Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 155~-163, 1989 Printed in Great Britain
07424151X/89 $3.0~1+11.0~1 (~ 1989 Perg:Jmon Press plc
NEEDED FOR TEACHER EDUCATION: NATURALISTIC RESEARCH T H A T IS C U L T U R A L L Y R E S P O N S I V E B. R O B E R T T A B A C H N I C K University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.
Abstract - - Teacher education is a social enterprise and has the dynamic qualities of social events. Each incident of social interaction is embedded in a social context that is broader than the boundaries of an observer's vision, reaching back into the history that led up to it and reaching out to a constellation or network of related and impinging social events and social forces. At the same time, each incident of social interaction is constantly in the process of changing, of becoming something else. This future is never precisely foreseeable. To study such a dynamic event requires methods that can describe both their background or surrounding general social context and that can describe the shifting, changing event as it evolves. These descriptions make deeper interpretations possible. Interpretations suggest meanings for an event that are plausible within the cultural context in which they happen. A combination of survey data and naturalistic data may provide the descriptions needed to make plausible interpretations. These provide rich illumination of the few instances being studied. Generalization is possible only with great caution. "Exporting" generalizations across cultures is even more difficult than applying insights within a culture but in a different social context. The mediating intelligence and understanding of the user may make such cautious application possible.
This p a p e r e x a m i n e s s o m e o f the a d v a n t a g e s and p r o b l e m s in using q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s to u n d e r s t a n d t e a c h i n g , learning, and schooling. T h e t e r m " q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h " d o e s not quite d e s c r i b e the r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s used. T h e t e r m s e p a r a t e s social science r e s e a r c h into two types, q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i t a t i v e . T h e r e m a y be times w h e n s o m e r e s e a r c h e r s s u p p l y o n l y n u m b e r s as results a n d limit t h e i r descriptions to q u a n t i t i e s o f this o r that h a p p e n i n g , for e x a m p l e , d u r i n g a lesson t a u g h t in a c l a s s r o o m . M o r e o f t e n , t h o s e w h o c a r r y out c o r r e l a t i o n res e a r c h o r l e a r n i n g e x p e r i m e n t s a r e d e e p l y conc e r n e d a b o u t the q u a l i t y o f the actions t h e y o b serve, not m e r e l y h o w m a n y t o o k place. S o m e times quality is only a q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r the n u m b e r of a c t i o n s o r i n t e r a c t i o n s o b s e r v e d c o u l d have h a p p e n e d b y a c c i d e n t o r not. A t o t h e r t i m e s , the quality o f o b s e r v e d i n t e r a c t i o n s is p a r t l y the result o f h o w Well q u a n t i t a t i v e int e r p r e t a t i o n s p r o d u c e h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t real life in real c l a s s r o o m s , h y p o t h e s e s that can be
tested by intensive case s t u d y analyses. So o n e p r o b l e m with the t e r m " q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h " is that s u p p o s e d q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s also care a b o u t quality. A s e c o n d p r o b l e m with the t e r m "'qualitative r e s e a r c h " is that it i m p l i e s that those w h o d o it a r e not i n t e r e s t e d in q u a n t i t y . T h e r e m a y be s o m e so-called q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s w h o are b e m u s e d by w h a t A r n o B e l l a c k calls "'the mystique of q u a l i t y " a n d w h o s e e m to believe that " I f you can m e a s u r e it, that isn't it'" ( B e l l a c k , 1981). M a n y social scientists w h o do q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h are v e r y i n t e r e s t e d in q u a n t i t y . D e m o g r a p h i c d a t a a b o u t the size o f a c o m m u n i t y ' s p o p u l a t i o n , n u m b e r s of t e a c h e r s , schools, a n d pupils, pupil s c o r e s on s t a n d a r dized tests, and so o n , m a y f o r m the g r o u n d against which the figures b e i n g s t u d i e d c o m e to s h a r p e r relief. T h e t e c h n i q u e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m a y also use q u a n t i f i c a t i o n , for e x a m p l e , b r e a k i n g an i n t e r v i e w into " t h o u g h t units" in o r d e r to sort t h e s e into v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s o f be-
Paper presented at the First Asia-Pacific Conference on Teacher Education, Bangkok, Thailand, 11-14 July, 1988. 155
B. ROBERT TABACHNICK
lief. So a second problem with the term "'qualitative research" is that those who do it may need and use counts of various quantities and several techniques of quantification in order to help them dig deeper into the qualities of the data that interest them. My own preference is for the term "naturalistic research". This term helps us to recognize the very old tradition in which it has its roots. It is a method that tries to look at the world as it is and while it whirls around. For the alternative, I often use "abstracted social research" because the methodology has us examine data that have been abstracted from the natural context. In "abstracted social research," either a social context is carefully constructed so that variables may be controlled, or we create special social meanings for behavior (marks on a paper stand for reading ability or science knowledge), or in some other way we construct a special social world for our study because this special world is easier to study than the real world we hope to understand. Although the naturalistic researcher plunges into a naturally existing context to find data, the records of what is noticed, the subsequent organization and interpretation of the data, are also abstractions from the social reality observed. Compared to abstracted research, naturalistic research remains closer to the social situations observed and is able to give a fuller description and analysis of those situations. Studying the social world as it unfolds in action is certainly a very difficult task to accomplish, but for people like me it is very important to try. I am a teacher educator. 1 teach prospective teachers and experienced teachers who want to upgrade their skills, especially in teaching social studies. Most of my research, especially during the past 15 years, has been aimed at understanding the transition from neophyte to experienced teacher. I would like to know what our students learn in our courses and how they use that knowledge when they leave the university or teachers' college and go into the schools to teach. Mine is a practical interest because I want to use what I discover, to improve the education of teachers. My interest is also theoretical in that I hope to understand more about the ways in which social institutions and individual human beings interact with one another - - constraining, shaping, recreating
each other. In my work I continually try to keep both my practical and my theoretical interests in balance. In my research I try to stay as close as I can to the social reality I am trying to understand and improve. Even the introduction of an observer changes the social situation, but I try to distort that situation as little as I can while studying it. To understand my approach to naturalistic research it is necessary that you understand my concept of social reality.
A View of Social Reality There are countless ways of conceptualizing social reality. In one view, the actions and interactions of people are an example of regular and consistent (predictable) behaviors. Apparently complex interactions (such as teaching and learning) may be fragmented into component parts. Some actions are causes; some are effects. These may be separated from each other; some may be "controlled" while the interactions of others are examined and threads that link separate causes to effects can be untangled. When we recombine the fragments, the separated behaviors, causes, effects, we recapture the social event once more. We can even make predictions to social events like the one we studied. There are some problems with this view of social reality. It has not been very productive of insights or explanations for what happens during teaching and learning and there have been even fewer proposals, flowing from this research, that have changed schooling for the better. Improvements that have come about have often been quite unaware of and uninterested in social research. Some changes, such as treating schools as though they were factories, or trying to control precisely what pupils learn, have not been improvements. This view of social life also violates our common experience of social interaction, where the whole social event seems to mean something more or less than the sum of its parts, assuming we could actually sum its parts. In another view of social reality, the one that underlies my own naturalistic research, every social interaction has two essential but different qualities. The event is embedded in a network of other related social events. At the same time, the social interaction is evolving, changing, be-
Naturalistic Research coming something different from what it was (Tabachnick, 1981). The embedded social event has a history and leads toward future events; it grows from past events and these create expectations in the participants and a tendency to explain a social event in terms of others that happened before it. Each social event is also connected to other events taking place at the same time, some in the same context, some in another. More such connections exist than anyone can know. As an example, let us imagine a classroom that is being filmed during a lesson. When the camera shows us the teacher and the children with whom the teacher is talking or working, it does not usually also show us many small conversations and little scuffles taking place out of the camera's eye. Even if we saw the whole classroom we could not hear three or four or more separate conversations all going on at the same time. Yet all these social events are connected and have some impact on one another: the teacher talks, but listens for distracting pupil talk or else for pupil comments that may help the lesson; a pupil is given a hidden blow by a classmate and does not hit back for fear that the teacher will see but instead of listening to the teacher's explanations, is planning later revenge. In the city Education Office 10 kilometers away, a school administrator decides to employ more teachers to decrease class size and make teaching more effective; this will change what the teacher we just watched does in the classroom. The embeddedness of a social event anchors the event and gives it the stability of all of its interconnections, but increases the difficulty of interpretation. The second quality of a social event, whether it consists of a few or of very many social interactions, is that it is continually becoming something else. Social interactions are always in process and their future is more or less unpredictable. However carefully we plan for teaching a lesson, for example, there are some things that happen that we did not e x p e c t - - a pupil has sudden insight and the excitement and understanding transform the class; another pupil, unhappy about something happening at home, bursts into tears and the carefully planned lesson is changed by something completely outside the classroom. Very often a teacher's-goals
seem to be fulfilled, but unexpected results occur and become part of the "cost" of achieving the goals. For example, a very harsh and punishing teacher frightens pupils into obedience. They memorize many words and get good results on reading tests. But, at the same time as they learn certain supposedly correct responses to printed cues, they may also learn to dislike reading; unless they are forced to do so, they never read anything. This is an unintended result of teaching. If the only measure of the teaching is the reading test, this unplanned result is never discovered. Additional data must be collected, data of a different type, to discover what are the planned and unplanned results of teaching.
Naturalistic Methods in Context My colleagues and I try to understand teaching and teacher education by collecting data using a naturalistic methodology, because we think that gives us: 1. Access to many more of the social interactions, for example, when teachers and students are doing something together; 2. Some knowledge of the past and present social context in which these interactions take place: classroom, school, and community; and 3. Some basis for guessing about the future into which these social interactions develop. We notice these in the moments of observation and in discussions with some of the participants (e.g., teachers, pupils) both before and after the observed behavior. We lose something in working in this way: we are forced to work with only a few teachers, students, and classrooms. We can only hypothesize about the central tendencies of large groups of teachers or pupils. Large scale survey research is useful in providing background data and hypotheses about individual and particular cases although prediction about specific cases can be tested best through naturalistic research methods. We gain something in working in our way. We learn a great deal about the meaning of a teacher's beliefs and actions. We test or clarify many untested assumptions about reality in the few cases we study. We can create hypotheses
B. ROBERT TABACHNICK
about the beliefs and behavior of large groups that can be tested through large sample studies. I hope it is clear that in my judgment every carefully-done piece of research has something to offer in extending the range of our understanding; there is value in large sample studies and value in intensive naturalistic studies. Naturalistic research is not a substitute for gathering comprehensive social background data; for example: - - how many students, teachers, schools are in the particular administrative unit being studied; - - costs and expenditures on schooling; the education and experience of teachers; - - standardized achievement data for pupils; - - the distribution and numbers of schools, teachers, skills, and experience levels of teachers, for example, as between urban and rural schools. Under certain conditions, naturalistic research can work well in cooperation with large sample studies and surveys. By illuminating a few cases in depth, naturalistic research can balance, correct, and enrich the more abstract analyses of large sample studies. By providing background data for the larger populations of teachers, pupils, and schools from which a few cases may have been drawn, large sample surveys and studies help to fill in some of the wider social context within which the cases exist. -
An Example of Naturalistic Research In the studies that Ken Zeichner and I have carried out over the last I0 years at the University of Wisconsin (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1985), we have discovered that students and beginning teachers can identify what they believe and how they want to act as teachers. Under certain conditions many of them could and did resist pressure to abandon their beliefs and instead they became better at making their ideas work. One way to deal with pressure and threat is to think and say one thing but to do what you feel forced to do. Teachers are expected to live with contradictions and not to try to resolve them or even notice them. In one of our studies we examined how two teachers reacted to contradictions between their beliefs and their classroom behavior. Although both aimed for and
achieved greater consistency between belief and behavior, they achieved this result in quite different ways. The study' that I refer to was part of a larger two-year longitudinal study (Zeichn e r & Tabachnick, 1985). From a group of 13 student teachers whom we had studied intensively for six months, we selected four to follow into their first year of teaching. For each of the four teachers: - - There were three one-week observations: that is an observer was present for five consecutive complete teaching day's at three different times during a school year: - - During three of those days one or two observers wrote narrative descriptions of what was happening; - - On one of the days, the observer used a check-list to measure time given to various types of teaching; - - On one of the days, the observer focused on six children in the class, chosen because they represented ranges of difference among the pupils; - - T w i c e during each week there were long interviews with the teacher; every day, there were shorter discussions; - - We interviewed the principal and two experienced teachers in each school; - - Observations and interviews were focused within four categories of perspectives toward teaching: teacher role, teacher-pupil relations, knowledge and curriculum, student diversity; - - At least two observers visited each teacher on two of the five days during each one-week observation period; - - The whole research team took part in analyzing the data; - - The descriptive and analytic material was shared with the teachers we studied and their reactions and suggested modifications were studied before we produced the final report. These were all attempts to increase the validity of our descriptions and interpretations. Altogether, when tape-recorded interviews and written observations were typed up, there was a 100--200 page book of protocols for the teacher. All four teachers faced contradictions. All tried to create consistency and remove or reduce contradictions between what they believed and what they did in the classroom. In Figures 1 and 2, we describe the responses of two teachers, Beth and Hannah, to creating greater
Figure I. Beth resolves contradictions between beliefs and behavior. HANNAH
Figure 2. Hannah resolves contradictions between beliefs and behavior.
consistency between belief and classroom behavior. Consistency is represented by a straight (180 degree) line from belief to behavior. For both Beth and Hannah, behavior did not follow from belief when they began to teach; they each said they believed certain things but their teaching seemed to illustrate different beliefs. Beth continued to act in essentially the same way throughout the year. H e r beliefs changed to become more consistent with her teaching behavior (Figure 1). Hannah keeps her beliefs intact and gradually changes her teaching behavior so that it becomes more consistent with her beliefs (Figure 2). In reporting these results (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1986) we point out that each teacher works under different conditions from the other: Bureaucratic structure and control were different for each of them; Teacher and pupil cultures, both formal and informal, were different in the two schools; Technical control of the curriculum was more pervasive and powerful in one school than in the other; - - More varied and more contradictory mes-
sages in one school permitted that teacher (Hannah) to be freer to make choices. It is equally important to recognize that Beth and Hannah are different people. Beth searches for externally-made rules to cont.rol her teaching. Hannah searches for ways to put her own beliefs to work. Hannah interprets the rules to e m p o w e r her to act, while Beth interprets them to constrain her actions.
Problem and Promise Naturalistic research methodologies are beset with many of the same problems as abstracted social research, as well as by some that are unique to its form. Validity, for example, is a problem for all kinds of research. A questionnaire is sent to 2000 teachers. It has 30 questions on it. We assume that the questions sample from the knowledge we hope to gain from answers. More improbable than that, we assume that each of the 2000 teachers will understand each question to ask just what we intend to ask so that each answer can be added to and compared with answers from other
B. ROBERT TABACHNICK
teachers. That is not very likely and the validity of their answers is weakened. Validity is also a problem for naturalistic research. Adding observers to a social situation changes it, although the change can range from an important factor to one that is of little or no importance. The observer is the most important analytic instrument in this approach and observer bias is a constant concern. In a recent project Ken Zeichner and I reported the results of a year-long study of four beginning teachers. To analyze each of the four teachers, we had at least two observers for part of the data gathering and the whole research team took part in analysis. In addition, the descriptive and analytic material were shared with the teachers we studied and their reactions and suggested modifications were studied before we produced the final report. These were attempts to increase the validity of our descriptions and interpretations, but we must always acknowledge their limitations and imperfections. In abstracted social research, individuals are protected by being hidden in a large group for which only such group data as central tendencies, correlations, and regression are reported usually. A naturalistic methodology tends to reveal more about individuals. In exchange for their openness and their willingness to be observed, individuals deserve to have their identities protected by the research team. This is often not easy to do with so much being reported about so few cases, but reports of naturalistic research should try to mask the identities of those being studied. The research team should also share and discuss the report with the people who were observed before publication so that they may raise objections and suggest changes. It tends also to strengthen the validity of the report if those who have been observed agree that the report is accurate in its descriptions and fair in its interpretations. Naturalistic methods of research and analysis may yield a wealth of data about a single school or classroom, a single teacher, or a few teachers. How can we generalize from so few cases? We must recognize that generalizations are severely limited no matter what kind of social science method has produced them. Generalizations from abstracted research are limited to the population within the social context from
which they are a sample. (If the studied cases are simply collected because they were conveniently available, that is, if the data are not a sample from a population, then the results cannot generalize at all.) Generalizations from abstracted research are also limited by time, because the social context and the people in it are always changing. These limitations to generalization are stated forcefully by Cronbach in his paper, "Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology" (Cronbach, 1975). The title refers to an earlier p a p e r ('~The Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology") which he gave for his installation in 1957 as President of the American Psychological Association. The two disciplines of scientific psychology are experimental and correlational psychology. By ~'correlation studies," Cronbach refers to examination of social data through any systematic comparative method, presumably statistical or non-statistical. Cronbach speculates that the separation of these two disciplines prevented psychology from being as productive as it could have been of results that could ultimately explain human behavior better, and possibly even improve such social institutions as schooling. Cronbach's paper on the two disciplines gave great impetus to Aptitude T r e a t m e n t Interaction (ATI) studies. These attempt to combine experimental and correlational methodologies through a more sophisticated statistical treatment designed to interpret more complex interactions of variables where there are both differential treatments and differences among the individuals undergoing these treatments. Almost 20 years later, Cronbach (1975) comments that the more sophisticated conceptualizations and statistical treatments of A T I still do not narrow the gap much between the artificially constructed world of the experimental or correlational psychologists and the social world which these scientists aim to understand, but it does bring the two somewhat nearer together. Part of the problem as Cronbach sees it lies in the nature of social life itself. H o w e v e r many variables we identify and whose interactions we measure., there are always additional variables we fail to measure but which also contribute significantly to an explanation (social events are "embedded"). A n o t h e r part of the problem is time and
change. Cronbach's conclusion is that generalizations decay. That is, they last only a short time before they no longer summarize what might be discovered if the same experiment or correlations were to be repeated. In addition, unplanned and unanticipated effects are important to describe and analyze (social events are "in process"). Cronbach comments: I believe that in past research the psychologist has been too willing to stop as soon as he has calculated the statistics stating the strength of the relationships he specified a priori. T h e experimenter or the correlational researcher can and should look within his data for local effects arising from uncontrolled conditions and intermediate responses (Edward & Cronbach, 1952). He can do so, of course only if he collected adequate protocols from the start (Cronbach, 1975).
In appraising the need and role of generalization, Cronbach goes on to write: Instead of making generalization the ruling consideration in our research, i suggest that we reverse our priorities. An observer collecting data in one particular situation is in a position to appraise a practice or proposition in that setting, observing effects in context. In trying to describe and account for what happened, he will give attention to whatever variables were controlled, but he will give equally careful attention to uncontrolled conditions, to personal characteristics, and to events that occurred during treatment and m e a s u r e m e n t . As he goes from situation to situation, his first task is to describe and interpret the effect anew in each locale, perhaps taking into account factors unique to that locale or series of events (cf. Geertz, 1973, chapter 1, on "thick description"). As results accumulate, a person who seeks understanding will do his best to trace how the uncontrolled factors could have caused local departures from the modal effect. That is, generalization comes late, and the exception is taken as seriously as the rule. W h e n we give proper weight to local conditions, any generalization is a working hypothesis, not a conclusion (Cronbach, 1975, pp. 124-125).
Generalization has a different meaning for naturalistic research than for abstracted social research. For one thing, it is not built into the analysis of the results of study. A consumer or reader of the naturalistic research report is required to make the connections to another time in the situation described or to quite a different social time and place where insights gained by the reader can be applied in some social intervention or new study. This is a promise as well
as a problem since it encourages a kind of active consumption of research reports by people who may actually have participated in producing the data. Teachers especially (and sometimes their pupils) become students, not merely "the studied." Generalization is appropriately limited to a population from which a sample has been drawn in a social context like the one studied. None of these conditions is met when the research is done in one culture and is applied in another or when the research takes place in one kind of social context (urban schools, highly industrial country) and is applied to another social context (rural schools, developing country). An example of this is the research dealing with the relationship of class size to student achievement. Many studies have been done in the United States to explore this relationship. There is continuing controversy among American researchers about the meaning of the results (ERS, 1980; Glass, 1980). ERS asserts that the data do n o t support a conclusion that smaller classes result in higher achievement; Glass and his colleagues insist that their meta-analysis of about 75 studies demonstrates that lower class size is likely to result in increased student achievement. Despite this lack of agreement, several writers, planners, and policy statements blandly accept one side of the issue and recommend that efficient use of fund~; for schooling in developing countries requires budgeting for at least 40-50 pupils per teacher since "there is no gain in achievement in smaller classes" (see, e.g., the discussion in Beeby, 1979, p. 115). In another set of controversial interpretations, it is suggested that social variables have more influence on school achievement than school variables in the United States. Just the reverse is the situation in developing countries (World Bank, 1980, pp. 32-33). Much of the discussion about these interpretations has been around technical issues of analysis. This sometimes overlooks fundamental issues of meaning. What does "achievement" mean? It is mainly a matter of standardized test scores in all these studies. More subtle intellectual behavior is rarely, if ever, a factor for analysis. Teaching in large classes of 40 or more students per teacher encourages teaching strategies that enhance control, for example, those depending on rote memory of facts and
B. ROBERT TABACHNICK
drill and practice of certain skills. Large class teaching discourages techniques that stimulate discussion and argument such as asking higherorder questions, and setting problems for small groups to solve cooperatively. Sometimes the same planners who r e c o m m e n d a shift to more active learning that emphasizes creative problem solving also r e c o m m e n d higher pupil/ teacher ratios even though these may be very inefficient for promoting non-rote learning activities. It seems clear that we can not generalize from studies done in Canada, the United States, Europe, or Australia, to school conditions in countries of Southeast Asia. Studies must be done in the context and with populations we hope to understand and for which we expect to plan schooling. Large sample studies will supply base data and background information. Naturalistic studies can illuminate the meanings of schooling within a particular context and provide insights to a reader, who can recognize lJOSsibilities for using the data to explain behavior in another context, for using a set of teaching strategies to solve a problem for a different classroom from the few studied. The very complexity of social life is also a promise; the difficulty of dealing with the problem attracts researchers to attempt solutions. To solve the problem of becoming aware of what is happening in even a single classroom is very difficult and very likely impossible. This is the case for the same reasons that the Uncertainty Principle in physics proposed that absolute and certain knowledge, at the same time, about the velocity and direction.of a particle of light is not possible, that is, because of the nature of the matter involved. We are all of us human beings, with human limitations and human frailties and these prevent our knowing with any certainty everything that happens during some social event. We are equally limited in interpreting events and explaining what the interpretations mean. Well, to coin a phrase, "that's life," and it is the life of every scientist, not merely of the social scientist alone. We try to compensate by using electronic technology, but even the video camera does not show us everything that happens in a classroom and the microphone does not capture every word spoken. We try to compensate with better methodological technology,
using more appropriate inferential statistics or multiple observers who can confirm or contradict or expand observations and interpretations. Still, we are a long way from knowing all there is to know. Whatever we can observe, we know that there is more to be noticed that we missed. Whatever degree of success we have in seeing our expectations and intentions confirmed by observation, we can be sure that unexpected and unintended results are also taking place. We must try to discover these as best we can so that our interpretations provide guidance for the moral and political and technical directions that schooling should take in the future. Whatever our interpretations and explanations, we know that these will illuminate the social behavior we are studying within contexts similar to the ones we examine, but for a short time only. We must continually replenish our observational data and form new interpretations because "generalizations decay.'" The tasks of social scientists who study schooling are e n o r m o u s and difficult. These tasks present us with immensely attractive problems of exquisite complexity. We can hardly afford to waste potentially valuable data by ignoring or denying their relevance to helping us achieve partial solutions. Nor can we afford to waste energies in methodological skirmishes. All carefully collected data that meet the criteria and safeguards of a particular methodology are potentially useful. These data can guide us to greater understanding of our social contexts. That understanding can be achieved through continuous observation and re-examination of individual and group behavior within the social institutions that interest US.
References Beeby, C. (1979). Assessment o f Indonesian education: A guide to planning. Wellington, NZ: Oxford University Press. Bellack, A. (1981). Contrasting approaches to research on teaching. In B. R. Tabachnick, T. Popkewitz, & B. B. Szekely (Eds.), Studying teaching and learning: Trends in Soviet and American research (pp. 59-75). New York: Praeger. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671 ~684. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of
Naturalistic Research scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116127. Edwards. A. L., & Cronbach, L. J. (1952). Experimental design for research in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 51-59. ERS (1980). Class size research: A critique of recent metaanalyses. Phi Delta Kappan, December, 239-241. Gee rtz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Glass, G. (1980). On criticism of our class size/student achievement research: No points conceded. Phi Delta Kappan, December, 242-244. Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Teacher education as a set of dynamic social events. In B. R. Tabachnick, T. Popkewitz, & B. B. Szekely (Eds.). Studying teaching and learning: Trends in Soviet and American research. (pp. 76-86). New York: Praeger.
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1985). Development of teacher perspectives: Final report. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1986) Teacher beliefs and classroom behaviors: Some teacher responses to inconsistency. In M. Ben-Peretz, R. Bromme, & R. Halkes (Eds.), Advances of research on teacher thinking (pp. 84--96). Berwyn, Pennsylvania, and Lisse, West Germany: Swets North America/Swets and Zeitlinger. World Bank (1980). Education sector policy paper. Washington. DC: World Bank, 1980. Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. (1985). The development of teacher perspectives: Social strategies and institutional control in the socialization of beginning teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, ! 1, 1-25. Received 12 July 1988 [ ]