REFLECTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHING SKILLSÄ
G. Evans, P. Galbraith and M. Goos
University of Queensland

FOREWORDÄ

This symposium is concerned with changes in the theoretical 
orientation, knowledge about teaching and learning and the 
practical performance of student teachers.  It is also concerned 
with the relationships between these three aspects of 
professional learning.  The main study to be reported contrasted 
three groups of student teachers undertaking the one year end©on 
Diploma in Education course at the University of Queensland.  For 
the first group, changes were examined in their beliefs and 
knowledge, sources of knowledge about teaching, and their own 
approach to learning over an eight month period.  For the second 
group, additional data were obtained by interviews and 
observations associated with two lessons taught by each student 
early and late in their total teaching practice experience. For 
the third group, yet additional data were obtained from three 
intervening lessons, following each of which the student teachers 
also participated in more detailed reflection on their teaching.  
At the end of the year, additional information was also available 
on the practice teaching performance of the students.  This 
design repeated in both 1992 and 1993 allowed a number of 
comparisons over time as well as between the three groups.  Many 
of the results are qualitative in nature, but a number of 
quantitative comparisons may also be made.

The first paper in the symposium (Evans) sets the study in a 
theoretical and strategic context, outlines the major research 
questions, and shows how the instruments, interviews, and 
observations were designed.  The second paper (Galbraith) reports 
the quantitative aspects of the study.  The third paper (Goos) 
reports on the interviews, observations, and reflection sessions 
associated with the lessons mentioned above.  Conclusions will be 
drawn through discussion at the presentation of the symposium.

Because the three papers are interdependent, the numbering of 
pages, figures and tables continues sequentially from one paper 
to the next.  All references and appendices have been placed at 
the end of the final paper.

THEORETICAL AND METHDOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO
RESEARCH ON LEARNING TO TEACHÄ

Glen Evans
The University of Queensland

The development of teaching skills has been examined from a 
variety of perspectives, including:  features of programs and 
contexts of teacher education (Gunstone, Slattery and Baird, 
1989; Zeichner, 1990); socialisation theory; and novice expert 
differences (e.g. Borko and Livingstone, 1989; Fenstermacher, 
1986). The approach used in the study reported here is to the 
development of teaching skills from the vantage point of 
cumulative skill development and changing relationships between 
cognitions about teaching and action in practice (FeimanªNemser 
and Buchmann, 1986, 1987; Kagan, 1990, 1991).  There has, 
however, been considerable recent interest in teachers' knowledge 
base and their reasoning for pedagogical actions, following 
Shulman's (1987) call for reform in the way these are conceived 
in teacher education (e.g. McNamara, 1991; Feiman©Nemser and 
Parker, 1990).

Relationships between cognitions and practice have been an 

important focus in the use of reflectionÄÄ as a way of learning 
(e.g. Zeichner, 1993), but few studies of reflective teaching 
plot in detail the joint progression of knowledge and skills.  
Further, such approaches often do not use a theory of change 
other than a reliance on the benefits of reflection (e.g. 
Richardson, 1990).

In the present project, we have developed a theoretical model of 
change.  This model has served the purpose of suggesting both the 
measures and observations to be used in studying change and a way 
of promoting reflection.  There are inherent difficulties in 
theorising about teacher change.  In many studies of development 
from expert to novice, an attempt has been made to identify 
common characteristics of experts (e.g. Evans and Butler, 1992, 
in press, concerning developing proficiency in trade©skills; 
Gott, 1988, learning skills in electronics and computer 
programming; Patel and Groen, 1991, acquisition of clinical 
resourcingÔ£+p-p-p-°°Ôskills in medicine).  In each of these 
cases, some characterisation of "expertise" was possible.  In the 
case of teaching, characterising "expertise" is more difficult. 
Hence, as Richardson (1990) notes, the literature on teacher 
changeÄÄ tends to be focussed on how to promote change of a 
particular kind, often serving the goals of an education system, 
while the literature on teacher ÃÃlearningÄÄ focusses on personal
biography, without putting a value on the nature of the change in 
teacher beliefs, knowledge, and behaviours.  Further the process 
of teacher learning has not been very precisely modelled.  In the 
studies reported here, a model of teacher action and learning is 
proposed.  In addition, the ÃÃdirectionÄÄ of change in teachers' 
beliefs and skills is also taken into account.  One of the main 
dimensions considered is the extent to which the teacher takes 
into account the students' knowledge construction and the ways in 
which students' control over their own learning is fostered.

The components of such a model include:  (1) the conceptual 
knowledge, memories of episodes, and beliefs about teaching and 
learning that the developing teacher has at any given time (e.g. 
Hollingsworth, 1989, Nespor, 1987; Shulman, 1987); (2) knowledge 
and beliefs concerned with the particular students, how best to 
relate to those students, and perceived immediate contextual 
constraints and affordances, for example, time available or 
requirements of a supervising teacher; (3) perceptions of the 
particular teaching and learning tasks; (4) knowledge of content 
and skills to be taught and pedagogical treatment of this content 
with this group of students (e.g. Shulman, 1987); (5) presently 
available skills or procedures for organisation, communication, 
explanation, and managing well defined classroom episodes (e.g. 
Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986), particularly as they relate to this 
group of students; (6) ways of dealing with problems as they 
arise, for example dealing with unexpected resistance or lack of 
understanding on the part of students; (7) forming and revising 
goals and plans; (8) utilising the foregoing as "knowledge in 
action" (Evans, 1992; SchÀ?Àn, 1982) in actually performing the 
actions associated with teaching; (9) regulating these actions by 
using feedback available as the action is performed, e.g. 
responses of the students (e.g. Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, 
and Berliner, 1988); (10) deliberately modifying the plan or the 
task during actual teaching so as to take into account feedback 
from the students and progressive teaching and learning outcomes; 
(11) reflecting on students' responses and learning so as to 
change future tasks and to change knowledge, beliefs, and 
procedures (e.g. Munby and Russell, 1989); (12) incidental and 
possibly unconscious learning associated with each teaching 
episode, for example, changes in routine communication skills, so 
that skills are gradually proceduralised (e.g. Anderson, 1982).  
These components may apply to each phase of teaching, in 

particular to pre©interactive preparation and to actual 
interaction with students.

Incorporating such a large number of components into a model for 
research has obvious difficulties in terms of measurement and 
research design, particularly when each component is itself 
relatively complex.  However, there are good reasons for 
retaining the complexity.  If the model is to be used as a means 
of guiding the use of reflection as a way of helping student 
teachers improve their teaching, retaining the complexity of the 
process may allow a better understanding of where reflection may 
be profitably used.  Further, student teachers are encouraged to 
approach preparation for teaching with considerable deliberation 
and effort, much more explicitly than may be the case with 
experienced teachers (e.g. Borko and Livingstone, 1989).  It 
therefore seems useful to develop a model of the teaching process 
that includes both the pre©interactive preparation and the 
interactive actions of the classroom.

A MODEL OF TEACHING ACTIONSÄ

The model presented in Figure 1 takes into account the components 
listed above by grouping and ordering them into a possible 
information processing framework.  There is necessarily 
considerable uncertainty about how teaching actions are 
determined.  For example, in any given case, even using methods 
of stimulated recall, it remains difficult to tell whether an 
individual teachers' actions were deliberately performed as a 
consequence of a conscious policy, theory, or decision, or 
whether they were an automatic or proceduralised response to a 
situation (e.g. Borko and Livingstone, 1989; Leinhardt and 
Greeno, 1986).  How teachers alter their current tendencies to 
particular approaches is also problematic.  Are changes

Figure 1 to be supplied as separate file (WP Presentations)Ä

the result of deliberate planning, of gradually translating 
declarative knowledge into procedures (e.g. Anderson, 1990), or 
consequences of changes in conditions that they themselves may 
have initiated?  In spite of such doubts, it seems useful to 
develop a heuristic model which allows for various possibilities 
to be probed, and which provides a framework for understanding 
teachers' responses.

The model of Figure 1 relates three more or less observable 
aspects of teaching: 
the teaching contextÄÄ (B), including the particular students, 
the teaching and learning task, and conditions such as syllabus 
requirements, assessment procedures, time available, resource 
materials, and space; teaching actionsÄÄ (G), that is, what the
teacher actually does in terms of structuring activities, 
modulating control of activities, academic organisation, 
providing resources, utilising student knowledge, catering for 
individual differences, self presentation, and rapport with 
students; and outcomesÄÄ of teaching (J), both as the class 
proceeds and at its conclusion.  The outcomes generally refer to 
those for the student, but there may also be outcomes seen as 
significant for the teacher's own learning.  These observable 
aspects of teaching are shaded in Figure 1.

Some traditions of studying teacher development concentrate on 
these observable aspects of teaching (B, G and J in Figure 1), as 
for example training and assessing teachers through some 
competency based teacher education programs (Broudy, 1975), and 
classroom interaction approaches (e.g. Dunkin and Biddle, 1974). 
Important questions are how the teacher's actions are changed by 

contextual aspects, as mentioned above (Little, 1987), and how 
student outcomes are influenced by teacher actions.

Most approaches to research on teacher development, however, now 
include elements that are not directly observable, including 
teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and propositional knowledge (C) 
about the students, the content, learning processes, teaching 
procedures, and the context itself (Tobin, 1987; Hollingsworth, 
1989; Ernest, 1989; Kagan and Tippins, 1991; Clandinin and 
Connelly, 1987; Calderhead, 1989).  An important aspect of 
teachers' beliefs or knowledge is their overall view of teaching, 
or modelÄÄ of teaching in a  particular context (e.g. Weil and 
Joyce, 1978), and their knowledge and skill in using methods 
appropriate to their personal approaches.  In Figure 1, we have 
assumed that a particular teaching context will activate 
knowledge and beliefs, models of teaching, and methods 
appropriate to the context (D).  This activated knowledge may be 
more or less specific (e.g. Borko and Livingstone, 1989).  It is 
also uncertain, as pointed out earlier, whether such knowledge 
acts as an explicit source of action or whether it is used to 
continually evaluate actions or designs for action once they are 
performed or constructed.  There is no available methodology for 
deciding this point (e.g. Yinger, 1986).

It is further assumed, in Figure 1, that the complex of teaching 
context and task, and activated beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, 
models of teaching, and methods are in some way engaged in 
preparing for a particular class, that is, in developing 
intentions or goals and plans, although evidence about the 
relationship seems sparse (Clark and Peterson, 1986).  There is 
evidence that, with experienced teachers, much of this 
preparation is implicit, (e.g. Borko and Livingstone, 1989), 
perhaps taking a form like that of ÃÃmacrostructuresÄÄ in text 
production (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983) rather than detailed 
microstructuresÄÄ.  The actual conclusion of planning, according 
to Borko and Livingstone's case studies, is, with experts, more 
likely to take place in the classroom, where it is matched more 
closely to the opportunities presented by students' responses and 
other classroom events.  Certainly much planning by experienced 
teachers appears not to be put on paper (McCutcheon, 1980).  With 
novice teachers, the planning appears to be, at least initially, 
more explicit, detailed, and, perhaps, inflexible.  In Figure 1, 
any explicit use of beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, or methods in 
planning is taken as an example of reflection beforeÄÄ (RB) the 
lesson.  It is likely that planning would be an iterative 
procedure.  To the extent that they are explicit, plans, once 
produced, might be subject to critical assessment in the light of 
beliefs, knowledge, or attitudes (RB1) or of models and methods 
(RB2).  If such reflection occurs, it would be useful to probe 
its content in order to understand the teacher's planning.  It 
would be expected that the focus of planning would shift with 
experience.  Expert teachers appear to develop routines or 
schemata for regular aspects of classroom teaching -
including activities, instruction, and management  (Leinhardt and 
Greeno, 1986; Yinger, 1986).  With experienced teachers, some 
planning may consist in the deployment of routines; with novice 
teachers, the details of the routines might themselves be the 
subject of planning.  The extent to which teachers plan in terms 
of content exposition or actual student and teacher activities 
and student outcomes might also vary with experience (Neale, 
Pace, and Case, 1983).

Planning by teachers could be expected to operate in two ways.  
First, in actual classroom interaction, it might activate 
"knowledge in action" (F) of appropriate routines, conditions, 
and concepts, which could in turn activate actions (G), or it 

could directly activate actions.  The first, indirect, route 
might be expected to be more deliberative, with the teacher 
making a conscious choice of methods before implementing them 
(RB3).  The second, direct route would give rise to more 
apparently spontaneous actions.  In either case, it seems useful 
to probe the relationship between planning and actions in 
attempting to understand and promote the development of teaching 
skills.

Initial planning for a class may be in a form that leaves details 
open, or it may undergo revision during the progress of the 
class.  Clark and Peterson (1986) suggest that "once interactive 
teaching begins, the teacher's plan moves to the background and 
interactive decision making becomes more important (p.267)".

"Knowledge in action" (F), as conceived in Figure 1, has several 
components:  (1) propositional knowledge about the content, 
learning processes, teaching methods, and the like, and the 
particular students and particular context (C and D); (2) routine 
skills, procedures, or schemata (H) (e.g. Evans, 1992; Leinhardt 
and Greeno, 1986), which incorporate both conceptual knowledge, 
automatic procedures, and the competence to deploy these 
procedures according to conceptual knowledge and the specific 
context; (3) problem solving, represented here as reflection 
inÄÄ action (RI).  "ÄÄReflectionÄÄ" here refers to a type 
of problem solving "on the run", often described as "decision 
making" (e.g. Clark and Peterson, 1986), involving a deliberate 
choice of action in particular, not totally foreseen, situations.  
What appears to distinguish experts from novices in teaching, and 
in many other fields, is that the former are more prepared for 
particular classes of events and have responses available when 
they occur (e.g. Borko and Livingstone, 1989).

In Figure 1, teaching actions (G) are taken to be activated by 
intentions in the form of goals and plans and by knowledge in 
action of how to carry out these intentions.  Teaching actions 
are in part determined by the teaching context.  Teaching actions
themselves form part of the cumulative context of teaching.  For 
example, the seating in the classroom or availability of 
resources could be considered as the consequences of the 
teacher's actions and also the context of further actions.  
Teaching actions are also in part determined by the teacher's 
skills, which shape the efficiency and impact of the action.

Teaching actions give rise to progressive outcomes for the 
students, which cumulate to or contribute to the student outcomes 
for the lesson.  Box J refers to both the progressive outcomes 
(e.g. students' interest in particular activities) and end 
outcomes of the lesson, e.g. students' knowledge as assessed by 
questions.  Indicators of these outcomes (I) may be observed by 
the teacher (e.g. signs of boredom or fatigue) who may also use 
probes (e.g. questions, text, tasks) to elicit further indicators 
(e.g. answers to diagnostic questions).  Such indicators may in 
turn prompt reflection in action on goals and plans (RI1) or on 
components of knowledge in action, e.g. methods being used.  Not 
all outcomes and indicators directly involve present student 
behaviour (e.g. Clark and Peterson, 1986).  For example the 
teacher may observe the time left to complete planned activities.
Reacting to classroom events as indicatorsÄÄ of student learning 
(I) thus helps to guide lessons.  However, not all student 
responses and other indicators of the progress of lesson 
activities give rise to deliberative problem solving or decision
making (RI1, RI2).  Rather, these indicators may help, through, 
perhaps unconscious, monitoring and adjustments, to regulate the 
teacher's actions, and to fine tune the routine procedures used.  
Expertise probably consists, in part, in being sensitive to such 

(fallible) indicators as students' answers to questions, facial 
expressions, eye movements, apparent time on task, and displayed 
interest.  It also involves creating opportunities to obtain such 
feedback, which could be considered as task feedback.  Task 
feedback, i.e. indicators, is observable in classrooms.  Its role 
in the regulation of teacher actions does not seem to have been 
well researched (see, however, Carter et al., 1988).

The second source of feedback comes from the cumulative outcomes 
of the lesson, for example through assessment of students' 
learning, or, perhaps frequently in the case of student teachers, 
assessment of one's own performance (Borko and Livingstone, 
1989).  Another type of outcome comprises evaluative comments 
from a supervising teacher or university supervisor.  These 
various outcomes may be a source of further reflection on the 
part of the teacher, after the lesson, and may change conceptions 
of appropriate goals and plans for lessons of this kind in this 
context (RA1) and general beliefs and knowledge about learners, 
the content, learning, teaching and the teaching context (RA2).  
They may also prompt learning and reflection about teaching 
methods (RA3) and routine procedures and knowledge in action 
(RA4).  Part of this knowledge in action is the teacher's 
sensitivity and response to task feedback, as described above.

Reflection by teachers thus comprises a complex set of 
activities, before, during, and after lessons, and a complex set 
of targets, all of which contribute to the ways in which the 
lesson develops.

While the relationships in Figure 1 appear complex, the model as 
a whole is necessarily a simplification.  It does not show, for 
example, the progression of partial outcomes which occur during 
the lesson.  Nor does it portray explicitly the gradual 
proceduralisation (Anderson, 1982) of skills involved in 
implementing knowledge in action.  It does not address the role 
of a supervisor or a mentor in promoting and supporting 
reflection after a lesson (RA).  This is considered more fully 
below. The model is intended to help to tie together some of the 
relationships identified in research on teacher thinking and 
teacher learning.  It also serves to locate various research 
traditions in a framework of teacher learning focussed on what is 
gained from the experience of teaching individual lessons.  In 
particular, it relates aspects of the literature on reflective 
teaching (e.g. Liston and Zeichner, 1990; FeimanªNemser and 
Buchmann, 1987) with that of teacher beliefs and cognition (e.g. 
Hollingsworth, 1989; Kagan, 1990; Weinstein, 1990), sources of 
knowledge (e.g. Evans, 1992), and the notion of "knowledge in 
action" (SchÀ?Àn, 1982, Evans, 1992).  It also involves the 
notion of proceduralisation of knowledge which starts as 
conceptual knowledge, instructions, or lists of procedures (e.g. 
Anderson, 1990).  In particular it involves the ways in which 
teachers use both task feedback and feedback from others in 
learning to teach.

Feedback and Reflection in Learning to TeachÄ

In teaching, many indications of how the lesson is progressing 
are continually available to the teacher who has the opportunity 
to adjust performance continually.  Teaching, because it involves 
relatively lengthy continuous operations, may be regarded as an 
open skill in which feedback about the state of the environment 
has to be continually monitored and acted upon.  In considering 
sources of feedback, it is therefore necessary to include these 
available indicators of the present and cumulative state of the 
students' learning.


One way of dealing with the learning of these indicators is to 
use Gibson's (1966) notion of attunement as the education of 
attention.  Flach, Lintern and Larish (1990) argue that in 
perceptional motor learning the goal of training should be to 
help the learner become attuned to all relevant information in 
the task events and not to attend to irrelevant information.  
Attunement to irrelevant information and non©attunement to 
relevant information both levy costs on performance.  The same 
argument applies to intellectual and social skills.  Flach et al 
(1990) argue that one way to achieve this goal is to conceive 
training as "guided exploration with the object of aiding the 
learner to discover the relevant event structures" (p330).  
Training programs should be based on a hierarchical framework of 
relevant event information (cf. Gott, 1988), and efforts at each 
stage of training focussed on the most relevant information.  
Exploration should constitute the main training method with 
mistakes by the learner being valued as an important source of 
learning.  Where there is no single pathway to successful 
outcomes, as in teaching, what is relevant event information 
depends on the goals and methods used.  Learning to perceive and 
use appropriate indicators must necessarily also depend on the 
teacher reflecting on goals and methods as well as the 
indicators.

Feedback as an Interpersonal ProcessÄ

Feedback after a lesson occurs within a context of interpersonal 
relationships.  The particular aspect of concern in the present 
study is how deeply feedback information is processed.  How does 
the learner relate feedback information from perceived lesson 
outcomes or from supervisors to existing knowledge, past 
performance, and goals for future performance?  Clues to the 
answer to this question come from a variety of studies, including 
those on school learning, professional development, and 
organisational behaviour.

A recent review of instructional feedback in test©like situations 
(Bangert©Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and Morgan, 1991), while dealing 
with learning in different tasks from those considered here, 
provides some useful possibilities.  Trends noted in this review 
include the following:  (1) Informative feedback in general has a 
greater effect than simply providing ratings; (2) Feedback has 
less effect if the person is already confident of his or her 
ability in the task; (3) The effect of feedback is greatest on 
those learners who perceive themselves to have been unsuccessful 
in the task.  In general, feedback, according to this review, has 
more effect if the conditions encourage mindful reception and 
active processing.  Conditions which make for mindful reception 
include the initial state of the learner and the perceived need 
for information, but they may also include environmental press, 
such as encouragement by the mentor to interpret information on 
the just completed performance and to develop goals for future 
performance.

A useful model of the consequences of feedback on behaviour was 
proposed by Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979), who conceptualised 
feedback in organisational settings in terms of variation in the 
source, the message and the recipient.  They did so by proposing 
a process model entailing a path from the source of feedback to 
perception, degree of acceptance, desire to respond, forming 
goals for response, and finally responding.  Each of these phases 
may be considered in terms of characteristics of the source, 
message, and the recipient.  Additionally, external constraints 
and person characteristics may modify the translation of goals 
into the response action.


The review by Ilgen et al (1979) suggests that perception and 
acceptance of feedback are strongly dependent on the above three 
characteristics.  The source of feedback having the highest 
effect is the recipient's own perceptions, feelings, and ideas 
(self), followed by feedback from the task itself, and then 
supervisor, coªworkers, and formal performance appraisal by the 
organisation.  Later work by De Gregorio and Fisher (1988) also 
showed the importance of the involvement of the person in the 
feedback process.  Positive feedback is perceived more readily 
that negative, and, up to a point, more frequent feedback is more 
readily noticed than less frequent.  There is also a number of 
person characteristics which influence the perception of 
feedback.  Ashford and Cummings (1983) portrayed feedback as an 
individual resource and suggested that feedback seeking behaviour 
is a personal characteristic which is dependent both on goals and 
context features.  Feedback can serve to help in the correction 
of errors, to reduce uncertainty, to signal the importance of 
goals, to help the person establish a sense of competence.  
Seeking feedback and help can also have costs for some learners, 
depending on the way in which they perceive their current ability 
(Dweck and Elliott, 1983) and the type of goals being pursued 
(Ames, 1983).  According to Dweck and Elliott (1983), learners 
who conceive of their ability as a global stable quality may be 
more threatened by seeking help than those who think that their 
ability may be continuously extended.  Ames (1983)  extended this 
argument.  When the goal is performance, help seeking may draw 
attention to one's lack of ability.  When the goal is learning, 
help seeking may be seen as a resource which increases 
competence.  Where feedback is available, it can be presented as 
a form of performance judgement or as a resource for learning.  
Since learning and performance goals are both present in the 
learning of teaching skills, the way in which they are balanced 
is likely to influence the way in which feedback is perceived.  
Another person related factor that is not frequently considered 
is the recipient's ability to perceive the feedback or to 
understand it.  This is particularly true, as suggested above, 
with feedback from the task itself.

Given that the person perceives feedback in the first place, the 
extent to which he or she accepts it appears to depend on the 
credibility and trustworthiness of the source (Ashford and 
Cummings, 1983; Ilgen et al, 1979) and whether feedback comes 
from more than one source for example, from both supervisor and 
self (De Gregori and Fisher, 1988).  Feedback is more likely to 
be accepted, also, if its content is positive rather than 
negative, if it is consistent (Ilgen et al, 1979), and if it is 
based on clearly accurate data, e.g. a job sample (Brinko, 1990) 
or students' responses in a lesson.  Acceptance also depends on 
the recipient.  It seems likely that where the person has had the 
opportunity to participate in formulating the feedback, it will 
be more readily accepted.

Desire to respond to feedback does not necessarily follow from 
acceptance of its accuracy or appropriateness.  It also depends 
on the extent to which feedback offers a source of reinforcement 
or incentive (Ilgen et al, 1979).  However, also of importance is 
the recipient's control beliefs, particularly whether he or she 
expects increased effort or change in approach to improve 
performance, and whether the person feels that there is a choice 
in undertaking the proposed actions, i.e. personal control (Deci, 
1975).  The sense of personal control is likely to be increased 
if feedback is generally positive, or if negative feedback is set 
between positive instances (Podsakoff and Farh, 1989; Davies and 
Jacobs, 1985; Brinko, 1990).  Finally, feedback has an important 
function in the formation of goals, in part through the 
development of the person's control beliefs (e.g. Bandura, 1988), 

and in shaping goals for future action. Ilgen et al (1979) argue 
that feedback content can be either specific or general, and that 
the goals formed can either be specific or general.  Specific 
goals tend to be more effective in guiding performance than 
general ones (Locke, 1967; Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham, 1981), 
and specific feedback tended to be more understood and preferred 
in studies in a variety of fields than general feedback (Linden 
and Mitchell, 1985; Murray, 1987).  It could therefore be 
predicted that the ideal combination of feedback and goals would 
be when each is specific (Ilgen et al, 1979).

Further, the presence of a well defined goal may increase the 
amount of feedback seeking behaviour (Morrison and Weldon, 1990).  
There thus seems to be an argument for supervisors helping 
student teachers to define specific goals as a result of feedback 
sessions and in directing future feedback sessions at these goals 
and gradually incrementing and shaping them.  Such a process also 
fits in with Gott's (1989) argument for a stepped succession of 
procedural goals and accompanying propositional knowledge, and 
with approaches to clinical supervision of teaching (Gitlin and 
Smyth, 1989).

CONCLUSIONS FOR STUDYING LEARNING TO TEACHÄ

A number of important points emerge from viewing learning to 
teach as above.  

The first point concerns the direction of development in learning 
to teach.  One way of conceiving development is as a progression 
from novice to expert.  One difficulty in studying the 
development of expertise in teaching is that of distinguishing 
between competing conceptions of good teaching, e.g. transmissive 
approaches vs constructivist approaches (e.g. Von Glaserfeld, 
1989).  For this reason, attention to the belief systems of 
teachers seems important in tracing development.  The skilfulness 
of teachers can be judged in part by their ability to implement 
their beliefs.

The second point refers to the teacher as a learner.  Figure 1 
characterises the teacher as learning from experience and from 
other sources of knowledge.  It is essentially a constructivist 
model, in which received knowledge is modified and perhaps 
rejected by the teacher as learner.  This process may not sit 
easily with some student teachers, who may seek more definitive 
statements of best teaching practice (e.g. Korthagen, 1988).  An 
independent measure of teachers' own approaches to learning in 
general may provide useful information on how they approach 
learning to teach.

The third point concerns how sources of knowledge may be 
integrated with experience.  While, according to the model, 
utilising these sources is an iterative and possibly slow 
process, it may still be useful to understand what these sources
are.

The fourth point concerns the mechanism of learning from 
experience.  The model posits three levels of using experience.  
The regulatory level serves to tune actions so that they are kept 
"on track".  The learning process involved here is that of 
learning not only the correlations between conditions, actions, 
and outcomes, but also those between these and "indicators" of 
progress towards goals in a particular lesson, whether favourable 
or unfavourable.  In the field of motor learning, Schmidt (1979) 
has referred to the action schemata that result from the former 
as "recall" schemata, and that from the second as "recognition" 
schemata.  The idea of recognition schemata in teaching, i.e. 

learning to use task feedback in the form of classroom cues to 
judge the effect of teaching actions, does not seem to be well 
researched; nor does the deliberate seeking of feedback.  Nor 
have methods that might be used to gauge teachers descriptions of 
classroom events.  Research needs to assess the teacher's ability 
to observe classroom events as well as provide opportunities for 
reflection on them.

The fifth point concerns the promotion of reflection after the 
teaching event.  There is a large volume of literature on such 
reflective teaching.  The focus in the present studies is on how 
the teacher©learner reflects on teaching actions in relation 
to intentions, beliefs and knowledge, the teaching context, 
overall models and methods of teaching, and his or her developing 
skills. 

The sixth point concerns the question of assessing skilfulness in 
teaching.  Poor teaching that results in students' not attending 
to tasks can probably be readily recognised, but there are many 
possible variants of "good" teaching, in which the quality of 
teaching is reflected in desirable student outcomes.  There are 
unfortunately further difficulties in deciding what are desirable 
outcomes (e.g. Schoenfeld, 1988) and in attributing the outcomes 
to the teaching process rather than students' prior knowledge and 
attitudes.

AIMS OF THE RESEARCHÄ

The aims of the present research are best understood in the 
context of the heuristic model prepared earlier.  The studies 
have sought information on sources of knowledge, beliefs, 
knowledge and attitudes, processes of planning, teaching actions, 
and outcomes of teaching.  In order to do so, three levels of 
information were sought:  (a) changes in beliefs and knowledge, 
sources of knowledge, ability to observe classroom events, 
assessments of teaching skill on completion of the program, and 
academic performance; (b) changes in perceptions and approaches 
to teaching individual lessons at the beginning and end of 
practice teaching experience, including goals, methods, lesson 
outcomes, future goals, knowledge of methods and beliefs 
associated with the lesson, and knowledge of influences and use 
of experience from previous lessons; (c) the effects on 
approaches to teaching of specific interventions aimed at 
prompting reflection on one's own teaching, including 
expectations and teaching actions and use of task feedback or 
indicators, and opportunities for creating feedback from 
students.

The specific research aims within this context were:

1. to study changes in the knowledge and beliefs and ability to 
perceive and process classroom events, as well as approaches to 
learning, sources ofÔC*p-¿+¿+aaÔknowledge, and assessments of 
teaching skill of student teachers in a oneªyear postgraduate 
pre©service teacher education program (pre and postªcourse 
variables) (A, C, J in Figure 1);

2. to use interview methods to study changes in the student 
teachers in their approaches to planning and teaching individual 
lessons at the beginning and end of the practice teaching 
experience (B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, RI1, RI2 in Figure 1);

3. to examine the effects of the interviews in (2) above on the 
pre and postªcourse variables.  (It is possible that intensive 
interviews about planning and teaching might themselves 
constitute an important intervention);


4. to study the effects of a clinical intervention involving 
action learning concerned with teaching approaches and task 
feedback on (a) approaches to planning and teaching as described 
in (2) above; (b) the pre and postªcourse variables (RA1, RA2, 
RA3, RA4 in Figure 1).

METHOD

SubjectsÄ
The sample was drawn from students in the one©year Diploma in 
Education program at The University of Queensland.  Approximately 
equal numbers of students were selected from three curriculum 
study areas:  mathematics, science, and social 
science/humanities.  Written invitations to participate in the 
study were issued to 61 students, of whom 34 volunteered to take 
part.

The students were allocated to one of three treatment groups:

Control E: pre and post tests only.

Experimental A: pre and post tests, plus lessons observations, and 
one Special Reflection Session 

Experimental D: pre and post tests, lesson observations, two 
Special Reflection Sessions, plus Reflective Interventions

Allocation to treatment groups was determined by two criteria.  
First, equal curriculum study area proportions were preserved.  
Second, note was taken of the students' placement in practice 
teaching schools.  The demands imposed on time and resources by 
data collection procedures associated with the experimental 
groups (see below for details of these procedures) made it 
necessary to choose these students so as to limit to six the 
number of schools to be visited during practice teaching 
sessions.

During the year, three subjects left the Diploma course and a 
further four failed to complete all pre and post tasks and 
questionnaires.  Full data sets are therefore available for 27 
subjects.  The final sample composition, by curriculum study area
and treatment group, is shown in Table 1.

Table 1:  Final Sample CompositionÄ
Curriculum Study AreaÄ

The design of the first year of the study is shown in Table 2.

Table 2:  1992 Data Collection PlanÄ

A = INTERVIEW GROUP, D = INTERVENTION GROUP, E = CONTROL GROUPÄ
DATA COLLECTION
INSTRUMENT
PRE FIRST PRACTICE
TEACHING BLOCK SECOND PRACTICE
TEACHING BLOCK
POST

Note Supervising Teachers of Groups A and D also completed the 
Priorities in Teaching Questionnaire during weeks 2 and3.
An alternative "learning strategies questionnaire" was used as a 
pre©test.

Pre and Post Tasks and QuestionnairesÄ


Procedures
The main pre©test session, lasting about three hours, was 
conducted one week before the first block of practice teaching 
commenced.  The student teachers were presented with three 
tasks/questionnaires:  Learning Strategies Task, Lesson 
Observation Task (both of which were completed during this 
session), and Priorities in Teaching Questionnaire.  Because of 
its length and complexity, the latter questionnaire was completed 
by subjects in their own time during the week following the 
pre©test session.  An additional pre©test, the Sources of 
Knowledge about Teaching Questionnaire, refers specifically to 
students' experiences in learning to teach, and was therefore 
administered immediately after the first block of teaching 
practice.

A similar post©test session was held two weeks after the end of 
the second block of teaching practice.  All tasks and 
questionnaires were identical to those used in the pre©tests; 
except for the Learning Strategies Task, which was replaced by 
the commercially available Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 
1987).  This change of tasks reduced the duration of the session 
to two hours.

Supervising Teachers of subjects in Experimental Groups A and D 
were also invited to complete, on one occasion, a modified 
version of the Priorities in Teaching Questionnaire.

Student teachers and Supervising Teachers were paid a small 
honorarium for completing these tasks and questionnaires.

Instruments

1. Priorities in Teaching Questionnaire (pre and post)
Student teachers and Supervising Teachers were asked to respond 
to fifty items concerning teaching concepts and activities.  
Items were grouped in nine categories:

Constructivist Approaches to Teaching
Transmissive Approaches to Teaching
Academic Organisation
Management
Teacher Self©Presentation
Social and Affective Learner Characteristics
Cognitive Learner Characteristics
Feedback
Motivation.
Within each of the above categories, three types of response were 
sought:
(i) Judge the importance of each item, together with confidence 
in understanding and/or directing it as a teacher (or 
ease/difficulty of implementation © Supervising Teachers).  
Importance and Confidence were rated for each item on a 4©point 
Likert Scale (very important or confident, 4; important or 
confident, 3; unimportant or unconfident, 2; very unimportant or
very unconfident, 1).
(ii) Rank all items on a single scale (0©100) so as to assign 
priorities for importance and confidence (or ease of 
implementation).
(iii) Give brief reasons for priority rankings.

Finally, respondents were asked to provide similar responses in 
treating the nine categories as wholes.

2. Lesson Observation Task (pre and post)
This task involved viewing videotaped excerpts of two lessons.  
Subjects were required to record observations, make inferences, 

relate these to theoretical concepts, and to categorise the 
lesson excerpt as an example of a specific teaching approach or 
principle.

Each participant viewed two, five minute excerpts.  The first, 
viewed by all students, was from an Art lesson which demonstrated 
general teaching principles not related to the student teachers' 
own curriculum areas.  The second excerpt was from a lesson in 
the subjects' main teaching area.  Thus students in the 
mathematics, science and social science/humanities groups were 
shown fragments of mathematics, science and history lessons 
respectively.

A researcher introduced each excerpt with a brief statement which 
provided details of the lesson topic, class year level, and stage 
of the lesson from which the excerpt was drawn.  Each videotaped 
segment was played twice.  Subjects were permitted to start 
writing their responses at any time.

3. Sources of Knowledge about Teaching (pre and post)
In this questionnaire, the participants were asked to rate on a 
four point scale the importance of 62 factors in learning to 
teach well.  Most items were concerned with the following sources 
of knowledge:  school models, non©school models, Diploma in 
Education course work, prior beliefs and knowledge, and 
constructive processes generated by reflection, goal setting, 
planning, and monitoring.  Additional items concerned helpful 
resources and reasons for wanting to become a teacher.

4. Study Process Questionnaire (post only)
Participants' approaches to their own learning were measured by 
the SPQ, which assesses motive and strategy on three dimensions:  
deep, surface and achievement©related.

Lesson Observations, Special Reflection Sessions, InterventionsÄ
In addition to completing the pre and post©tests, subjects in 
Experimental Groups A and D were observed and interviewed on a 
number of occasions during the two blocks of practice teaching.  
The nature and timing of these activities is outlined in Table 2.

Interviews and observations were conducted by one of four 
research assistants, all of whom had recent classroom teaching 
experience.  Wherever possible, each researcher visited the same 
student teachers and the same schools throughout the year.  The 
choice of lessons to be observed was determined by negotiation 
between the student teacher and researcher, the first criterion 
being that the lesson must be within the students' main 
curriculum study area.  A second requirement was to choose a 
lesson with sufficient free time in the timetable period 
immediately after it for the necessary interviews.

As part of their planning for the lesson observed the student 
teachers completed a Lesson Preparation Report, which was 
collected by the researcher on each visit.  A copy of the lesson 
plan itself was also obtained.  Lessons were audiotaped on a 
small cassette recorder placed unobtrusively near the front of 
the classroom.  The researcher observed the lesson from the back 
of the room, and kept brief field notes to supplement the 
audiotaped record.

For the first and the last lessons Supervising Teachers were 
asked to complete a form which provided information on the nature 
of the class and the level of planning assistance given to the 
student teacher.  Towards the end of these lessons the 
Supervising Teacher also completed a confidential checklist 
evaluating the student teacher's performance.  The student 

teachers later evaluated themselves using an identical checklist.

Interviews after lessons were conducted in any location which 
would afford privacy.  These included vacant classrooms, textbook 
or equipment storerooms, and staff common rooms.  All interviews 
were audiotaped.  The approximate duration of interviews ranged 
from 30 to 45 minutes for both Special Reflection Sessions 
(Groups A and D) and Reflective Interventions (Group D only © see 
Table 2).

Details of Instruments and Procedures

1.The Lesson Preparation ReportÄÄ required the student teachers 
to reflect on the main factors to be considered in preparing the 
lesson and the relative importance of these factors (BOX E of the 
model of Figure 1).  They were invited to construct a reflections 
page in which they recorded alternatives with respect to content, 
sequencing, and student and teacher activities considered during 
the preparation process.

Additionally they were asked to indicate the reasons for their 
choices among these alternatives, and to nominate goals or 
constraints they felt were a conscious influence on their 
preparation.

In considering these factors the student teachers were required 
to develop links between their beliefs, knowledge of content and 
contexts, models of teaching and knowledge of methods, and their 
goals and plans (RB1, RB2). They were further required to 
consider how these intentions could be activated as knowledge in 
action (RB3).

2. The Lesson itself was analysed in terms of a set of constructs 
chosen to be relevant to the study.  Knowledge transactions were 
coded in ways encapsulating the extent to which they were 
respectively deemed to be:

(i) procedure, knowledge, or management based;

(ii)teacher driven or student shared;

(iii)generative of new knowledge (productive), practising 
existing knowledge (reproductive), or involving the application 
of knowledge (utilisation);

(iv)transmissive, constructivist, or practice in nature

Management styleÄÄ was assessed in terms of the four reference 
types of

(i)Laissez faire = students dictate and follow their own interests

(ii)dictatorial = teacher enforces prescribed directives

(iii)authoritative = teacher sets and applies clear standards for
student behaviour

(iv)democratic = teacher and students develop and maintain shared 
principles of classroom behaviour

Note was further taken of the balance between individual, group, 
and whole class activity.

Feedback during the lesson was monitored in terms of

(i)how it was provided : by the teacher alone; or by the students

evaluating or reflecting on the quality of their work,

(ii)the content of the feedback : whether it contained a value 
dimension (e.g. good/bad, correct/incorrect) and/or a substantive 
dimension (related to content and strategy),

(iii)the extent to which feedback involved the teacher guiding 
the students in a closed, directive manner (piloting).

The degree of Individualisation was assessed in terms of the 
attention given to:

(i)social aspects including affective characteristics such as 
attitude and confidence, and background characteristics such as 
ethnicity and gender

(ii)cognitive aspects including factors such as prior knowledge 
of the subject area, learning rates, and language.

Finally where identifiable examples of Motivating actions 
occurred these were classified as either (i) intrinsic or (ii) 
extrinsic.

In terms of the model of Figure 1 the lesson analysis provided 
information on the subjects' teaching actions (BOX G).  The 
extent to which constructivist approaches were used was coded, as 
well as how information from indicators (I) was used to modify 
actions (RI1 and RI2).

3. The Supervising Teacher's Form invited the supervising teacher 
to comment on the lesson topic, nature of class, and the nature 
and purpose of the lesson.  Additionally information was sought 
on the level of resources available to the student teacher, and 
an assessment of the amount of help, discussion, and written 
comment or feedback on the lesson plan provided by the 
supervisor.  (BOX B of Figure 1)

The information contained in this form provided triangulation for 
some of the data included in the lesson preparation report, and 
indicated to what extent the supervisor had assisted the student 
teacher to reflect on links between knowledge of methods, 
contexts, and content and lesson preparation, intentions, goals 
and plans (RB1, RB2).

4. The Supervising Teacher Evaluation form was completed towards 
the end of the lesson observed.  The Supervising Teacher was 
asked to assess the quality of the lesson in terms of what could 
be expected of a practising teacher.  Ratings on a 1 to 5 scale 
were used to evaluate 17 attributes that included quality of 
preparation and lesson content, classroom management and student 
involvement, effectiveness, variety and timing of teaching 
approaches, personal enthusiasm, and the provision of assessment 
and feedback to students.

This evaluation was not shared with the student teacher, as it 
was intended to elicit the supervising teacher's independent 
perspective on the cumulative outcomes of the lesson (BOX J of 
Figure 1).

5. The Self©Evaluation form for student teachers was identical 
with that used by the supervising teacher.

6. The Special Reflection Session was designed to provide data on 
subjects' perceptions of the lesson just taught.  It also 
provided the student teachers with a comprehensive review of 
their planning, delivery, and evaluation strategies as utilised 

in the preparation and presentation of lessons.  The interview 
comprised a series of main questions, supported by prompts where
extra information was required. The student teachers were asked 
to reflect across five major themes:

(i) The first focus was on lesson outcomes where the performance 
of the teacher and students were reviewed in terms of lesson 
goals.  The questioning elicited whether the student teacher 
thought first of their own performance or that of their students.

(ii) The second phase of the interview invited an examination of 
lesson goals in terms of beliefs and perceptions about the major 
influences on goal setting (RB1).  This assessment involved 
ascribing respective influence to (a) beliefs about student 
learning (b) influence of the supervising teacher (c) influence 
of constraints such as resources, time, type of student, syllabus 
requirements (d) influence of knowledge gained from diploma 
coursework.

(iii) The third phase invited the student teachers to examine 
their lesson goals in terms of their choice and articulation of 
teaching methods (RB2).  These were probed along the same four 
dimensions as the beliefs category described above, that is (a) 
beliefs about student learning (b) influence of supervising 
teachers (c) influence of other constraints (d) influence of 
diploma coursework.  Following this probing the student teachers 
were asked to elaborate the most important ideas behind their 
teaching approach; the part played by lesson content in 
determining the approach; and the problems and attempted 
solutions that arose in the course of the presentation.

(iv) The fourth theme involved the role of feedback in the lesson 
and the degree of its influence on (a) planning decisions (b) 
monitoring, and (c) checking that occurred during the lesson (RI1 
and RI2).

With respect to planning, the students were questioned on any 
changes made to  original intentions on the basis of feedback 
received and processed by the teacher, or where there was now 
recognition that such changes should have occurred but did not.

With respect to monitoring, the student teachers were questioned 
on how they kept their lesson on track, and what actions they 
took on the basis of information inferred from indicators of 
lesson progress e.g. falling behind with the plan, noting 
material still be covered, time actually taken for various 
activities in comparison with time allotted to them in the plan.

The checking aspect involved eliciting how the student teachers 
went about checking progress by noting students' understanding, 
attention, learning, motivation, time on task, and involvement 
with activities.

For each of the dimensions of planning, monitoring, and checking, 
the student teachers were asked for examples or incidents during 
the lesson that illustrated their use of feedback in making 
on©line decisions and influencing their teaching actions.

Finally reflection was directed towards reviewing (a) the 
achievement of specific lesson goals (b) the influence of beliefs 
and perceptions (c) the methods used (d) the selection of future 
goals for following lessons.

The student teachers were invited to review their earlier 
comments, and to identify general areas or matters of detail 
where their views had shifted as a result of the review.  In 

conclusion they were invited to explicate aims and goals for the 
following lesson that had been specifically influenced by the 
experience and reflection upon the lesson under review.

This in©depth reflection session directed reflection at a more 
comprehensive level to the lesson in relation to the wider 
teaching context, and to the framework of personal knowledge 
about teaching being developed by the individual student teacher.  
At this wider and deeper level attention was again directed 
towards the teaching context (RA1) knowledge of content and 
contexts (RA2), the models of teaching and knowledge of methods 
(RA3), and knowledge inaction (RA4).

7.The Reflective InterventionÄÄ used as an experimental treatment 
in the study focussed on four aspects of student learning as 
illustrated in the chart shown in Figure 2.

NAME:
ACS:
SCHOOL:               Ä

1.  STUDENT
    LEARNINGÄ
2.  Teaching ApproachesÄ
3. Opportunities
   for FeedbackÄ
4. IndicatorsÄ
ExpectationsÄ
ActionsÄ
Engagement
InvolvementÄ
 attitude to learning
Learning ProcessÄ
 how students learn
ProgressÄ
 how well student
  learn
Social ContextÄ environment in
  which students learn

Figure 2:  The Reflection CardÄ

This chart was provided in the form of a card to student teachers 
in Experimental Group D.  The chart incorporates four aspects of 
student learning that are located respectively in the rows and 
identified by headings in column 1.  For the particular lesson 
the student teachers were asked to elaborate on their 
expectations for each aspect, and the actions taken to achieve 
these expectations.  The responses were recorded in columns 2 and 
3 of the chart together with indicators used to assess whether 
the teaching actions were working (column 5).  This articulation 
gave information about what was actually done, but also helped to 
identify constraints, inappropriate actions, or lack of attention 
to potential indicators through the existence of gaps or entries 
that upon review were deemed to be unproductive.  Column 4 of the 
chart recorded opportunities for feedback from students created 
by the teacher on each of the listed aspects.  Entries, or lack 
of them, indicated what opportunities for feedback had been 
utilised, where such opportunities had not been taken, and where 
insufficient emphasis had been given to obtaining feedback during 
the lesson.  After the completion and discussion of the chart the 
student teachers were invited to suggest ways in which indicators 
of student learning could be observed more frequently, and how 
additional opportunities to obtain feedback on these indicators 
could be included during lesson implementation.  In reviewing 
these possibilities the question of perceived constraints and 

possible ways of overcoming them were considered.

The Reflective Intervention card provided a means of 
systematically reviewing lesson intentions and procedures to 
assist Group D subjects to more thoroughly consider the range of 
activities to be provided for in a lesson.  All forms of 
post©lesson reflection (RA1 to RA4) were activated by the 
intervention.

To FollowÄ

The papers by Galbraith and Goos in this symposium report on the 
analysis of the results from a number of the above measures.  
Goos's paper also examines a way of relating theory on feedback 
to Vygotskian theory and demonstrates a way of establishing the 
Zone of Proximal Development.  The variables mentioned above are 
all being used in the total study.  For the purposes of this 
symposium we have not dealt with the following:  Lesson 
Preparation Report, lesson coding, Supervising Teacher form, 
Supervising Teacher evaluations and Self©evaluations, Learning
Strategies pre©test, and practice teaching performance assessment.

Note:Ä
There are three papers in this symposium.  References for this 
paper are to be found at the end of the final paper.


REFERENCES

Ames, R. (1983)  Help seeking and achievement orientation; perspectives from
attribution theory.  In B. De Paulo, A. Nadler, and J. Fisher (Eds.)
New directions in helping.  Vol. 2.  Help Seeking (pp165\186) New York:
Academic Press.

Anderson, J.R.  (1982).  Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological
Review 89, 369\406.

Anderson, J.R. (1990) Cognitive psychology and its implications.
(2nd edition) New York: W.H. Freeman.

Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L.  (1983).  Feedback as an individual resource:
Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 32, 370\398.

Bandura, A.  (1988).  Human agency in social cognitive theory.  Paper
presented at the 24th International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, 
August, 1988.

BangertDrowns, R.L., Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A., and Morgan, M. (1991). The
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.  Review of Educational
Research, 61(2), 213-238.

Biggs, J. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Teaching.  Hawthorne, Vic:
Australian Council for Educational Research.

Borko, H. and Livingstone, C. (1989) Cognition and improvisation: Differences
in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.

Brinko, K.T.  (1990).  Optimal conditions for effective feedback.  Paper 
presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
Association, Boston, April 16-20, 1990.

Broudy, B. (1975)  A cautionary appraisal of CBTE. Journal of American
Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 16, 8, 1-7.


Burgess, R.G. (1984)  In the Field : An Introduction to Field Research.
London : Unwin Hyman.

Calderhead, J. (1989) Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 5(1), 43-51.

Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sahers, D., Stein, P., and Berliner, D. (1988)  
Expert novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom 
information. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 25-31.

Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, F.M. (1991)  Teacher Education as Narrative 
Inquiry: Narrative Inquiry as Teacher Education.  Paper presented to the 
Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association.  
University of Melbourne.  July 8-10.

Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, F.M.  (1987)  Teachers' personal knowledge: 
What counts as 'personal' in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19, 487-500.

Clark, C.M. and Peterson, P.L. (1986)  Teachers' thought processes.  In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edition).  pp255-296.
N.Y.: Macmillan.

Davies, D. and Jacobs, A. (1985) "Sandwiching" complex interpersonal feedback. 
Small Group Behavior, 16, 387-396.

De Gregorio, M.B., & Fisher, C.D.  (1988).  Providing performance feedback:
Reactions to alternative methods. Journal of Management, 14, 605-616.

Deci, E.L. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York, Plenum Press.

Dillon, J.T. (1988) Questioning and Teaching : A Manual of Practice.  
London : Croom Helm.

Dunkin, M.J. and Biddle, B.J. (1974)  The study of teaching.  
N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Dweck, C. and Elliott, E. (1983)  Achievement motivation.  In P. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of Child Psychology.  Vol IV.  Socialization, Personality, and
Social Development.  New York: Wiley.

Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1980)  Verbal reports as data.  Psychological
Review, 87, 215-251.

Ernest, P. (1989)  The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of a mathematics 
teacher: a model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13-33.

Evans, G. (1992)  Competence, competencies, and the knowledge base of
beginning teachers.  The Journal of Teaching Practice, 12, 81-98.

Evans, G. (1991)  Judging approaches to preservice teacher education by using
models of knowledge and skill development.  In HO, W.K. (ed) Improving the
Quality of the Teaching Profession.  International Yearbook on Teacher
Education, 1990. International Council on Education for Teaching. 
Singapore : Institute of Education.

Evans, G.T. and Butler, J. (1992).  Expert models and feedback processes in
developing competence in industrial trade areas.  Australian Journal of TAFE
Research and Development, 8(1), 13-32.

Evans, G.T. and Butler, J. (In Press)  Use of a trade practice model in 
teaching electrical installation procedures to apprentices.  Australian 
and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research

Fenstermacher, G.D. (1986)  Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. 
In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Teaching (3rd edition, pp37-49).

New York: Macmillan.

FeimanNemser, S. and Buchmann, M. (1986)  The first year of teacher
preparation: transition to pedagogical thinking. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 18, 239-256.

FeimanNemser, S. and Buchmann, M. (1987)  When is student teaching teacher
education?  Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 255-273.

FeimanNemser, S and Parker, M.B. (1990)  Making subject matter part of the
conversation in learning to teach.  Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 32-43.

Flach, J.M., Lintern, G., & Larish, J.F.  (1990).  Perceptual motor skill: 
A theoretical framework.  In R. Warren & A.H. Wertheim (Eds.), Perception 
and control of self motion (pp.  327-355).  Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 

Forman, E. (1989)  The role of peer interaction in the social construction of
mathematical knowledge.  International Journal of Educational Research, 13,
55-70.

Genest, M. and Turk, D. (1981)  Think aloud approaches to cognitive assessment.
In T.V. Merlizzi, C.R. Glass and M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive Assessment
(pp233-269).  New York : The Guilford Press.

Gibson, J.J.  (1966).  The Senses considered as perceptual Systems. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Gitlin, A. and Smyth, J. (1989) Teacher Evaluation: Educative Alternatives.
London: Falmer Press.

Gott, S.P.  (1988).  Apprenticeship instruction for real world tasks: The
coordination of procedures, mental models, and strategies.  Review of
Research in Education, 15, 97-169.

Gunstone, R.F., Slattery, M. and Baird, J.R. (1989)  Learning about learning 
to teach : A case study of preservice teacher education.  Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 1989,
San Francisco.

Hamann, J.M. (1990)  Conversational attributes in successful and unsuccessful
supervision conferences.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, April, Boston, MA.

Howe, A. (1988)  Expanding Horizons : Teaching and Learning Through Whole
Class Discussion.  Sheffield : National Association for the Teaching of
English.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989)  Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to 
teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-190.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S.  (1979). Consequences of individual
feedback and behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,64,
349-371.

Kagan, D. (1990) Ways of Evaluating Teachers' Cognition: Inferences Concerning
the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469.

Kagan, D. (1991)  Narrative semiotics and teachers' beliefs regarding the 
relevance of formal learning theory to classroom practice: A US study.  
Journal of Education for Teaching, 17, 245-262.

Kagan, D.M. and Tippins, D.J. (1991)  How teachers' classroom cases express
their pedagogical beliefs.  Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 281-291.

Koehler, V. (1985)  Research on preservice teacher education. Journal of 
Teacher Education, 36, 23-30.


Korthagen, F.A.J. (1988)  The influence of learning orientations on the 
development of reflective teaching.  In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers' 
professional learning, (pp35-50).  London: Falmer Press.

Leinhardt, G. and Greeno, J.G. (1986)  The cognitive skill of teaching.  
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 2, 75-79.

Linden, R.C., & Mitchell, T.R.  (1985).  Reactions to feedback: The role of
attributions. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 291-308.

Liston, D.P. and Zeichner, K.M. (1990)  Reflective teaching and action 
research in preservice teacher education.  Journal of education for teaching.
16, 235-254.

Little, J. (1987)  Teachers as colleagues.  In V. RichardsonKochler (Ed.),
Educators' handbook: A research perspective (pp491-518).  New York: 
Longman.

Locke, E.A.  (1967).  Motivational effects of knowledge of results: Knowledge 
or goal setting? Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 324-329.

Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P.  (1981).  Goal setting and
task performance: 1969-1980.  Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

McCutcheon, G. (1980)  How do elementary school teachers plan?  The nature of
planning and influences on it.  Elementary School Journal, 81, 4-23.

McNamara, D. (1991)  Subject knowledge and its application : problems and
possibilities for teacher educators.  Journal of Education for Teaching, 17,
113-128.

Morrison, E.W., & Weldon, E.  (1990).  The impact of an assigned performance
goal on feedback seeking behavior.  Human Performance, 3, 37-50.

Munby, H. and Russell, T. (1989)  Educating the reflective teacher:  an essay
review of two books by Donald Sch?n.  Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21,
71-80.

Murray, H.G.  (1987).  Acquiring student feedback that improves instruction.  
In M.G. Weimer (Ed.), New Directions in Teaching and Learning.  no. 32:
Teaching Large Classes Well.  San Francisco; JosseyBass.

Neale, D.C., Pace, A.J., Case, A.B. (1983)  The influence of training, 
experience, and organizational environment on teachers' use of a systematic 
planning model.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Educational Research Association, Montreal, April.

Nespor, J. (1987)  The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching.  Journal 
of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989)  The Construction Zone : Working 
for Cognitive Change in School.  Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Palincsar, A.S. (1986)  The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded 
instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73-98.

Palincsar, A.S. and Brown, A.L. (1984)  Reciprocal teaching of comprehension
fostering and comprehension monitoring activities.  Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Patel, V.L. and Groen, G.J. (1991)  The general and specific nature of medical
expertise : a critical look.  In K.A. Ericsson and J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a
general theory of expertise.  pp93-125.  Cambridge University Press.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Farh, J. (1989)  Effects of feedback sign and credibility 

on goal setting and task performance.  Organizational Behavior and Human 
Decision Processes 44, 45-67.

Resnick, L.B. (1989)  Teaching mathematics as an illstructured discipline.  
In R.J. Charles and E.A. Silver (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessing of 
Mathematical Problem Solving (pp32-60).  Reston, Virginia : NCTM.

Richardson, V. (1990)  Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. 
Educational Researcher, 19, 10-18.

Schmidt, R.A. (1979)  A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. 
Psychological Review, 82, 4, 225-260.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters
of "well taught" mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145-166.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985)  Mathematical Problem Solving.  Orlando, Florida :
Academic Press.

Sc?n, D. (1982)  The reflective practitioner.  New York: Basic Books.

Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge in teaching: Foundations of the new reform. 
Harvard Educational Review, 56, 1-23.

Stone, C.A. and Wertsch, J.V. (1984)  A socialinteractional analysis of 
learning disabilities remediation.  Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 
194-199.

Tabachnik, B.R. and Zeichner, K. (1984) The impact of student  teaching on the
development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28-42.

Tharp, R.G. and Gallimore, R. (1988)  Rousing Minds to Life.  Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.

Tobin, K. (1987)  Forces which shape the implemented curriculum in high school
science and mathematics.  Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 287-298.

van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W. (1983)  Strategies of discourse comprehension. 
New York:  Academic.

Veenman, S.A.M. (1984)  Perceived problems of beginning teachers.  Review of
Education Research, 54, 143-178.

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989)  Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. 
Synthese, 80, 121-140.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978)  Mind in Society.  Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard
University Press.

Watson, K. and Young, B. (1985)  Discourse for learning in the classroom. 
Language Arts, 62(2), 126-133.

Weil, M. and Joyce, B. (1978)  Information processing models of teaching. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weinstein, C.S. (1990)  Prospective elementary teachers' beliefs about 
teaching: implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 
6, 279-290.

Wertsch, J.V. (1985)  Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind.  Cambridge,
Massachusetts : Harvard University Press.

Wittrock, M.C. (1986)  Students' thought processes.  In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed. (pp.92-118).  New York:
Macmillan.


Yinger, R.J. (1986)  Examining thought in action : A theoretical and 
methodological critique of research on interactive teaching. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 2, 263-282.

Zeichner, K. (1990)  Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the
1990s.  Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 105-132.

Zeichner, K.M. (1993)  Traditions of practice in US preservice teacher 
education programs.  Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 1-13.