How teachers perceive similarities and differences among various teaching models

Abstract

In the past 20 years a number of alternative models of teaching have been developed for use in the science classroom. Many of these models were developed t o permit teachers t o implement more validly specific science curriculum projects. The "science inquiry model''-really a broad array of models-has been used t o characterize the teaching of effective BSCS, CHEMS, CBA, PSSC, H P 2 , and ISCS teachers. In essence, this global model calls for the teacher t o present science as an active investigatory process. Teachers present problematic events and through careful questioning and the timely introduction of information through readings, group or individual projects, laboratory experiences and the like, they encourage students t o become effective inquirers as well as learners of science content.There have also been a number of alternative models of teaching that have been implemented in other classrooms. The research and development efforts of Bruner, Ausubel, Suchman, Piaget, and even the philosophic stance of Carl Rogers, have catalyzed the development of various alternative models of teaching. Thus, the contemporary science educator faces a dilemma of selecting which of the many possible approaches to use with students in elementary and secondary science classes. A second dilemma exists for the science teacher educator who must select appropriate curricula for teacher education programs. This selection dilemma becomes more difficult as the range of alternatives continues to expand.A highly cogent description of the wide array of teaching models is presented by Joyce and Weil (1972). In their book, Models of Teaching, the authors define models of teaching as plans or patterns of strategies and tactics that the teacher can use t o guide instruction. Figure 1 summarizes IS of the models of teaching discussed by Joyce and Weil, and the lecture method, a less formally developed but certainly well-known science instructional method.The reader should note that most of the models can be directly identified with one or more of the well-known science curricula. Other models in the table have also found favor with science teachers, although the focus of some models is not inherently scientific. Even the Synectics model, while it may not be recognized by name by many science educators, is the

Biases Induced by Coarse Measurement Scales

“…However, the researcher would select a scoring interval reasonably believed to be no more refined than the judgments that the respondents were believed to be making. Example applications have been reported by Thompson and Miller (1978) and Jones, Thompson, and Miller (1980).…”

Correspondence

“…Standardization of variables is necessary in Q-mode 6–16 for comparison of samples. The standardization is achieved using normalization techniques.…”

Q-technique factor analysis as a vehicle to intensively study especially interesting people.

“…1. variables as the columns of the data matrix, with people constituting the matrix rows, which Cattell labeled R-technique factor analysis (e.g., Thompson, Cook & Heath, 2003); 2. people as the columns of the data matrix, with variables constituting the matrix rows, which Cattell labeled Q-technique factor analysis (e.g., Thompson, 1980b); 3. variables as the columns of the data matrix, with occasions constituting the matrix rows, which Cattell labeled P-technique factor analysis (e.g., Cattell, 1953)-here the analysis might involve a single participant, or location statistics (e.g., means, medians, Huber estimators) summarizing for each variable and each occasion all the scores as a single number; 4. occasions as the columns of the data matrix, with variables constituting the matrix rows, which Cattell labeled O-technique factor analysis (e.g., Jones, Thompson & Miller, 1980)-here again the analysis might involve a single participant, or location statistics summarizing for each variable and each occasion all the scores as a single number;…”