ÿÿÿÿAbstract of paper for 1992 AARE conference-Geelong
Towards a theory of teacher development in the management domain: An 
examination of teachers' different development paths
An understanding of teachers' development paths is needed to help teacher 
educators assist student and beginning teachers in their professional 
development.  These paths are the routes teachers take as they learn to act 
more effectively by means of adopting new forms of conceptualising, and 
responding to classroom situations.  A grounded theory analysis of both 
extensive data from cross-sectional cohorts of subjects and from more 
intensive case study data.  Showed the possibility of tracing longitudinal 
paths in the management domain. on Implications of these findings for 
further research and teacher education are discussed. 


Towards a theory of teacher development in the management domain: An 
examination of teachers' different development paths
Introduction
What are teachers development paths?
TeachersÕ development paths are the routes teachers take as they learn to 
act more effectively by means of adopting new ways of conceptualising and 
responding to different classroom management situations.  These new ways of 
conceptualising and responding subsume, at least in the long term, the 
former ways of conceptualising and responding.  They are paths in that 
there is movement toward a goal with no assumption that all teachers follow 
the same route toward that goal.  They are developmental in that there are 
changes in the teachers as they move towards higher levels of development 
or expertise, though this does not mean that each movement along the path 
is overtly in the direction of a higher level of development.
Why is it important to study teachers' development paths?
While studies of expert teachers have provided us with Òvery positive ideal 
images of what it might mean to think like a teacherÓ, the goals for 
teacher education include making Òa greater part of those ideal images a 
reality for larger numbers of teachers at earlier stages of their 
professional experienceÓ (Morine-Dershimer, 1990: p.39).  Research on 
teacher cognition and teacher education can contribute to the movement of 
teachers toward expertise through enhancing our understanding of the nature 
of teacher development and the influences that affect this development.  
Such an understanding can come from an examination of the paths novices 
take in their professional development.  Some indirect attention has been 
given, within studies of teachers' development generally, to changes in 
their classroom management during pre-service courses.  A more formal study 
of teacher development in the management domain can offer teacher educators 
an understanding of novice teachers' development paths, the schema change 
processes involved, and guidelines as to how teacher education can assist 
novices in their development within the management domain.  
What do we know about their development paths?
Evidence of differences amongst teachersÕ starting points for their 
development paths has been found in novice teachersÕ images of teaching at 
the beginning of their teacher education courses (Calderhead & Robson, 
1991; Conners, Nettle & Placing, 1990; Nettle & Conners, 1991; 
Hollingsworth, 1989).  For example in their initial images (Calderhead & 
Robson, 1991), one novice emphasised good relationships, an emphasis which 
in turn influenced her view of classroom management, while another 
emphasised efficiency and the need to have her classroom and work well 
organised.  Differences at other points in novice teachers' paths were 
found in the area of management when some novices tried to overcome the 
limitations of a "loose or unstructured classroom environment" by being 
"too firm and inflexible" with some achieving a more balanced approach and 
others reflecting a more "rigid stance" (Hollingsworth, 1989).  
From their study of these differences, Calderhead and Robson concluded:
Clearly, students start their teacher training with different ideas about 
teaching and about their own professional development. .... Research 
clearly has much to contribute in identifying the nature and development of 
student teachersÕ knowledge, so that those involved in teacher education 
might become aware of the different routes through pre-service training 
that students take and the processes governing their direction. (1991, p.7-
8)
What do we need to know about these development paths?
There is a need to identify different development paths amongst teachers 
and to see what aspects, if any, of these paths are common or invariant 
across teachers and which aspects reflect differences amongst teachers.  
There is also a need to explain what is involved in and what influences 
teachersÕ movements in the direction of expertise.  The nature of teachersÕ 
development paths can be illustrated here through an analysis of the 
elements within the paths, differences between teachersÕ development paths, 
and influences on their paths as reflected in the present study.
How do we need to describe these development paths?
Descriptions of teachers' development paths can build upon the 
identification of differences in single schema aspects such as structure of 

the declarative (Roehler, Herrmann, & Reinken, B, 1989; Morine-Dershimer, 
1991) or procedural (Leinhardt, Weidman, & Hammond, 1987) knowledge.  There 
is a need, however, to identify a more generalisable and comprehensive 
description of teachers' schemata, incorporating both declarative and 
procedural forms of knowledge and different components such as content, 
structure and meaning.  This more comprehensive description of teachers' 
management schemata would acknowledge differences in the relationships 
among schema aspects as well as differences in the single aspects. 
How do we go about identifying development paths?
To-date studies of differences in teachers' schemata have largely being 
constructed from studies of individual or small, and not necessarily 
representative, groups of teachers through the use of measures of single 
schema aspects.  However, the use of more extensive data sets and multiple 
measures of different schema aspects and knowledge forms for profiling 
teachers' schema can provide more generalisable and comprehensive means of 
describing differences in teachers' schemata and their development paths.  
The study of development paths using multiple measures of different schema 
aspects will also provide an understanding of schema change and schema 
change processes.
Background to the study
The study of teachers' development paths requires the tracing of changes in 
teachers' schemata over time.  The study had two phases.  In addition to 
the extensive data described below 10 teachers were also followed as case 
studies through some part of their career.  They were interviewed on 
several occasions.  Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data sets 
contribute to the study of schema change through the distinguishing of 
relatively homogeneous clusters of subjects.  A set of schema types, based 
on the schema characteristics of homogeneous groups of subjects, was 
constructed from the analysis of the cross-sectional data.  An examination 
of these schema types revealed indicators of possible schema changes and 
schema change processes which, together with other indicators identified in 
the cross-sectional cohort data, will be used in the study of schema change 
in the longitudinal data.
How were cross-sectional data used for the study of schema differences and 
change?
A set of schema types to be used in tracing development changes in 
longitudinal data was initially constructed by examining the cross-
sectional data on all three schema aspects (content, structure and meaning) 
for both declarative and procedural domain knowledge from novice subjects 
in three different year cohorts and expert managers.  The schema types were 
constructed at two knowledge levels; first at the domain conceptualisation 
level with teachers' expression of their declarative and principle-based 
procedural knowledge, secondly at the level of teachers' script-based 
procedural knowledge responses to specific situations.  A subsequent 
analysis of the schema types with the longitudinal data will further 
validate and refine the schema types in the investigation of teachers' 
development paths.
What is the nature and purpose of longitudinal data sets?
Longitudinal analysis will show what patterns of development are followed 
over time.  Cross-sectional data suggests types which provide a basis for 
tracking development but these findings need to be verified within the 
longitudinal data.  In the identification of types from cross-sectional 
data, there is no implication that the norm is to progress through types as 
if there was a continual steady movement towards expertise.  Longitudinal 
data will permit identification of different patterns of development 
including movements away from expertise.  
The duration, the stability, the purpose and the influences of a movement 
may all be significant in describing development.  For example, a student 
who moves away from a higher type down to a lower level and stays there is 
showing a different development path to one who moves down temporarily ande 
then reverts to the higher type again.  The interviews with intensive phase 
students indicated clearly that development may follow different paths.  
The number of subjects who could be studied longitudinally across two or 
more chronological years was limited by an early attention to identifying 
sensitive tasks and measures of schema differences.  This required the use 
of alternate sets of instruments.

What instruments and measures were used in the study?
The ordered tree and questionnaire tasks used in the study were designed so 
that:(a) they provided comprehensive data on different elements of the 
phenomena,(b) the analysis of data gathered from the intensive phase could 
provide additional insights to that gathered during the extensive phase,(c) 
there was minimal intrusion by the researcher, and (d) they could be 
administered feasibly within the participants' time constraints.The range 
of tasks was intended to enhance the validity of the data, with the 
emphasis on low structured tasks requiring more careful attention be given 
to the reliability of data.
Data obtained from participants in the study was coded and analysed using 
categories and indices which provided sensitive, valid, and reliable 
measures of schema aspects, declarative and procedural knowledge, teacher 
efficacy and action in different management contexts.  Measures used in the 
study were chosen for their appropriateness for the analysis of both cross-
sectional and longitudinal data and for the extensive and intensive phases 
of the study respectively.  The set of measures used for analysing the 
extensive phase data are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Content, structure and meaning measures of teachersÕ declarative 
and procedural knowledge in the management domain.
Task & dimensionMeasures of Declarative KnowledgeMeasures of Procedural 
knowledgeOrdered treeContentCategory extensivenessNAStructurePattern of 
responseIntegratedness of & differentiation in treeLogical 
relationshipsMeaningOverarching or most central content categoryManagement 
approachQuestionnaireContentCategory frequency & extensiveness in belief 
responsesCategory frequency & extensiveness in advice responsesAction, 
context and other steps in vignette responsesPresence or absence of 
punishment in vignette responsesStructureIntegratedness of belief 
responseIntegratedness of advice and vignette responses MeaningManagement 
approach in belief and self description responseManagement approach in 
advice and vignette responses
What schema types emerged from cohort results?
The grounded theory nature of this study of development and the wide set of 
variables led to the use of data-derived and conceptually-related sets of 
characteristics, rather than predetermined conceptually-defined sets, for 
distinguishing groups of subjects across different occasions and for 
constructing schema types.  Cluster analysis (Tryon & Bailey, 1970) was 
used for identifying subject groups with defining variables which had a 
positive correlation with each other while having a different pattern of 
correlations from those found within other sets of defining variables.  
Because of the need to identify schema types which could help investigate 
schema change over time, the cluster groups were examined for different 
patterns of distribution of subjects across the four cohorts.  
The selection and validation of each cluster group was based on three 
criteria:(a) the presence of subjects within the same distribution pattern 
in two cluster analyses;(b) clarity of the group's schema type profile at 
the domain conceptualisation level; and(c) the distinctness of this profile 
from those of other cluster groups.
This led to the selection of five schema type groups incorporating 79 
subjects from the total 147 subjects in the cohorts (See Table 2) There was 
no expectation that cohort level would be related to any one particular 
type.  It is of interest to note, however, the high percentage of Year I 
students in Type 1 and that, in a sample of 79, Type 5 was present only 
among the expert classroom managers.  
Intensive case study suggested quite different patterns in the development 
of students.  For example, two students who were interviewed over three 
years began their careers at different type levels with Student A focussing 
on a concern for orderliness while Student B was oriented to achieving 
pupil learning.  There was little change in the development of A until her 
final year.  Student B who had not taken up the experience of being 
directive at any stage was unable to address the challenge of moving 
temporarily to this level when confronted with the demands of a practicum 
supervisor in her final year.  The distribution patterns over four cohorts 
suggest that the five types were appropriate for tracing schema changes and 
development over time.  The extent to which a group in a cell consisted of 
subjects who had not moved and subjects who had moved in any direction into 

that cell, requires an analysis of longitudinal data.
Table 2Schema type groups and their distribution patterns
TYPE GROUPSCohort12345ALLYear12201002364.71%--8.33%----
29.11%(95.65%)(0%)(4.35%)Year28124202623.53%63.16%33.33%28.57%--
32.91%(30.77%)(46.15%)(15.38%)(7.69%)Year3456301811.76%26.32%50.00%42.86%--
22.78%(22.22%)(27.78%)(33.33%)(16.67%)Experts0212712--
10.53%8.33%28.57%100.00%15.19%(16.67%)(8.33%)(16.67%)(58.33%)ALL341912777943.04%24.05%15.19%8.86%8.86%100.00%


What are the characteristics of and differences between schema types?
Differences in schema types for the particular schema aspects of content, 
structure and meaning are summarized in Table 3.  The findings refer 
firstly to areas of declarative and principle-based procedural knowledge, 
secondly to the separateness of the management domain from the 
instructional domain, and finally to the area of script-based procedural 
knowledge.


Table 3Management schema for type groups: declarative (DK) and procedural 
knowledge (PK)
DimensionTYPE 1(n=34)TYPE 2(n=19)TYPE 3(n=12)TYPE 4(n=7)TYPE 5(n=7)MEANING 
Schema approach(Declarative knowledge)Directive strategy for learning 
Directive strategy for orderDirective strategy for learningDirective 
strategy for learningNurturant strategy for social environment conducive to 
learning )STRUCTUREIntra-domain structure(Declarative & Principle-based 
procedural knowledge)Lower form of tree logic ,and lower levels of 
integration in belief and advice responsesMedium differentiation and high 
levels of integration  in trees, and medium levels of integration  in 
belief and advice responsesLow to medium levels of integration in trees, 
and high forms of integration in belief and advice responsesHigh levels of 
differentiation in trees, medium levels of integration in belief responses 
and low levels of integration in advice responses.Medium differentiation 
and high integration in trees, and high  integration  in belief responses 
and medium integration in advice responses.CONTENTSalience of Declarative 
knowledge contentNo clear salience of any patternSalience patterns 
includingdeviancy,  medium to high organisation, medium relationships low 
or medium instructional Salience patterns including high or medium 
instructional, low relationships.Salience patterns  including pre-active 
planning, high or medium instructional, medium to high organisation, low 
relationshipsSalience patterns  including deviancy, preactive planning and 
medium to high on relationships, organisation, instructional, Extra-domain 
structure (Instructional and management domains)Minimal, if any, separation 
from instructional schemaSeparation from instructional schema with a 
directive strategy and often an orderliness intention focusSeparation 
within a learning intention focusSeparation within a learning intention 
focusSeparated from but integrated with instructional schema.MEANING for 
script-based procedural responsesLow  homogeneity of approach except for 
vignette A (Directive for orderliness)Low  homogeneity of approach except 
for vignette A (Directive for orderliness)Low  homogeneity of approach 
except for vignette A (Directive for orderliness)Low  homogeneity of 
approach except for vignette A (Directive for orderliness)High homogeneity 
of approach for vignettes A  (Directive for orderliness)& D (facilitative 
for learning)STRUCTURE for script-based procedural responsesLow uni-
structural responses Low uni-structural responses Low uni-structural 
responses Low uni-structural responses Complex or holistic relational 
responsesCONTENT for script-based procedural responsesMedium for Vignette 
(b)Medium for Vignettes (a, b, c)Medium for Vignette (b), Low to medium 
Vignette (c) Low Vignette (d)Medium to low Vignette (a) Medium to high 
Vignettes (b, d)Medium Vignette (a) High Vignette (d)Longitudinal data and 
examples of paths
What is the role of schema types in identifying development paths using 
longitudinal data?
The validation of the types in the longitudinal data will provide a basis 
for identifying the most common paths in development.  Within these 
development paths, different indicators of transition could emerge.  
Subjects are involved in trasnsitions are involved in transitions as they 
move from one schema type to another.  Further, it could be that a schema 
type is transitional in nature because of an inherent in congruity which 
calls for a resolution by movement out of that type.  Given the types and 
the transitions across types, schema change processes and significant 
influences along developmental paths can be examined.  The roles of 
significant others and the practicum warrant attention in the extension, 
consolidation and reshaping of the schema.
What are the implications of development paths for teacher education?
These Types could while retaining the complexity of aspects and levels of 
knowledge, assist it educators to facilitate the development of students.  
It could also encourage teacher educators to consider schema content, 
structure and meaning and the relationships between these.  Teacher 
education would be better placed to assess the present situation of a 
student and help in focus on areas such as where the nature or extent of 
declarative or procedural knowledge may be limiting development.  Students 
could be helped to analyse cases, both their own and other (Carter, 1992), 
to begin to reflect upon their own approach and its appropriateness to the 

particular context in which they are working.  Dialogue with students could 
also help them to think about organising the components of their knowledge 
and relating and prioritizing that knowledge in the form of a set of 
principles.
While attention can be given to these processes within formal college 
courses, the implications for practicum are very evident. Case study data 
showed that low self-efficacy can be significant.  In the case of student 
A, described previously, low self-efficacy and a strong need to be liked by 
pupils, emerged in interviews as constraining the students move a Type 2 to 
a Type 3 or 4.  Factors such as these raise questions about the roles of 
university supervisors and co-operating Teachers as significant others in 
facilitating development during practicum.
This paper argues the necessity to move from single- faceted descriptions 
of Management schema to a more comprehensive multi- faceted set of schema 
Types.  These Types are presented as a means of tracing development paths.
Content refers to the number and salience of the semes in an item response 
using categories such as organisation, relationships, deviancy and 
teaching-learning.  
Structure of a response refers to the relating of these semes to one 
another either in a simple pattern or in a more complex holistic yet 
differentiated presentation of linked ideas.
Meaning refers to the intention and the strategy being expressed and ranges 
from a focus on order to a focus on learning with directive or facilitative 
strategies being used.
Declarative knowledge consists of the personal networks of teachers' 
representations within particular domains.
Procedural knowledge consists of the sequencing of teachers' knowledge into 
forms which are used to explore and respond to different teacher 
situations.
Principle-based procedural knowledge consists of the procedural knowledge 
selected in a form appropriate to giving advice to a beginning practicum 
student.
Ordered tree tasks either required subjects to recall concepts associated 
with management or to add to a given list of management concepts.  They 
then organised their lists into the form of a tree and presented a written 
explanation of the tree.
Questionnaires consisted of items inviting subjects' expressions of their 
declarative and procedural knowledge and teachers' reports of influences on 
the development on their schemata.
Situation focussed items to elicit script-based expressions of procedural 
knowledge.
Schema Type is a construct consisting of a set of schema characteristics 
used in tracing development paths within a particular domain.
Percentage of column shown in parentheses.
     

uÿ€bstract of paper for 1992 AARE Cre intensive case study data shs in the 
management domain.  nd teacher education are presents' schemata have 
largely been.  Cross-sectional data suggestide additional insights to those 
from data ÿ@ÿ6ÿ,ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ%ÿÿ&ÿÿ4ÿÿ5ÿÿGÿÿHÿÿXÿÿYÿÿ Zÿÿ 
ÿ
ÿÞÿÿÿls with Jacqueline for orderliness while Normae change in the 
development of Jacquelineuntil her final year.  In her final year 
Normabeing directive in particular contexts, thus mands of a practicum 
supervisor.  The last form of knowledge was measured using a set of four 
vignettes.  Vignette (a) referred to problems on entering the classroom.  
Getting students back on task was the focus of (b).  Vignette (c) and (d) 
were more complex.  The former had a personal discretional problem focus 
while the latter asked how to move learners from a whole-class situation 
into small groups and get them on-task.  Schema type profiles also include 
references to self-description data which are not included in Table 
3.Schema Type 1
This group of subjects expressed a schema where the management domain was 
not separated from the instructional domain.  Their declarative knowledge 
beliefs emphasised learning as their intention but order was more important 
in giving advice to beginning student teachers (principle-based procedural 

knowledge).  In the procedural knowledge vignette where the problem was 
misbehaviour the goal became to restore order.
Their declarative knowledge expressed a directive strategy in both beliefs 
and advice, seeing themselves as the sources and controllers of classroom 
events.  In response to one vignette with a personal discretional focus, 
there was a higher incidence of a facilitative strategy.
Across all levels of knowledge their relating of ideas to each other was of 
a simple non-abstract kind and again, in ordered tree responses, the 
structure revealed an additive or low form of logic.  The semes or concept 
elements of their schema did not indicate any salience given to any 
particular category used in analysis.
Schema type 2
This group of subjects (all of whom had experienced a practicum) expressed 
a management schema which was moderately or highly separated from the 
instructional domain.  Their declarative knowledge responses reflect a 
belief in the need to be in control in situations with a focus on 
orderliness which is the main intention expressed also for the principle-
based procedural knowledge.
The strategy was generally directive but in describing themselves as 
classroom managers there was, in addition, some emerging evidence of a 
directive strategy for establishing good relations with the class.  This 
concern with order is also evident in some of the vignettes but responses 
to the same vignette, there was facilitative concern about pupil learning.
The structure of their questionnaire declarative knowledge responses showed 
a moderate level of differentiation and, both at this level and that of 
principle-based procedural knowledge, there was also moderate levels of 
integration.  The declarative knowledge, ordered tree, responses were 
highly integrated using a hierarchical kind of tree and a consequential 
logic.  However, when knowledge was evoked by specific incidents they gave 
low levels of structure with only moderate numbers of suggested action 
steps being present in three of the four vignettes.
The elements being structured showed a declarative knowledge saliency with 
little emphasis on instructional content and more emphasis on deviancy, 
organisation and relationships.  There is a high incidence of deviancy 
elements in declarative knowledge with a medium number of action steps for 
three vignettes (a, b, c).  This could suggest a concern for good behaviour 
but a lack of procedural knowledge about how to get it.
Schema Type 3
People in Type 3 indicate, in their declarative knowledge beliefs, a 
concern for pupil learning, rather than for order as in Type 2, but this is 
often being pursued with a directive strategy.  The directive strategy was 
also evident in giving advice to beginning student teachers.  There was 
some evidence of an emerging facilitative strategy when they described 
themselves as classroom managers.  The concern for learning also appeared 
in vignette (c), but when misbehaviour was the problem, the directive 
strategy for order was clearly present.
Declarative and principle-based procedural knowledge reflected medium 
levels of integration in structure in the questionnaire but a mix of low to 
medium in the ordered trees which were consequential and hierarchical in 
nature.  Structure of the scripted procedural knowledge varied from medium 
to low acorss three of the four problems.
In the elements involved in declarative and procedural knowledge there was 
low to medium incidence of deviancy.  The salience of the relationships 
category was low in declarative knowledge but was high in incidence in the 
advice.
Schema Type 4
The schema evidenced by this group reflected a concern with pupil learning 
often pursued with a directive strategy.  This approach was also the most 
frequent one expressed in general procedural knowledge and in self 
descriptions.  The complex specific problem vignette (c) evoked a 
facilitative strategy with the intention of restoring on-task or learning 
behaviour.  In response to two vignettes (b, c)  there was low homogeneity 
of approach among this type with directive and facilitative strategies 
evidencing bi-modal pattern.
The structure of the vignettes is usually low in integration while the 
number of action steps stated varied across vignettes, becoming moderate to 

high where the situations called for a restoration of on-task behaviour.  
Structure of declarative knowledge and principle-based procedural knowledge 
had differed little from Type 3 but in the ordered trees the 
differentiating of responses became high suggesting a possible increase in 
both knowledge elements being acquired.  A related change of logic was 
evident with the previously dominant consequential logic being replaced by 
a bi-modal use of additive and consequential logic.
In content saliency concern with deviancy elements moved from moderate to 
low in declarative knowledge but stayed high in advice responses.  Concern 
with relationships elements stayed low in declarative knowledge but also 
moved down to low level in principle-based procedural knowledge responses.
Schema Type 5
nsition could emerge.  Subjectsature because of an inherent in levels of 
knowledge, assist icant.  In the case of Jacqueline necessity to move from 
single- to a more comprehensive multi-
,showed medium to low levels of integration.   I, 
however,wasÿ 
ÿ@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿbacquired knowledge elementshange of logic was evident with  Thad 
an focus.wasow in declarative knowledge butConcern with instruction, 
organisation and relationships categories was medium to high in declarative 
knowledge and pre-active planning was particularly salient.
The management schema of this group of subjects reflected an integration of 
management domain with instructional domain schemata.  Their beliefs 
usually expressed a nurturant strategy for a social environment conducive 
to learning.  All major content categories were salient in both declarative 
and principle-based procedural knowledge responses with a medium to high 
extent for relationships, organisation and instructional.  There were also 
high incidence rankings for deviancy and relationships.
The higher order management approach expressed in belief statements was 
also reflected in their self-descriptions (facilitative strategy for 
learning).  There was a sense of the needs of student teachers, however, in 
their focussing on a directive strategy for learning in their advice 
responses.  The responsiveness to people and contexts was also evident in 
the complex or holistic relational structured responses to order and 
person-discretional focussed vignettes.  The responses to the order-
focussed vignette (a) with their use of a directive strategy for order, 
often within a higher level structure, showed an ability to respond to both 
the immediacy of the situation and the needs of particular people or 
contextual factors.
The structure of their declarative knowledge responses showed medium 
differentiation and high integration.  The high level of integration was 
especially evident in the holistic relational structure of  belief 
responses.  Their flexibility was seen again in their movement to a lower 
level of structure in their advice responses for student teachers.
This complex, differentiated yet integrated schema was characterised by a 
large number of profile characteristics with the majority of these 
reflecting a high level of homogeneity.  The schema was also associated 
with a medium to high level of teacher efficacy concerned with difficult 
students and a low level of individual teaching efficacy concerned with 
pupil learning outcomes.  The schema reflected an integrated entity both 
within the management domain and in its relation to the instructional 
domain.

Bibliography
Carter, K. (1992).  Creating cases for the development of teacher 
knowledge.  In T. Russell & H. Munby (Ed., Teachers and teaching: From 
classroom to reflectionutlineÿÿ' CapArcherÿÿ 
ÿ@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ` (pp. 109-123) London: The Falmer Press.
Tryon, R.C. & Bailey, D.E. (1970).  Cluster analysis.  New York: McGraw 
Hill.


Table 3Management 
schema for type groups: declarative (DK) and procedural knowledge (PK)
DIMENSIONMEANING Schema approach(Declarative knowledge)STRUCTUREIntra-
domain structure(Declarative & Principle-based procedural 

knowledge)CONTENTSalience of Declarative knowledge contentEXTRA-DOMAIN 
STRUCTURE (Instructional and Management domains)MEANING for script-based 
procedural responsesSTRUCTURE for script-based procedural responsesCONTENT 
(action steps) for script-based procedural responsesTYPE 1(n=34)Directive 
strategy for learning Lower form of tree logic ,and lower levels of 
integration in belief and advice responsesNo clear pattern of salience 
across content categoriesMinimal, if any, separation from instructional 
schemaLow  homogeneity of approach except for vignette (a) (Directive for 
orderliness)Low uni-structural responses Medium for Vignette (b)TYPE 
2(n=19)Directive strategy for orderMedium differentiation and high levels 
of integration  in trees, and medium levels of integration  in belief and 
advice responsesSalience patterns included deviancy; medium to high for 
organisation and relationships; low to medium instructional Separation from 
instructional schema with a directive strategy and often an orderliness 
intention focusLow  homogeneity of approach except for vignette (a) 
(Directive for orderliness)Low uni-structural responses Medium for 
Vignettes (a, b, c)TYPE 3(n=12)Directive strategy for learningLow to medium 
levels of integration in trees, and high forms of integration in belief and 
advice responsesSalience patterns including high or medium instructional; 
low relationships.Separation within a learning intention focusLow  
homogeneity of approach except for vignette (a) (Directive for 
orderliness)Low uni-structural responses Medium for Vignette (b), Low to 
medium Vignette (c) Low Vignette (d)DIMENSIONMEANING Schema 
approach(Declarative knowledge)STRUCTUREIntra-domain structure(Declarative 
& Principle-based procedural knowledge)CONTENTSalience of Declarative 
knowledge contentEXTRA-DOMAIN STRUCTURE (Instructional and Management 
domains)MEANING for script-based procedural responsesSTRUCTURE for script-
based procedural responsesCONTENT (action steps) for script-based 
procedural responsesTYPE 4(n=7)Directive strategy for learningHigh levels 
of differentiation in trees, medium levels of integration in belief 
responses and low levels of integration in advice responses.Salience 
patterns  including pre-active planning; high or medium 
instructional;medium to high organisation; low relationshipsSeparation 
within a learning intention focusLow  homogeneity of approach except for 
vignette (a) (Directive for orderliness)Low uni-structural responses Medium  
to low Vignette (a) Medium to high Vignettes (b, d)TYPE 5(n=7)Nurturant 
strategy for social environment conducive to learning Medium 
differentiation and high integration in trees, and high  integration  in 
belief responses and medium integration in advice responses.Salience 
patterns  including deviancy, preactive planning and medium to high on 
relati       onships, organisation, instructional, Separated from but 
integrated with instructional schema.High homogeneity of approach for 
vignettes (a)  (Directive for orderliness)& (d) (facilitative for 
learning)Complex or holistic relational responsesMedium Vignette (a) High 
Vignette (d)



TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT DOMAIN: AN 
EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS' DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PATHS


Jude Butcher
Australian Catholic University, New South Wales Division



Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education 
National Conference Deakin University, Geelong November 23, 1991