Future Directions for Classroom Observation Research

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616419.011

11 - Future Directions for Classroom Observation Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2009

Hersh C. Waxman ,

R. Soleste Hilberg and

Edited by

Roland G. Tharp and

Hersh C. Waxman: Affiliation:
Professor of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies in the College of Education, University of Houston; Principal Researcher in the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence; Principal Investigator in the U.S. Department of Education, National Laboratory for Student Success, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory
R. Soleste Hilberg: Affiliation:
Education Research Specialist, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) at the University of California, Santa Cruz
Roland G. Tharp: Affiliation:
Director, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE); Professor of Education and Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Hersh C. Waxman: Affiliation:
University of Houston
Roland G. Tharp: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
R. Soleste Hilberg: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter summarizes the work presented in the book, reviews some of the ways classroom observation has contributed to the research knowledge in the field of teacher effectiveness, and discusses some of the important implications of the book for the improvement of teaching and student learning in culturally diverse settings. Some of the criticisms and cautions related to the use of structured observation and techniques are also summarized. Finally, some future directions for observational research are reported and three specific views are described: (a) using instruments that reflect best practices or educational standards, (b) instruments that focus on student behaviors as well as teachers, and (c) combining qualitative and quantitative methods in observation instruments.

LIMITATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC CLASSROOM OBSERVATION

Although previous chapters have highlighted some of the important purposes of classroom observation, there have also been several criticisms and cautions related to the use of structured observation techniques (Delamont & Hamilton, 1986; Evertson & Green, 1986; Galton, 1988; McIntyre & Macleod, 1986). The criticisms and limitations of using structured observation techniques are categorized into three subsections: (a) Theoretical and Epistemological Criticisms, (b) Methodological Concerns, and (c) Pragmatic Concerns. This section also includes a brief discussion of the implications of classroom observation and some future directions.

Theoretical and Epistemological Criticisms

Although observational research has produced a substantial body of important findings that can lead to improved teaching practices, there is still a lack of consensus or lack of confidence regarding the research (Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1990).

Type: Chapter
Information: Observational Research in U.S. Classrooms
New Approaches for Understanding Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
, pp. 266 - 278

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616419.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1989). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. In R. D. Bock (Ed.), Multilevel analysis of educational data (pp. 159–204). San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Dalton, S. S. (1998). Pedagogy matters: Standards for effective teaching practice (Research Report No. 4). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California

Delamont, S., & Hamilton, D. (1986). Revisiting classroom research: A cautionary tale. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Controversies in classroom research (pp. 25–43). Philidelphia: Open University Press

Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5, pp. 163–198). Itasca, IL: Peacock

Evertson, C., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 162–207). New York: Macmillan

Fenstermacher, G. (1978). A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 6, pp. 157–185). Itasca, IL: Peacock

Foster, P. (1996). Observing schools: A methodological guide. London: Paul Chapman

Gage, N. L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft science: The case of pedagogy. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa

Gage, N. L., & Needels, M. C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching? A review of criticisms. Elementary School Journal, 89, 253–300CrossRef Google Scholar

Galton, M. (1988). Structured observation techniques. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 474–478). Oxford: Pergamon Press

Hoge, R. D. (1985). The validity of direct observation measures of pupil classroom behavior. Review of Educational Research, 55, 469–483CrossRef Google Scholar

Knight, S. L., & Ackerman, C. (1997). Teaching for Meaning (TFM) classroom observation manual. College Station: Texas A&M University

McIntyre, D., & Macleod, G. (1986). The characteristics and uses of systematic classroom observation. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Controversies in classroom research (pp. 10–24). Philidephia: Open University Press

Medley, D. M. (1992). Structured observation. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1310–1315). New York: Macmillan

Medley, D. M., Coker, H., & Soar, R. S. (1984). Measurement-based evaluation of teacher performance: An empirical approach. New York: Longman

Morgenstern, C., & Keeves, J. P. (1994). Descriptive scales for measuring educational climate. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1475–1483). Oxford: Pergamon Press

Needels, M. C., & Gage, N. L. (1991). Essence and accident in process-product research on teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 3–31). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan

Nuthall, G., & Alton-Lee, A. (1990). Research on teaching and learning: Thirty years of change. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 546–570CrossRef Google Scholar

Ornstein, A. C. (1991). Teacher effectiveness research: Theoretical consideration. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 63–80). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan

Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, R., & Zeichner, K. (1979). Dulling the senses: Research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 52–60CrossRef Google Scholar

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). Quantitative models for estimating teacher and school effectiveness. In R. D. Bock (Ed.), Multilevel analysis of educational data (pp. 205–232). San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. D. (1991). Schools, classrooms, and pupils: International studies of schooling from a multilevel perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Samph, T. (1976). Observer effects on teacher behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 736–741CrossRef Google Scholar

Stallings, J. A., & Freiberg, H. J. (1991). Observation for the improvement of teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 107–133). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan

Stockard, J. (1993). Methodological issues in the multi-level analysis of school environments. In S. B. Bacharach & R. T. Ogawa (Eds.), Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 2, pp. 217–240). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice (Research Report No. 1). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California

Tharp, R. G. (1999). Proofs and evidence: Effectiveness of the five standards for effective teaching (Effective Teaching Document Series No. 2). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Waxman, H. C., & Padrón, Y. N. (2002). Research-based teaching practices that improve the education of English language learners. In L. Minaya-Rowe (Ed.), Teacher training and effective pedagogy in the context of student diversity (pp. 3–38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Waxman, H. C., Padrón, Y. N., & Arnold, K. A. (2001). Effective instructional practices for students placed at risk of failure. In G. D. Borman, S. C. Stringfield, & R. E. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads (pp. 137–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Winne, P. H. (1987). Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 333–356CrossRef Google Scholar

Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1977). Reconceptualizing research on teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 668–678CrossRef Google Scholar