See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314710418

Teachers’ Use of Models of Teaching

Article  in  Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice · January 2005

DOI: 10.7459/ept/27.1.04

CITATION READS

1 20,644

2 authors, including:

Linda S Behar-Horenstein
University of Florida
214 PUBLICATIONS   1,400 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GIS Mapping of Animal Intake to Alachua County Animal Services View project

Enhancing Research Skills and Professional Development in the Clinical and Behavioral Sciences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Linda S Behar-Horenstein on 16 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rapid #: -12222144
CROSS REF ID: 986577

LENDER: SINTU :: NIE Library

BORROWER: FUG :: Main Library

TYPE: Article CC:CCL

JOURNAL TITLE: Educational practice and theory

USER JOURNAL TITLE: Educational Practice and Theory,

ARTICLE TITLE: Teachers’ Use of Models of Teaching

ARTICLE AUTHOR: Linda S Behar-Horenstein & Denise M Seabert

VOLUME: 27

ISSUE: 1

MONTH:

YEAR: 2005

PAGES: 49-66

ISSN: 1323-577X

OCLC #: 34180135

Processed by RapidX: 9/5/2017 8:24:41 PM

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)

Branch NIE Library Lending Page 2 of 6

RapidX Upload
2
Rapid #: -12222144

Status Rapid Code Branch Name Start Date

New FUG Main Library 09/05/2017 11:15 PM
Pending SINTU NIE Library 09/05/2017 11:17 PM
Batch Not Printed SINTU NIE Library 09/06/2017 08:44 AM

CALL #: L91 .N4

LOCATION: SINTU :: NIE Library :: BJOURNAL BJOURNAL
BJOURNAL BJOURNAL BJOURNAL BJOURNAL
BJOURNAL BJOURNAL
TYPE: Article CC:CCL
JOURNAL TITLE: Educational practice and theory

USER JOURNAL TITLE: Educational Practice and Theory,

SINTU CATALOG Educational practice and theory
TITLE:
ARTICLE TITLE: Teachers’ Use of Models of Teaching
ARTICLE AUTHOR: Linda S Behar-Horenstein & Denise M Seabert
VOLUME: 27
ISSUE: 1
MONTH:
YEAR: 2005
PAGES: 49-66

ISSN: 1323-577X
OCLC #: 34180135
CROSS REFERENCE ID: [TN:986577][ODYSSEY:206.107.42.23/FUG]
VERIFIED:

BORROWER: FUG :: Main Library

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)
9/6/2017 8:44:05 AM

https://rapid2.library.colostate.edu/Ill/ViewQueue?ViewType=PendingByBranch&Id=... 06-Sep-17
Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005
© 2005 James Nicholas Publishers pp. 49-66

Teachers’ Use of Models of Teaching

Linda S. Behar-Horenstein
University of Florida
Denise M. Seabert
Ball State University

Abstract

Models of teaching provide well-developed ways of teaching that guide

the development of learning experiences and the identification of struc-
tures that support learning. Teaching models indicate the types of learn-
ing and outcomes that could be anticipated if they are used. Researchers
believe that using a variety of models is a characteristic of excellent
teaching. The central question in this study was: How frequently are
models of teaching used within a school system? Findings among par-
ticipating teachers (N=94) demonstrated that a model of teaching was
used less than one-quarter of the time, while no model of teaching was
observed more than three-quarters of the time. Using the models of
teaching framework as the platform for assessing instruction offers an
opportunity to promote faculty member awareness about school-wide
practices and to inspire change.

Keywords: teaching styles, teaching models, affective teaching, acade-

mic achievement, minority students

Researchers and educators have concluded that there is no single

approach to teaching that is appropriate in all instructional settings.
Effective teaching requires a variety of strategies to accomplish differ-
ent goals (Eggen & Kauchack, 2001). However researchers and educa-
tors agree that good teaching is essential to bring about greater stu-
dent gains. Haycock (2001) reported that good teaching was effective
in closing the achievement gap between students of European origin,
and low-income and minority students. What is good teaching? How
can it be assessed? Several researchers have asserted that effective
teaching is characterized by using varied teaching models and styles
when they are selected for particular purposes and intended outcomes
(Harris, 1998; Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2004; Joyce et al., 1989).
50 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

Studies have shown that when teachers use a variety of approach-

es to teach content and skills, students are more likely to show
improvement in academic achievement. For example, using a wide
range of models of teaching and instructional strategies resulted in
increased academic achievement among the students of highly
migrant workers in a non-traditional school when compared to stu-
dents of migrant workers who attended a traditional school
(Anusavice, 1999; Behar-Horenstein & Anusavice, 2003). Joyce et al.,
(1989) reported that training in and the subsequent use of cooperative
learning, mnemonics, concept attainment, inductive reasoning, and
synectics teaching models resulted in a decrease in disciplinary refer-
rals and an increase in student involvement in learning. Students in
classrooms among those teachers who demonstrated the greatest fre-
quency and skill in using teaching models demonstrated improved
outcomes as measured by standardized tests when compared to teach-
ers who used models with less skill and frequency (Joyce et al., 1989).
Neuenfeldt (2003) observed that there was an association between
alternative educational teachers’ preferences for particular models of
teaching and the actual models that were observed during classroom
instruction. Additionally there was no difference in these findings
among the participants when compared by the teachers’ age, training,
experience and grade levels taught.

Students’ learning and study habits are influenced by instructors’

use of teaching models. In a study of university teaching Carry (1998)
reported that when students at risk for academic retention under-
stood how instructors used models of teaching, they were able to
adjust their study habits and prepare for class more effectively. Yet
despite these studies, how teaching models influence student out-
comes remains largely unknown (Harris, 1998). Obtaining insight
about the nature and attributes of classroom instruction can help
school leaders work more effectively with school staff when they seek
to understand the quality of instruction across the school. The authors
are not advocating for any particular types of teaching models. We
also acknowledge that the use of more than one teaching model may
be appropriate when particular student outcomes are sought. When
students are learning how to problem-solve, for example, the use of
the scientific thinking, inquiry training, and/or group investigation
models may be needed (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2004).

Models of Teaching
Models of teaching are conceptual frameworks that assist teachers
in helping students learn how to learn. Grounded in major philosoph-
ical and psychological orientations towards teaching and learning
(Joyce & Weil, 1996) they are prescriptive strategies that help teach-
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 51

ers define their responsibilities during the phases of planning, imple-

menting, and evaluating teaching (Eggen & Kauchak, 1988). Initially
teaching models were developed after researchers became interested
in understanding how learners’ characteristics and aptitudes affected
student outcomes. Subsequently Joyce and Calhoun (1996) classified
these models into four families: information-processing, social, per-
sonal, and behavioural systems approaches.

The information-processing family of models can enhance students’

ability to accommodate new information while they are learning.
These models provide a framework that assists students in acquiring
and organizing information, identifying and solving problems, learn-
ing concepts, and constructing knowledge. Information-processing
models are most useful when teaching a new concept or idea, or when
students are expected to identify the concept or idea in action (Joyce
& Calhoun, 1996).

The social family of models capitalizes upon group interactions to

build learning communities and to promote democratic processes.
Group inquiry and problem-solving strategies are used to support stu-
dents as they construct their own knowledge. Students rely upon their
awareness of personal and social values to address issues. When stu-
dents need to use scientific, social, or other relevant knowledge to make
decisions about situations that have personal, social, or political impli-
cations (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996) the social models are recommended.

The personal family of models offers a framework for shaping learn-

ing experiences that aim to enhance students’ capacity for self-actual-
ization, self-awareness, and autonomy. When students are asked to
reflect upon their own goals, the personal family of models is appro-
priate (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996).

The behavioural family of models consists of frameworks that

assist students in developing skill or content mastery. When using
this approach to teaching, students must adapt their behaviour in
order to make the changes that will bring about desired outcomes.
Behavioural models are most practical when the primary task of
learning is to acquire new knowledge or when the goal of learning is
mastery (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000).

Each teaching model promotes instructional and nurturant [sic]

effects (Joyce & Weil, 1996). An instructional effect refers to change in
skills or knowledge base. A nurturant [sic] effect refers to non-instruc-
tional growth such as a change in habits, perceptions of self, others or
situations, and social or emotional growth. All of the models are char-
52 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

acterized by: (a) phases of instruction, (b) recommended classroom

structure, c) designated instructional supports, and (d) teacher and
student roles. For each model the type of instructional practice that
teachers are expected to demonstrate is described and the degree to
which a learning environment (classroom structure) is teacher-cen-
tred or student-centred is indicated. The manner in which textbooks
and other learning (instructional) materials can support student
learning is presented. The roles that teachers demonstrate such as
authoritarian, facilitator, or coach are also specified. The degree of
expected student responsibility during learning is also described
(Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2004).

Although models provide a blueprint, a structure, and direction for

teaching they do not serve as a substitute for teachers who lack req-
uisite subject matter knowledge, creativity and interpersonal skills.
No model is effective for every student; teachers need a range of mod-
els. They are, however, tools that ‘help good teachers teach more effec-
tively, by making their teaching more systematic and efficient’ (Eggen
& Kauchak, 1988: 10). Using a wide repertoire of models enhances
students’ ability to engage in different kinds of learning. Models are
powerful strategies for teaching and learning that eliminate virtually
all differences among students due to gender, race/ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status. Although teachers cannot control learning,
teaching models provide structures that can change the probability
that students will learn certain things (Joyce & Weil, 1996). Joyce and
Calhoun (1996) have suggested that models of teaching are really
models of learning.

The explicit use of teaching models can accelerate the students’ rate
of learning, lead to increased measures of academic achievement and
increase students’ capacity and facility in learning (Joyce & Calhoun,
1996; Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000). As students’ repertoire of learn-
ing strategies increases they can accomplish more types of learning
effectively. Using varied teaching models ensures that all students
receive experiences that correspond to their preferred learning styles
and uses the range of perceiving and processing domains (McCarthy,
1990; 2000). How an educator selects a teaching model is influenced
by his/her perception of the content and how it is taught best, which
in turn influences his/her selection of the learning strategies, and the
type of social interactions. Whether content is presented conceptually
or contextually, whether or not teaching is passive or constructive,
and whether or not the social climate is interactive or restrictive
depends upon the model of teaching selected (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996).
Identifying appropriate learning experiences are central to the actual
use of teaching models.
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 53

Methods of teaching influence what is learned and how well it is

learned (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996). Certain methods increase desired
outcomes; other methods diminish intended outcomes. By using mod-
els of teaching students can be taught how to learn. Learning how to
learn influences whether or not a student becomes capable of self-reg-
ulated and independent learning. Joyce and Calhoun (1996: 6) claim
that ‘. . . the most important long-term outcome of instruction may be
students’ increased capacity to learn more easily and effectively in the
future, both because of the knowledge and skills they have acquired
and because they have mastered the learning process’.

Benefits to teachers. Models of teaching help teachers to clarify

their objectives and to develop learning experiences that promote suc-
cessful outcomes. Teaching models can lead to improvements in the
quality of instruction because they emphasize the use of sound func-
tional plans, the identification of clear goals, and help define the
process and content of a lesson. Knowing what to teach promotes
thoughtful planning which in turn improves the quality of instruction
(Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2000). Using a variety of instructional strate-
gies helps teachers to engage students in meaningful ways, serves
students’ best interests and more closely matches the ways in which
they learn best. When teachers knowingly use models explicitly they
can be more effective in teaching students how to learn.

Benefits to students. Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun (2000) reported that

the use of teaching models helps students: (a) increase their aptitude
for learning, (b) retain information longer, c) build their academic self-
esteem, (d) learn more rapidly, and (e) accommodate different types of
learners. Models provide a vehicle for the students to realize how they
will be taught, what behavioural changes the instructor is trying to
elicit, and encourage active student participation (Joyce & Weil,
1996). The ways in which learning environments are constructed also
influence student learning.

Properly constructed, a learning environment fits soft rather than hard

metaphors. It curls around students by conforming to their characteris-
tics, just as, properly treated learners also better fit soft rather than hard
metaphors that can curl around the features of the learning environment
(Joyce & Weil, 1996: 392).

Teaching models hold promise for increasing student achievement.

Administrators and teachers who are searching for best practices will
find that models of teaching have the capacity to reach all students.
The routine use of models: (a) facilitates students’ ability to learn how
to learn, (b) accommodates students’ individual differences, and c)
builds communities of learners. They illustrate how an organized
54 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

approach to education can capitalize on students’ unique potential

productively (Joyce & Weil, 1996).

Background for this Study

Approximately 18 months prior to this study, a new director was
hired to initiate a restructuring effort in a school system that consist-
ed of a single K-12 school. The director planned to help the faculty
member restructure the school along the lines promoted by the
Coalition of Essential Schools (Chion-Kenney, 1987; Sizer, 1992)
through a commitment to the: (a) creation of shared meaning and
goals among participants, (b) provision of opportunities for collabora-
tive planning, and c) provision of leadership designed to empower oth-
ers. The results of this study were derived from the dataset of a larg-
er study that characterized teaching within the entire school (Behar-
Horenstein & Seabert, 2002). In that study Behar-Horenstein and
Seabert identified a typology of teaching behaviours as: Engaging stu-
dents as learners, Prescribing learning, Controlling the milieu,
Providing passive instruction, and Teaching without vision. The pur-
pose of this present study was to describe the extent to which models
of teaching were used during classroom instruction.

Method
The setting
The study was conducted in a free-standing K-12 school located in
the southeastern United States where 1,200 students (65% white, 24%
African-American, 10% Hispanic, and the remaining 1% Asian,
American Indian, or multiethnic) attended. Approximately one-quarter
of the student body received free/reduced meals. The overall school
attendance rate was 95%. The administrative structure of the school
consisted of a director and two principals who were responsible for “day
to day” operations within the K-5 and 6-12 units. The director’s role was
to coordinate the school’s institutional and service goals and to serve as
the liaison to national, state and local professional communities.
Permission to conduct this study was granted by the university’s insti-
tutional review board. Prior to beginning this study the researchers
informed the school faculty about the purpose and methods of this case
study during one of their regularly scheduled faculty meetings.

Data collection procedures and analysis

The study participants included 48 teachers (14 elementary, 12 mid-
dle school, and 22 high school) who were observed during a minimum
of two instructional periods with the exception of one full-time teacher
and two part-time teachers who were only observed once. The partici-
pants included 31 females and 17 males, 40 of European origin, 5 of
African American origin and 3 of Hispanic origin. On an average,
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 55

teachers had 13.69 years of experience. Four of the teachers held a

PhD, 9 held an Ed.S., 32 held an M.Ed., and 3 held a bachelor’s degree.
Observations (N = 94) totalled 67.38 hours (4,043 minutes).

Structured observations were used to record specific teaching

behaviours (Worthen, Sanders, & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Running notes
were recorded (Bogdan & Bilken, 1998). Teaching behaviours that
were recorded included:

• The tasks teachers asked students to do.

• A description of roles that teachers and students assumed and a descrip-
tion of their involvement in the lesson.
• A description of how the teacher facilitated student learning.
• A description of the teachers’ responses to students’ questions and answers.
• An identification and description of how instructional supports were used
throughout the lesson.

Following each observation, the notes were transcribed. Each tran-

script was then analyzed to determine whether or not teachers explic-
itly used one or more teaching models during classroom instruction.
The explicit use of a model of teaching was defined as an instance in
which a teacher was observed using the instructional phases or syn-
tax; the social system; principles of reaction (instructional roles) and
the support system that were consistent with one of Joyce, Weil &
Calhoun’s (2000) teaching models.

Spradley’s (1980) scheme of domain analysis was used during the

inductive analysis of the data. Observations were coded independently
by each of the researchers, both of whom are certified teachers, to ensure
the trustworthiness of the domains and to ensure the ‘fit between what
[researchers] record as data and what actually occurs in the setting
under study’ (Bodgan and Bilken, 1998: 36). Multiple observations of
instructors’ teaching behaviours were conducted during prolonged
engagement in the field (Creswell, 2004. Independent coding by the two
authors corroborated the reliability of the observations (Patton, 2002).

Results
In more than three-fourths (79.8%, or n = 75) of the observations a
teaching model was not observed compared to the 20.2% (n = 19)
instances when a teaching model was observed. Examples from the
behavioural family of models (direct instruction) were observed most
frequently, 17% (n=16). Examples of models from the information-pro-
cessing family of models (advanced organizer and concept attainment)
were observed infrequently, 3.2% (n = 3). Models from the personal
and social families were not observed.
56 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

Three examples that demonstrate how direct instruction, a model

from the behavioural family, was used are presented. Following each
example the researchers’ impressions are provided.

Observation #E180
During the mid-morning Mr Adams greets his fifth grade students and
states: “Let’s start by going over the percentage and tax computation
because some of you were having trouble with this yesterday. One of the
reasons you might be having trouble with these problems is because they
are multi-step problems. What does multi-step mean, Cecilia?” She replies
that they are problems that involve several steps. “I want everyone to take
out a piece of paper and help me find the answer to this problem. Let’s go.
Put your name and number on it.”

“Let’s take an example like yesterday. Let’s take a normal cost. What is a
normal cost?” “The regular price,” a student answers. “What is the dis-
count?” he asks. On the board Mr Adams writes:

Normal cost - $9.00

30% off

He tells students that they could change 30% to an equivalent fraction or

decimal. “What fraction equals to 30%? What does 30% equal as a deci-
mal?” One student responds’, “.3. That’s right. What other decimal could
this he called? .30, “ a student responds. “Right! What do you do next?” One
student replies. “Figure the amount of the discount. Do what?” Mr Adams
challenges him. “You haven’t told me anything.” Another student suggests
$9.00 x .3 “Right,” he states. “I want you to calculate this,” he tells stu-
dents. Mr Adams reminds students to figure out where the decimal point
(the pimple) should be placed. He instructs students to (a) tell what the
2.70 refers to and (b) state the problem that .should be calculated.

On the board Adam writes

$9.00
-$2.70
$6.30

“What do you do next?” One student tells Mr Adams that they have to mul-
tiply by .06 to compute the tax. “Do this,” he instructs students and “don’t
use your calculator. I want you to learn this process on paper.” Mr Adams
asks students to tell him what they got. One student states she got over
$3.00. Mr Adams states that this is not reasonable. He calls on another
student however this student has already worked out the problem in his’
head. Mr Adams tells the student that he wants to know what is on his
paper not in his head. He asks another student to read her number, “ .3780
= 37 cents tax.” As students tell him how to solve the problem, Mr Adams
illustrates the step-by-step process of computing the cost of the discount-
ed item on the board.
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 57

In this example Mr Adams uses direct instruction to teach students

how to compute the price of a discounted item. Using a step-by-step
process he writes on the board and shows students how to calculate
the discount, the tax, and actual cost of an item. He involves students
in learning by calling upon them and by receiving volunteers. When
students give incorrect responses he asks them to explain what they
are doing and why they are doing it. Mr Adams asks students to
define the meaning of specific terminology. He holds students account-
able for learning by asking them to explain their thinking aloud.

Observation #M154
On the board Mr Johnson has written the warm-up exercise for his eighth
grade students:

Find the value (evaluate)

1. 72 4. 43
2. 92 5. 53
3. 24 6. 52

After most students have completed the warm-up, Mr Johnson reviews

the problems. He asks students to provide their answers and to explain
how they arrived at the answer. Students explain the problem-solving
process accurately. “Let’s take a look at what you did for homework last
night,” Mr Johnson states. “Yesterday we started to look at negative expo-
nents.” Mr Johnson reviews the difference between positive and negative
exponents and shows students how to set up and solve problems that use
positive and negative exponents.

1. 32 =3 x 3 = 9
3-2 = 1/32 = 1/9

Next he asks students:

2. 1/43 “How can you rewrite this problem?”

“4-3,” a student responds.

“What about this problem, 4. 1/85 ”, he asks. However he supplies the answer
“= 8-5. That’s all you have to do is add a negative exponent?” one student asks.
“That’s all you have to do,” Mr Johnson responds. Next, Mr. Johnson asks the
students to explain how problems can be rewritten as fractions.

6. 10-4 = 1/104 Answer - 1/10000

8. 3-1 = 1/3 Answer - 1 /31= 1/3
10. 2-5 = 1/25 Answer - 1/32

Whole class instruction continues as Mr. Johnson writes problems on the

board and calls upon students to respond. “Mr. Johnson, can you do prob-
lem number 20?” Patricia asks.
58 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

20 1/81 “There are two ways that you can rewrite this. What are
they?” asks Mr. Johnson.

“81-1,” one student correctly responds. Mr. Johnson asks, “How else could
you rewrite this problem?

“9-2or 1/91 ,” a student replies. “I am going to give you a little hit of work
to practice on. After you work on this for awhile, for 15 minutes for so, I’ll
have some of you put this on the board . . . “ Mr Johnson reminds students
to write their question on the paper. He walks around the room and assists
individual students as they call upon him. “Ok, hold up. We are going to
do some of these on the board. Who is going to do #22 on the board?” Mr.
Johnson asks. Two students solve these problems on the board. Mr.
Johnson restates the problem, reviews how it was solved and shows how
the answer was derived. “I saw that some people had a different answer to
22. What’s another answer?

“49-1,” one student correctly responds. While referring to the following

problem, 31= 3, he asks: “What does an exponent really mean?” One stu-
dent replies that when an exponent of 1 appears next to a number then
just the number appears.

32. (-3)-4 = 1/(-3)4 -3x–3x–3x–3

“Will the number be negative or positive?” One of the students responds

incorrectly. Another student correctly responds that the number will be
positive since there is an even number of negative signs. [This is a concept
that students were introduced to during a previous observation of this
teacher while he was teaching the same group of students.) Mr Johnson
assigns homework and urges students to start the assignment now.

Using the direct instruction model of teaching, Mr. Johnson

explains how to compute equations that use negative exponents. To
support student learning he writes several examples on the board and
shows students how to solve the problems using a step-by-step
process. He monitors students’ progress as they work on their own
during guided practice. He asks for student volunteers to come up to
the board and write out how they would solve problems. By observing
students at the board he was able to assess their understanding of the
concept and their ability to apply what they have learned.

Observation #H128
As high school students enter her business class, Ms Rogers announces:
“All right guys, you will need your disk, so please come and get it.” Ms
Rogers explains to the students that they will be rushed to finish. “Get to
a blank document.” She tells the students. Fifteen seconds later Ms
Rogers tells them to hurry and get ready. “Excuse me, listen carefully and
look up here. You have the entire period to do this assignment, but it is a
timed assignment. You must finish it today. You may use any search
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 59

engine you want. I will not repeat these instructions to anyone who is not
listening.” Students are instructed to write one page in their own words,
print one hard copy and save one copy on the diskette. Their task is to
write a one-page essay, in their own words about the following: What is
Groundhog Day? Why do we celebrate it? Graphics are optional.

Ms Rogers repeats, “There are two requirements – if these are not includ-
ed, the highest grade you can get is a C . . . You must have your name and
the site that you used at the bottom of the page.” Students are advised to
do research for approximately 15 minutes of the class period. She reminds
the students that they may not cut and paste and their writing must be in
their own words. Ms Rogers walks around the room and monitors stu-
dents’ progress. “I would spend about eight more minutes on your research
and then get started on the paper.” A student calls out to Ms Rogers. She
walks over to his computer station and announces to the entire class with
a smile, “Use 12 point font, no 14 point.”

As Ms Rogers continues to monitor students’ progress, she announces that

they should have finished their research. She instructs them to start writ-
ing their essay since they only have about 20 minutes left. A student turns
to her and asks about using double-spacing. She nods in agreement. The
classroom remains quiet. All that can be heard is typing on the keyboard.

“Make sure you include your name and the web site at the bottom of the
essay,” Ms Rogers reminds the students. “Make sure you have complete
sentences.” Throughout the class period, Ms Rogers monitors student
progress. As she walks throughout the room, she looks at each student’s
screen. After giving them instructions on how to retrieve and save a
graphic without losing the text or the graphic, she advises them to print
the document if it is the “way you want it.” She tells the students to sub-
mit the diskette and the paper when they have finished it.

Ms Rogers helps students manage their time, “O.K. folks, you have ten
more minutes, budget your time.” She walks over to a computer station to
work with a student. “Six more minutes.” She reminds students to make
sure that it is on their diskette. She visits briefly with one student who has
called her over. “You have four more minutes, so let’s come to a conclusion.
We are going to be using this essay tomorrow for something else,” Ms
Rogers says. “Let’s hurry up and turn in as much as you have even though
you might not be through.” “Make sure I have your essay before you
leave.” The bell rings.

Using the direct instruction model Ms Rogers tells the students

what she wants them to accomplish during the class period. She pro-
vides clear instructions about how to complete the assignment and
repeats the same instructions throughout the lesson. She also moni-
tors student progress. Ms Rogers helps students manage their use of
time by reminding them periodically how many minutes were left
before the end of the period.
60 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

Two examples that show how particular types of information-pro-

cessing models (advanced organizer and concept attainment) are
described below. Following each example the researchers’ impressions
are provided.

Observation #E116
Ms Samuels’ third grade class has just returned from lunch. Students take
their seats without conversation. Ms Samuels walks around the room and
hands back students planning sheets. “I’d like you to flip to the side that
says, ‘The moon . . . ’”

”We’ve read some articles about the moon . . . what are some things we’ve
read about the moon?” Several students raise their hands. She calls on
several students and writes’ their responses on the board.

-rocks
-craters
-dust

A student talks about a first quarter moon. “What is that?” she asks him.
She illustrates a first quarter moon on the dry erase board that is located
at the front of the classroom. “Which side was lit up?” The student replies
that he doesn’t know the answer. Ms Samuels prompts the students with
a more general question: “Where can you find out more about the moon?”
Students name locations and resources that they can use. One student
suggests that a first quarter moon means that the moon is waning. “Yes,”
replies Ms Samuels. “That’s what we are trying to find out – ‘waxing or
waning’. Is the moon waxing and waning?” she asks. “See if you can come
back tomorrow and tell us if the moon is getting bigger or smaller. That’s
your assignment for tomorrow’s morning meeting . . . Let’s see how many
different sources you can use to find out this information.”

Ms Samuels shows some of the resources a student has brought in to share

that illustrate the moon, telescopes, and asteroids. She reads some of the
text and asks students if they can learn some more facts about the moon.
Student volunteers respond. Next she illustrates how meteorites and rays
can be observed striking the moon. “Is there anything else that the moon
is made of?” During this time, Ms Samuels asks students to explain what
they already know/believe/or have seen about the moon. She asks’ stu-
dents: “What are some of the interesting things that you have learned
about the moon from what you read or from Bill Nyeon Friday? As stu-
dents reply she writes their responses on the board:

- Moon had lava inside it like Earth.

- Moon has less gravity than Earth.

“What can /astronauts] do on the moon that we can’t do on earth?”

One student replies: “They can lift things easier. Things on the moon
weigh 1/6 of what it weighs on earth.”
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 61

- Exercise is very important.

She draws an analogy between astronauts getting weak from lack of exer-
cise on the moon and the need to keep our brain cells moving /and work-
ing]. Ms Samuels suggests that if students want to write about good and
evil that they can refer to the light and dark side of the moon. She contin-
ues to engage students in an exploration of the moon and in developing a
plan for writing their story about the moon. “Take the next five minutes to
work on your story. If you’ve finished your planning, raise your hand so
that you can tell me about this.”

Ms Samuels reminds students to identify a target for their story and rein-
forces that they must support their story with four facts about the moon.
They begin to work independently and quietly on their stories.
Occasionally they raise their hands signifying that they want to confer
with Ms Samuels. During that time students can be overheard explaining
what their stories are about. As Ms Samuels circulates around the room,
she re-states what the students have told her. She can be heard asking
some of the students to explain their preliminary ideas about developing
their story in greater detail. At times Ms Samuels uses students’ ideas and
suggests other possible actions or twists in the story line. Before she
leaves a particular student she concludes the interaction with telling each
one: “sounds like you‘re ready.”

Ms Samuels demonstrates the use of the advanced organizer model.

She begins the lesson by engaging students in a discussion about
what they have already learned concerning the moon inside and out-
side of the classroom. Next she invites students to discuss and draw
upon their understanding of how to use resources to learn more about
a topic – the moon. This discussion is aimed at helping the children
think (auditorally, visually, and kinesthetically) about how they will
write their stories about the moon.

During whole class instruction she emphasizes the objectives of the

lesson – to write a story about the moon and to supply four facts. She
creates an anticipatory set by asking students questions about the
moon and engaging in teacher-student dialogue. Ms Samuels
enhances students’ understanding of the moon and catalyzes their
ideas for story writing about the moon through the use of these inter-
actions. She acknowledges students’ contributions, by writing them
down or by drawing their responses on the board, re-stating their
replies, or by probing for additional information through questioning.
Towards the end of the whole class instruction she reminds students
that supplying four facts was an essential component of a good story.

Observation #E117
Ms Hodges is sitting in the soft recliner chair. She calls on a few children
and distributes pre-cut human figures for this activity. She asks the chil-
62 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

dren (N=6) to go and sit at a table. Ms Hodges is working individually with

one little girl to help her recognize the one (common) number that appears
within a series of addition problems

3+3=6 4+3=7 5+3=8

“There is one number is among all these problems that is common,” she
says.
She points +3 +3 +3.

Next she writes the following on the board.

5+1=6 6+1=7 7+1=8

“What do all of these have in common?” Ms Hodges asks the student.

“They have one number in common. They have +1 in common,” replies the
student. “That’s right”, says Ms Hodges.

Ms Hodges instructs the child to look at the 3 problems on the board and
figure out what number is common to all of them. Next she asks another
student to come to the board and identify the common number in the fol-
lowing equations.

1+2=3 2+2=4

She asks the student to write the equations again on the board. The stu-
dent writes: 1+2=3 and 2+2=4.
“Now,” Ms Hodges says. “You need to write them going down, like this.”

1 2
+2 +2
3 4

“What number do they have in common? Which number is exactly the

same in both?” The student does not reply. Ms Hodges prompts her: “Can
you think of one more equation that has 2 in it?” Again the student
remains silent. So Ms Hodge writes:

3
+2
5

“Do you think that all of these equations have the number +2 in common?
Yes,” the student replies. Ms Hodges walks over to another student and
states: “I’m going to give you three equations.

1+3=4
2+3=5
3+3=6
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 63

“What do all of these equations have in common ? Three, “ responds the

student. Next Ms Hodges directs the student to write three equations that
have something in common. She asks the student to tell her two equa-
tions. The student writes the following:

5+4=9
4+4=8

“What do these equations have in common?” “Four,” the student responds.

“Right,” Ms Hodges replies. “Now you just have to think of one more.” Next
Ms Hodges writes this on the dry erase board:

6+2=8
7+2=9
8+2=10

Ms Hodges asks the student what they have in common. “+2,” the student
replies, “I really like this. Now can you think of one more addition prob-
lem?”

Ms Hodges uses the concept attainment model to teach students

about a common addendum. During this lesson she asks the students
to identify a number that is common to all equations. She uses addi-
tion problems only in which there is one common number rather than
examples that do not show the concept she is trying to teach.

Discussion
In this study we observed that a specific type of teaching models
were used infrequently (20.2%, n = 19) and that no model of teaching
was observed in more than three-quarters of the observations (79.8%,
n = 75). Examples of direction instruction from the behavioural fami-
ly of models of teaching were observed 17% (n=16) of the time, while
examples from the information-processing family of models (advanced
organizer and concept attainment) were observed 3.2% (n = 3) of the
time. Overall, teachers used only three models of teaching among the
four families of teaching models. This finding is noteworthy when one
considers that there are at least 13 teaching models that can be used
during instruction (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996; Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun,
2000; 2004)

When direct instruction was used the learning environment was

highly structured and students were observed to remain on task.
Teachers controlled the pacing and focused students’ attention on
mastery. Classroom structures encouraged students to stay on task.
Teachers provided guided and independent practice and immediate
feedback to ensure mastery of content. Perhaps students were atten-
tive because the instructional task fully occupied their energy and
64 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

concentration, or because they were expected to deliver a product at

the end of class.

When the advanced organizer model of teaching was used, the

teacher contextualized the lesson during whole class discussion. The
discussion about the moon was data rich; it drew from many sources
of information that the students provided. Although the lesson was
predominantly teacher-centered, there was active collaboration
between the students and the teacher during the whole class discus-
sion.

During use of the concept attainment model, the teacher asked stu-
dents to point out the common number. In this way the teacher was
able to ensure whether or not students understood the concept.
Throughout the observation, the teacher controlled the sequence of
the lesson, provided moderate structure and focused students’ atten-
tion on specific examples. When the students demonstrated an under-
standing of the concept, the teacher invited them to provide their own
series of three equations that exemplified their understanding.

In classrooms where a teaching model was observed the teacher: (a)

maintained control of the flow and pacing of information, (b) provided
immediate feedback, (c) gave students an indication about their per-
formance or contributions to class discussion, and (d) monitored stu-
dents’ understanding of the task or a concept.

Overall teacher-centred instruction and didactic learning experi-

ences were observed throughout the school. These findings agree with
those of Goodlad (1984) who found that 70% of the students that he
studied across US schools were only receiving declarative and proce-
dural instruction. When strategies such as models of teaching have
been researched and so well developed how is it that only a handful of
particular models were observed in this study? Perhaps the infre-
quent use of teaching models reflects the pressures caused by stan-
dards-based instruction or teachers’ need to rely on instructional
methods that they knew best. Another plausible reason for our find-
ings is that the participants did not know how to present content in
different ways. There are several limitations in the study. The inter-
pretations of the observations are embedded in the researchers’ per-
spectives. The transcripts were not shared with the study partici-
pants. Readers might wonder how the teachers’ perspectives might
have informed the findings.

Models of teaching provide a language for teachers and adminis-

trators to talk about the factors such as instruction, classroom struc-
 Behar-Horenstein & Seabert, Teaching Models in the Classroom 65

ture, support, and use of pedagogical aids that are characteristic

across the classrooms within a school. They provide a conceptual
mechanism to facilitate teacher awareness about instructional behav-
iour, to assess the impact of instruction and to modify instructional
approaches when content or students’ learning needs necessitate
change. The models of teaching frameworks offer a reliable mecha-
nism for assessing the quality of instruction. Developing an evidence-
based understanding about the quality of instruction is necessary
when judgments about teaching and school performance are being
made solely on the basis of statewide test results.

The findings from this study hold implications for understanding

the nature and quality of classroom instruction. They can also be used
to raise awareness that there are alternative strategies that can be
used to accomplish different goals. We recommend that researchers
use the teaching models framework as a platform to describe the
classroom instruction. Findings from these studies could be used to
facilitate teacher or school-wide awareness about instructional prac-
tices and/or the need to make changes. Studying the use of models
among teachers who have acquired requisite practical knowledge and
those who have not could become helpful in assessing the relationship
between training in the use of teaching models. Additionally studies
that document the use and non-use of teaching models and the rela-
tionship to changes in academic achievement may also become impor-
tant. If more research focused on studying and describing instruc-
tional practices in addition to using tests scores then perhaps there
would be an increased understanding of the ways in which instruc-
tion, teaching and learning influence outcomes (Behar-Horenstein,
Mitchell, & Dolan, 2004).

References
Anusavice, S. H. (1999) Differences in academic achievement, school affiliation,
student and teacher efficacy beliefs, parents’ perception, and teacher instruc-
tion between highly mobile students placed at stable or traditional schools.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Behar-Horenstein L. S., Mitchell, G. S., & Dolan, T.A. (2004) A multidimension-
al model for analyzing educational processes. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 7: 165-180.
Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Anusavice, S. (2003) Teachers’ instructional behav-
ior toward highly mobile students in magnet and traditional school settings.
World Studies in Education, 3, 2: 137-158.
Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Seabert, D. M. (2002) Looking into classroom teach-
ing: A missingcomponent in studies of school performance. Curriculum and
Teaching, 17, 1: 21-38.
Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (1998) Foundations of Qualitative Research in
Education: an Introduction to Theory and Methods. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
 66 Educational Practice and Theory Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005

Carry, A. (1998) The effects of learning-styles awareness and knowledge of

instructional models on the study habits of college students at-risk for acad-
emic failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Chion-Kenney, L. (1987) The coalition of essential schools: A report from the
field. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American
Federation of Teachers, II, 4: 18-27, 47-48.
Creswell, J.W. (1997) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (1988) Strategies for Teachers. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2001) Strategies for Teachers. Fourth edition.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984) A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harris, A. (1998) Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School
Leadership and Management, 18, 2: 169-183.
Haycock, K. (2001) Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58, 6:
6-11.
Joyce, B. R., & Calhoun, E. (1996) Creating Learning Experiences: The Role of
Instructional Theory and Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., & Murphy, J. (1989) School renewal and cul-
tural change. Educational Leadership, 47, 3: 70-77.
Joyce, B. R., & Weil, M. (1996) Models of Teaching. Fifth edition. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000) Models of Teaching. Sixth edition.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2(104) Models of Teaching. Seventh edi-
tion. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
McCarthy, B. (1990) The 4MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with
Right/Left Mode Techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel, Inc.
McCarthy, B. (2000) About Teaching: 4MAT in the Classroom. Wauconda, IL:
About Learning.
Neuenfeldt, C. A. (2003) Instructional beliefs and practices among alternative
school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Patton, M. Q. (20(12) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA:Sage.
Sizer, T. R. (1992) Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School. New
York: Houghton-Mifflin.
Spradley, J. P. (1980) Participant Observation. New York: Holt.
Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997) Program Evaluation:
Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Second edition. New York:
Longman.

View publication stats