This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 13 August 2014, At: 01:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

Teachers’ Knowledge of Students: a significant domainof practical knowledge?Di Mayer a & Perc Marland aa University of Southern QueenslandPublished online: 31 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Di Mayer & Perc Marland (1997) Teachers’ Knowledge of Students: a significant domain of practicalknowledge?, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25:1, 17-34, DOI: 10.1080/1359866970250103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866970250103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1997 17

Teachers' Knowledge of Students: a significantdomain of practical knowledge?

DI MAYER & P E R C MARLAND, University of Southern Queensland

ABSTRACT Few studies have investigated that part of teachers' practical knowledge referredto as 'knowledge of students'. Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that such knowledge may be avital ingredient in teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this small-scale, experimental studywas to document what five highly effective primary teachers knew about the students theytaught, how they acquired such knowledge and the ways in which they used such knowledgeduring classroom instruction. The methodology involved a series of in-depth interviews witheach Uacher. Analysis of interview transcripts showed that teachers held extensive knowledgeabout the class, groups within it and at least certain individual students. Such knowledge hadbeen carefully constructed, was instructionally relevant and had been subjected to validitychecks by the teachers. Moreover, it could be seen in each case to be an integral part of teachers'notions about effective teaching. It thus allowed them to give expression to their conceptions ofeffective teaching through tactics tailored to suit the needs of individual students, groups andthe class as a whole. The results appeared to lend weight to the claim that knowledge of studentsis a significant domain of teachers' practical knowledge.

Introduction

In the last decade, attempts have been made to define a professional knowledge base forthe teaching profession. Some have sought to do this by documenting the practicalknow-how of highly effective teachers. This practical know-how, also referred to as craftknowledge (Brown & Mclntyre, 1988), implicit theory (Clark & Peterson, 1986) andpractical knowledge (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986), has become highly prized,because it is seen as the root source of effective practice.

It is generally accepted that practical knowledge is acquired mainly through practice-centred inquiry involving, in the case of teachers, a trial-and error process in actualclassrooms and a gradual refinement of teaching effectiveness through noting andseeking to reproduce what works, and revising what doesn't work well. Practicalknowledge is, therefore, very largely the product of experience and self-initiatedappraisal of that experience. Reflecting on one's own experience in the classroom isthought to be a critical process in the production of practical knowledge.

As the foregoing implies, practical knowledge resides in the minds of teachers. It isoften disclosed by teachers during professional exchanges with colleagues, but thenusually only in passing. Getting highly effective teachers to disclose their practicalknow-how so that it can be fully documented is seen, therefore, as one way of makinga significant contribution to the construction of a valid and potent professional knowl-edge base.

Some of the problems in trying to document teachers' practical knowledge, and thereare many, concern identifying its nature, structure and extent. This arises, in part,

1359-866X/97/010017-18 © 1997 Australian Teacher Education Association

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

18 D. Mayer & P. Marland

because much of the practical knowledge of teachers is held implicitly and is thereforedifficult to articulate. To date, few attempts at charting the full extent of teachers'practical knowledge have been made. One such effort was made by Elbaz (1983). Onthe basis of her in-depth study of one secondary teacher, Elbaz proposed five contentcategories of practical knowledge—knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of milieu(which includes knowledge of students), knowledge of instruction, knowledge ofsubject matter and knowledge of self. A similar set of categories of teacher knowledgewas proposed by Shulman (1987), but with at least one notable difference. Shulman'slist included 'pedagogical content knowledge', which he defined as 'that special amal-gam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their ownspecial form of professional understanding'(p. 8).

Research on Teachers' Knowledge of Students

Research interest in the various domains of practical knowledge has been quite variable.Some domains, for example, the pedagogical-content-knowledge domain, have beenthe focus of considerable research activity; other domains have attracted very littleinterest. One such domain is teachers' knowledge of students which, as Grossman(1995) has pointed out, has been the focus of relatively few studies.

The reasons for this neglect are not immediately apparent. The lack of researchinterest in what teachers know about students, and their use of that knowledge in theclassroom, stands in sharp contrast to conventional wisdom, as revealed in classroompractice and staffroom talk among teachers. Teachers insist that they invest consider-able time and energy in accumulating information about students. Some of thisinformation is gathered for administrative reasons and is entered in student-recordcards, but discussions with teachers reveal that their knowledge of students extends wellbeyond what is placed in official school records. They maintain that diey have extensiveknowledge of individual students. Moreover, it is clear that they value this knowledgehighly and take deliberate steps to acquire it because, in the words of one teacher, 'ifyou don't know your students, you can't teach them'.

There is some research which supports the hearsay evidence from teachers, outlinedabove, about the importance of having an in-depth knowledge of students. Thisresearch provides some clues about the kinds of student information that teachersacquire and how they use it, but gives no indication of the sources and the methodsthey use for gathering and assessing it. A number of studies confirm that teachers doindeed assemble lots of data about the students they teach (Marland, 1977; Marland &Osbome, 1990; Kagan & Tippins, 1991). One study suggests, however, that teachersappear to have more knowledge about some students than others (Jackson et al, 1969).

Research also indicates that the data gathered by teachers on students is quitediverse. Connell (1985) found the following four categories of student data in thetranscripts of semi-structured interviews he conducted with secondary teachers inAustralia: academic achievement, motivation, disruption practices and individual tem-perament. A more extensive set of categories was reported by Kagan & Tippins (1991).The student profiles, provided by both primary and secondary student teachers in theirAmerican study, contained references to physical appearance, motor skills, academicachievement, classroom behaviours, social interaction with peers, academic motivation,personality variables, family life and favourite activities. These categories closely parallelthose reported in a study involving one secondary teacher of English in an Australiansecondary college (Marland & Osborne, 1990). Berliner (1988) has added another

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers' Knowledge of Students 19

dimension to the kinds of knowledge held by teachers about their students. He claimedthat expert teachers also have a fund of knowledge about the ways students think.

In relation to the issue of why teachers accumulate knowledge of students, theresearch on teacher expectations and teacher thinking points to a variety of reasons.This research indicates that teachers' knowledge of students may serve some quitesignificant purposes.

First, teachers use their knowledge of students' prior academic success, familybackground and personality traits to form expectations of students. These expectationsare then used by teachers to set realistic educational goals, to plan appropriate learningactivities and to cater for individual needs in the classroom (Brophy & Good, 1974).

Secondly, teachers use their knowledge of students to personalise their reactions toindividual students (Marland, 1986). In other words, the interactions between a teacherand individual students are often tailor-made to suit what are perceived by the teacheras the personal needs and situations of students. They claim that they know thosestudents with fragile egos or low self-concepts, those students who are easily distracted,who come from deprived backgrounds or lack concentration and so on. This knowledgeis then reflected in the tactics they use with these students. A similar finding wasreported by Anning (1988) who, in an English study involving six primary teachers,used a stimulated—recall technique to investigate their interactive thinking:

The teachers' statements about the particular strategies they use in relation toindividual learners demonstrated that they were consistently aware of pupils'personal situations and likely emotional responses and the assumption is thatthis awareness had a significant effect on the types of strategies the teachersused. (p. 138)

Thirdly, teachers use their knowledge of students to make sense of, and to assess,events in the classroom (Doyle, 1977; Carter et al., 1988) and to predict studentresponses and probable lesson pathways (Housner & Griffey, 1985). For example,teachers claim that they know: (i) the signs in particular students that signal specificstates of mind, for example, frustration, off-taskness, or the signs that disruptivebehaviour is looming; (ii) which students are likely to have difficulties with certainacademic tasks; and (iii) how individual students are likely to react to a challenge, arebuke or a question. In other words, knowledge of students provides teachers with abasis for assessing their students' cognitive and affective states and for anticipating theirbehavioural and academic responses and problems. According to Berliner (1986,1988), these interpretive and anticipatory skills form part of the cognitive repertoire ofthe expert teacher.

Fourthly, it seems likely that teachers use their knowledge of individual students ata particular grade level to form a picture or image of the class as a whole. Calderhead(1983) has reported that experienced teachers often have a sense of what a class wouldbe like even before they met them. This knowledge, Berliner (1986) suggests, 'is aknowledge that influences the running of the classroom: the pace, the level of intellec-tuality, affect, work orientation, and so forth. It is knowledge that influences classroomorganisation and management and is the basis for transforming subject matter' (p. 10).

The research reviewed above appears to support the anecdotal evidence fromteachers about the importance of teachers having an in-depth knowledge of the studentsthey teach. This evidence was sufficient to prompt the investigation reported in thisarticle into the nature, sources and uses of teachers' knowledge of students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

20 D. Mayer & P. Mariand

Aims of the Study

The project was planned as a small-scale, exploratory study, aimed at documenting theknowledge of students held by a small number of highly effective primary teachers. Theproject also aimed to identify the ways in which such teachers acquired this knowledgeand how they used it during classroom instruction. In particular, evidence was soughtwhich would provide some assessment of the purposes to which teachers reportedly putthe knowledge, as indicated in the above literature review.

Methodology

Procedures for the Identification of Highly Effective Teachers

The first task confronting the research team was the identification of highly effectiveteachers. The team took the view that this was a crucial aspect of the project since lessvalue would be attached to the findings of this study if it involved teachers who couldnot be regarded as highly effective. The team set about finding criteria for establishingwhich teachers were highly effective and finding processes by which these criteria couldbe applied. The criteria were developed by referring to the research literature oneffective teaching, and they were then refined following discussions with practisingteachers and teacher educators. These colleagues were asked to comment critically onthe criteria at various stages in their development. A final version of the form includedcriteria focusing on the teachers' abilities to consistently promote high levels ofacademic achievement, to use effectively a range of teaching strategies and to engendera convivial and challenging classroom atmosphere by establishing warm and productiveteacher—student relationships and appropriate management procedures. Items relatingto the teacher's status as a classroom teacher as seen by parents and professionalconsultants familiar with the teachers' classroom performance were also included.

These forms were developed for use by administrative teams in schools (principalsand deputy principals), the intention being that each member of an administrative teamin a school would independently identify those teachers who were regarded as beinghighly effective and then they would rate the teachers as outstanding, good or averageon each of the criteria. The rationale for including 'good' and 'average' ratings was thatthe team considered that it would be unrealistic to expect even highly effective teachersto be given a rating of 'outstanding' on all the criteria.

When the final version of the form was produced, four large schools in a majorprovincial city were identified as possible research sites. These schools were selectedbecause they were regarded as schools in which members of the administrative teamshad detailed, personal knowledge of teachers' effectiveness levels through frequentin-class observations of, and co-operative classroom work with, teachers. The principalsin each of these schools were approached, and their approval to conduct the researchin their schools was sought. In three schools where such approval was forthcoming, staffmeetings were held to apprise teachers of the nature of the study. Teachers wereadvised that their right not to be involved in the project would be respected.

Once access to teachers and schools had been negotiated, members of the adminis-trative team in each school were asked to independently nominate those teachers theyconsidered to be highly effective, to rate each of their nominees on the criteria and tosubmit the forms to a member of the research team. The rationale for this procedurewas that it would clearly indicate those teachers about whom there was some consensusamong administrative team members as to their effectiveness as teachers. Eleven

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers'Knowledge of Students 21

nominees were then ranked by the research team on the basis of these reports andsubsequently placed in one of three groups—lower primary, middle primary and upperprimary—on the basis of their current teaching responsibilities. A personal approachwas made to the two teachers with the highest rankings in each of the three groups toinvite them to participate in the project. Of the six teachers so approached, only onedeclined to participate. An impending prolonged absence from the classroom duringthe data-collection phase was the reason for her decision. The sample thus consisted offive teachers.

Data-gathering Techniques

A joint meeting of the five participating teachers and the research team was held todiscuss the aims, methodology and ethics of the research project. The teachers agreedto a series of three or four half-hour interviews at which they would be asked to disclosetheir knowledge and perceptions of the class as a whole and of students in groups asdefined by the teacher. Teachers were also to be asked to indicate the knowledge theyheld on three or four individual learners chosen by the teacher and to indicate how theyacquired their knowledge about students and how they used this information inclassroom interaction.

The type of interview considered appropriate to the goals of this project was anin-depth, unstructured one. The approach adopted drew heavily on the principles andtechniques used in stimulated-recall interviewing (Marland, 1984; Marland et at, 1990,1992), in which the interviewee is seen as the expert and die interviewer is cast in therole of a facilitator whose main task is to assist the expert to recall the sought-afterknowledge. In many respects, the role of the interviewer is similar to that of aclient-centred counsellor, with the emphasis very much on active listening, reflecting,seeking clarification and extension through non-leading probes and recursive question-ing, and avoiding being judgemental. Grand-tour and mini-tour questions, as recom-mended for ethnographic interviewing by Spradley (1979), were also used in theconduct of interviews for diis project. Mini-tour questions were used to traverse, fromdifferent perspectives, a topic opened up in an interviewee's response to a grand-tourquestion such as rWhat can you tell me about the class?'.

Detailed interviewer-role prescriptions, based on the above conceptualisation, wereestablished and interview procedures were demonstrated. Members of the researchteam conducted practice interviews. These were audiotaped and critiqued at meetingsof the research team. These training sessions were discontinued when die teammembers demonstrated diat they could confidently enact die role of interviewer.

Interviews were conducted in accordance with the above requirements in die lastterm of die school year. This meant that the teachers' contact time with dieir classeshad extended over at least eight months of schooling. All the interviews were audio-taped for later transcription.

The Teachers

The five highly effective teachers, Claire, Rhonda, Bev, Louisa and Rose (all die nameshave been changed), came from varying backgrounds and, at die time of die study, theywere teaching in a range of educational settings. Brief descriptions of work contexts areprovided below for each teacher, togedier widi information, revealed during dieinterviews, on dieir views of teaching and on tiieir roles as teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

22 D. Mayer & P. Marland

Claire

The school in which Claire taught was a large urban one. She had been a teacher for22 years and was committed to a multi-age philosophy. She had a multi-grade class of22 children—10 girls and 12 boys—whose ages spanned those of children who, in agraded school, would be in Years 1, 2 and 3.

Claire favoured an approach to teaching which imposed as little structure oneducational programmes and learners as possible. In her classroom, therefore, studentswere given many opportunities for autonomous decision making and they were ex-pected to develop capacities for self-reliance and independence. Claire promoted thedevelopment of these qualities by negotiating independent work contracts. She also setup class captaincies and used peer tutoring to promote leadership skills and a sense ofresponsibility. As well as attaching considerable value to independence, Claire alsovalued interdependence and co-operative learning, and she attached considerableimportance to the class having a cohesive spirit. For this reason, Claire spent 'a lot oftime on their social development'.

According to Claire, adopting the role of ca social worker' was critical to hereffectiveness as a teacher. For that reason, she maintained close contact with parents ina variety of ways and kept close tabs on the social, emotional and psychological welfareof her students. She claimed that 'y° u have to have those insights into the lives of theindividuals if you're going to have the group (i.e. class), as a whole, work in the bestpossible way with the least possible strife'. Furthermore, in her daily interactions withstudents, she was alert to any out-of-character behaviour that indicated that a child wasunhappy, disturbed, becoming antisocial, or lacking in confidence and self-esteem. Ifthese matters were attended to, according to Claire, 'then the learning part becomeseasy'.

Rhonda

Rhonda taught in an urban school in a multi-age, co-operative teaching situation with45 Year 6/7 students. She had been teaching at this school for five years. Rhondaviewed the children in her care as her 'family'. She saw the 'bond' between herself andher students as an essential element of teaching, 'If you don't create that bond thenyou're not going to be as effective as you'd like to be'. Rhonda believed significantfactors in creating that 'bond' included the way the teacher dressed, how the teachertaught and the types of interactions between students and teacher. This view of herclass as her 'family' was further reflected in Rhonda's contact and relationship withparents. She actively built and maintained contact with parents and viewed parent-teacher conferences as 'a two way sharing' and one of the best ways to gain insights andinformation on each child. She stated that 'if I don't know them (students) wellenough, then I don't know how I'm going to help them'.

Rhonda's approach to teaching—she eschewed 'standing out the front and dictatingto them'—was one that favoured students working independently on contracts. Thisapproach allowed Rhonda to interact more freely with students, and it allowed herstudents to interact with, and learn from, each other. Rhonda's view of the class as her'family' influenced the organisation for learning in which co-operation was emphasised.She stated that 'I don't like doing things alone, they don't like doing things alone and,if you talk to the kids, their best memories of their families are of things they have donetogether, and I don't see the classroom as being any different'.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers'Knowledge of Students 23

Rhonda emphasised building each student's self-esteem, and making them feelcomfortable in the classroom. She saw this as a key factor underpinning academicsuccess: 'giving them strategies for handling problems because (school) is a place oflearning, not only for the academic (component), but also for all the other social,interpersonal and relationship skills.'

Bev

Bev taught at an urban school in a co-operative teaching situation with 49 Year 4students. She saw self-esteem as a very important factor in helping students reach theirfull potential and asserted that she felt it was 'a block to learning if a child doesn't havea good self concept'. She believed that when the students in her class felt confidentwithin themselves they would, among other things, be more willing to ask questions, toseek help when they needed it and to participate in small-group situations. Theimportance Bev attached to student self-esteem and confidence probably accounted forher search for evidence about these conditions in her students and the factors whichimpacted on them. These beliefs also found expression in the way Bev worked herclassroom. She and her teaching partner used group work extensively and 'placedparticular emphasis on oral work. We do a lot of work on what cooperation means; asteachers, we model that and we also get children to model and role play'.

Helping children to 'exist outside of their family' was an important goal for Bev. Thisrequired her to acknowledge outside factors and their potential influence on students,but at the same time to help them 'to try and put that aside when (they) are away fromit; building up children's confidence in themselves helps them to do that.'

Louisa

Louisa taught at an urban school in a multiage, co-operative teaching setting with 46Year 6/7 students. She saw her role as providing a familiar and safe environment wherestudents could develop more and more independence, self-control and determination,and self-confidence in preparation for the transition to secondary school. She saw herrole as that of a guide: 'I am there to help to guide them because I don't think anychildren pick up independence (It) is a learned thing I'm there in the guidance role, toget them to work you can't possibly give them all the knowledge they need.' She strove'to keep learning happening' and to cultivate in students 'a desire to find out things forthemselves and to implement what they find out and to use that'.

Louisa's classroom worked to a flexible timetable which allowed students input todecisions about the actual work tasks and when they would work on them during theweek. Both Louisa and her teaching partner saw this as the most appropriate structurefor building student independence. To Louisa, 'working that way is probably one of thebest ways of catering to individual needs with a large group of children'.

Louisa also highlighted the need to obtain personal insights into students, to get toknow them as individuals. She sought to do this in part by 'talk(ing) about what'shappening at home in the playground, and what movies they've seen'. She saw a closelink between each student's personality and his or her work habits and attitudes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

24 D. Mayer & P. Mariand

Rose

Rose, with sixteen years experience as a teacher of Year 1 children, had a class of 48Year 1 students in a co-operative teaching situation. The school, situated on theoutskirts of a large provincial city, comprised a number of double teaching spaces.

Rose believed that her students, to be effective learners, needed to acquire knowledgeand skills and to develop socially, emotionally and physically. Her main aim was toassist students in becoming independent and self-disciplined learners. She believed thatthe teacher was the key agent in developing their independence. These beliefs werereflected in the kinds of knowledge about students she valued and in the learningexperiences she tried to provide. Rose's perception of her role as a teacher wasindicated in her aversion to 'me standing up there giving them knowledge.' Shepreferred 'them getting the knowledge for themselves and me providing the opportunityfor them to get the knowledge.'

Data Presentation

Knowledge of Classes and Groups

Segments of interview transcripts relating to each teacher's knowledge of the class as awhole and of student groups within that class were analysed to identify discrete itemsof information. These items were later grouped and a number of categories eventuallyemerged from these groupings, namely, work habits, abilities, previous schooling,personalities, attributes, interests, family/home background, in-class behaviours, play-ground behaviour and peer relationships. The appropriateness of these categories wasdiscussed with, and confirmed by, the teachers.

All five teachers in the study proffered knowledge about their classes as a whole. Thiswas in the form of generalities. Data on the class as a whole were much less extensiveand much less detailed than knowledge of groups and of individuals. Knowledge of theclass was expressed by all teachers predominantly in terms of two categories—abilitylevels and previous schooling. Work habits, personalities and attributes were alsodiscussed by many of the teachers, while the other categories listed above were seldomreferenced in the knowledge of classes reported by the teachers.

When teachers outlined their knowledge of the student groups they identified withintheir classes, they all did so in terms of ability levels, work habits and shared personalitytraits within groups, with some teachers referring to attributes, interests of groups andbehaviour in the playground. One noteworthy point about the teachers' knowledge ofgroups was the extent to which the values, beliefs and goals the teachers cherished andtheir notions about good teaching and teacher roles were reflected in bases foridentifying groups and the kinds of knowledge they held about each group. This wasone of the most striking features of the data. This indicates that what these teachersknew about their classes, and groups of students within them, had been gathered so thatthey could keep faith with, and give expression to, their own personalised notions ofgood teaching. Claire, for example, identified groups of students in terms of levels ofdependence/independence, co-operation, maturity levels, social skills and leadershipabilities. This was because her notion of teaching was structured around promotinglearner independence, self-esteem, social cohesion and well-adjusted individuals. Ifthese matters are attended to, according to Claire, 'then the learning part becomeseasy'. Rhonda, the teacher who saw her class as a family, focused on knowledge of her

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers'Knowledge of Students 25

students' family backgrounds when discussing both the whole class and groups ofstudents.

The above generalisations about teachers' knowledge of classes and groups cloakmany differences across the teachers. Although their knowledge could be accommo-dated by the same broad categories, knowledge within categories displayed manyacross-teacher differences. Again, these differences reflected differences in the teacherconceptualisations of effective teaching and, presumably, contextual differences.

In summary, these highly effective teachers reported knowledge of their students'general abilities and their previous schooling when referring to the class as a whole, andthey concentrated more on their academic and social skills—work habits, abilities andpersonalities—when considering groups of students. The former appears to provide, forthese teachers, a context for learning ('the big picture'), while the latter seems to focuson more immediate considerations which relate directly to instructional tactics. Astrong relationship between teacher knowledge of classes and student groups on the onehand, and their personalised 'theories' about good teaching and their teaching roles onthe other, was also noted.

Knowledge of Individual Students

During the interview segments which focused on teachers' knowledge of individualstudents, the teachers were asked to identify and discuss three or four students. Theknowledge they revealed about each of these students was quite extensive, readilyrecalled from memory and, of course, intensely personal. Table I shows the types ofknowledge disclosed by each of the teachers. This overview obscures the depth andrichness of material on the students in the actual interviews, but it has been presentedin this form for the sake of brevity. Once again, the categories into which the types ofknowledge have been placed have been endorsed by the teachers.

As Table I shows, much of the information offered about individuals clustered in theareas of: work habits/attitudes, abilities, personality and family background. Onceagain, the kinds of knowledge collected by teachers about individual students can beexplained in terms of their notions about teaching and their roles as teachers. Forexample, some of the teachers claimed that knowledge of students' family backgroundswas helpful in understanding their work habits, abilities and personalities. Such anunderstanding, in turn, contributed to identification of the best ways of interacting withthese students. Two illustrations may help elucidate this point. Bev used informationabout the family backgrounds of individuals to find ways of fulfilling her commitmentto helping children 'exist outside of their family'. Louisa, who saw her role as guidingin the development of 'self control, self confidence and self determination', dependedon her knowledge of the personalities and work habits of the students in her class tohelp her realise this goal.

In summary, analysis of segments of transcripts related to teachers' knowledge ofindividual students provides support for three conclusions: (i) teachers assemble diverseand in-depth knowledge, at least about some of the students in their classes; (ii) thereare strong links between the information they accumulate about students and their ownpersonal notions about teaching and their roles as teachers; and (iii) knowledge aboutstudents is regarded by them as vital to their functioning as teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

26 D. Mayer & P. Matiand

TABLE I. Knowledge of individual students

Claire

Work Group-work skillshabits/ Work orientationattitudes Response to

intellectualchallenge

Achievementorientation

Restricts talk to

Rhonda

Work orientationLevel of

participationSelf-expectations

important mattersProductivityConscientiousnessAbility to

concentrate

Abilities IntelligenceLevel of

independenceMath abilityReading abilityOrganising ability

Previous School, pre-Schooling school,

kindergartenattended

Personality ConfidenceForthrighmessTimidityReliabilityAbility to relate

to youngerstudents

PassivityTendency to panicCo-operariveness

Family Place in familyback- Occupationsground father/

motherSiblingsParent's attitude

to:schoolhomeworkthe child'seducational

IntelligenceMath/science

abilityImpairmentLearning

problems

Schools previouslyattended

Children taughtpreviously

SensitivityNoncooperationAnxiousnessArroganceQuietForthrightForthrightAttention seeking

Attitude ofparentsto childto school

Relationship ofchild to father/mother

Occupations offather/mother

Homecircumstances:

Teacher

Bev

Group-workabilities

Organisationalskills

Concentration spanConfidence in

tackling tasksSeeking helpBehaviourAreas of particular

interestSpecial needs

Academic abilities(general)

Areas of strength/weakness

Positive sides ofchildren

Competencies

Relating to othersSelf-imageNaturesConfidenceAttitudes towards

others/lifeothers/life

SiblingsFamily structureMedical

background

Louisa

Independent workskills, self-sufficiency

Group-work skills

OrganisationProductivityProvides role

modelPromptnessSelf-disciplineResponse to

challengeEffortSeeking helpBehaviour

General level ofsuccess/ability

Sporting abilityLang Arts, Soc.

Studies abilityMath ability

Time in currentschool

Time with studentsin class

Student feelingabout previousschooling

Relating to othersQuietness/shynessMaturityConfidenceSense of humourLeadership

qualitiesReliabilityInquisitdvenessNervousnessEmotional

demeanourHappinessResponsibilityAttention seeking

'togetherness'

Level ofresponsibilitygiven to childat home

Parental follow upAge, attributes

of parents

Parentalinvolvement atschool

Rose

Co-operation skillsConcentration spanSharingOrganisational

skills

Academic abilitiesConcentration spanLanguage ability

Preschoolattended

ConfidenceShynessConcernedHelpfulCo-operation with

others

Attitude of parentsto school

Relationship ofchild to parents

Medical problemsNeglectOne-parent

families

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers' Knowledge of Students 27

TABLE I. Knowledge of individual students—continued

Playgroundbehaviour

Peerrelation-ships

Claire

achievementStrength of

academicbackground

Level of parentalattcntivenessto school

FriendshipsRelationships

to others

Domination byothers

Teacher

Rhonda Bev

stabilityaccessseparationparent's health

Relationships Tomboysto others

Attitude toauthority

Relationships toothers

Friendships

Louisa

Place in familySiblingsChild's relationship

to familyFamily change

Interactionpatterns

Difficulties withpeers

Respected/admired by peers

Protected/

Rose

Interaction withpeers in playground

Co-operation inschool and inoutdoor activities—independence

supported by peersAcceptance by

peers

Student Knowledge: sources and means of acquisition

Analysis of the transcripts revealed that the teachers drew their knowledge of the classand groups and individuals within it from four main sources—classroom observation,interactions with students (both planned and unplanned), parents and teaching col-leagues. Classroom observation and teacher-student interactions were used extensively.Teachers were also aware of the need to check out the validity of the knowledge ofstudents they acquired. One teacher reported that she used other sources of knowledgeto confirm what she had 'seen happening'. Another stated that, although for her thegreatest source of information was the students themselves, 'you need to make sureyou've read them the right way so I usually have a long talk with them and often lotsof other things come out'. Those teachers working in a co-operative teaching situationoften used their teaching partner as a source of information; they also highlighted theusefulness of this teaching arrangement to 'free up' one teacher for actual classroomobservation and interaction with individuals, thus facilitating the gathering of rich dataon students. Two teachers revealed that school records and reports from professionalswere also a source of the knowledge they collected, but they added that they took noteof what was written but did not let it dictate their expectations of any particular student.In other words, the teachers suspended judgment on the validity of their peers'assessment of students. Moreover, the teachers added that the information was subse-quently confirmed (or rejected) as a result of the teachers themselves collecting morepersonally relevant information. In respect of placing reliance on what another teacherknows about students, one teacher expressed this caution: 'They're often different withdifferent teachers and a different group of children'.

Some other caveats were issued by the teachers. They emphasised the need forcurrent and personally useful information and for information that encompassedacademic and non-academic aspects because V°u need to see them totally.' Interviewdata also indicated that the teachers were not presented with information about the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

28 D. Mayer & P. Marland

class, groups and individuals in it, but that they actively sought it out and assembled itfor their own use.

The teachers reported a range of techniques for gathering information about theclass, groups and individuals within it. The following list encompasses the range oftechniques the teachers reported throughout the interviews:

• intuition,• informal contact with parents including both talking with the parents and observing

them with their children,• consulting records,• conducting parent interviews,• conducting private conferences with students,• group discussions,• reading checks with individual students (students read aloud to the teacher before

school),• home visits,• conversations with colleagues,• working with students—observing, talking and checking work.

Techniques that provided information about students during classroom instructionseemed to predominate. Such techniques included engaging students in direct dis-cussion: 'Discussion is so important in our work we don't ask students (for) an answer,we ask them how they got that answer you get a lot more information out of that kindof discussion'. One teacher claimed a strong intuitive basis for some of her knowledgeof students. 'I have a very strong intuition about what's going on in children basedupon a lot of my own experiences I can read their body language pretty accurately.'Informal contacts with parents, that is, those contacts not scheduled as formal parent-teacher conferences, were also highlighted by these highly effective teachers as avaluable source of knowledge about their students. Many referred to the importance ofdeveloping a good rapport with parents, of making them feel welcome in the classroom:'It's the informal talk that's really the important talk'. Another highlighted the value ofnoting the interaction and behaviours between parents and their children: 'If Maryforgets something, she rings mum and mum leaves work to go home and pick it up'.This teacher felt this helped explain much about this student.

Classroom Use of Knowledge about Students

As the teachers revealed their knowledge, during the series of interviews, about theirclasses, and the groups and individual students in them, they were asked to indicatewhat use, if any, they made of such knowledge during classroom instruction. Theiranswers appear in abbreviated note form in Table II. The list provided here should beseen as illustrative only and not exhaustive.

An overview of the data reveals that knowledge of students was used in a variety ofways in classrooms. Some of the principal ways, common to two or more teachers, arehighlighted below. First, knowledge of students was used by teachers in lesson plan-ning. All teachers reported using data about students' work habits and abilities to planappropriate activities, to form groups who would work productively and to identifyappropriate roles and tasks for the groups and individuals. Secondly, knowledge ofstudents allowed teachers to provide different treatments for various groups of studentsbased on personality traits. Claire, for example, identified tactics for dealing with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers' Knowledge of Students 29

TABLE II. Use of knowledge of students during classroom instruction

Claire

Work Determine the levelhabits of monitoring a

student will needDetermine the roles

each studentcan be givenin the classroom:

organiser, peertutor, participantsin planning futureactivities

Abilities Treat differentability groupsdifferentially toensure fairness(adjust teacherexpectations ofachievement)

Provide challengeand interest forthe more able

Determine the group'scomposition androles (e.g. leaders)

Previous Expect them to beschooling at different levels

Allows teacher tointerpret andunderstand thosecoming fromprevious classroomswhich weredifferently structured

Personality Determine level ofmonitoring

When strongpersonalities:

encourage regard foiothers; participatein devlopingclassroomactivities; avoidmolly coddling

Assess level ofindependence anduse to determinesocial-developmentemphasis in classactivities

When difficult toget along with!

give more attention;more responsibility;avoid nagging; bringinto teacher's ownlife; identify yourhumanity for thechildren

Rhonda

Plan appropriateactivities

Plan group work

Try not to treatimpaired studentsdifferently

Plan to strengthenweaknesses andbuild on strengths

Where learningproblems: takepressure offacademic workand work on socialskills: group similarneeds together;provide extrasupport

When anxious:build self-esteem;give reassurance; becalm and patient;

r highlight positivethings

When quiet:encourage to talk;do things thatwill involve them

When sensitive:try to beapproachable

When non-cooperative raiseself-esteem;think before talkingwith them; don'tforce the issue ofwork; use differentmeasures

Bev

Determine the levelof monitoring astudent will need

Determine tasksgiven to each student

Help determinegroup composition:group leaders

Determine how toresolve conflictswithin a group

Streaming(mathematics)

Match more ablewith less able(helpers)

Identify studentsneeding follow up

Choose/planappropriate activities

Negotiate learningDelegate

responsibilitiesDemonstrate

student's strengths

When have studentsbeen taught before(over a number ofyears), teacher ismore aware ofcapabilities

To help organisegroup composition(related to workhabits; spread arange throughoutgroups)

Determine how toencourage c&*operation, conflictresolution

Louisa

Identify studentswho can work withlittle teacherdirection

Determineassigned group roles:

organisers; leadenDetermine which

students needassistance indeveloping self-direction

Determine whichstudents can be rolemodels for omen—group accordingly

Use a supportteacher to help withacademic problems(to develop self-confidence)

Determine groupcomposition (usesocial abilities ratherthan academicabilities at times)

When quiet.lacking in selfconfidence: monitorlearning closely(lack of selfconfidence andlearning difficultiesare causally cyclical)

When strongpersonalities:respond to theirfeedback on thework they are doing,change accordingly

When extremelycapable but lackingin self confidence:put in a group ofable students; givepositive feedback

Rose

Help studentsdevelop by usingproblems solvingactivities

Develop activitiesto promoteco-operation

Provide rolemodels

Organise abilitygroups when askill has not beendeveloped

Mix abilities tohelp slower students

Determine specialgroup activities tohelp slower students

Use peer teachingto help studentsbecome moreresponsible

Have preschoolinvolved withprogramme tofamiliarise studentswith life at the "bigschool'

Group studentsaccording to needs

Put students withleadership qualitiesin groups requiringdirection and help

Develop classroomprocedures: e.g. ifstudents seesomethinghappening, they willremind that child 'Itis better for a friendto tell you than havea teacher "nagging"at you all the time'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

30 D. Mayer & P. Mariand

TABLE n. Use of knowledge of students during classroom instruction—continued

Claire

Interests Ensure themesreflect interests

Have studentsshare interests/projects

Family . Assess academicback- background ofground fiunily .

Where disruptivefiunily background:

adjust expectations;decide what generalknowledge toprovide in classroom instruction;listen to studentsread; increase non-fiction books to beread to the class;monitor closely;ensure completetasks; challenge them(Is this the best youCan do?); fwainrainregular contact withmother

Playground Allow assessmentbehaviour of emotional

development

Peer Determinerelation- appropriate groupships composition

(regroup wherefriends are notworking welltogether, group sothat work is withstudents who wouldnot normally worktogether)

Rhonda

Make allowanceswhen something ishappening at home

Determineappropriateinteractiontechniques withstudents

Determinebehaviourmanagement

Discuss outcomeof behaviour

Determine howsupport teachermight be used to helpbuild social skills

Bev Louisa

•Ease back* andallow students tosettle whencircumstances athome change

Help determinewho will work welltogether

Help determinematurity levels

Rose

Develop themes

Develop activitiesto help settlestudents whohave problemsat home

Help groupingarrangementsin school

Group studentsdepending onobservation ofneeds

students with 'strong personalities' and those who proved 'difficult to get along with'.For Rhonda, student groups who warranted special treatment were those whom sheconsidered 'quiet', 'anxious', 'sensitive' or 'noncooperative'. At the same time, she triedto avoid treating 'impaired students' differently. Thirdly, knowledge of studentsmarkedly influenced teachers' interactions with individual students. Their knowledge ofstudents allowed them to personalise reactions to, and treatment of, students. Some-times, for example, the principle of strategic leniency was applied. Bev, when aware ofadverse changes to a student's family circumstances, would 'ease back' on workrequirements or the application of classroom rules in respect of that student. Otherteachers made an effort to compensate students in class for deficits that they consideredthe student was experiencing at home (for example, lack of praise, too little parentalattention). Fourthly, knowledge of students sometimes served a management purpose.Three teachers reported basing a determination about the level of in-class monitoringof students on their knowledge of those students' work habits and personality traits.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers'Knowledge of Students 31

Another used her knowledge of students to single out those whom she could use as rolemodels for other students. Finally, knowledge of students was also used by one teacherto adjust her expectations of students. This teacher claimed that she adjusted herexpectations to take into account their different ability levels, their family backgroundsand the contexts in which students had completed their preschooling.

Analysis of the transcripts shows that the teachers in the study identified many waysin which they used knowledge of their students. These appear to have made animportant contribution to their instructional decision-making. There is one caveat.Because the data on the teachers' knowledge of students was drawn from post-lessoncommentary on their teaching, it cannot be asserted that they actually called up andprocessed their knowledge of students during the lesson. No attempt was made to gainaccess in this study to the teachers' interactive, that is, in-lesson thinking.

Review

The goal of this study was to document what highly effective primary teachers knewabout the students they taught and the ways in which they used such knowledge duringclassroom instruction. The rationale for the study stemmed from a proposition thatknowledge of students could be a vitally important component of the practical knowl-edge of highly effective teachers.

The findings of the study certainly lend credence to this proposition. The teachersthemselves regarded such knowledge as critical to being able to function effectively inthe classroom. The study also gives an indication of the nature of the schemata used bythese highly effective teachers for gathering and interpreting information about studentsand establishes a link between these schemata and teachers' role conceptualisations. Inbrief, their schemata were shaped by what individual teachers believe about teachingand learning and their classroom roles. The study also revealed that these highlyeffective teachers used a wide variety of sources and techniques to acquire theirknowledge of students and that these techniques were used regularly to monitor social,psychological and behavioural changes in students. Finally, the study documents theways in which the teachers used their knowledge of students to fulfil their professionalresponsibilities in the classroom and to optimise learning conditions for their students.

Analysis of the interview data also indicated that the validity of the claim thatteachers' knowledge of students contributes in a significant way to teaching effective-ness rests, in part, on three qualities inherent in the teachers' knowledge of students—richness, relevance and validity.

Richness of Teachers' Knowledge of Students

The knowledge about students divulged by teachers during the interviews was diverse,ranging across ten categories. The information included knowledge of students inlearning settings and play settings, and as individuals and group members inside andoutside the class. Information about students' families and educational backgroundsrounded out the profiles. The databases on individual students were broad in scope andmultidimensional, but they also had depth.

Classroom Relevance of Teachers' Knowledge of Students

Teachers' knowledge of their students was highly relevant to the teaching and learningprocesses in the classroom, and to the personal and social development of students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

32 D. Mayer & P. Marland

There was nothing in any teacher's student knowledge that appeared inconsequential orunnecessary. Each category of student knowledge played a part in informing theirteaching of groups, individuals and the class as a whole.

Validity of Teachers' Knowledge of Students

Most of the information about students came from sources which the teachers accesseddirectly. Their descriptions of individual students and groups were based on infor-mation which had been accumulated mainly through up-close contact with studentsand their parents. The mental profiles on students had been personally constructed;there was little reliance on school records and other teachers' perspectives of studentsand then only where these had been substantiated by the collaborating teachers. Therewas no evidence that rumours, innuendoe or other unreliable sources of knowledgeplayed any part in the development of their student profiles.

The validity of each teacher's knowledge base was also probably a function of thewide variety of data-gathering strategies they employed. These enabled a triangulationof data, that is, the cross checking of evidence from different sources and techniques.In this way, data could be cross checked and perceptions of students validated. Thiscould also explain why descriptions of students were given with such confidence, withno trace of uncertainty or reservation.

Other Phenomena

Two other phenomena were noted in the interview data. These might have played apart in the high quality of teaching by participants. The first concerned the location ofteachers' knowledge about students. It was noted that teachers' knowledge of individualstudents was not held in isolation but integrated with practical knowledge of a tacticalkind. In other words, information on student specifics such as their interests, abilities,work habits and personalities was closely bound up with information about the besttactics to use when interacting with and teaching them.

The second phenomena concerns the facility with which teachers were able toadumbrate their philosophies of teaching. These highly effective teachers were able toarticulate, clearly and in considerable detail, their teaching philosophies, including theirviews of their roles as teachers. Though it was not a specific requirement of die researchprocess, the teachers made their philosophies explicit in order to provide explanationsfor the kinds of information they acquired about students and their use of thatinformation in classrooms. We have surmised that the mental clarity with which theyheld their philosophies allowed them to define, with some precision, the kinds ofinformation that they required about students and the ways in which this informationwould be used in the school and classroom settings. Thus, within the total frameworkof how a teacher perceived his or her role and how that role was enacted within dieclassroom, teachers' knowledge of students appeared to have an integral and pivotalrole.

Implications for Teacher Education

This study of the practical knowledge of a small number of highly effective teachers hasdisclosed the very real possibility that at least part of their success as teachers can beattributed to a detailed knowledge of students, a knowledge which approximates to atype of clinical knowledge because it has been formed from up-close studies of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers'Knowledge of Students 33

individual students. The explanation for this link between teachers' effectiveness andtheir knowledge of students appears to be that detailed knowledge about individualstudents allowed these teachers to understand the origins, causes and meanings of theirbehaviours and to accurately interpret students' states and needs. The interpretativeand predictive power this knowledge bestowed on the teachers enabled them tooptimise the learning and development of their students by tailoring processes, oppor-tunities and educational programmes to suit individual learners.

What are we to make of this proposition? Does it have any implications for teachereducation? To begin with, the exploratory nature of the study and the small teachersample used in the project needs to be kept in mind. Clearly, the database of this studyis very limited, but it does offer interesting insights into how teachers think. However,as Shulman (1987) makes clear, the aim of teacher-thinking research is not to outlinenormative models of pedagogical reasoning or to suggest ways of thinking in which allteachers should engage. To do so, would be to countenance a form of brainwashing inteacher education, an approach which would provoke indignation and strident oppo-sition on educational and moral grounds. What this study does provide, then, is toprovide case-study material and prompts for engaging in a critical review of existingthought and action in teacher education.

In addition, this study does raise an important question in teacher education: doteacher-education programmes place sufficient emphasis on acquisition by studentteachers of in-depth knowledge of students?

Student teachers are already plied with much information about learners throughon-campus courses on human learning and development. However, the knowledgeabout learners dispensed through preservice courses is very different from the knowl-edge of students revealed by teachers in this study. Whereas the former is abstract,generalised and focused on normative patterns in learning and development establishedby research, the latter is student-specific and it deals with particularities. Though thetwo sets of knowledge are very different, they are also probably complementary.Therefore, a strong argument based on links between knowledge of students andteaching effectiveness could be made for encouraging preservice teachers to acquirepractical knowledge about students relevant to their individual approaches to teachingand their classroom contexts.

To do this, preservice teachers would have to identify the kinds of knowledge ofstudents that are personally and situationally relevant, how to acquire such informationand how to use it in the classroom. Doing so, this study suggests, would involve them,as a first step, in articulating their practical theories. This would enable them, as asecond step, to construct schemata in order to identify the kinds of knowledge theywould require about students to enable them to live out their teaching theories. Suchknowledge-of-students schemata would then need to be tested and revised to ensurethat their knowledge of students was indeed useful and sufficient.

Since much of this developmental work would occur during practica, collaborativearrangements would need to be put in place with schools to give effect to plans to assistteachers to construct and validate their own practical theories and knowledge in thedomain of knowledge of students.

Clearly, adoption of the proposition emerging from this study would have some quiteprofound consequences for teacher education. It would require recognition of theimportance of a type of practical knowledge to do with clinical knowledge of studentsand ways of acquiring and using that knowledge which, to date, appears to have beenoverlooked in teacher-education programmes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014

34 D. Mayer & P. Mariand

Correspondence: Di Mayer, School of Education, University of Southern Queensland, PODarling Heights, Toowoomba Q4350, Australia.

REFERENCES

ANNING, A. (1988) Teachers' theories about children's learning, in: J. CALDERHEAD (Ed.) Teachers'Professional Learning, pp. 128-145 (London, Falmer Press).

BERLINER, D.C. (1986) In pursuit of the expert pedagogue, Educational Researcher, 15, pp. 5-13.BERLINER, D.C. (1988) The development of expertise in pedagogy, C. W. Hunt Memorial Lecture,

presented to the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC, February1988.

BROPHY, J. & GOOD, T. (1974) Teacher-Student Relationships: causes and consequences (New York, Holt,Rinehart and Winston).

BROWN, S. & MCINTYRE, D. (1988) The professional craft knowledge of teachers, Scottish EducationalReview, Special Issue, pp. 39-47.

CALDERHEAD, J. (1983) Research into teachers' and student teachers' cognitions. Exploring the natureof classroom teaching practice, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Montreal.

CARTER, K., CUSHING, K., SABERS, D. , STEIN, P. & BERLINER, D. (1988) Expert-novice differences in

perceiving and processing visual classroom information, Journal of Teacher Education, 39, pp. 25-31.CLARK, C. & PETERSON, P. (1986) Teachers' thought processes, in: M. C. WITTROCK (Ed.) Handbook

of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn, pp. 231-263 (New York, Macmillan).CONNELL, R.W. (1985) Teachers' Work (Sydney, George Allen and Unwin).DOYLE, W. (1977) Learning the classroom environment: an ecological analysis, Journal of Teacher

Education, 28, pp. 51-55.ELBAZ, F. (1983) Teacher Thinking: a study of practical knowledge (New York, Nicholls).GROSSMAN, P.L. (1995) Teachers' knowledge, in: L. W. ANDERSON (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of

Teaching and Teacher Education, 2nd edn, pp. 20-24 (London, Pergamon Press).HOUSNER, L.D. & GRIFFEY, D.C. (1985) Teacher cognition: differences in planning and interactive

decision making between experienced and inexperienced teachers, Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 56, pp. 45-53.

JACKSON, P., SILBERMAN, M. & WOLFSON, B. (1969) Signs of personal involvement in teachers'descriptions of their students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, pp. 22-27.

KAGAN, D . & TIPPINS, D. (1991) How student teachers describe their pupils, Teaching and TeacherEducation, 7, pp. 455-466.

MARLAND, P. (1977) A study of teachers' interactive thinking, unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Alberta.

MARLAND, P. (1984) Stimulated recall from video: its use in research on the thought processes ofclassroom participants, in: O. ZUBER-SKERRITT (Ed.) Video in Higher Education, pp. 158-165 (Lon-don, Kogan Page).

MARLAND, P. (1986) Models of teachers' interactive thinking, The Elementary School Journal, 87,pp. 209-226.

MARLAND, P. & OSBORNE, A. (1990) Classroom theory, thinking and action, Teaching and TeacherEducation, 6, pp. 93-109.

MARLAND, P., PATCHING, W. & PUTT, I. (1990) Distance learners' interactions with text while studying,Distance Education, 11, pp. 71-91.

MARLAND, P., PATCHING, W. & PUTT, I. (1992) Thinking while studying: glimpses inside the minds ofdistance learners, Distance Education, 13, pp. 193-217.

SANDERS, D . & MCCUTCHEON, G. (1986) The development of practical theories of teaching, Journalof Curriculum and Supervision, 2, pp. 50-67.

SHULMAN, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard EducationalReview, 57, pp. 1-22.

SPRADLEY, J. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

1:14

13

Aug

ust 2

014