This is a preview. Log in through your library.
Abstract
Recent criticisms of process-product research on teaching have attacked its conceptualization, methodology, productivity, and interpretation-application. These 4 kinds of criticism are reviewed and evaluated. Conceptual criticisms refer to the treatment of teachers' intentions, the context of teaching, the normative character of teaching, the conception of causality, and theory. Methodological criticisms bear upon plausibility, predetermined coding categories, ignoring of content, the role of cognitive mediation, the need for experiments, and quality of outcome measures. Criticisms of productivity concern the yield in understanding (theory), predictive power, and control (improvement) of teaching. Criticisms of interpretation-application relate to the use of meta-analysis and the conversion of findings into rules for teaching. Whether the criticisms apply to the essence or the accidents (incidental features) of process-product research provides an overall basis for evaluating the criticisms. Finally, an agenda for such research is outlined.
Journal Information
Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.The Elementary School Journal has served researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners in the elementary and middle school education for over one hundred years. ESJ publishes peer-reviewed articles dealing with both education theory and research and their implications for teaching practice. In addition, ESJ presents articles that relate the latest research in child development, cognitive psychology, and sociology to school learning and teaching.
Publisher Information
Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR
Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The Elementary School Journal © 1989 The University of Chicago Press
Request Permissions
This is a preview. Log in through your library.
Abstract
Teacher-student interaction patterns in 12 third-grade mainstreamed classrooms were observed with four groups of students: (1) nonhandicapped high achievers, (2) nonhandicapped low achievers, (3) learning disabled, and (4) behaviorally handicapped. Teacher-student interaction was defined using 16 dependent measures derived from the Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance procedures demonstrated that statistically the groups were significantly different on 8 of the 16 dependent measures. Although the behaviorally handicapped students were treated differently by their regular classroom teachers more frequently than students in the other three groups, no group was given consistent preferential treatment. Most student initiations were nonacademic, and almost one-half of teachers' feedback and initiations were nonacademic. Furthermore, teachers used more disapproving than positive feedback. The results indicate a need for teachers in mainstreamed classrooms to devote more time to academic tasks and to use better classroom management techniques.
Journal Information
American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) has as its purpose to publish original empirical and theoretical studies and analyses in education. The editors seek to publish articles from a wide variety of academic disciplines and substantive fields. They are looking for contributions that are significant to the understanding and/or improvement of educational processes and outcomes.
Publisher Information
The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results. AERA is the most prominent international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application. Its 20,000 members are educators; administrators; directors of research, testing or evaluation in federal, state and local agencies; counselors; evaluators; graduate students; and behavioral scientists. The broad range of disciplines represented by the membership includes education, psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
American Educational Research Journal © 1982
American Educational Research Association
Request Permissions