from a group of 17 volunteers. They all had graduated from the same teacher education program and were in their second year of teaching when the study commenced. Except for one, who was Hispanic, all were Caucasian.

پایان نامه
Previous Entries دانلود پایان نامه درباره an، Korthagen، In Next Entries دانلود پایان نامه درباره In، teachers'، year