Project-Based Learning

A method of framing curriculum that results in students learning

through projects (rather than simply completing projects). (3) ASCD
explains that the “core idea of project-based learning is that real-
world problems capture students’ interest and provoke serious
thinking as the students acquire and apply new knowledge in a
problem-solving context. The teacher plays the role of facilitator,
working with students to frame worthwhile questions, structuring
meaningful tasks, coaching both knowledge development and social
skills, and carefully assessing what students have learned from the
experience. Advocates assert that project-based learning helps
prepare students for the thinking and collaboration skills required in
the workplace.” (4)

Problem-Based Learning

Similar to challenge-based learning, problem-based learning is a

learning framework that uses (ideally authentic and highly personal)
problems to frame learning experiences. Problem-based learning,
then, uses the problem to necessitate a need to know in the
student, which ideally would create a sense of both motivation and
context for the learning experience.

Place-Based Education
Place-Based Education “immerses students in local heritage,
cultures, landscapes, opportunities and experiences, uses these as a
foundation for the study of language arts, mathematics, social
studies, science and other subjects across the curriculum, and
emphasizes learning through participation in service projects for the
local school and/or community.” (citation needed) (24)

Play

Play can be described as a pattern of free and joyful

experimentation with voluntary barriers. Rather than a merely
recreational activity, Terry Heick describes play as “a state of being”
often “characterized by unencumbered, courageous, and joyful
interactions with people, objects, interfaces, or circumstances.”
Heick goes on to say that play is more a matter of “tone and
possibility than form or function.” (citation needed) Through play,
learners are able to develop a range of intellectual, moral, strategic,
physical, or creative capacities.

Personalized Learning

The process of designing a learning experience for an individual

learner, including content, learning model, assessment forms, and
mode of knowledge application. Personalized learning can arise
from any learning experience that is self-initiated and self-directed
in pursuit of outcomes that are first personal (e.g., curiosity-based,
self-prioritized, etc.)
Modeling Instruction

Modeling Instruction is an evolving, research-based pedagogy for

high school and middle school science. It emphasizes constructing
and applying conceptual and mathematical models of physical,
chemical, and biological phenomena as a central aspect of learning
and doing science. It is a robust methodology for developing
student abilities to make sense of physical experience, understand
scientific claims, articulate coherent opinions of their own and
defend them with cogent arguments, and evaluate evidence in
support of justified belief. It was developed at Arizona State
University. It is sustained and expanded nationwide by the American
Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) in approximately 60 multi-
week Modeling Workshops each summer.

Mastery Learning

According to Vahid Motamedi of Tarbiat Moallem University,

“Mastery learning is a method of instruction where the focus is on
the role of feedback in learning. Furthermore, mastery learning
refers to a category of instructional methods which establishes a
level of performance that all students must “master” before moving
on to the next unit (Slavin, 1987). Thus, through one or more trials,
students have to achieve a specified level of content knowledge
prior to progression on to a next unit of instruction.” “Mastery
learning is used in order to advance an individual’s potential for
learning. Compared to traditional learning models, sufficient time,
attention, and help are afforded to each student.” (11)
Learning Through Play

The process of acquiring knowledge, skills, or conceptual

understandings through play. According to Johan Huizinga is the
critical anthropological text Homo Ludens, play is “an activity which
proceeds within certain limits of time and space, in a visible order,
according to rules freely accepted, and outside the sphere of
necessity or material utility. The play-mood is one of rapture and
enthusiasm, and is sacred or festive in accordance with the
occasion. A feeling of exaltation and tension accompanies the action

Learning Simulation

Often (not necessarily) digital, a learning simulation is a recreation

of a context which allows a learner to bring strategy, tactics, and
skills to experiment, play, or otherwise interact with that context’s
manipulatives. Learning Simulation Clark Aldrich defines a learning
simulation as “an abstracted interactive environment (or) structure
for education in which a learner can take actions and make
decisions, and get ongoing feedback and consequences.”

Informal Learning

Informal Learning has been defined as “any activity involving the

pursuit of understanding, knowledge or skill which occurs without
the presence of externally imposed curricular criteria. Informal
learning may occur in any context outside the pre-established
curricula of educative institutions. The basic terms of informal
learning (e.g. objectives, content, means and processes of
acquisition, duration, evaluation of outcomes, applications) are
determined by the individuals and groups that choose to engage in
it. Self-directed or collective informal learning is undertaken on our
own. Informal education or training is distinguished from such self-
directed informal learning only by the presence of some form of
institutionally-recognized instructor.

“Constructionism–the N word as opposed to the V word–shares

constructivism’s connotation of learning as “building knowledge
structures” irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then
adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context
where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public
entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the
universe.”

Papert went on to describe Constructionism as a kind of learning

which “allows full range of intellectual styles and preferences to
each find a point of equilibrium. (Papert, Harel 1991) (16)

Constructivism

A learning theory that suggests that “people construct their own

understanding and knowledge of the world through experiencing
things and reflecting on those experiences”

Constructionism

According to Seymour Papert, constructionism is, put roughly,

learning by making. That Papert is known to struggle with the idea
of defining Constructionism by a “pipeline” of knowledge-giving
hints at its nature–open-ended, learner-centered, playful, non-
institutional, non-academis, and so difficult to describe in an
academic context. Papert explained that, while close in meaning and
spelling as Constructivism, it is suitably unique:

Communal Constructivism

A learning theory “in which networked learners not only construct

and assimilate their own knowledge from their own learning
opportunities, but deliberately contribute their own learning to a
community resource base.”(Holmes & Gardner 2006). (7)

Connected Learning

A learning model by Digital Media & Learning that emphasizes the

role of social interactions as a catalyst for learning. (See “Connected
Learning: The Power Of Social Learning Models”.) Characteristics of
Connected Learning include: Interest-Powered, Production Centered,
Peer-Supported, Shared Purpose, Academically-Oriented, and
Openly-Networked. (15)

Cognitive Apprenticeship

Cognitive apprenticeship focuses on “learning-through-guided-

experience on cognitive and metacognitive skills and processes”
(Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989, p. 457), instead of the physically
concrete craft or trade that is the focus of traditional
apprenticeships. “The method is aimed primarily at teaching the
problem-solving processes that experts use to handle complex
tasks. Cognitive apprenticeships are intended to enable apprentices
to learn strategies and skills in the context of their application to
realistic problems, within a culture focused on and defined by
expert practice.” (6)

Challenge-Based Learning

Challenge-Based Learning is a learning model pushed by Apple that

promotes the academic classroom as a think tank to solve authentic
problems. It is similar to place-based education and project-based
learning as a teaching tool. Apple defines Challenge-Based Learning
as “an engaging multidisciplinary approach to teaching and learning
that encourages learners to leverage the technology they use in
their daily lives to solve real-world problems. Challenge Based
Learning is collaborative and hands-on, asking students to work
with peers, teachers, and experts in their communities and around
the world to ask good questions, develop deep subject area
knowledge, identify and solve challenges, take action, and share
their experience.” (5)

Blended learning

is a learning model that combines digital and face-to-face learning

experiences. The Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation
defines Blended Learning “a formal education program in which a
student learns: (1) at least in part through online learning, with
some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or
pace; (2) at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location
away from home; (3) and the modalities along each student’s
learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an
integrated learning experience.” It is generally accepted that there
are four models of blended learning: Rotation, Flex, A La Carte, and
Enriched Virtual. The Christensen Institute clarifies that “the
Rotation model includes four sub-models: Station Rotation, Lab
Rotation, Flipped Classroom, and Individual Rotation.” (3)

There is some thought that a certain percentage of instruction must

be digital to qualify as “blended learning,” but there is no clear
industry standard.

Many researchers have tried to put together classroom- or school-

based models that describe the teaching-learning process. A model
is a visual aid or picture which highlights the main ideas and
variables in a process or a system. The models presented in this
paper include words or diagrams intended to give an understanding
of the variables associated with school learning, especially as
measured by scores on standardized tests of basic skills. The main
models discussed and compared are by Carroll (1963), Proctor
(1984), Cruickshank (1985), Gage and Berliner (1992) and Huitt
(1995).

Two major questions are addressed in educational psychology: (1)

"Why do some students learn required knowledge and skills taught
in school, while others do not?" (a criterion-referenced evaluation
question) and (2) "Why do some students learn more than other
students?" (a norm-referenced evaluation question.) Unfortunately,
the possible answers to these questions are enormous. Oftentimes
research findings and theories of teaching and learning seem to
contradict one another. What is an educator to do?

In this paper we will explore several models of teaching and

learning. Gage & Berliner (1992) state that the use of models as
learning aides have two primary benefits. First, models provide
"accurate and useful representations of knowledge that is needed
when solving problems in some particular domain" (p. 314). Second,
a model makes the process of understanding a domain of
knowledge easier because it is a visual expression of the topic. Gage
and Berliner found that students who study models before a lecture
may recall as much as 57% more on questions concerning
conceptual information than students who receive instruction
without the advantage of seeing and discussing models. Alesandrini
(1981) came to similar conclusions when he studied different
pictorial-verbal strategies for learning:

Research on the effectiveness of pictorial learning strategies

indicates that learning is improved when pictures supplement verbal
materials, when learners draw their own pictures while studying,
and when learners are asked to generate mental pictures while
reading or studying...the factor of sex was also included in the
analysis due to its observed (although unexpected) effect (pp. 358,
363).

Interestingly, the females in this study had a tendency to benefit

more than males if they related the specifics of their pictures to the
whole concept.

Models have been used extensively in educational psychology to

help clarify some of the answers researchers have found that might
shed light on such questions as, "How do students learn effectively?"
Or, "What is happening in this classroom that facilitates learning
better than in another classroom?"

John Carroll's Model

Most current models that categorize the variables or explanations of

the many influences on educational processes today stem from
Carroll's (1963) seminal article defining the major variables related
to school learning. Carroll specialized in language and learning,
relating words and their meanings to the cognitive concepts and
constructs which they create (Klausmeier & Goodwin, 1971). In his
model, Carroll states that time is the most important variable to
school learning. A simple equation for Carroll's model is:

School Learning = f(time spent/time needed).

Carroll explains that time spent is the result of opportunity and
perseverance. Opportunity in Carroll's model is determined by the
classroom teacher; the specific measure is called allotted or
allocated time (i.e., time allocated for learning by classroom
teachers.) Perseverance is the student's involvement with academic
content during that allocated time. Carroll proposed that
perseverance be measured as the percentage of the allocated time
that students are actually involved in the learning process and was
labeled engagement rate. Allocated time multiplied by engagement
rate produced the variable Carroll proposed as a measure of time
spent, which came to be called engaged time or time-on-task.

Carroll (1963) proposed that the time needed by students to learn

academic content is contingent upon aptitude (the most often used
measure is IQ), ability to understand the instruction presented (the
extent to which they possessed prerequisite knowledge), and the
quality of instruction students receive in the process of learning.
Carroll proposed that these specific teacher and student behaviors
and student characteristics where the only variables needed to
predict school learning; he did not include the influences of family,
community, society and the world that other authors discussed
below have included.
The principles of this model can be seen in Bloom's (1976) Mastery
Learning model. Bloom, a colleague of Carroll's, observed that in
traditional schooling a student's aptitude for learning academic
material (IQ) is one of the best predictor's of school achievement.
His research demonstrated that if time is not held constant for all
learners (as it is in traditional schooling) then a student's mastery of
the prerequisite skills, rather than aptitude, is a better predictor of
school learning. Mastery Learning's basic principle is that almost all
students can earn A's if

1) students are given enough time to learn normal information

taught in school, and

2) students are provided quality instruction.

By quality instruction Bloom meant that teachers should:

(1) organize subject matter into manageable learning units,

(2) develop specific learning objectives for each unit,

(3) develop appropriate formative and summative assessment

measures, and

(4) plan and implement group teaching strategies, with sufficient

time allocations, practice opportunities, and corrective reinstruction
for all students to reach the desired level of mastery.

Proctor's Model

Prior to the sixties the research on important school- and

classroom-related variables was directed toward the best traits or
characteristics of teachers in an attempt to identify good teaching
and the important characteristics of schools and communities that
support good teaching. Proctor (1984) provides a model that
updates this view by including important teacher and student
behaviors as predictors of student achievement. It is derived from
other teacher- and classroom-based models but is redesigned to
emphasize teacher expectations. Proctor states that it is possible for
a self-fulfilling prophesy (as researched by Rosenthal & Jacobson,
1968) to be an institutional phenomenon and the climate of a
school can have an effect on the achievement of its learners. The
attitudes, the norms, and the values of an educational faculty and
staff can make a difference in achievement test scores. The
paradigm most influencing Proctor's model is that of a social nature
and not of a teacher/student one-on-one relationship. The other
models include the variables that provide the focus for this model,
but show these variables in a more subordinate manner.
Proctor's (1984) model begins with the factor of the School's Social
Climate. Some of the variables included in this would be attitudes,
norms, beliefs, and prejudices. This school climate is influenced by
a number of factors, including such student characteristics as race,
gender, economic level, and past academic performance.

The student characteristics also influence teacher attitudes and

teacher efficacy. More recent studies support Proctor's (1984)
position that student self-image and behavior are affected by
teacher efficacy (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).

The next category of variables is the interaction among the

individuals involved in the schooling process. This includes the
input of administrators as well as that of teachers and students. If
expectations of learning are high (i.e., the school has good,
qualified teachers and students who can learn) and there is high
quality instructional input, corrective feedback, and good
communication among students, parents, and educators, then the
intermediate outcomes of student learning and student self-
expectation goes up. On the other hand, adverse or negative
attitudes on the part of instructors and administrators will cause
student self-esteem, and consequently, student achievement to
spiral downwards.

The interactions in Proctor's (1984) model include the school's

overall policy on allowing time for children to learn or promoting
other forms of student-based help when needed. This could include
quality of instruction (as in Carroll's (1963) model above) or teacher
classroom behaviors (as in Cruickshank's (1985) model below).
These behaviors have an effect on student classroom performance
(especially academic learning time and curriculum coverage) and
self-expectations .

Finally, the student's achievement level in Proctor's (1984) model is

an outcome of all previous factors and variables. It is hypothesized
that there is a cyclical relationship among the variables. In Proctor's
model, the main concept is that achievement in a specific classroom
during a particular school year is not an end in itself. It is refiltered
into the social climate of the school image and the entire process
begins all over again. Proctor's model implies that change can be
made at any point along the way. These changes will affect school
achievement, which will continue to affect the social climate of the
school.
Cruickshank's Model

The model by Cruickshank (1985) is more classroom- and teacher-

based; he was heavily influenced by models created by Mitzel,
Biddle, and Flanders. Mitzel contributed the concept of classifying
variables as "product, process, or presage" (Cruickshank, p. 17).
Product is learning on the part of the student (change in behavior or
behavior potential) while process involves interaction between
student and teacher. Presage is the teacher's intelligence, level of
experience, success and other teacher characteristics. Presage is
supposed to affect process and then, of course, process will affect
the product.

Biddle (as cited in Biddle & Ellena, 1964) showed a relationship

between specific learning activities and teacher effects. In his model,
Biddle offers seven categories of variables related to schooling and
student achievement: school and community contents, formative
experiences, classroom situations, teacher properties, teacher
behaviors, intermediate effects, and long-term consequences. This
provides the foundation for Cruickshank's (1985) model.
Biddle also contributed a model of the transactional process of the
classroom by analyzing the structure and function of the
communication process. This is reflected in Cruickshank's model
through the use of arrows depicting the interaction between teacher
and pupil classroom behavior.

Biddle constructed his models to help answer questions he thought

parents might ask, such as: "How often does my child get individual
attention from the teacher?" Or, "Does the teacher really understand
Junior's special problem?" (Adams & Biddle, 1970, p. 6). Biddle also
helped define non-cognitive variables which contribute to the
affective domain (i.e., self-concept and self-esteem of the
students). An example of these variables would be teacher
genuineness, "teacher-offered conditions of respect...and
modification of low self-concept" (Good, Biddle & Brophy, 1975, p.
195).

Flanders (as cited in Cruickshank, 1985) offered the variables of

teacher- and student-classroom-talk and devised an instrument
which focused on this behavior. "His was the most frequently used
instrument. It permitted observation of teachers' use of 'verbal
influence,' defined as 'teacher talk' and 'pupil talk,' in a variety of
classroom situations" (Cruickshank, p. 17). Cruickshank put them all
together and added additional presage variables such as pupil
characteristics, properties (abilities and attitudes) and school,
community and classroom climate.

Gage and Berliner's Model

Gage and Berliner (1992) developed a model of the instructional

process that focuses on those variables that must be considered by
the classroom teacher as she designs and delivers instruction to
students. This model attempts to define more precisely what is
meant by "quality instruction" and presents five tasks associated
with the instruction/learning process. The model is classroom- and
teacher-based and centers around the question, "What does a
teacher do?"

A teacher begins with objectives and ends with an evaluation.

Instruction connects objectives and evaluations and is based on the
teacher's knowledge of the students' characteristics and how best to
motivate them. If the evaluations do not demonstrate that the
desired results have been achieved, the teacher re-teaches the
material and starts the process all over again. Classroom
management is subsumed under the rubric of motivating students.
Gage and Berliner suggest that the teacher should use research and
principles from educational psychology to develop proper teaching
procedures to obtain optimal results.

Huitt's Model

The most recently developed model to be discussed (Huitt, 1995)

identifies the major categories of variables that have been related to
school achievement. The model is not only school-, classroom-,
teacher-, and student-based, but includes additional contextual
influences as well. Huitt's model attempts to categorize and
organize all the variables that might be used to answer the
question, "Why do some students learn more than other students?"
This is a revision of a model by Squires, Huitt and Segars (1983)
which focused only on those variables thought to be under the
control of educators. This earlier model focused on school- and
classroom-level processes that predicted school learning as
measured on standardized tests of basic skills. One important
addition in this model is the redefinition of Academic Learning
Time. It had long been recognized that Carroll's conceptualization
of time spent measured the quantity of time engaged in academics,
but was lacking in terms of the quality of that time. As discussed in
Proctor's (1984) model, Fisher and his colleagues (1978) had added
the concept of success as an important component of quality of
time spent and coined the term Academic Learning Time (ALT)
which they defined as "engaged in academic learning at a high
success rate." Brady, Clinton, Sweeney, Peterson, & Poynor (1977)
added another quality component--the extent to which content
covered in the classroom overlaps to content tested--which they
called content overlap. Squires et al. used the more inclusive
definition of ALT proposed by Caldwell, Huitt & Graeber
(1982)--"the amount of time students are successfully engaged on
content that will be tested."

Huitt's (1995) model adds variables related to context and student

and teacher characteristics, some of which were the focus of the
models by Proctor (1984) and Cruickshank (1985). It is an
interactive model along the lines of Biddle and Ellena (1964),
Cruickshank, and Laosa (1982).
Huitt advocates that important context variables must be considered
because our society is rapidly changing from an
agricultural/industrial base to an information base. From this
perspective, children are members of a multi-faceted society, which
influences and modifies the way they process learning as well as
defines the important knowledge and skills that must be acquired to
be successful in that society. Huitt's model shows a relationship
among the categories of Context (family, home, school, and
community environments), Input (what students and teachers bring
to the classroom process), Classroom Processes (what is going on in
the classroom),and Output (measures of learning done outside of
the classroom). These categories appear superimposed in the model
since it is proposed they are essentially intertwined in the learning
process.

This model shows Input and Output as the beginning and end of the
teaching/learning process. Huitt (1995) believes that educators
must first identify or propose an end result (as stated by Gage &
Berliner, 1992) because how you identify and measure the end
product (Output) will influence the selection of important predictor
variables (e.g., What You Measure Is What You Get, Hummel & Huitt,
1994). Until the outcome objectives are known, nothing else can be
considered. Once outcome measures are selected, educators can
begin to focus on those variables that can explain fluctuation or
variability in those measures. Considering or changing specific goals
or objectives may change the predictor variables from each of the
other three categories. Thus, the Output or Outcome category is the
most important and the focus of Huitt's model.

In the United States, the most often cited Output measures are
scores on standardized tests of basic skills such as reading,
language arts, and mathematics as well as science and social
studies. Since the United States is ranked 14th out of 15 countries in
mathematics knowledge and 13th in science (Office of Policy and
Planning, 1992), we need to take a very close look at how we can
improve achievement on these measures. For example, the federal
government focused on the task of increasing the Output
measurements of students when it adopted Goals 2000 (Swanson,
1991).

However, student achievement in basic skills is not the only desired

outcome of American education. The Secretary of Labor presented
additional requirements in the report by the Secretary's Commission
on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS; Whetzel, 1992). The SCANS
report focuses on the skills necessary for students to find work in
the information economy. It addresses two categories of skills:
foundations (basic skills, thinking skills and personal qualities) that
provide the platform on which the other skills will be built and
competencies (handling resources, interpersonal skills,
informational skills, system skills, and technology utilization skills)
that more closely describe what workers will actually be doing.
[Note: Huitt (1997) provides a critique of the SCAN report that
addresses important outcomes that were omitted.]

The most direct impact on important measures of school learning

are those variables related to Classroom Processes. This category
includes two major subcategories (Teacher Behavior and Student
Behavior), and an Other (or miscellaneous) subcategory that includes
such variables as classroom climate and student leadership roles..

The category of Teacher Behavior includes the subcategories of

planning (getting ready for classroom interaction), management
(getting the class under control), and instruction (guiding the
learning process). In general, planning activities have little
predictable relationship to student achievement (Gage & Berliner,
1992). Both management and instructional variables are moderately
related to achievement, but the lack of a strong relationship may be
due to be a factor of teacher inconsistency (Rosenshine & Stevens,
1986). That is, teachers often change their management and
instructional practices based on the time of day or the
characteristics of a particular group of students. Three single
variables, teachers providing corrective feedback (e.g., give an
explanation of what is correct or incorrect and why), teachers' use of
reinforcement, and level of student-teacher interaction (a variable
developed from the work of Flanders, as cited in Cruickshank, 1985)
seem to be the best single classroom predictors of student success
(Rosenshine & Stevens). Direct or explicit instruction (Rosenshine,
1995) appears to be the best model of instruction when scores on
standardized tests of basic skills is used as the outcome measure.

Huitt supports Proctor's (1984) position that intermediate outcomes,

or more specifically Academic Learning Time (ALT) is one of the best
Classroom Process predictors of student achievement. As stated
above ALT is defined as "the amount of time students are
successfully involved in the learning of content that will be tested."
There are three components to ALT and each is as important as the
other. The first is Content Overlap, defined as "the extent to which
the content objectives covered on the standardized test overlaps
with the content objectives covered in the classroom." This variable
has also been labeled as "time-on-target." The idea is simple: if an
objective or topic is not taught, it is not likely to be learned, and
therefore we cannot expect students to do well on measures of that
content. In fact, to the extent the content is not specifically taught,
the test becomes an intelligence test rather than an achievement
test. The fact that many educators do not connect instructional
objectives to specific objectives that will be tested (Brady et al.,
1977), is one reason that academic aptitude or IQ is such a good
predictor of scores on standardized tests. Both tests measure the
same construct: the amount of general knowledge an individual has
obtained that is not necessarily taught in a structured learning
setting.

The second component of ALT is Student Involvement, defined the

same way that Carroll defined engaged time or time-on-task
(allocated time X engagement rate). If the students are not provided
enough time to learn material or are not actively involved while
teachers are teaching they are not as likely to do well on measures
of school achievement at the end of the year.

The last element is that of Success, defined as "the percentage of

classwork that students complete with a high degree of accuracy." If
a student is not successful throughout the year on classroom
academic tasks, that student will likely not demonstrate success on
the achievement measure at the end of the year.

Huitt proposes that these three components of Academic Learning

Time should be considered as the "vital signs" of a classroom. Just
as a physician looks at data regarding temperature, weight, and
blood pressure before asking any further questions or gathering any
other data, supervisors need to look at the content overlap,
involvement, and success before collecting any other data or making
suggestions about classroom modifications. Classrooms where
students are involved and making adequate progress on important
content are reasonably healthy and quite different from those
classrooms where students are not.

In addition to the teacher's classroom behavior, other time

components such as the number of days available for going to
school (the school year), the number of days the student actually
attends school (attendance year), and the number of hours the
student has available to go to school each day (school day) can
influence ALT (Caldwell et al., 1982). None of these additional time
variables were included in Carroll's (1963) model.

What teachers and students do in the classroom will depend to

some extent on the characteristics or qualities they bring to the
teaching/learning process. In Huitt's (1995) model these are labeled
Input variables. The subcategory of Teacher Characteristics includes
such variables as values and beliefs; knowledge of students and the
teaching/learning process; thinking, communication and
performance skills; and personality. While each of these is important
to the classroom environment, teacher efficacy is one of the best
predictors of student success from this subcategory (Proctor, 1984;
Ashton, 1984). If a teacher believes that, in general, students can
learn the knowledge or skills, and that, specifically, he can teach
them, then that teacher is more likely to use the knowledge and
skills he has and the students are more likely to learn.

A second subcategory of Input is Student Characteristics. This

includes all of the descriptions of students that might have an
influence on the teaching/learning process and student outcome.
Study Habits; Learning Style; Age; Sex/Gender; Race/Ethnicity;
Motivation; and Moral, Socioemotional, Cognitive, and Character
Development all become important in the relationship of classroom
processes/behavior and school achievement (Huitt, 1995). However,
student aptitude and/or prerequisite skills are probably the best
student characteristic predictors (Bloom, 1976). If time is held
constant, then intelligence or ability to learn academic content will
be a better predictor than prior knowledge because the amount of
content learned in the classroom is allowed to vary. That is, if
everyone has the same amount of time in which to learn, then the
speed at which one learns (aptitude) will be the best predictor of
achievement. However, if we vary the time students have to learn
and keep the content to be learned constant (such as in Mastery
Learning), then prior knowledge is more salient. Though we do not
initially modify the student characteristics that each student brings
to the classroom, as Proctor (1984) pointed out the teacher can
arrange the teaching/learning process and modify each student's
experience. This results in different Outcomes, which in turn
becomes the Input for the next learning cycle.

Finally, Huitt (1995) includes the category of Context that includes

such subcategories as School Processes and Characteristics, Family,
Community, State and Federal Government, TV/Movies, and the
Global Environment. For example, research shows that student
achievement is impacted by class size (e.g., Bracey, 1995) and
school size (e.g., Fowler, 1995; Howley, 1996). While all of the
variables in these subcategories are important and influence
variables in the other three major categories, probably the two most
important are Family and the Global Environment. Mother's
education and family expectations for student achievement have
been shown to be excellent predictors of student achievement (e.g.,
Campbell, 1991; Voelkl, 1993; Zill, 1992) as well as the amount of
technology in the home (Perelman, 1992). Perhaps even more
significant is the movement from the industrial age to the
information age (Perelman; Toffler & Toffler, 1995). This is because
it is redefining the outcomes that ought to be the focus of schooling
and is providing new technologies that can radically alter the
teaching/learning process.
An simple example of how some of these variables might interact is
shown in the following model. The size and region of the
community combine with family characteristics and processes to
impact teacher and student characteristics. School and state policies
combine with teacher and student characteristics to impact teacher
behavior, while student characteristics and teacher behavior
influence student behavior. Student classroom behavior then
influences teacher classroom behavior in an interactive pattern that
eventually results in student achievement as measured by
instruments influenced by state policies. Student achievement at the
end of one school year then becomes a student characteristic at the
beginning of the next.

Summary and Conclusions

Each of the above models identifies important factors related to

school learning and contributes important information as we
attempt to answer the question "Why do some students learn more
than others?" Over a period of years, the models have been
examined, reviewed, revised and edited to fit into today's modern
society. Beginning with Carroll (1963) and ending (at least as far as
this review is concerned) with Huitt (1995), we see teachers and
school systems, families, communities and entire countries having
an influence on students' school learning. None of the variables
appears to be so influential that we need only pay attention to that
particular factor in order to produce the kinds of educational
changes we desire. For example, an individual teacher could project
his self-fulfilling prophesies on a student (as seen in Cruickshank's
1985 model), but so also could the institution itself (as seen in
Proctor's 1984 model). Or the school may be successful in
developing students' basic skills, but students could still not be
successful in life because other important outcomes were not
developed (Whetzel, 1992).

Understanding all the variables and the relationships among each

other and to student success may be more than we can expect of
any educator. We may never fully grasp the significance of the entire
process, but we can make every effort to understand as much as
possible as we develop the teaching/learning processes appropriate
for the information age. We can also identify the most important
variables within a category or subcategory and make certain we
attend to a wide variety of variables across the model.

Models are useful tools to better understand not only the learning
processes of students, but ourselves as educators. At a glance the
models might provide only more questions, but a careful study of
the models can provide starting points to begin developing more
appropriate educational experiences for our society's next
generation.