A Study of the Classroom Management Schemata and Behaviour of Year 1 and Year 3 Student Teachers during the Practicum Jude Butcher Catholic College of Education Sydney Mount Saint Mary Campus Strathfield Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. Friday, 1 December, 1989. Introduction It would seem reasonable to assume that the ways teachers think influence their behaviour. However until recently the relationship between teacher thought and teacher action has received little formal attention in research on teacher thinking. When teachers respond to situations they meet their behaviour is informed by the way they think about the situations. Basic to the ways teachers think about different situations are the teachers' schemata. The study of schemata has been seen as a "worthwhile direction" for future research into teacher thinking and action (Mitchell & Marland, 1989). Early studies of teacher thinking were concerned with the content and nature of teacher thinking (Munby, 1986). These studies were based on an assumption that the differences in teachers' beliefs would be reflected in the teachers' teaching behaviours. Little, if any, formal attention was given to researching the nature of the relationships between the teachers' thinking and action. More recently research begun to address questions related to the relationship between teacher thought and teacher behaviour (Livingston & Borko, 1989). In studies relating teacher thinking to action the focus has been upon the content (Mitchell & Marland, 1989), structure (Livingston & Borko, 1989) and/or meaning (Munby, 1986; Holt & Johnston, 1989) of teacher thought. In this research the contexts within which the thinking and action occur and the nature of other schemata which may have influenced the relationship between teacher thinking and action have not been formally studied as moderating variables within the research. The classroom management domain has received little formal attention in the study of the relationship between teacher thought and action. Ulerick and Tobin (1989) analysed a teacher's management beliefs and behaviours. They found that she was limited in the benefit she could derive from teaching experience and pedagogical knowledge because of the nature of her management beliefs. While the influence of the teacher's beliefs is apparent in Ulerick and Tobin's research, further research is necessary into the relationship between teacher management schemata and management behaviour. Also, the variables which influence the relationships between teacher schemata and behaviour need to be identified. The purpose of the research reported here is to study the teacher management schemata and behaviour of two pre-service students. Firstly, the nature of their management schemata is studied through the use of multiple data sources so that a more comprehensive understanding of their schemata is possible (Morine- Dershimer, 1988). Secondly, the relationships between their management schemata and management behaviours are explored and variables which may impact upon these relationships are identified. Management schemata In this study schemata have been defined as people's own structured and abstracted mental representations of objects, events or ideas which are basic to their attending to, interpreting and creating their experiences. Schemata are made up of inter- related concepts and groups of concepts. The nature of schemata can be described in terms of their content, structure and meaning. The content comprises the individual concepts and groups of concepts which are present in any schema. The structure is reflected in both the relationships between the individual concepts and the relationships between groups of concepts. Structure is also related to the amount of integration and differentiation in the schemata. The meaning of schemata are the sets of overarching superordinate principles operating within them. The meaning is a holistic aspect of a schema which is related to but extends beyond both its content and structure. As an example of meaning, teacher management schemata which include the concepts of rules, expectations and guidelines may be characterised by the overarching principle of organisation. The abstract nature of schemata allow people to apply them across different experiences they encounter. The schemata are themselves constructed by persons from their experiences of individual objects, events or ideas (Anderson, J. R., 1983, & Anderson, R. C. , 1984). Teachers' management schemata play an important role in their responses to the different management tasks or situations they meet. As well as general management schemata, teachers also have schemata to do with themselves as people, as teachers and as classroom managers. These schemata play different roles when teachers respond to particular situations. In specific management situations the teachers' responses will depend on both the context and the configuration of schemata operative at that time. Subjects The data for this report are drawn from a two phase study of teacher management schemata, management behaviour and teacher efficacy being undertaken with student teachers and practising teachers. The larger study involved case studies of five women student teachers two of whom form the basis of this report. The subjects were student teachers enrolled in the Middle School (upper primary/junior secondary) Course at a higher education institution in Sydney. The five case study subjects were chosen because they were readily accessible for obtaining data during the practicum period. The two students featured in this report were selected from the group of five so that there were a Year 1 and Year 3 student whose extensive phase data had shown different dominant management principles. Data collection The data were initially gathered through the use of ordered tree and both open-ended and structured questionnaire instruments. This was part of the extensive phase data collection which involved all subjects in the study.. Data were also collected in the intensive phase. This phase consisted of a small number of case studies in which data were collected through the use of interviews, repertory grid tasks, observation systems and journals. The data used in this study was the pre-practicum extensive and intensive phase data. and the classroom observation data collected during the practicum. The sources for the extensive phase data for the two students were the Classroom Management Tree Form A and the Classroom Management Questionnaire Form A. These two instruments were administered together with the Teaching Questionnaire, a form of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) which had been modified to include a management subscale. The management tree task was an ordered tree task (Roehler, Duffy, Conley, Herrmann, Johnson & Michelsen, 1987; Strahan 1989) in which the subjects were to construct their own management tree, using terms which they could use in a conversation about classroom management. The purpose of this task was to obtain data about the content, structure and meaning of their management schemata. The management questionnaire was open-ended in design. Its purpose was to obtain data about the subjects' management beliefs and the variables which the subjects perceived to have influenced their management beliefs. The intensive phase data used in this report consisted of each student's practicum orientation interview, repertory grid task and interviews and the observation of their management behaviours using the Classroom Management Observation System (CMOS). The practicum orientation interview was an open-ended interview component of the College supervision process which was expanded to elicit descriptions of the students' management approach and the naming of factors which could lead them to vary these approaches. The repertory grid task (See Diamond, 1985) and guidelines for the repertory grid interview are included in Appendix A. The repertory grid interview included a question about the students' images of themselves as classroom managers. CMOS (See Appendix B for observation sheet) was developed by the researcher to identify teachers' management behaviours and approaches. This system included categories related to the classroom environment and context, the teacher's management routines and behaviours and the purposes of classroom management. The basic unit of analysis was the five minute segment. The data for each segment was gathered from a series of one minute scans of the classroom. Two of the Year 1 student's lessons were observed using CMOS and five of the Year 3 student's lessons. The intensive phase data for the year 1 student were collected by a research assistant who had no College role in the practicum. The Year 1 student practicum orientation interview was conducted with the research assistant. This interview made the student's management approach a significant focus in the interview. The intensive phase data for the Year 3 student were collected by the researcher who was the students' College supervisor for the practicum The practicum orientation interview for the Year 3 student was held with the student, her cooperating teacher and the researcher as College supervisor. The student's management approach received less explicit attention in this interview than was the case for the Year 1 student. The researcher trained the research assistant for the use of each of these instruments. This training included the analysis of trial repertory grid tasks and interviews done by the researcher with other subjects and the joint coding by the research and research assistant of videotaped and actual lessons using CMOS. The differences in the number of lessons observed for each of the students was related to the differences in the amount of time the research assistant and researcher had available for the range of intensive phase tasks Data analysis Management schemata Extensive phase data The extensive phase data were analysed with respect to the content, structure and meaning of the teachers' management schemata. For this report the content and meaning data were used, not the structure data. This was because the focus on the relationships between teacher schemata and behaviour was on the types of management behaviours the teachers used. A coding system (See Appendix C), developed for this study by the researcher, was used to identify the content areas, the meaning and the management approaches expressed with the trees and questionnaires. Management profiles were developed from this data analysis. A profile was developed for each subject. The profiles were structured according to the dominant principle(s), secondary principles and other principles identified in the data. The dominant principle(s) was the superordinate principle(s) to which all the other management principles and content expressed in the trees and questionnaires were related. The secondary principles were the principles which were immediately subordinate to the dominant principle(s). Other principles were those principles identified in the data but which were not immediately subordinate to the dominant principle(s). The profiles also included a description of the student's management approach as being either proactive or reactive. Proactive approaches were those which were concerned with establishing situations which would facilitate student cooperation and involvement in classroom tasks. Reactive approaches were those which were concerned with how to respond to incidents or behaviour which detract from student cooperation and involvement in classroom tasks. The coding system and the procedures for the development of the profiles were validated through interviews with five students in the secondary course at the same higher education institution. In these interviews the students were presented with their management profiles developed by the researcher from their extensive phase data. They were then asked to indicate the extent to which their management profile was a valid representation of how they saw classroom management. Intensive phase data The intensive phase data consisted of the repertory grid matrix and interview and the practicum orientation interview. These data were analysed with respect to the meaning of the management schemata and the images the students presented of themselves as classroom managers. Other data analysed in these interviews were the students' sense of efficacy as teachers and other variables which seemed, to the researcher, to be potentially salient influences on the students' expression of their management schemata in classroom contexts. Classroom management behaviours The students' classroom management behaviours were analysed from the observation records obtained through the use of CMOS. These records indicated the number of five minute segments in the lesson in which the different management behaviours had occurred. The management behaviours analysed in this report were those which were related to the principles or images presented in the students' management profiles. Influences on management schemata and behaviour Variables which may have impacted upon the relationships between the students' management schemata and their management behaviours were identified through analyses of the extensive phase data, interview data, field note data from the researcher and research assistant and the contexts for the lessons observed. Results Management schemata Management profiles are presented below for Jan (Year 1) (See Table 1)and Susan (Year 3) (See Table 2). The profiles were developed from the analysis of the students' responses to the Classroom Management Tree Form A, Classroom Management Questionnaire Form A and repertory grid task and interview and the pre-practicum interview. The profile presents the principles for each data source so that both the "complementary and contradictory findings" could be productive of further insights (Morine-Dershimer, 1988) into the nature of the subjects' management schemata. The validity of the profiles was gauged through the ratings the five other students gave to their management profiles on a rating scale from 1 (very valid) to 4 (invalid). Four of these students rated their profiles as 1 (very valid). The fifth student rated his profile as 2. He indicated that there was an error in the dominant and secondary principles. The principles listed should have been both listed as dominant principles rather than one as dominant and the other as secondary. These five students' management profiles all showed their management approaches as being proactive. As this description of their management approach did not discriminate between the students' management schemata it was not pursued in the presentation and analysis of the data for Jan and Susan. Table 1 Classroom management profile for Jan (Year 1) Management Tree Management Questionnaire Repertory Grid Pre-practicum interview Dominant principle(s) (superordinate principles) Relations Organisation. Relations Avoidance of disruption. Cooperation. Learning Authoritarian approach. Friendship Secondary principles (immediately subordinate principles) Organisation. Deviancy Deviancy Expectations. Student involvement in lesson. Teaching at their level. Fairness. Respect for students Student involvement in lesson. Interesting teaching Other principles Learning as goal Consideration of students' background eg home context and disabilities (if any). Use of rewards Image (View of self as classroom manager) Relationships. No tolerance of disruptive behaviour Jan in the two extensive phase data sources presented relations as a dominant principle . In the management questionnaire organisation was expressed as a dominant principle while it was expressed as a secondary principle in her response to the management tree task. Deviancy was expressed as a secondary principle in both of the extensive phase data sources. In the repertory grid tasks Jan presented avoidance of disruption together with student cooperation with the teacher and learning as dominant principles. The secondary principles identified in the repertory grid task were expectations, a set of principles related to teaching and learning and fairness and respect for students. Jan indicated that the use of these secondary principles was to ensure that disruptions were avoided. At a lower level were the principles of consideration of students' backgrounds and use of rewards. The dominant principles expressed in the pre-practicum interview were authoritarian approach and friendship. The secondary principles were student involvement in the lesson and interesting teaching. When asked what image she had of herself as a classroom manager Jan indicated an image which was concerned with relationships and had no tolerance for disruptive behaviour. Jan's management profile showed an emphasis on relations, organisation, student involvement, interesting teaching and concern with deviant behaviour. While there was some variation in the principles across the different data sources the major emphases were those concerned with principles of relations, organisation, teaching and learning and deviant behaviour. Table 2 Classroom management profile for Susan (Year 3) Management Tree Management Questionnaire Repertory Grid Pre-practicum interview Dominant principle(s) (superordinate principles) Students Organisation. Teaching & learning Organisation Expectations Secondary principles (immediately subordinate principles) Organisation. Teaching & learning. Physical environment Student responsibility Cooperation Consistency. Fairness. Student involvement Other principles Deviancy Physical environment. Deviancy Consideration of students' home context Differences in classes Image (View of self as classroom manager) Expectations. Person the teacher is. Susan presented students as the superordinate principle in her management tree with organisation, teaching and learning and physical environment as secondary principles. In her responses to the management questionnaire the dominant principles expressed were organisation and teaching and learning. Physical environment was expressed as a secondary principle in the management tree but not in the management questionnaire. Susan, in the management questionnaire, did not clearly express any secondary principles but included physical environment and deviancy as other principles. In her intensive phase data Susan had organisation as a dominant principle in her responses to the repertory grid task and expectations was the dominant principle in the pre-practicum interview. There was a difference in the secondary principles she used in each of these two instruments. The secondary principles expressed in the repertory grid task were student responsibility and cooperation and consistency, fairness and student involvement were the secondary principles she expressed in the pre-practicum interview. The other principles identified in the responses to these two intensive phase tasks were concerned with consideration of student background (repertory grid) and differences in classes (pre-practicum interview). The image Susan indicated that she had of herself as a classroom manager was concerned with expectations and the type of person the teacher is to the students. Susan's management profile showed an emphasis on organisation, which included expectations, teaching and learning, physical environment and concern with deviant behaviour. Organisation was included as a dominant or secondary principle in Susan's responses to all the tasks. Teaching and learning was expressed more explicitly in the extensive phase than in the intensive phase tasks. While Susan listed deviancy as another principle in the extensive phase data her responses in the pre- practicum interview stated the qualities which were to characterise her responses to deviant behaviour. Management behaviours The analysis of the CMOS observation records of Jan's and Susan's lessons was based on the management principles which were presented in their management profiles above. The observational records from Jan's two lessons were analysed with respect to the emphasis on relations, organisation, student involvement, interesting teaching and concern with deviant behaviour. The records from Susan's five lessons were analysed with respect to organisation/rules/expectations, teaching and learning, physical environment and concern with deviant behaviour. The CMOS categories which were used in the analysis of their management behaviours with respect to these different principles are listed in Table 3. Organisation is taken in this analysis to include the principles of organisation, rules and/or expectations. Teaching and learning is taken as including teaching and learning, interesting teaching and/or student involvement. The categories of behaviour chosen were those which reflect teacher behaviour. Climate, as defined in CMOS, included teacher statements or actions which were characterised by either positive, negative or neutral affects. Table 3 CMOS categories related to the principles expressed in the management profiles Management principle CMOS categories Organisation Rule/procedures - type and nature Teaching and learning Instructional task (different tasks), group (differences in group arrangements), student involvement Concern with deviant behaviour Desist behaviour Relations Climate Physical environment Classroom environment Desk arrangement It was expected that if there was a direct correspondence between teacher management schemata and management behaviour the analysis of the CMOS data would show: - frequent use of the behaviours associated with the principles of organisation and relations - a variety of types of instructional tasks and class grouping used in the lesson - high level of student involvement - frequent use of desist behaviour when students were uninvolved or disruptive and/or - changing of physical environment or seating arrangement. The analyses of the CMOS data with respect to the management principles for the students lessons are presented below. For each management principle the expected management behaviours are indicated. The number of five minute segments in each of the lessons and the number of those segments in which the particular management behaviours were present are included in the tables. Each set of mutually exclusive CMOS categories is separated by a single line. Jan's management behaviours An analysis of the CMOS data with respect to the management principles for Jan's two lessons is presented in Table 4. Table 4 Jan's management principles and management behaviours No of lesson segments behaviour observed Management principle & expected management behaviours CMOS category Year 7 English (25 mins - 5 segments) Year 8 Mathematics (45 mins - 9 segments) Relations (Frequent use of positive behaviours) Climate Positive Negative Neutral 3 0 1 0 0 9 Organisation (Frequent use of rules/procedures) Rule/procedure Type Organisational Instructional 0 1 0 2 Teaching and learning (Variety of instructional tasks) Instructional task Listening Reading to class Responding Small group Seatwork Performance 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 (Variety of class groupings) Group Whole class sub-group Individual 5 0 0 6 0 1 Deviant behaviour (Frequent use of desist behaviour when students uninvolved or disruptive) Desist behaviour 0 0 Jan's management behaviours incorporated behaviours directed towards a positive classroom climate in three of the five segments in the English lesson. In the Mathematics lesson her management behaviours were such that no affect could be inferred from them. There were few statements of rules and procedures and all of these were concerned with instruction. There was little variety in the types of instructional activities used in the lessons. The major activities in the English lesson consisted of a student reading to the class in four of the five segments. In the Mathematics lesson the major activities were the students listening to the teacher during five of the segments, responding to the teacher for two of the segments and doing seatwork for the other segment. The whole class was the unit for her teaching except for one segment in the Mathematics lesson when they students worked as individuals. With respect to deviant behaviour Jan used no desist behaviours during the two lessons. Susan's management behaviours An analysis of the CMOS data from Susan's five lessons is presented in Table 5 with respect to the management principles identified in her management profile. The results for the management behaviours related to the principle of physical environment are presented separately. Susan stated rules or procedures in five or more of the segments in the three Year 10 Geography lessons. These rules or procedures were related to instruction in the greater number of instances. There was less expression by Susan of rules or procedures in the Year 9 Geography lesson (two segments) and and the Year 10 Religion lesson (four segments). Her management behaviours included a variety of instructional activities with all the Geography lessons including four different types of instructional activities and the Religion lesson including three types of instructional activities. The students were working both as a whole class and individually in all of the lessons. In two of the lessons there was almost an equal number of segments for each of these groupings of students. In no segments had the use of sub-groups being identified. Susan used desist behaviour in every lesson. This was present to a lesser extent in the second Year 10 Geography lesson than in the other lessons. A closer analysis of her desist behaviour will be done later using the other CMOS desist categories. The analysis of the classroom environment data showed that for the Year 10 Geography lessons the lighting and amount of space were adequate on all occasions. The ventilation was adequate for two or the three lessons and inadequate for the other lesson. The colour of the room was dull and there were few or no displays around the room. For the other two lessons there were no displays, the lighting and ventilation were adequate and the rooms were bright. In one room there was adequate space. The other room was spacious. In all lessons the desks were arranged in rows. Susan made no changes to the physical environment of the rooms in any of the lessons. Table 5 Susan's management principles and management behaviours No of lesson segments behaviour observed Management principle CMOS category Year 10 Geog Lesson 1 (48 mins - 10 segments) Year 10 Geog Lesson 2 (45 mins - 9 segments) Year 10 Geog Lesson 3 (50 mins - 10 segments) Year 9 Geog (47 mins 10 segments) Year 10 Religion (48 mins 10 segments) Organisation (Frequent use of rules/proce ures) Rule/procedure Type Organisational Instructional 0 5 1 7 2 4 0 2 0 4 Teaching and learning (Variety of instructional tasks) Instructional task Listening Reading to class Responding Small group Seatwork Performance 1 2 4 0 3 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 5 0 1 3 3 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 (Variety of class groupings) Group Whole class sub-group Individual 7 0 3 7 0 2 5 0 5 7 0 3 4 0 5 Deviant behaviour (Frequent use of desist behaviour when students uninvolved or disruptive) Desist behaviour 8 2 6 9 7 Influences on management schemata and behaviour The analysis of Jan's and Susan's management behaviours showed that there were high levels of correspondence between Susan's use of rules/procedures and the principle of organisation, between her use of a range of instructional tasks and class groupings and the principle of teaching and learning, and finally between the use of desist behaviour and the principle of deviant behaviour. Such correspondences were not evident for Jan with the same three principles and sets of management behaviours. Nor were there high correspondences between Jan's use of positive climate behaviours and the principle of relations nor between Susan's arrangement of the physical environment of the classroom and the principle of physical environment. It is also to be noted that while across the total set of Susan's lessons there were high correspondences between Susan's principles of organisation and deviant behaviour and her corresponding management behaviours, this correspondence was not present in all of the lessons. These data raise the question as to what influences may impact upon the teachers' expression of the management schemata in different situations. The intention here is to identify variables which may have influenced the students' expression of their management schemata and the relationships between these schemata and their management behaviours. This analysis was based upon the extensive phase data, interview data and field notes. Level of the management principle Susan's management behaviours were more closely associated with her dominant and secondary management principles. The correspondence was lower for the physical environment than for the other principles. Physical environment was listed as "other principle" in the management tree task but as secondary principle for the management questionnaire. The low correspondence between Jan's dominant and secondary management principles and her management behaviours indicated that there was not a direct relationship between level of management principle and management behaviours. Task and situation A study of the differences in the management principles listed in Jan's and Susan's management profiles showed that there was a difference in Jan's dominant management principles as she moved from the paper and pencil task of the extensive phase data collection to the more situation focussed tasks of the repertory grid and finally in the pre-practicum interview. Such a variation was not evident in Susan's responses to the different tasks and situations. This raised questions about how the subjects perceived themselves within the situation. The differences between some of the management principles and management behaviours could have been related in some instances to the nature of the class the subject was teaching. Jan was teaching very cooperative classes and there was no need for desist behaviour. The research assistant's field notes for the Mathematics lesson stated that: As Jan was ill on ... confusion reigned. The teacher had already given this lesson but explained this to the pupils and asked for cooperation. Class was perfect - all involved at all times. The variations in Susan's desist behaviours with the Year 10 Geography lessons raised questions of the differences with the same class over a series of lesson. These differences warrant further study. Efficacy as teachers Jan expressed a low sense of teacher efficacy in her pre-practicum interview. This low teacher efficacy was seen in her reluctance to try approaches which very good teachers had used. But with teachers that are very good I think I am not going to be as good as that teacher so I tend to stay away from that thing - I think I will not be as good as them, it is obvious that I am not as good as them. So I tend to do the opposite. Very confused, aren't I? This low sense of efficacy could be related to her previous practicum experiences and her feeling that she was intruding as a student teacher. At last prac. - at first I used to scream and they would scream back at me and it would just get louder and louder and the little boys they just ran riot around and when I would tell them off. They thought it was funny and they would just smile at me, so at first I used to scream and I wasn't getting anywhere and I would just glare at them and that would shut them up. Because basically I am teaching all their English lessons for three weeks and the English teacher wont be able to teach them anything. If I don't teach what she thinks needs to be taught, I feel I am interfering with her teaching methods. I think it is too much. I think maybe half of the lessons per week. I have only got three Maths lessons (...) and that's not many to have. I think it is mainly from me. Because I haven't really had a lot to do with my teachers yet... they were told two weeks ago when I came on my day that they were going to have me. There were plans even before then of what they were going to do. I feel I don't want to hassle them too much. Jan's view of herself contrasted with Susan's view of herself in her practicum situation. Susan was at ease with her Cooperating Teacher. I have got no worries about John. He is helping me out a lot... he is always asking me do you need any help are you alright and sitting me down and saying what I need, if I am clear on things, it has been really good. I was looking forward to coming back because I had this support. When I first got here the first three weeks I was wondering what my teacher was like. How would I be treated and it has been really good. It just helps a lot the way I go in and teach when I go home I plan lessons and am confident because I know he is there at times to help me out. If there were problems I wouldn't hesitate to go and see him. Susan also had a positive view of herself as a classroom manager and saw herself as being consistent and fair. I think it (classroom management) is great. I don't think I have got any problems. Pretty consistent and fair way. Do you agree, John? Further evidence of her positive view of herself is seen in her reply to the question, during the pre-practicum interview, as to what she would like to change in her teaching. Susan replied: I don't know.... it is probably things like confidence, like if I go into a classroom that I haven't taught before, straight away that puts me a step back and then I start thinking 'what are they like' and you have to be confident all the time - you are the teacher, you know what you are doing you have to project yourself. This analysis showed how the level of the principle in the schemata, the situation or task, and the subjects' views of themselves in the situations could have influenced the subjects' expressions of their management schemata and the relationships between these schemata and their management behaviours. The impact of these variables on management schemata and management behaviour need to be researched in a way that allows the interaction of these variables to be studied. Conclusion This study was designed to identify the content and meaning of two student teachers management schemata and explore the relationships between these schemata and their management behaviours. The use of the multiple data sources revealed some of the complexity of the expressions of their management schemata in both the extensive and intensive data collection. There was not a direct relationship between the management principles, the subjects expressed in their paper and pencil and interview tasks, and their management behaviours as recorded using CMOS. The relationships between the expressions of their management schemata as identified in the form of stated management principles and their management behaviours seem to be influenced by a number of variables. These variables included the nature of their management schemata, the tasks, the contexts and the subjects views of themselves. The interaction of these variables can be studied through the use of networks to map the variables and the direction and strength of their influences (Huberman & Miles, 1989). These can be studied in further intensive phase data collection across a series of subjects and contexts. In the absence of such studies, the research of which this report forms a part will explore further the nature of these variables and how they influence the relationship between management schemata and management behaviour. Such research is needed so that teachers can be assisted in the development of their expertise as classroom managers. REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Anderson, R. C. (1984) "Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge" Educational Researcher 13, 5-10. Diamond, C. T. P. (1985) Becoming a teacher: An altering eye. In D. Bannister (Ed.) Issues and approaches in personal construct theory (pp. 15-35). London: Academic Press. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984) Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology 76, 569-582. Holt, L., & Johnston, M. (1989). Graduate education and teachers' understandings: A collaborative case study of change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 81-92. Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1989). Some procedures for causal analysis of multiple- case data. Qualitative Studies in Education, 2(1), 55-68. Livingston, C. & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36-42. Mitchell, J. & Marland, P. (1989) "Research on teacher thinking: The next phase", Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 2, 115 - 128. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1988). Comparing systems: How do we know? In J. L. Green & J. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 195-214 ). New York: Norwood: Ablex. Munby, H. (1986) Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, 197-209. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., Conley, M., Herrmann, B. A., Johnson, J. & Michelsen, S. (1987) "Exploring preservice teachers' knowledge structures", Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association. Washington, D.C. Strahan, D. B. (1989) "Teachers' views of instruction", Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1, 53 - 67. Ulerick, S. L. & Tobin, K. (1989) The influence of a teacher's beliefs on classroom management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Yinger, R. (1986) "Examining Thought in Action: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique of Research on Interactive Teaching" Teaching and Teacher Education 2, 3, 263 - 283. Appendix A Repertory Grid Task WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 1. I am interested in knowing how you think about classroom management. There are no right or wrong answers. The intention is for you to report what you really think about classrooms. 2. There are 13 cards each with a different question about classrooms. Write a few words or phrases indicating what this might mean for you in practice. 3. a) On the separate sheet of paper (Form A) the cards are listed in 15 different sets of 3 (triads). For example the first set is 1, 7 and 6. Find these cards and place them in front of you. b) Now sort this set of 3 cards (1, 7, 6). You are to select the two (2) of them which are most alike and the one of them which is different. c) Record in the "Alike Pair" column on the left hand side of the sheet the numbers of the 2 cards which you see as most alike. d) In the "Construct" column state briefly in what way you see these 2 as being alike. e) Now continue in the same way through the other sets of 3 elements using a different entry in the "construct" column for each set of 3 elements. 4. a) When you have both sorted the 15 sets of 3 elements and completed the "Construct" column go to the right hand column titled ""Opposite". Write briefly in this column the opposite to the "construct" which is in the left hand side column for the first triad. b) Continue down the page writing the opposite of the "construct" listed on the left hand side. 5. a) Go to your first row (triad 1, 7, 6). There are 13 columns. Each column is for an element represented on the corresponding card (i.e. column 1 represents element 1 on card 1). For the first element ask yourself if it is more like the "construct" or the "opposite"? Record your opinion in the space provided using the following scale: 1. Element is very like the construct. 2. Element is somewhat like the construct. 3. Element is somewhat like the opposite. 4. Element is very like the opposite. Do this for each of the 13 elements across the first row. b) Repeat this process for all of the rows. The cards 1 Students receive rewards for successfully completing work. 2 Student repeatedly disrupts the class. 3 Students of different abilities are engaged on work set to their own levels. 4 Students are cheating 5 Students are repeatedly frivolous 6 Students learn classroom routines 7 Students do group work efficiently 8 Students and teacher decide on class rules 9 Students cooperate with each other and with the teacher 10 Students work in dark, unpleasant surroundings 11 Students regard a punishment as being excessive 12 Students do independent work quietly 13 Student is repeatedly aggressive with his peers Classroom Management Repertory Grid Interview Preparation for the Interview 1. My study of the grid considering: Clusters of constructs and elements and how natural they seem to be. Words I would use to describe their clusters. 2. Materials: The person's rep grid cards, completed Form A sheet, completed rep grids with numbers of the elements included beside the elements. Mark the reversed emergent and implicit construct poles. 3. Microphone, cassette recorder both with fresh batteries, cassette, writing tablet for ease in recording responses. 4. Test microphone by myself and then with person before actually recording the interview. Interview 1. Purpose of today's review and discussion of his/her responses to the sorting task is to help you identify how you think about classroom management. This involves the identification of the overarching principles or concepts you use in classroom management situations. 2. Thanks for person's assistance in doing the repertory grid task. Remind them of what was involved in the task and how this is represented in the grid that was produced by the computer. 3. Indicate the further work that was done by the computer and how it presents the matching within the person's responses. At times it has reversed the construct to obtain a higher level of matching. The reversed constructs are indicated by the circle. 4. Direct attention to the construct match tree. Ask for comment upon the constructs. They are taken in the order of their level of matching.starting with the highest. 5. Ask them if the set of constructs sits together for them in their mind. Why do they sit together in their mind? If they don't sit together ladder each of the constructs independently eg What does it mean? Why is it so important? What is so good about it? Record whether or not the cluster did sit together for the person. 6. In the discussion of the cluster, question the person to ascertain whether the relationship between the constructs within the cluster is superordinate, subordinate or coordinate and code them respectively (P, B, C). 7. For each cluster of constructs ask for a word or phrase that would include the whole cluster. If the person has trouble putting words around the cluster offer my own and ask the person to react to it. 8. Work through the sets of clusters. Obtain constructs or overarching principles for the set(s) of clusters that the person has used with the classroom management situations. 9. Direction attention to the elements. Obtain other relevant information about the person's schemata/constructs through their comments about the clusters of elements. 10. Ask for comments about the task and the validity of the constructs that were identified through completing the task. Appendix C Data Coding - categories and definitions Deviancy: (D) students' deviant or disruptive behaviour and teacher's responses to these behaviours. Physical environment (E) - the spatial arrangement or organisation of the classroom or of materials in the classroom, appearance of the room Policy (P) - rules and procedures for classroom management provided by an educational authority or the school. Relationships (R)- factors related to the cohesiveness of or the social interaction within the class. Social Organisation (O)- rules, routines and procedures for facilitating student cooperation and participation. Teaching/learning (T/L)-the goals, content and methods of teaching and learning. This refers to both the learning of content and social skills.