The influence of assertive classroom management strategy use on student-teacher pedagogical skills
By Saad Shawer
Volume 8 - Issue 1
Feb 5, 2010 - 2:02:29 PM
This quantitative study examined the
influence of teacher-educators’ use of assertive classroom management
strategies on English as a foreign language (EFL) student-teacher
generic-education and language-teaching skills. Concerns have been voiced that
many teachers fail to communicate the target skills and information to their
students though they possess abundant subject-content and pedagogical-content
knowledge. Traditionally, teacher-educators have been concerned with assisting
students to grasp a defined body of knowledge through information transmission.
Currently, teacher-educators face the challenge of assisting student-teachers
to learn how to learn so that they can face political, social and economic
uncertainties and to become independent lifelong learners. This demanded new
ways of educating student-teachers who, too, have to handle the very task (Author, 2009a; Author, Gilmore & Banks-Joseph, 2008). Some key skills student-teachers
need to develop involve their use of effective classroom management strategies
(Author, 2006).
No doubt that classroom
management has paramount significance to effective pedagogy, because classroom
disruption decreases learners' cognitive and overall development. As a result, effective
classroom management forms a gate to stable teaching and learning. Classroom
management simply means the ways teachers control disruptive behaviour in order
to allocate as much as possible of classroom time and effort to teaching and
learning activities (Victor, 2005).
Pedagogical content-knowledge
is the whole range of teaching knowledge and skills that teachers acquire to be
able to communicate pedagogical content. It involves
subject and
generic-education
teaching skills. Subject pedagogical content-knowledge includes those teacher-
and student-based teaching strategies and techniques which could be used solely
for teaching particular subjects. For example, the Audio-lingual Method, a
didactic teacher-based teaching strategy, and Communicative Language Teaching,
an active-learning and student-based teaching strategy, are used exclusively in
teaching languages. On the other hand, generic-education pedagogical content-knowledge
includes those teacher- and student-based teaching strategies and techniques
which could be used for teaching almost all subjects. For example, the Lecture
Method, a didactic teacher-based teaching strategy, and Cooperative Learning,
an active-learning and student-based teaching strategy, are cross-subject
teaching strategies (Author, 2009b).
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The current study was put in context through
reviewing the literature round classroom management strategies and pedagogical
content-knowledge. This section concluded with stating the research questions.
All teachers dream of
maintaining their classrooms free of disruption. To achieve this, they need to
shape and correct learners' behaviour in loving and caring ways and settings
that inspire, achieve and maintain positive behaviour. The terms classroom
'discipline' and 'management' have been often considered as synonymous.
Although discipline “is an instrument that moulds, shapes, corrects, and
inspires appropriate behaviour,” it is mistakenly associated with punitive
procedures. Classroom management, on the other hand, includes “ways to
effectively reduce misbehaviour in the classroom setting” (Victor, 2005, p. 7). In particular, classroom
management involves “all the things that a teacher does to organize students,
space, time, and materials so that instruction in content and student learning
can take place” (Wong & Rosemary, 2001, p.
84). In addition, it “consists of practices and procedures that a teacher uses
to maintain an environment in which instruction and learning can occur” (p. 10).
This requires teachers to use organizing strategies, including things relevant
to space, time, and materials so as for teaching and learning to occur.
Teachers most often face acts of
disruption, defiance, and inattention in their classrooms. No wonder that only
half of classroom time is spent on teaching and learning activities whilst the
rest wasted on classroom management (Geiger,
2000). Well-managed classrooms show little confusion, disorder, and anti-social
behaviour. Effective teaching and learning cannot take place in contexts full
of disruption. Discipline is, therefore, “necessary for proper character
development, academic study, living with others, personal habits, [and] physical
development of the body” (Victor, 2005, p. 12).
2.2 Classroom Management
Strategies
Classroom management strategies involve:
(a) organizing, (b) teaching management, (c) teacher-student relationship, and
(d) teacher sanctions/ reward (consequences) strategies
(Author, 2006). Some of these strategies are
concerned with administrative rules, while others target actual classroom
pedagogical activities.
Classroom
organizing
strategies guide teachers to use and develop behavioural classroom protocols,
including arriving in and exiting classroom, seating students, turning in
homework, and going to the restroom. Daily routine procedures, such as keeping
supplies organized and handling paperwork, show the difference between well-
and less-managed classrooms. In well-managed classrooms, teachers introduce 'transition'
procedures that set out classroom protocols to students on day one. For
example, teachers make clear what students should know as the appropriate
activities when assigned work is complete (Canter,
1992). Effective
behaviour management is difficult to achieve through inhibiting disruptive
behaviour. Rather, teachers can turn students voluntarily compliant by respecting
and being considerate with them. Without training in various management
strategies, teachers make the mistake of punishing rather than managing (Burden, 2003; Cangelosi, 2004; Charles, 2001).
Effective classroom management also
depends on the teaching quality, which teachers could achieve through using
teaching
management strategies. Effective classroom management occurs when teachers
choose stimulating tasks that sustain interest. When pedagogy is boring,
students cannot get positive or compliant. Therefore, teachers need to choose
tasks which students genuinely need (relevance criterion of pedagogy). When
teachers ignore students' needs, they cannot expect them to comply or attend to
learning activities. Further, teachers must make tasks realistic, meaningful,
manageable, and achievable (task suitability to student schemata). Asking
students to approach tasks beyond their reach results in student objection and
dissatisfaction, whereas easy tasks leave no option to students but side
talking to pass the time (Author, Gilmore &
Banks-Joseph, 2009).
Choosing substantial pedagogical
input gives students the feeling they learn new and useful things (content-substantiality).
Trivial tasks fail to engage students in learning or keep silent. Classroom
management requires teachers to use activities that defuse attention-seeking
behaviours, like group- and pair-work because these keep students busy working
rather than side-talking. Moreover, addressing style and ability differences keeps
learners engaged in learning through providing extra tasks and material to fill
in the time gap between low- and high-ability and fast and slow students. This
also allows teachers to fill in the time when having extra lesson time without
things to do. In addition, teachers should always set and implement time-limits
for activities to encourage students to seize the time for learning instead of
disruption. It is also important that teachers look confident before students
by knowing how to use apparatus and having clear understanding of lessons (Author, 2003).
Learning styles are also keys to
effective classroom management for driving students to prefer learning through certain
modalities more than others (Victor, 2005).
'Visual style' learners prefer to see language written in order to approach
tasks at a degree of easiness. 'Auditory' learners need to listen to the
language they learn, whereas 'kinaesthetic' students prefer to move around and
handle things in the learning situation (Tomlinson,
1998). Visual students are better disciplined through using eye contact
and behaviour charts, auditory learners need information to be repeated back to
them and making use of voice pitch, whereas tactual students need hands-on
activities. Once students take in information through their preferred channel
of learning, they rarely cause trouble (Victor, 2005).
Learning styles could be grouped into
'organizers', 'researchers', 'relaters', and 'doers'.
Organizers prefer
to deal with learning enterprises in a logical order therefore disorganized
tasks may stimulate their disruptive behaviour. Unlike Organizers,
researchers
question the rationales behind tasks. If their queries are not answered, this
may trigger their disruptive behaviours (Victor, 2005).
Relaters who like interaction with others can be managed through creating
a context that involves good relationships, fairness, personal interactions,
approval, praise, and affirmation.
Doers who like participating in
hands-on activities prefer guidelines to rules, opportunities to show leadership,
and empowerment when being disciplined.
Academic procedures concern the management
of classrooms through the quality of pedagogic input and strategies. Lesson
planning is not only crucial to effective pedagogy but also to effective
classroom management. Each lesson should reflect students’ learning needs, by
anticipating their performance and behaviour. This enables teachers to amend
their lesson plans when they go wrong or when problems arise. For example, planning
a lesson where students move around requires teachers to have clear ideas of
how to move quickly and efficiently from one activity to another. Moreover, teachers
need to always justify their pedagogical input to convince students to accept
and actively participate in learning activities. To facilitate learning and
keep order, teachers need to provide clear task instructions and be able to use
resources. In small group discussions, teachers assign roles to group members,
including leader, recorder, and timekeeper (Canter,
1992).
Positive
student-teacher relationships
improve student affective and cognitive development, increase motivation, and
minimize anticipated negative behaviours (Bradley, Pauley & Pauley, 2005). Teacher-student
relationship strategies assist teachers to establish and keep good relationships
with students. Good class managers start firm and get relaxed later. Good
classroom mangers defuse confrontations, keep clam, take the heat out of the
situation, do not argue with students, and use students' names, humour and constructive
criticism. Moreover, they look alert and do not neglect early infringements of
classroom rules. Being firm and consistent leads learners to conform (Author, 2006).
Good classroom mangers do not shame, use verbal
reprimand, threaten, embarrass, suspend, or expel students (Geiger, 2000). “The teacher should act in a
professional manner and always remember that he/she is… not a teenager” (Victor, 2005, p. 6). They understand students'
psychology as learners pass through different development stages, each with
distinctive affective and cognitive implications. Effective communication is,
therefore, necessary to create contexts that foster mutual respect between
students and teachers through active listening techniques, avoiding traditional
communication roadblocks, and responding with empathy to student anxiety and
frustration (Brown, 2005).
The
teacher sanctions/ reward strategies also influence classroom
management. Teachers should not box students into a corner, as this incurs
confrontations and disruptive behaviour. They can use tangible rewards, their
institution reward system, and their own system but rewards should always be visible.
For example, praising good students in public, giving merit points, and displaying
good work. If possible, teachers write down good students' names in the honouring
list on class and school boards. As regards sanctions, teachers should
tactfully use a range of methods to discourage disruptive behaviour, keep
questioning behaviour to get students accustomed to discipline, and avoid
overreaction. Suitable reprimands such as negative reinforcement, making trouble-makers
lose privileges, and isolating, separating or even detaining students are good
ways of punishment. Other staff and parents could be involved if students
continue to disrupt classroom teaching, but teachers must act instantly and avoid
whole class punishment (Author, 2006). Teachers can
also use positive recognition to reward those who stick to the rules and a
punitive system to punish those who violate them (Victor,
2005).
Pedagogical content-knowledge
constitutes the crux of teacher development, in addition to subject and
curricular content-knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Teachers
cannot teach effectively or well-manage their classrooms without grasping the
information, principles and theories of their subjects. However, subject
content-knowledge is insufficient to make competent teachers. Curricular
knowledge assists teachers to understand curriculum domains, models,
evaluation, syllabi, and materials and different programmes, and how these
relate to other disciplines (Pollard & Triggs, 1997).
Subject and
curricular knowledge, however, have limited use without assisting teachers to
develop a broad range of teaching skills necessary for them to demonstrate they
can transform their subject and curricular knowledge into forms comprehensible
to learners; using different teaching strategies, procedures, techniques,
examples, and other useful ways of content representations. Pedagogical skills,
therefore, enable teachers to understand learners and what facilitates and
impedes their cognitive, affective, psychomotor, and social development (Pollard & Triggs, 1997; Author et al., 2008). With
subject, pedagogical and curricular knowledge teachers become self-confident
since meagre or abundant subject, curricular and pedagogical knowledge
influence their ability to better manage their classrooms (Author, 2006). EFL teachers who have developed a range
of teaching skills can handle “different learner strategies, be good classroom
managers (organizers, initiators, monitors, advisors and resource-providers),
help students to learn from their errors, motivate them, promote learner
autonomy and cater for different abilities and learning styles” (Basanta, 1996, p. 263).
2.4
Previous Research
The literature on classroom management revolved round assertive and
non-assertive teachers. Assertive teachers had two classroom management styles.
Autocratic/ authoritarian teachers managed their classrooms by imposing
behaviour and instruction related protocols on their students. In contrast, democratic
teachers involved their learners in almost all classroom undertakings. On the
other hand, non-assertive (lassie-fair) teachers paid little attention to
classroom order. The n
on-assertive or passive teachers' impact on students
was negative, since their students felt frustrated in their anarchic
classrooms. Similarly, students felt disappointed and suppressed in the
hostile
or authoritarian teachers’ classrooms. In contrast, a
ssertive
teachers who showed confidence and consistent expectations had positive effects
on student behaviour, as they learnt how to trust and respect others (Canter, 1992).
Research has shown that teachers
taking classroom discipline a priority provided a conductive context to
effective classroom teaching and learning whereas lassie-fair contexts had
negative implications for classroom pedagogy (Akar & Yildirim, 2004;
Lacina-Gifford, Kher & Besant, 2003; Pedder, 2006). However, research investigating the direct
impact of classroom management on learning has been sparse. Most research
focused on training teachers to use a set of classroom management strategies to
well- manage classrooms. The 'means' and 'end' has been classroom management
itself because researchers examined the impact of some strategies on improving classroom
discipline. However, the literature supplied the current study’s experiment
with the most effective classroom management strategies in addition to hinting
at close links between effective classroom management and effective learning
and teaching.
One line of research examined
the impact of classroom management techniques on student behaviour. For
example, Victor (2005) conducted an experiment
to examine the impact of some classroom management techniques (means) on
improving student behaviour in the classroom (end). The study concluded that
the treatment programme resulted in significant improvement in students'
positive behaviour, such as a decrease in non-compliance, shouting, and
tantrum.
Another strand of
research examined the impact of certain management strategies on teacher
classroom management skills. Akar and Yildirim’s (2004)
study indicated that constructivist contexts assisted teachers in organising
students in cooperative work and taking individual differences into
consideration. Schmidt (2006) concluded that classroom
management training enabled teachers to respond to different student
characteristics, behaviours, and instructional needs in addition to developing
appropriate relationships with students and parents. Slider,
Noell & Williams (2006) reached similar conclusions.
A
third line of research investigated teachers' cognition of effective and
ineffective classroom management strategies. Lacina-Gifford
et al (2003) examined pre-service teachers' knowledge of most effective
strategies. The study concluded that most teachers found talking to students,
involving parents, reinforcing good behaviour, and rearranging classroom
effective strategies. In contrast, confronting, yelling at, lecturing, and
punishing students were ineffective strategies.
Few studies
examined the relationship between classroom management and learning. Cher, Meow & Ching’s (2005) study indicated that effective
classroom management strategies, such as establishing disciplinary and
educational rules and dividing work among students, had a positive impact on
student learning. Pedder (2006) reached similar
results.
Many
cross-subject studies indicated a positive impact of abundant teacher
pedagogical knowledge on their ability to teach and student learning (e.g., Gudmundsdottir, 1991; Kinach, 2002; Lee, 1995). Similarly,
previous EFL studies indicated a positive influence of abundant teacher
pedagogical knowledge on improving teaching ability and student learning (e.g., Barkhuizen & Gough, 1996; Gahin, 2001; Author, 2009b).
Other studies indicated that program interventions improved EFL teacher ability
(Borgan & Thai Ha, 1999; Linne, 2001; Schleppegrell
& Bowman, 1995). It has become clear that no
research examined the impact of classroom management on student-teachers'
pedagogical skills. The current study, therefore, sought to answer these
research questions:
1.
Have the target classroom
management strategies been actually used in the classrooms under study?
2.
What are the student-teachers'
perceptions of the target classroom management strategies impact on their
generic-education teaching skills?
3.
What are the student-teachers'
perceptions of the target classroom management strategies impact on their language
teaching skills?
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
Positivism underpinned this research
ontological (one form of reality) and epistemological stance (detachment from
rather than interaction with the research subjects). Positivism also guided this
research at the methodological level through using two ‘nomothetic’ research
strategies (survey and experimentation), data collection instruments
(questionnaires), and data analysis techniques (t-test) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
3.1 Research Strategies
To answer the research questions, this
study used two research strategies. A method is a medium by which data is
collected, whereas a strategy or methodology is a general framework that
connects data gathering instruments to theory and to the researcher’s
epistemological stance (Harvey, 1990). Research questions guide researchers to use certain
strategies and data collection methods than others (Miles
& Huberman, 1994). The researcher first surveyed use of target
classroom management strategies to ensure they had been put into action in real
classrooms. Having made sure of their use, the experimental method was used to
assess their impact on student-teachers' teaching skills. It should, however, be
pointed out that both research methodologies were in line with the study's
positivist stance (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000).
Survey research described and interpreted
the status of classroom management strategy use because surveys are good at
describing ongoing processes. In particular, a cross-sectional
design was used to collect data from different subjects at one point of time (Cohen et al., 2000). To answer the first survey design
question, the survey questionnaire (appendix A) collected data for testing this
null hypothesis.
1.
No statistically significant differences of the mean scores
at 0.05 would be found between the experimental and control group in teacher-educators’
use of
organizing,
teaching management, teacher-student relationship,
and sanctions/ reward classroom management strategies.
The second and third research
questions needed an experimental design to assess the impact of teacher-educator’s
strategy use on student-teachers' teaching skills (Robson,
1993). Experimentation could examine such an
impact more than other methods because this study sought to verify the effect
of some independent variables on other variables. Through experimentation, the
researcher controlled extraneous variables and eliminated rival causes so that the
impact of classroom management strategy use (independent variables) on student-teachers’
pedagogic skills (dependent variables) could be assessed (Cohen et al., 2000).
The study dealt with several internal
validity concerns. For example, pre-tests were not used to avoid the influence
of pre-testing on post-testing and history effects were controlled by also
avoiding pre-testing. Moreover, randomization neutralised any significant
events that might have taken place, whereas 'instrumentation' effects were kept
to the minimum through standardizing and administering questionnaires only
once. This way, this study controlled the 'when' and 'who' in instrument administration
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963).
This
study employed the true experiment
post test-only control group design
(design 6) because it makes use of randomization and control groups. For example, quasi-experimental designs exclude randomization, while pre-experimental
designs do not involve control groups. Randomization was therefore needed to
establish group equivalence, whereas control groups acted as a reference
against which mean differences were compared. Design 6 was particularly used
to neutralize pre-testing effects on post-testing. “The pre-test is… not
actually essential to true experimental designs… The most adequate all-purpose
assurance of lack of initial biases between groups is randomization…
Randomization can suffice without the pre-test” (Campbell
& Stanley, 1963, p. 195). According to Campbell and Stanley, the design 6 formula:
Experimental group R
X O¹
Control group R O²
The formula shows both the
experimental and control groups were randomly selected (R) and were both subjected
to post-test only (O¹ and O²). It further shows that only the experimental
group received the independent variable (X). The
experimental questionnaire (appendix B) collected data to test the following null
hypothesis and to answer the second and third research questions.
1. No statistically
significant differences of the mean scores at 0.05 would be observed between
the experimental and control group in their generic-education and language
teaching skills.
The researcher officially taught
the teaching methodology course to junior student-teachers in the first semester.
The subjects were divided into two groups. Target classroom management
strategies were used in the experimental group’s classrooms. The course involved
teaching ‘generic-education’ and ‘language/ subject’ teaching strategies and
skills (see sections 1 and 3.3.1 for details). When the researcher started to
collect data from the students, he explained the research purpose and relevance
to them. No deception occurred since all student-teachers had to take the
teaching methodology course. In addition, teacher-educators were allowed to use
different methods every semester. Complete anonymity and confidentiality were
assured and maintained (Bell,
1993).
The researcher used systematic probability
sampling to draw the subjects from a known population consisting of 400 EFL
junior student-teachers. The table of sample size required a sample of 196. The
frequency interval of systematic sampling was decided by this formula: f (frequency
interval) = N (total population number) ÷ SN (required sample number) (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 100). The calculation was 400 ÷
196 = 2.04 (rounded up to 2). Therefore, every second name on the list was included
into the sample. The first name was selected randomly. For example, the
researcher selected name number 23, name number 25, name number 27 and so on
until 196 (increased to 200) subjects were selected from 400.
Anonymous and closed-item
questionnaires allowed the subjects to answer in their own time and to comment
freely on sensitive issues, such as the impact of teacher-educators’ classroom
management strategy use on student-teachers’ learning (Cohen
et al., 2000). Questionnaires “encourage students to reflect on their
recent learning experiences and to comment on them by answering specific
questions to focus their response” (Pollard &
Triggs, 1997, p. 73). By asking students to respond to a five-point Likert
scale and assigning category weights, it was possible to quantify the responses,
give more choices, and separate the subjects within the same group (Oppenheim, 1992).
Questionnaire
items were derived from the research purpose and questions. A fact paragraph explained
the questionnaire purpose. Sections started with broader and easy questions to
encourage cooperation whereas complex and sensitive items came in subsequent
sections (Kane, 1985). Questions that baffle the respondents were
revised. For example, double-barrelled questions, asking two questions in one, and
double-negative questions that confuse respondents were revised. Factual and
opinion questions about classroom management strategy use and impact were asked
(Oppenheim, 1992).
Two questionnaires were used with
student-teachers. The
'surveyquestionnaire' came in four parts
(appendix A). Classroom
organizingstrategy use constituted the
first profile. It comprised eight items enquiring into classroom routines of
accessing and returning resources, handing in assignments, seating students,
going to toilet, and student and teacher punctuality and attendance. The second
profile included teacher-educators’ use of
teaching management
strategies. It comprised 11 items enquiring into task difficulty, stimulation
and substantiality, attention-defusing and timing. Teacher-educators’ use of
teacher-student
relationship strategies formed the third profile that involved 10 items.
This enquired about the extent to which relationships with students were good,
bad or firm, type of criticism, confrontations, and teacher reactions. Finally,
teacher use of sanctions and reward strategies fell in the fourth profile. It
comprised eight items enquiring about use of praise and merit points, behaviour
questioning, getting or losing rights, and college administration involvement.
The second questionnaire,
experimentalquestionnaire, came in eight parts (appendix B). The first profile
(seven items) enquired into the impact of teacher-educator classroom management
strategy use on student-teacher
generic-education teaching skills. This
included using lecture, discussion, inductive, and deductive methods in
addition to problem-solving and cooperative learning. The second profile (13 items) assessed the
impact of strategy use on
lesson planning skills of how to explore the
teaching context, write aims and objectives, start, develop and end lessons in
addition to assessing learning and evaluating teaching.
The third profile (four items) assessed the
impact of strategy use on developing student-teacher
language teaching
skills of using direct, audio-lingual, grammar-translation, and communicative
method. The fourth (four items), fifth (eight items), sixth (four items),
seventh (seven items), and eighth profile (eight items) assessed the impact of
teacher-educator strategy use on student-teachers’ skills of teaching reading,
speaking, listening, grammar, and vocabulary respectively. Items contributing
to questionnaire profiles were drawn from the relevant literature, course
elements and from the researcher’s teaching experience (e.g., Akar & Yildirim, 2004; Brown, 2005; Shawer, 2006; Victor,
2005).
Questionnaires were
content validated through ten EFL teacher-educators who examined questionnaire
content and made modifications in wording and item number and sequence. Having
made the changes required by the jury, five EFL teacher-educators made sure
questionnaire content addressed the research purpose and questions. Further,
two doctoral EFL educational researchers looked at the questionnaires (Bloom, Fischer, & Orme, 1995).
Questionnaires were checked for reliability through Cronbach's Alpha.
although split-half, Kuder-Richardson and Alpha coefficient all check internal
consistency and require instruments to be run once, Kuder-Richardson and Alpha
coefficient differ from split-half in that both do not require splitting the instrument
into two sections. Moreover, Kuder-Richardson is suitable only for dichotomous
types of instruments (e.g., yes/ no questions), whereas Alpha coefficient was
particularly used because both questionnaires involved items that carried
different weights and. It checked the variances of all items from the first to
the last (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996; Author, 2009c).
The researcher
calculated reliability using SPSS, version 14 (Coakes & Steed, 2007). Cronbach's Alpha was
(0.91) for the survey questionnaire and (0.94) for the experimental
questionnaire which exceeded the cut-off of 0.80 set by Gall et al. (1996). Reliability for each questionnaire was
conducted on a sample of 40 students who did not take part in the study. Using the SPSS program (version 14), the
t-test was calculated
to examine the differences between the experimental and control group in their
mean scores. “Design 6 is perhaps the only setting for which this test [t-test]
is optimal” (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 196).
4. RESULTS
The survey research findings
(first phase of the study) followed by the experimental findings (second phase).
Had the survey findings showed no classroom management strategy use, the
experimental part would not have been conducted.
4.1 Survey Design Results
This section presents the survey design
findings by testing the survey design hypothesis to address the first research
question. Table 1 shows differences in the mean scores between the experimental
(39, 49, 40, and 31) and control group (22, 34, 31, and 23) in favour of the
experimental group. The overall variable (aggregate scores of the four
strategies) mean score of the experimental group (159) also exceeded the
control group mean score (110). These descriptive statistics results meant that
the experimental group students observed their teacher-educator put into
practice classroom
organising,
teaching management,
teacher-student
relationship, and
reward/ sanctions strategies, whereas the control
group did not observe use of these strategies in their classrooms.
Although descriptive statistics (Table
1) showed differences between mean scores of the two groups, these differences
were further tested for significance using the independent-groups t-test (the
between-subjects design) to determine whether the differences were true. The
independent-groups t-test was used because it could determine the difference in
means between two sets of independent scores, as the case in this research.
This design means participants appear in only one group. The t-test assumptions
were checked before actual analysis. Normality of each sample was conducted
because they were independent through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk
tests. Both tests were insignificant (p > .05). This meant the
two groups were drawn from a normally-distributed population and, therefore, the
normality assumption was met (Coakes & Steed, 2007).
Table 2 (column 1) displays
the four strategies/ variables according to which the two groups were compared
in addition to the overall variable. Another t-test assumption (group equality)
assessed through Levene's test for equality of variance (column 2) indicated
significant F-ratios (p < .001 and 002). This indicated that the group variance assumption
was violated, meaning that group variances were not equal across the four
variables as well as for the overall variable. Therefore, the null hypothesis
stating equal group variances was rejected while accepting the alternative
hypothesis that stated group inequality.
Since the group
equality assumption was breached, the “
equal variances not assumed”
t-test values were consulted. As shown in Table 2, the t-values for both the “
equal
variances assumed” and “
equal variances not assumed” were typical
and significant (p < .001) across the four and overall variables. Therefore, the current
study rejected the null hypothesis stating that statistically significant
differences of the mean scores at 0.05 did not exist between the experimental
and control group in teacher-educator use of classroom
organising,
teaching
management,
teacher-student relationship, and
reward/ sanctions
strategies. In contrast, this study accepted the alternative hypothesis stating
that statistically significant differences between the experimental and control
group existed in strategy use. This confirmed that the experimental group
observed their trainers put into practice classroom
organising,
teaching
management,
teacher-student relationship, and
reward/ sanctions
strategies, whereas the control group did not observe use of these strategies
in their classrooms.
On this basis, the current
study answered this first research question:
have the target classroom
management strategies been actually used in the EFL classrooms under study?
The findings clearly indicated that the target classroom management strategies
(classroom organizing, teaching management, teacher-student relationship, and
teacher sanction and reward) were put into practice in the classrooms of the experimental
group, but they were not used in the control group classrooms. These results made
it possible for the research second phase (seeking to examine the impact of classroom
management strategy use on student-teachers' pedagogic skills) to be conducted in
section (4.2).
4.2 Experimental Design Results
This key section presents the
experimental design findings by testing the experimental design hypothesis and
addressing the second and third research questions. Table 3 shows a comparison
drawn between the two groups in eight variables as well as the overall
variable. It indicated differences in the mean scores between the experimental group
(30, 59.52, 17, 18, 35, 18, 30, and 34) control group (19, 37, 13, 12, 21, 12,
21, and 24) in favour of the experimental group. The overall variable mean
score of the experimental group (241) also exceeded that of the control group (159).
These descriptive statistics findings meant that the experimental group felt
their trainers’ classroom management strategy use helped them to develop their
pedagogical skills of using generic-education teaching methods (second row) and
lesson planning skills (third row). This also helped them to develop their pedagogic
skills of using language teaching methods (row four) and reading (row five),
speaking (row six), listening (row seven), grammar (row eight), and vocabulary
teaching skills (row nine). The control group, however, felt the non-use of these
classroom management strategies negatively influenced their ability to develop
both generic-education and language teaching skills.
Although descriptive statistics in
Table 3 indicated clear differences between the mean scores of the two groups, an
independent-groups t-test was used to determine whether the differences were
true (significant). As pointed out in section 4.1 above, the researcher used the
independent-groups t-test to determine the differences in means between two
sets of independent scores. The t-test normality assumption was met through the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, since both tests were insignificant
(p > .05). This meant the two groups were drawn from a
normally-distributed population and (Coakes & Steed,
2007).
Table 4 (column 1) displays
the eight variables (teaching skills) according to which the two groups were
compared in addition to the overall variable. Group equality, another
assumption for t-tests, was assessed through Levene's test for equality of
variance (column 2) which yielded significant F-ratios (p < .05). The significant
F-ratio of the Levene's test meant group variances were not equal across the
eight and overall variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating equal group
variances was rejected while accepting the alternative hypothesis that stated
group inequality (Coakes & Steed, 2007).
Since the
assumption of group equality was violated, the “
equal variances not assumed”
t-test values were consulted and, as shown in Table 4, were significant (p < .001) for all
the variables. Therefore, the current study rejected the null hypothesis
stating that statistically significant differences of the mean scores at 0.05 did
not exist between the experimental and control group in their generic-education
and language teaching skills. In contrast, this study accepted the alternative
hypothesis stating that statistically significant differences between the
experimental and control group existed in their generic-education and language teaching
skills. This confirmed that the experimental group perceived their trainers’ use
of classroom
organising,
teaching management,
teacher-student
relationship, and
reward/ sanctions strategies improved their
generic-education and language teaching skills.
On the other hand, the control group perceived their trainers’ little or
non use of target strategies hardly contributed to developing their
generic-education or language-teaching skills. This confirmed
the descriptive statistics data and meant the experimental group felt their trainers’
use of target management strategies improved their pedagogic skills of using
generic-education teaching methods (row 1) and lesson planning skills (row 2). Strategy
use also improved their skills of using language-teaching methods (row 3) and
their skills of teaching reading (row 4), speaking (row 5), listening (row 6),
grammar (row 7), and vocabulary (row 8). The control group, however, felt trainers
non- use of these strategies deprived them from developing their generic-education
and language-teaching skills.
On this basis, the current study
answered these second and third research questions:
What are the
student-teachers' perceptions of the target classroom management strategies
impact on their generic-education teaching skills? What are the
student-teachers' perceptions of the target classroom management strategies
impact on their language teaching skills? The findings clearly indicated
that actual use of target classroom management strategies enabled
student-teachers in the experimental group to develop their generic-education
(second research question) and language-teaching skills (third research
question). In contrast, non-use of these strategies prevented the control-group
students from developing their generic-education (second research question) and
language-teaching skills (third research question).
5. DISCUSSION
The current study examined
teacher-educators’ assertive classroom management strategy use and its impact on
student-teachers’ generic-education and language pedagogical skills. The
research findings were discussed round these two purposes.
5.1 Assertive Classroom Management Strategy
Use
The current study found differences
between the two groups across the four categories of classroom management
strategies (
organizing, teaching management, teacher-student relationship,
and sanctions/ reward strategies) (first research purpose). Concerning
organizing
strategies use, there were differences in favour of the experimental group.
This meant the teacher-educator and student-teachers in the experimental group
followed clear routines about accessing and returning resources, handing in
work, going to the toilet, entering the classroom before the teacher, seating students,
and checking attendance. The control-group students, however, observed their teacher-educator
paid no attention to these strategies. This meant that the experimental-group
teacher-educator was an effective teacher who created a pedagogical context
conductive to learning through these assertive strategies, while the control-group
students were deprived form such a context. These findings concurred with
previous research conclusions confirming that effective classrooms involved
actual use of these assertive strategies, whilst ineffective classrooms did not
involve them (Akar & Yildirim, 2004; Lacina-Gifford
et al., 2003; Pedder, 2006; Victor, 2005).
The findings also showed differences
between the two groups in
teaching-management strategy use. The experimental
rather than control group teacher-educator used stimulating tasks that sustained
interest and relevant tasks and input that students needed. Further, the
teacher-educator in the experimental group made tasks realistic, meaningful, manageable,
and achievable. On the other hand, the control group felt their classroom
pedagogical content trivial. The interesting thing about this finding was that the
experimental group found content substantial, whereas the control group found
it trivial although both groups studied the same course content. Why then both
groups viewed the same pedagogical content differently. A possible explanation
was that the teacher-educator did not use organising strategies in the control
group, which confirmed Pedder (2006) and Victor's
(2005) findings about the negative impact that lack of appropriate
classroom order has on classroom teaching and learning. Moreover, this finding
agreed with the current trends about this issue (Burden,
2003; Cangelosi, 2004; Canter, 1992; Charles,
2001; Author, et al., 2009).
The results further revealed differences between the two groups in
teacher-student
relationship strategy use. Again, the experimental rather than control
group trainer kept and maintained good relationships with students by defusing
confrontations with trouble-makers, keeping clam, taking the heat out of the
situation, using students' names, being firm and consistent, and using humour
and constructive criticism. This finding was in consonance with those of Brown (2005) and Geiger (2000) who found these as the qualities of
good classroom mangers as well as with the works of Bradley, et al (2005) and Author (2006).
The results
also indicated differences between the two groups in
teacher sanctions/
reward strategy use. The experimental rather than control group trainer followed
an appropriate reward and punishment policy through using tangible rewards,
praising good students in public, giving merit points, and displaying good work
to the whole classroom and school. This again came in line with the qualities
of good classroom managers indicated by, for example, Akar and Yildirim (2004), Lacina-Gifford et al (2003), Pedder (2006), and Victor (2005).
5.2 Impact of Assertive Classroom
Management Strategy Use on Teaching Skills
We come back to the impact
of classroom management strategy use on learning in
terms of student-teacher generic-education and language-teaching skills development (second research
purpose).The results indicated that
classroom management strategy use in the experimental group created a pedagogical
context that significantly improved their generic-education teaching skills.
This improved their ability of using lecture, discussion, inductive, and
deductive methods in addition to problem-solving and cooperative learning.
Moreover, such strategy use improved their lesson planning skills, including
ability to explore the teaching context, write clear and precise aims and
objectives, start, develop and end lessons in addition to assessing learning
and evaluating teaching. Similarly, assertive classroom management strategy use
also improved student-teachers’ language pedagogical skills, including ability
to use direct, audio-lingual, grammar-translation, and communicative methods
effectively. Moreover, this improved their skills of teaching the reading,
speaking and listening skills in addition to improving their ability to teach grammar
and vocabulary.
On the other hand, poor, little or no
use of such strategies created a different context that deprived
student-teachers from proper development of such generic-education and
language-teaching skills. The current research findings on both use and non-use
of assertive classroom management strategy use concurred with those of Cher et al (2005), Geiger (2000), Pedder (2006) and Victor
(2005). They concluded that effective classroom management strategy use
impacts positively on classroom teaching and learning whereas poor, little or
no use of these strategies had negative implications for both teaching and
learning.
The current study, however, did not
explain why some teachers tend to use assertive classroom management
effectively while other teachers do not use them or use them poorly. Previous research
indicated that certain contexts such as constructivist contexts (e.g., Akar & Yildirim, 2004) and training in particular
strategy use (e.g., Schmidt, 2006; Slider et al., 2006)
helped teachers to develop effective classroom management strategies. Previous,
however, did not examine why trained teachers do not translate learned
strategies into actual classroom practices. Future researchers may explore the
contexts and motives behind that.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PRACTICE
Based on the evidence drawn from this research, the current study
concluded that assertive classroom management strategy use created pedagogical contexts
that significantly improved strident-teachers’ generic-education and language-teaching
skills. In contrast, little, poor or no use of these strategies created a
different context that deprived student-teachers from proper development of
generic-education and language-teaching skills. Therefore, this study recommended
training teachers in teacher-training institutions to develop and use effective
classroom management strategies so that they can achieve effective teaching and
learning. Effective classroom management strategies are as important as
teaching skills. It also recommended embedding assertive classroom management
skills into professional development programs.
Researchers should be cautious about generalizing the current study’s
findings since it relied on self-reporting rather than ability measures in
assessing the impact of target strategy use on teaching skills. Future
researchers could, therefore, use systematic classroom observation in examining
classroom management use and employ testing and performance measures to assess
the impact of target strategy use on student learning and teacher
performance.
References
Akar, H. & Yildirim, A. (2004). Learners’
metaphorical images about classroom management in a social constructivist
learning environment. A paper presented at the AERA Conference, San Diego.
Author, S. F. (2003). Bringing
curriculum-in-action to the classroom: A study of teachers’ curriculum
development approaches and their implications for student and teacher
development.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Education,
University of Manchester.
Author, S. F. (2006).
Effective teaching
and learning in generic education and foreign language teaching methodology:
learners' cognitive styles, foreign language skills instruction and teachers'
professional development. Cairo:
Dar El-Fikr El-Arabi.
Author, S., Gilmore, D., & Banks-Joseph, S.
(2008). Student cognitive and affective development in the context of
classroom-level curriculum development.
Journal of the scholarship of
teaching and learning, 8 (1), 1-28.
Author, S. F. (2009a). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL
teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters.
Teaching and teacher education. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.015
Author, S. F. (2009b). Classroom-level teacher professional development
and satisfaction: Teachers learn in the context of classroom-level curriculum
development. A paper presented at the International
Professional Development Conference, Birmingham, UK,
November, 2009.
Author, S.F. (2009c). The influence of curriculum diversification and
ethnic culture on student cognitive functioning.
Philosophical Papers and
Review, 1 (5), 074-083.
Author, S. F., Gilmore, D., & Banks-Joseph, S. (2009).
Learner-driven EFL curriculum developments at the classroom level.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education, 20, (2), 125 - 143.
Barkhuizen, G., & Gough, D. (1996). Language
curriculum development in South
Africa: What place for English?
Tesol
Quarterly, 30 (3), 453- 471.
Basanta, C. (1996). Comment: In the name of the
teacher.
ELT Journal, 50 (3), 263-264.
Bell, J. (1993).
Doing your research project (3rd Ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bloom, M., Fischer, J. & Orme, J. (1995).
Evaluation
practice: Guidelines for accountable professional (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Borgan, M. & Thai
Ha, N. (1999). The 3 R’s of teacher training in Vietnam:
Revising, reviving and researching.
The fourth International Conference on
Language and Development. [WWW]
<http://languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi-proceedings/nth.htm> [Accessed 25 March,
2001]
Burden, P. R. (2003).
Classroom
management: creating a successful learning community (2nd Ed). New York: Wiley.
Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963)
Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research on Teaching. In N.
Gage (ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 171-246.
Cangelosi, J. S. (2004).
Classroom
management strategies: Gaining and maintaining students’ cooperation (5th
Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Canter, L. (1992).
Assertive
discipline: Positive behaviour management for today's classroom. Santa Monica, CA:
Canter and Associates Incorporated.
Charles, C. M. (2001).
Essential
elements of effective discipline. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Cher, P. L., Meow, S. P., & Ching, S. C.
(2005). Classroom management issues in information and communication technology
(ICT)- mediated learning environments: Back to the basics.
Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
14 (4), 391-414.
Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. (2007).
SPSS Version
14.0 for windows: Analysis without anguish. Milton, Australia:
John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, L , Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000).
Research methods in education (5th Ed.). London: Routledge.
Gahin, G. (2001). An investigation into Egyptian EFL
teachers’ beliefs.
TESOL Arabia 2000, 5, 109-131.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996).
Educational research: An introduction (6th
Ed.) New York:
Longman.
Geiger, B. (2000). Discipline
in K through 8th grade classrooms.
Education, 121 (2),
383-393.
Guba, E. S. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing
paradigms in qualitative research, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.)
Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Story-maker, story-teller:
narrative structures in curriculum.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23
(3), 207-218.
Harvey, L. (1990).
Critical social research. London:
Unwin Hyman Ltd.
Kane, E. (1985).
Doing your own research. London: Morion Boyars.
Kinach, B. M. (2002). A cognitive strategy for
developing pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary mathematics methods
course: Toward a model of effective practice.
Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18, 51-71.
Lacina-Gifford, L., Kher, N. & Besant,
K. (2003). Pre-service teachers' knowledge of effective classroom management
strategies: Underachieving students. A Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of
The American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL., April, 2003.
Lee, O. (1995). Subject matter knowledge, classroom
management, and instructional practices in middle school science classroom.
Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (4), 423-440.
Linne, A. (2001). The lesson as a pedagogic text: A
case study of lesson designs.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 (2),
129-156.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994).
Qualitative
data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). London: Sage
Oppenheim, A. (1992).
Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (New Ed.). London: Pinter Publisher.
Pedder, D. (2006).
Organizational conditions that foster successful classroom promotion of
learning how to learn. Research
Papers in Education, 21,(2), 171-200.
Pollard, A., & Triggs, P. (1997).
Reflective
teaching in secondary education: A handbook for schools and colleges.London:
Cassell.
Robson, C. (1993).
Real world research: A resource
for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schleppegrell, M., & Bowman, B. (1995).
Problem-posing: A tool for curriculum renewal.
ELT Journal, 49 (4),
297-307.
Schmidt, M. (2006). It’s just a false sense
of reality: Student teachers’ latent learning about classroom management. A
paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco,
April 11, 2006.
Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge
growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
Slider,
N.,Noell, G.&Williams, K. (2006). Providing practicing teachers
classroom management professional development in a brief self-study format.
Journal
of Behavioural Education, 15,(4), 215-228.
Tomlinson, B. (1998).
Materials
development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Victor, K. R. (2005). Identifying effective
behaviour management in the early childhood classroom.
Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Cedarville
University.
Wong, H. K. & Rosemary T.
(2001).
How to be an effective teacher: The first days of school. (Rev.
Ed.) Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications.
This questionnaire aims to examine your observations
of your teacher's use of a number of classroom management strategies in your
classroom. Your help in completing this questionnaire is very much appreciated.
Thank you in advance for the effort and knowledge you kindly agree to
contribute to this research. I assure you of complete confidentiality and
anonymity.
Please read each statement and
insert the response (
1,
2,
3,
4 or
5) that
tells HOW TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT IS in the box next to the statement. You
must insert only
one answer in each box.
1 =
Never means that the statement is
not at all true of
your
teacher or
you.
2 =
Very little means that the statement is
very rarely true of
your
teacher or
you.
3 =
Alittle means that the statement is true of
your teacher
or
you less than half the time.
4 =
Medium means that the statement is true of
your teacher or
you
about half the time.
5 =
Much means that the statement is true of
your teacher or
you
almost all the time.
Answer
in terms of how well the statement describes
your teacher or
you.
Do not answer how you think you should be, or what other people do. There are
no right or wrong answers to these statements.
1.
a
2.
b
3.
c
4.
d
5.
e
6.
f
7.
8.
SECTION 1: YOUR CLASSROOM OBSERVATION OF
TEACHER
ORGANISING STRATEGIES
1.the teacher follows specific and strict routines of accessing
and returning resources……………………….
2.the teacher follows specific and strict routines of handing
in work and assignments…………………………
3.the teacher follows specific and strict routines of going to
toilet……………………………………………
4.the teacher specifies a strict time of entering the
classroom, where nobody can enter beyond it……………
5.the teacher follows specific and strict routines of seating
the students……..…………………………………
6.the teacher follows specific and strict routines of checking
student attendance………………………………
7.the teacher comes to lectures on time
…………………………………..…….……………………………….
This questionnaire aims to examine your perceptions of
the impact of your teacher's classroom management strategies on your teaching
skills. Your help in completing this questionnaire is very much appreciated.
Thank you in advance for the effort and knowledge you kindly agree to
contribute to this research. I assure you of complete confidentiality and
anonymity.
Please read each statement and
insert the response (
1,
2,
3,
4 or
5) that
tells HOW TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT IS in the box next to the statement. You
must insert only
one answer in each box.
1 =
Never means that the statement is
not at all true of
your
teacher or
you.
2 =
Very little means that the statement is
very rarely true of
your
teacher or
you.
3 =
Alittle means that the statement is true of
your teacher
or
you less than half the time.
4 =
Medium means that the statement is true of
your teacher or
you
about half the time.
5 =
Much means that the statement is true of
your teacher or
you
almost all the time.
Answer
in terms of how well the statement describes
your teacher or
you.
Do not answer how you think you should be, or what other people do. There are
no right or wrong answers to these statements.
SECTION 1: IMPACT OF TEACHER'S CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES ON YOUR SKILLS OF USING GENERIC EDUCATION TEACHING METHODS
1.
a
2.
b
3.
c
4.
d
5.
e
6.
f
7.
My teacher's classroom management strategies helped develop
my teaching skills of how to use
1.the lecture method in the
classroom…………………………………………………..……………………….
2.cooperative learning strategies (e.g. jigsaw) in the
classroom…………..…………….………………………
3.individualised learning in the
classroom…………………………………………..…………………………..
4.the deductive method in the classroom…………………………………………………………...……………
5.the inductive method in the
classroom…………………………………………………………………………
6.the discussion method in the
classroom………………………………………………………………………..
7.problem-solving in the
classroom………………………………………………………………………….…..
SECTION 2: IMPACT OF TEACHER'S CLASS MANAGEMENT ON YOUR TEACHING SKILLS OF LESSON PLANNING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
My teacher's classroom management strategies helped develop
my teaching skills of how to
1.explore the context of teaching (e.g. student prior
knowledge, needs, interests)………………………………
2.specify lesson aims and objectives (e.g. general statements
or specific observable behaviours)……………...
3.achieve
cognitive objectives (e.g. students to get new
information) and
affective objectives (motivation)…..
4.achieve
psychomotor objectives (physical handling of
things, like drawing a map)…………………………..
5.target specific levels of cognitive objectives (e.g.
knowledge, comprehension, analysis, synthesis)…...……..
6.target specific levels of affective objectives (e.g.
receiving, responding, valuing,)……………………...…….
7.target specific levels of psychomotor objectives (e.g.
imitation, manipulation, analysis, precision)……...…..
8.use organisational strategies in the classroom (e.g. seating
students, preparing resources to be used)…...…..
9.start a lesson (e.g. using organisational strategies/ advance
organisers and reviewing previous lesson)……..
10. develop a lesson (e.g.
teacher role, student role, method to be used, material to be used)..………………...…
11. end a lesson (e.g.
summarising the lesson and setting out home work)………..……………………………...
12. assess learning in the
teaching session (e.g. observing who participates, asking oral
questions)……………..
13. evaluate teaching (e.g.
asking myself if each phase of the lesson was done successfully)…………….………
…………………………………………………....................................................................................................... SECTION 3: IMPACT OF TEACHER'S CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES ON YOUR SKILLS OF USING
LANGUAGE
TEACHING METHODS
1.
a
2.
b
3.
c
4.
d
My teacher's classroom management strategies helped develop
my teaching skills of how to use
1.the grammar translation method in the
classroom……………………………………………………………
2.the audio-lingual method in the
classroom……………………………………………………………...........
3.the direct method in the
classroom……………………………………………………………………………
4.Communicative Language Teaching in the
classroom………………………………………………………..
