CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This section presents the literature and related studies. The

first part presents the literature related to the interpersonal

behavior and teaching competencies of mathematics teachers of

Mabinay District II, Division of Negros Oriental. The second part

presents various studies that identify correlates, and factors on

these variables.

Related Literature

Associative Learning Theory

Associative learning is a type of learning principle based on

the assumptions that ideas and experiences reinforce one another

and can be linked. Abramson (1994) defines the concept as a form

of behavior modification involving the association of two or more

events, such as between two stimuli, or between a stimulus and a

response.

This type of learning falls not only under the scope of

psychology but is of interest for neurologists as well. Associative

learning is classified as the most basic form of learning with a more

 30

complex type being cognitive learning, which requires language

and memory. For example, associative learning has been identified

in the behavior of honey bees. Research has shown that the bee

extends its proboscis, which is an elongated appendage from its

head, as a reflex to antennal stimulation.

Psychologists have divided associative learning into two

types: classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical

conditioning is the formation of an association between a

conditioned stimulus and a response. It was first defined by the

Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849 to 1936), who was awarded

the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his influential work.

Quality of worklife. Berry (1997) defined “Quality of

Working Life" to describe the broader job-related experience an

individual has. As the work culture changes drastically in the recent

years, the traditional concept of work to fulfil humans’ basic needs

are also facing out. The basic needs are continued to diversify and

change according to the evolution of the work system and

standards of living of a workforce.

Hackman and Oldhams (1980) highlighted the constructs of

Quality of Work Life (QWL) in relation to the interaction between

 31

work environment and personal needs. The work environment that

is able to fulfil employees’ personal needs is considered to provide

a positive interaction effect, which will lead to an excellent QWL.

They emphasized the personal needs are satisfied when rewards

from the organization, such as compensation, promotion,

recognition and development meet their expectations. Parallel to

this definition, Lawler (1982) defines QWL in terms of job

characteristics and work conditions. He highlighted that the core

dimension of the entire QWL in the organization is to improve

employees’ well-being and productivity. The most common

interaction that relates to improvement of employees’ well-being

and productivity is the design of the job. Job design that is able to

provide higher employee satisfaction is expected to be more

productive. However, he accepted the fact that QWL is complex,

because it comprises physical and mental well being of employees.

In addition, Ellis and Pompli (2002) identified a number of

factors contributing to job dissatisfaction and quality of working life

in nurses, including: poor working environments, resident

aggression, workload, unable to deliver quality of care preferred,

balance of work and family, shiftwork, lack of involvement in

decision making, professional isolation, lack of recognition, poor

 32

relationships with supervisor/peers, role conflict, lack of

opportunity to learn new skills. Meanwhile, Sirgy et al. (2001)

suggested that the key factors in quality of working life are: Need

satisfaction based on job requirements, Need satisfaction based on

Work environment, Need satisfaction based on Supervisory

behavior, Need satisfaction based on Ancillary programs,

Organizational commitment. They defined quality of working life as

satisfaction of these key needs through resources, activities, and

outcomes stemming from participation in the workplace. Maslow’s

needs were seen as relevant in underpinning this model, covering

Health & safety, Economic and family, Social, Esteem,

Actualization, Knowledge and Aesthetics, although the relevance of

non-work aspects is play down as attention is focused on quality of

work life rather than the broader concept of quality of life.

In the examination of the quality of working life, Bearfield,

(2003) used 16 questions and distinguished between causes of

dissatisfaction in professionals, intermediate clerical, sales and

service workers, indicating that different concerns might have to be

addressed for different groups.

This review of literature on QWL indicates that QWL is a

multi-dimensional construct, made up of a number of interrelated

 33

factors that need careful consideration to conceptualize and

measure. It is associated with job satisfaction, job involvement,

motivation, productivity, health, safety and well-being, job

security, competence development and balance between work and

non-work life.

Job Satisfaction. Berry (1997) defined job satisfaction as

"an individual's reaction to the job experience". There are various

components that are considered to be vital to job satisfaction.

These variables are important because they all influence the way a

person feels about their job. These components include the

following: pay, promotion, benefits, supervisor, co-workers, work

conditions, communication, safety, productivity, and the work

itself. Each of these factors figures into an indivdual's job

satisfaction differently. One might think that pay is considered to

be the most important component in job satisfaction, although this

has not been found to be true. Employees are more concerned with

working in an environment they enjoy.

In addition, job satisfaction describes how happy

an individual is with his or her job. The happier people are within

their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. Logic would

dictate that the most satisfied workers should be the best

 34

performers and vice versa. This is called the "happy worker"

hypothesis. However, this hypothesis is not well supported, as job

satisfaction is not the same as motivation or aptitude, although

they may be clearly linked. A primary influence on job satisfaction

is the application of Job design, which aims to enhance job

satisfaction and performance using methods such as job

rotation, job enlargement, job enrichment and job re-engineering.

Other influences on satisfaction include management styles and

culture, employee involvement, empowerment, and autonomous

work position. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute and is

frequently measured by organizations. The most common

technique for measurement is the use of rating scales where

employees report their thoughts and reactions to their jobs.

Questions can relate to rates of pay, work responsibilities, variety

of tasks, promotional opportunities, the work itself, and co-workers

(Brief & Weiss, 2001).

Effective teaching is a process in which educators impart

knowledge, perspectives and skills to students. Hickok (2006)

provided that the goals of education are understanding, retention

and application of concepts. Effective teaching is positively

correlated to student learning and understanding. Ineffective

 35

teaching, on the other hand, contributes to the poor performance

of students upon completion of the educational process. Ineffective

teaching cheats students of the opportunity to grow and develop

analytical, practical and behavioral knowledge, norms and

experiences. .In the medical profession, clinical educators struggle

to balance improving teaching skills and incorporating

advancements in teaching design while maintaining their clinical

expertise.

According to Fitzpatrick (2004), teaching is a complex and

demanding activity that involves mastery of content, classroom

discipline, techniques of organization, and demanding of teaching

skills. Zygmont and Schaefer (2003) reported that effective

teaching requires nursing lecturers shift from a teacher-centered to

student-centered approach, which can foster independence in

learning, creative problem solving skills, a commitment to life-long

learning and critical thinking. Effective teaching is important in the

teaching learning process.

As methods of teaching and learning have changed, the skills

needed by lecturers also changed. Salsali (2005) pointed out that

teaching is best assessed and evaluated using multiple techniques

and broadly-based criteria. Assessment for formative purposes is

 36

designed to stimulate growth, change and improvement in teaching

through reflective practice. Evaluation, in contrast, is used for

summative purposes to give an overview of a particular instructor’s

teaching in a particular course and setting. Informed judgements

on teaching effectiveness can best be made when both assessment

and evaluation are conducted, using several techniques to elicit

information from various perspectives on different characteristics of

teaching.

According to Knapper (2005) faculty teachings in the health

profession are trained in areas of specialty and recruited without

demonstrating teaching ability or participating in pre-employment

training in teaching techniques. Many of the faculty in the health

profession lack a sophisticated conceptual understanding of how

learning takes place in college students. Most faculty have been

trained as researchers in their discipline but have had no

background in educational or pedagogical theory.”

Students expect teachers to be effective. Traditionally,

student evaluations of faculty members have been assumed to be

effective indicators of poor teaching and may identify the need for

improvement. Spooren et al. (2007) said that the value of student

evaluations of teachers in identifying effective teachers has been

 37

inconclusive. Student evaluations have been the standard for

obtaining student perspectives in identification of good teachers or

effective traits. Students are the consumers of the service.

According to Nhundu (1999) assessment of teacher

performance is for the purpose of monitoring and evaluation. In

terms of purpose, we can surmise that data obtained from the

assessment of teacher performance could be used to make

decisions on both tenured (for promotion or advancement) and

untenured (for renewal, separation or permanency) teachers. It

may also provide information on the area of strengths and

weaknesses of a teacher which could be used as basis for

improvement, not only for teachers, but also for the school in

general in terms of policy-making in teacher hiring and professional

development. Lastly, data from assessment and evaluation of

teachers can provide a clear and objective picture of the state of

education in a particular institution of learning. This exercise helps

to determine the degree to which an educational institution meets

the challenges of its own standards of excellence.

Assessment of teacher performance through the school

administrator or supervisor is the traditional way of assessing

teachers. This is commonly done through classroom observation

 38

where the supervisor visits the class of the teacher (announced or

unannounced) and observes the teacher handle the class, in part

or the whole duration.

To have a reliable and valid teachers’ evaluation, they should

be evaluated by the department chairman, peer, students and

teachers themselves. The rating scale or checklist is the common

instrument of choice and involves observation of how the students

respond to their teachers. In a typical elementary or high school

class, the observation may involve assessing the lesson plan of the

teacher prior to the class or while the class is on-going. The

supervisor can also review other class-related documents of the

teacher (e.g. teacher’s portfolio, students’ works).A conference

with the teacher is usually conducted by the supervisor before

(pre-observation conference) and after the observation (post-

observation conference). The purpose of the conference varies but

the primary aim of the post-conference is for the supervisor to

communicate the result of his observation and assessment to the

teacher.

The main criticism of having administrators/supervisors as

raters or evaluators in assessing teacher performance is the

threatening nature of such exercise. There is the possibility of

 39

inducing fear in the evaluatee due to perceptual dilemma resulting

from contradictory bureaucratic and professional expectations

inherent in administrative and supervisory roles (Nhundu, 1999).

To some teachers, this exercise may feel more like an

administrative task conducted by the supervisor and less of an

exercise for the purpose of teacher’s development. The validity of

the rating may also be questioned because it is susceptible to

subjectivity, especially if there is only one supervisor acting as

rater or evaluator. Nhundu (1999) adds that the assessment of

teacher performance using supervisor-ratings is often too sporadic,

and supervisory visits are too few and far apart in their frequency

that they may not have any meaningful effect in the modification of

teaching behavior.

Teaching performance. The most widely used technique to

measure teachers’ competence inside the classroom is through

student evaluation or student rating (Ochave & Abulon, 2006). This

is based on the premise that students are the direct consumers of

the services provided by teachers and are therefore in a good

position to assess and evaluate their teachers‟ performance. This is

most often done by the use of rating scale or checklist where

classes are visited by proctors and asked the students to rate and
 40

evaluate the performance of a particular teacher in a single course

or subject. Sometimes, provisions for qualitative reports are given

by asking the students to write their unedited comments about the

teacher and the course/subject. This guarantees that the

assessment data will not be limited to quantitative score but will be

reinforced by qualitative data.

Algozzine et al. (2004) stated that the assessment covers the

most observable teaching habits of teachers in classroom situations

to the personal attributes encompassing communication styles,

attitudes, and other dispositions observable in a teacher. The

student rating using a “cafeteria-style” rating scale generally has

the following characteristics: a. an instrument is developed,

comprised of a series of open-and-closed questions about course

content and teaching effectiveness, b. at least one item addresses

overall effectiveness., c. written comments about the course

content and the effectiveness of the instructor are solicited, d.

anonymity of responses is assured and assumed, e. responses are

obtained at the end of the term in the absence of the instructor, f.

item and scale responses are summarized across instructors,

departments, and colleges, as evidenced of teaching effectiveness

used in making various professional development decisions, and g.

 41

student, course, and instructor differences are largely ignored in

analysis and reporting of scores reflective of effectiveness.

However, in spite of research findings pointing that students

are in a unique position to assess a variety of aspects concerning

effective instructions (Hanif & Pervez, 2004), the validity studies of

student ratings yield inconsistent findings. And even if some

studies have supported the validity of student rating of teacher

performance, many still express reservations about their use,

especially for personnel and tenure decisions (Algozzine, et al,

2004). Some teachers have negative reactions to student

evaluation of teacher’s performance and they usually complain

about the intellectual and personal capacity of students to

objectively evaluate teacher’s effectiveness. It is possible that

some ratings become assessment of students‟ satisfaction or

attitude toward their teachers instead of being able to assess

actual teacher performance and effectiveness. There is also the

possibility that students may rate higher teachers who seem to be

fair in grading or those who provides easier classroom tasks. For

instance, Wright (2006) cautioned that a teacher evaluation from a

student could be based solely on latent anger resulting from a

recent grade received on an exam, or from a single negative in-

 42

class experience with an instructor over the course of an entire

semester.

Peer Evaluation is a process or system for the evaluation of

teacher performance by a peer or colleague. Many scholars believe

that informed and well-trained peers are usually and ideally suited

to evaluate their colleagues, especially colleagues in the same field

(Kohut, Burnap, & Yon, 2007). In usual cases, peer evaluation is

conducted by a more senior faculty who has similar knowledge or

expertise about the subject being taught. This is in consonance

with the observations made by Yon, Burnap, and Kohut (2002) who

said that the most trustworthy peer reviewers are those who know

the discipline content of the teacher being reviewed and those who

are trained and experienced in observation are deemed more

competent in peer review.

The method of peer review provides for a more constructive

feedback for the improvement of teacher’s performance. Peer

evaluation is commonly done through classroom observation

wherein a peer evaluator visits another teacher for an on-site or

actual teaching assessment. In many institutions, classroom

observation schedules are announced and expected randomly on

the classes handled by a teacher on a day of visitation. Also,

 43

teachers are already oriented on the criteria as reflected in the

observation forms being used by evaluators. The process of peer

review typically includes a pre-observation conference between the

teacher and the evaluator, followed by classroom observations by

the evaluator, and concludes with a meeting to review and discuss

the results of the evaluation with the teacher (Kumrow & Dahlen,

2002).

Although many faculty members feel they benefit from

thoughtful attention to their teaching, other faculty find the peer-

review process intimidating, meaningless, or both (Carter, 2008).

One common argument against this approach is that classroom

observation may give one an adequate measure of teachers‟ ability

to teach and their teaching practices but little it can give the

evidence about the students‟ actual learning. Other problems

identified in many literatures concerning the process of peer

evaluation include issues on validity of instruments used, high

subjectivity of the observer, and the negative notion of other

teachers regarding the purpose of observation. Thus, in order to

guarantee a reliable and useful teacher assessment using peer

review, schools should try to address the problems mentioned by

ensuring validity and reliability.

 44

Carter (2008) proposed five steps for peer reviewers to

enrich the peer-review process: (1) Understand alternative views

of teaching and learning – A peer reviewer must understand that

there is not one best way to teach. Different methods suit different

goals. The question a reviewer should be asking is how well a

particular pedagogy is advancing the learning goals, not whether

the pedagogical choice is the right one., (2) Prepare seriously for a

pre-visit interview – It is imperative for peer reviewers not only to

collect course materials before the classroom visit, but to spend

time reading them carefully and trying to develop an understanding

of overall course goals, objectives, and strategies. It is the

reviewer’s responsibility to try to gain an understanding of the

framework before the preconference interview and to prepare

questions on any element that remains unclear., (3) Listen

carefully to what the candidate says in the previsit interview – The

reviewer’s first task during the pre-visit is to confirm his or her

understanding of course goals and instructor strategies, as

indicated by course materials. (4) Watch the students, not just the

candidate – The goal of any class is student engagement and

learning, and the best way to gather information in that area is to

watch students themselves. Student behavior is a rich mine of

 45

information about how well a class is progressing. , (5) Check your

impressions during the post-observation conference interview and

focus on helping rather than judging - Peer review works best

when it resembles formative assessment (intended to focus on

improvement) more than summative assessment (intended to pass

a kind of final judgment). It is equally important to offer

suggestions for improvement.

An alternative approach in assessing teacher performance is

self-assessment – where teachers rate and evaluate themselves

based on a well-define set of competencies or characteristics.

Nhundu (1999) argues that self-evaluation have the greatest

potential of producing changes in teaching practices because they

provide teachers with the rare opportunity to reflect on their

teaching and modify accordingly. Ross and Bruce (2005) proposed

a model of self-assessment comprised of three processes. First,

teachers produce self-observations, focusing on aspects of

instruction relevant to their subjective standards of success.

Second, teachers make self-judgments in which they determine

how well their general and specific goals were met. The primary

data are teacher perceptions of changes in student performance

gleaned from student utterances; work on classroom assignments,

 46

homework, and formal assessments. Third, are self-reactions,

interpretations of the degree of goal attainment that express how

satisfied teachers are with the result of their actions. Many schools

and universities now practice the use of integrated forms or

approaches of assessing teacher performance.

In some institutions, they conduct peer rating and supervisor

rating on top of the use of student rating. Others also include self-

assessment in addition with the aforementioned ones. One of the

strength of this practice is the provision for varied sources of the

teacher’s performance which contribute in the validity of findings.

One of the most glaring limitations of this practice is that it is not

really cost-efficient. A considerable amount of time and physical

resources is needed to effectively implement integrated

assessment. The possibility of having varying frameworks for each

form which lead to varying criteria for assessing teacher

performance and effectiveness also defeats the point of integration

to some extent.

Another trend that has been getting attention in the

literature is the use of student outcomes as basis for assessing

teacher performance and effectiveness. Students‟ test or

achievement scores (standardized or teacher-made) and grades

 47

are used as measures of a teacher’s performance, effectiveness,

and achievement. In the United States, there have been efforts

seeking to employ standardized test score gains as a key policy

instrument for holding educators and school systems accountable

(Kupermintz, 2003). This approach has its share of criticisms;

primary of this is the validity of using students‟ scores to assess

teacher’s performance and effectiveness. Indeed, there are several

factors that contribute to student outcomes. While teachers should

also be held accountable for student outcomes, using students‟

scores to make decisions on a teacher can be unacceptable to

some people. Perhaps, this approach can be of better service when

use alongside the more common forms of assessment within an

integrated framework.

Assessing teacher performance in an academic institution is

as important as assessing learning in pupils and students. Teachers

are accountable in the educational process and their assessment

serve as one way to monitor and regulate accountability- that is,

through assessment, the performance and effectiveness of a

teacher can be determined. Two key issues – the most effective

way of assessing teachers‟ performance and the appropriate

criteria to be used in assessing teacher’s performance and

 48

effectiveness – is explored by presenting the most common forms

of teacher assessment, namely, self-, peer, supervisor, and

student assessments. Each of this form of teacher assessment has

their own merits as well as limitations. Their usage may depend on

the specific needs of an institution. Many schools and universities

nowadays make use of the integration of these forms. Also, using

student outcomes as basis for assessing teacher effectiveness has

been part of the literature on assessment for accountability. The

specific model or framework which serves as basis of what criteria

will be used in assessing teacher performance and effectiveness is

an important concern. Such framework should be anchored on the

vision and mission of the academic institution. Communicating the

results of teacher assessment is also an important concern. Certain

guidelines must be observed in order to ensure that the essential

purpose of assessment is achieved. Assessment of teacher

performance is more complex than most people perceive. It is an

essential exercise and it is here to stay. It is important, however,

that as new models of what effective teaching means or what how

learning is measured, modified approaches and new mechanisms of

assessing teacher performance also emerge.

 49

The teaching effectiveness of a teacher can be assessed in

terms of the suitability or appropriateness of materials, love or

teacher’s characteristics, receptiveness and provision of positive

environment and competence.

Classrooms have changed dramatically over the last decade

with the advent of new technologies and equipment developed to

make teaching and learning more diversified and interactive.

Today, more teachers than ever are using multimedia projectors in

the classroom. Students no longer have to crowd around a

computer monitor to view presentations, Web sites or training

programs. Multimedia projectors are becoming the centerpiece of

classroom technology hubs that directly engage students and add

impact to each lesson. Teachers do not rely solely on books; a

classroom projector makes more educational information available

to students. It changes conventional habits and rituals in the

classroom.

The overhead projector facilitates an easy low-cost

interactive environment for educators. Teaching materials can be

pre-printed on plastic sheets, upon which the educator can directly

write using a non-permanent, washable color marking pen. This

saves time, since the transparency can be pre-printed and used

 50

repetitively, rather than having materials written manually before

each class.

The overhead is typically placed at a comfortable writing

height for the educator and allows the educator to face the class,

facilitating better communication between the students and

teacher. The enlarging features of the projector allow the educator

to write in a comfortable small script in a natural writing position

rather than writing in an overly large script on a blackboard and

having to constantly hold his arm out in midair to write on the

blackboard. When the transparency sheet is full of written or drawn

material, it can simply be replaced with a new, fresh sheet with

more pre-printed material, again saving class time vs a blackboard

that would need to be erased and teaching materials rewritten by

the educator. Following the class period, the transparencies are

easily restored to their original unused state by washing off with

soap and water.

The use of power point is a powerful tool for learning. The

teachers engaged students not just through words, but also

through visuals. Some students learn better by hearing, but other

students learn better by seeing. Moreover, PowerPoint presentation

enables teachers to increase the quality of written material and

 51

visuals they present to the student. Technology is inherent more

engaging for students of every age than lecture. PowerPoint can be

a tool for guiding students in note-taking, reinforcing points made

in a lecture, and to inject occasional humor or visual reinforcement.

Handouts.

According to Yon (2002), if hand-outs are distributed before

the class, learners can review them in preparation for class

discussion. Printed materials also ensure that all learners have

access to the same information and can review that information

wherever necessary. Hand-outs prevent the students from multi-

tasking like writing down notes while listening to the lecturer at the

same time. Thus, it promotes and helps the students to

concentrate and focus more on the lecture or important

information given by the lecturer.

Love or lecturer’s characteristics. Teachers have a chance to

effect change on the society as a whole and have a positive

influence on the lives of the students. Here are some

characteristics of a teacher. Thinks positively and enthusiastically

to their students and what they are capable of becoming. Sees the

good in any situation and can move forward to make the most of

difficult situations when confronted with obstacles. Encourages

 52

their students be positive. An effective teacher also demonstrates

commitment to students and the profession and is self-confident,

poised and personally in control of situations. Has a healthy self-

image, encourages students to look at themselves in a positive

manner, careful to honor the self-respect of the students, while

encouraging them to develop a positive self-concept. They also

show a characteristic of caring, empathetic and able to respond to

students at a feeling level. Knows and understands the feelings of

students; is in a constant quest for knowledge; Keeps up in his or

her specialty areas; has the insight to integrate new knowledge;

takes knowledge and translates it to students in a way which is

comprehensible to them, yet retains its originality.

An effective teacher sees each student as a unique and

valuable individual; looks for the differences among students;

Quickly diagnoses student difficulties and assists in the

management of individual situations; focuses upon the worth and

dignity of human beings; is sensitive to community values; strives

to work in an environment consistent with his or her belief system;

recognizes the importance and power of modeling constructive

behavior; enthusiastic with standards and expectations for

students and self; understands the intrinsic motivations of

 53

individuals, and knows what it is that motivates students; takes

action in constructive ways.

Moreover, they are also communicative, dependable,

personable, organized, flexible, creative, patient, and with a sense

of humor; receptiveness and provision of a positive environment. A

receptive teacher is open to new ideas which are important when

trying to teach a variety of different students. They are able to see

the student by keeping a close watch on students and student

performances and open up opportunities to reach their students.

Every teacher has a responsibility to provide a healthy learning

environment for his or her students. A positive learning

environment is one in which school staff, students, and parents

build safe and peaceful environments where people feel accepted

and respected and where learning is the main focus. Therefore, a

positive school climate exists when all students feel comfortable,

wanted, valued, accepted, and secure in an environment where

they can interact with caring people they trust. A positive school

climate affects everyone associated with the school, being the

students, staff, parents, and the community. It is the belief system

or culture that underlies the day-to-day operation of a school.

"Improved school climate is a goal to pursue.

 54

There are many things a teacher can do to make his or her

classroom a safe and positive place for students to learn. First and

foremost, a teacher needs to be enthusiastic about her or himself.

They must come in with an energetic attitude. They must be

positive because it radiates. How the teacher feels and appears it

will affect the classroom. The teacher is the facilitator, the teacher

sets an example, and the teacher is the role model. Attitude goes a

long way. When teachers come to work stressed-out, it can be

damaging to the students. A study conducted by Yoon (2002)

reported that if they see a teacher enthused about learning and

ideas are shared, then the students will feel the same as well.

Teachers can also help create a positive environment by simply

caring for the students and showing each of them that they are

special. Furthermore, they should be taught to respect and care for

each other.

In conclusion, with the support and dedication of the

teachers, parents, and administration, any learning environment

can and should be transformed into a positive learning

environment. Clearly, everyone has a different role to play and a

responsibility to fulfill in order to maintain the positive

environment. There are many benefits to maintaining a positive

 55

learning environment. "Positive learning environments in schools

will maximize the learning of every student; Help children and

youth become full participating citizens of society; Help to build a

sense of community; Lead to cost savings and economic benefits

as prevention is less expensive than incarceration.

Competence. Professional competences include knowledge

and understanding of students and their learning, subject

knowledge, curriculum, the education system, and the teacher’s

role. Teachers’ competence includes three main components:

interpersonal skills, classroom procedures and subject knowledge.

The first component includes parts that can be associated with

social competence. This concept has, as its consequence, the

teacher’s ability to communicate with the student, a positive

student approach, understanding students’ learning difficulties,

acknowledging the individual student, being someone the students

can trust. The second component includes that which in more

general terms is called teaching skills, i.e. the ability to organize

and teach in interesting and flexible ways, using good teaching

methods. Although students’ self confidence and self-conceptions

are dependent on many background conditions as well as on earlier

school experiences, our understanding is that high teacher

 56

competence can lead to positive individual student development.

Conversely, an incompetent teacher can adversely affect students’

attitudes to learning and lower their self-conceptions. Another

assumption is that the more positive students’ attitudes to

schooling and teacher competence are, the less likely they are to

display aggressive behavior.

The third component is related to the teachers’ subject

knowledge and their ability to plan and structure the content.

These different components are naturally assumed to be

interrelated. In situations where the teachers are interpersonally

oriented, attentive, empathic and fully cognizant of the students’

ability and they believe in the students, the students are extremely

positive towards teaching (Chedzoy and Burden, 2007).

 57

Related Studies

Interpersonal Behavior of Teachers

Several studies have been conducted on the

reliability and validity of the QTI. They have included

Dutch (e.g. Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Créton, 1990; den

Brok, 2001; Wubbels, et al. 1985), American (Wubbels, &

Levy, 1991) and Australian (Fisher,Fraser, & Wubbels,

1992) samples. Both reliability and validity were

satisfying. The homogeneity of each of the eight groups

of items was considerable. The internal consistencies

(Cronbach'sα) at class level are generally above .80. The

agreement between the scores of students in a single

class met the general requirements for  agreement between

observer scores. The mean of the internal consistencies

was .92( C r o n b a c h ' s Alpha; students' scores in one

c l a s s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d a s r e p e a t e d measures). Factor

analyses on class means and LISREL analyses (den Brok,

2001; den Brok, Levy, Wubbels & Rodriguez, 2003; Wubbels &

Levy, 1991) determined that the two-factor structure did

indeed support the 8 scales. Brekelmans, Wubbels

andCréton (1990) demonstrated that both factors explain 80 per

 58

cent of the variance on all the scales of the Dutch QTI.

Similar results were obtained for the American version.

Scales appear to be ordered in a circumplex structure, meaning

that two, independent factors are found, with a circular

ordering of the scales (Wiggins, Philips & Trapnell, 1989).

In a recent study on EFL-teachers den Brok (2001) found

that interpersonal behavior was mainly relevant for the affective

student outcomes, while other kinds of behaviour were more

relevant for cognitive outcomes. For all of the affective

student outcome variables – pleasure, relevance,

confidence and effort – a positive and strong effect w a s

found for teacher Proximity. For some of the

affective variables – pleasure, relevance and effort –

Influence also had a positive effect (den Brok, 2001). In general,

we conclude from the above mentioned studies that with respect to

student outcomes appropriate teacher-student relationships are

characterised by a rather high degree of teacher Influence and

Proximity towards students.

One direction is the study of factors that may help to

explain and predict students’ perceptions of their teachers’

interpersonal behavior. Discussion on the effect of teacher

 59

experience on students’ perceptions is only one of the many factors

that affect the way in which students’ perceive interpersonal

behavior in the classroom. Recent studies have shown that

most of the differences in students’ p e r c e p t i o n s ( a b o u t

70 percent) can be attributed to factors relating to

i n d i v i d u a l students (within a class), while the remainder

relates to class, teacher and school f a c t o r s , o f w h i c h

teacher related factors are most prominent (den

Brok, L e v y , Rodriguez, & Wubbels, 2002; Levy, den Brok,

Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2003; den Brok& Rickards, 2003). It

seems that – among others - the following characteristics affect

students’ perceptions: student gender,

student age, teacher gender,

t e a c h e r   experience, class size, subject, and gender

makeup of the class. However, more (qualitative) research is

needed to explain differences in students’ perceptions and to

confirm the effect of previously found relevant factors.

Recently, studies to investigate the effect of

ethnic and cultural variables on students’ perceptions of

their teachers’ interpersonal behavior are conducted. Studies in the

United States (den Brok, et al., 2002; Levy, et al., 2003; den Brok,
 60

et al., 2003) and Australia (den Brok & Rickards, 2003; Fisher,

Rickards, Goh & Wong, 1997) have shown that perceptions may

differ according to the country of origin of the student or the

teacher, the language spoken at home of the student, the

number of years students have been living in a country and the

ethnic makeup of a class. While findings seem rather consistent

within each country, there are considerable differences to be found

between countries. Moreover, research can only partially

explain why these variables have an effect on students’

perceptions. The study by den Brok et al. (2003) indicates that

part of the differences in perceptions may be attributed to

differential treatment by the teacher, but also to cultural and

individual norms and values related to learning and teaching.

Research on interpersonal teacher behavior in

multicultural classes is scarce in the Netherlands. We are

currently investigating the differences between perceptions

of students in multicultural and less diverse classes. We also try to

establish which teacher cognitions are related to

interpersonal behaviours in the multi cultural classroom

and, consequently, students’ perceptions of the resulting

interpersonal profile. In this study, a variety of data gathering

 61

techniques is being used, such as stimulated recall

interviews and in-depth interviews with teachers

and s t u d e n t s , d a t a g a t h e r i n g w i t h t h e Q T I a n d

a questionnaire on background characteristics,

and videotape d lessons. The ultimate goal of this study is

to provide building blocks for teacher training and professional

development. Because of the growing number of countries (and

researchers) using the QTI, cross-cultural comparisons are now

possible and being conducted on data sets of different c o u n t r i e s .

The comparisons include conceptual differences:

d o w o r d s s u c h a s ‘ helpful/friendly’, ‘uncertain’ or ‘strict’ have

similar meaning across countries? Do these concepts involve

similar teacher behaviour in each country? The comparisons

involve(construct) validity of the instrument: do the data in each

country represent the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour to

a similar degree; is – in each country – support f o u n d f o r t h e

presence of two, independent dimensions, are

scales ordered in a circular structure and are they

located on simi lar positions in the model? Preli minary

findings indicate that general features of the

M o d e l f o r I n t e r p e r s o n a l T e a c h e r   Behaviour are present

 62

in all countries, but that considerable differences occur in terms of

scale positions within the model (den Brok, Fisher, Brekelmans,

Rickards, Wubbels,Levy & Waldrip, 2003). If reliability, validity and

concepts appear to be similar, the next s t e p may consist

of comparing interpersonal profiles across

countries and o f   comparing students’ and teachers’

ratings (or differences between these) across countries.

Interpersonal behavior is a wide-range topic studied by many

academics worldwide. Interpersonal focuses on the bond between

two people, and the behavior between these two individuals will

depend on the context of their relationship. For example, the way

that a boyfriend and a girlfriend behave with one another will be

different to the communication between a mother and a daughter.

Interpersonal behavior isn’t just explored in the environment of

friends and family, as it is widely believed that a strong partnership

between an employer and the staff can result in higher levels of

efficiency in the workplace. This is why character building courses

have become a key part of business, as it allows interpersonal

behavior to become stronger as co-workers trust one another

further.
 63

There are different theories that surround interpersonal behaviour,

and it’s widely believed that the more people collaborate with each

other, the better they will be at appreciating each other’s skills. It

doesn’t just benefit the results that companies can publish, but it

improves levels of happiness in the workplace. Because people are

working with their friends and enjoying one another’s company,

they are going to be chirpier and less likely to get involved with

conflict that can damage overall productivity.

Competencies of Teachers

Significant research efforts in past decades have added a

great deal to the body of knowledge about teaching and teachers.

However, although the growing interest in trying to uncover the

nature of teaching and teachers’ work over the years has brought

attention to teaching about teaching, teachers of teachers—who

they are, what they do, what they think—and their desired

characteristics, have often been ignored in studies of teacher

education (Lanier & Little, 1986). Correspondingly, questions such

as “What should teacher educators be competent in?” “What tasks

and competencies are teacher educators expected to possess?” and

 64

ultimately “What does it mean to be a good teacher educator?”

have rarely been investigated (Koster, Brekelmans, Korthagen, &

Wubbels, 2005). Therefore, not surprisingly, very little has been

discovered about the quality of teacher education, and hence, that

of teacher educators, over the years (Buchberger Byrne, 1995;

Korthagen, 2000; Koster et al., 2005)

Teacher educators are defined as people “who provide

instruction or who give guidance and support to student teachers,

and who thus render a substantial contribution to the development

of students into competent teachers” (Koster et al., 2005, p. 157).

They are the ones who are responsible for the quality of teachers,

and, therefore, that of education. Thus, it is of crucial importance

that the questions above are addressed by exploring what

contributes to the professional development of teacher educators

and by explicitly setting the quality requirements and specific

competencies for them. In this regard, the role of professional

standards set or implied by academic publications, professional

organizations, institutional guidelines for promotion and tenure,

and other relevant sources should be highlighted, as standards are

 65

the main criteria by which performance and professional

development of teacher educators can be assessed.

The development of professional standards for teachers has

been criticized over the years by several researchers; it is vital to

disclose this criticism before the benefits of standards can be

emphasized. A main point of criticism is the way standards are

being developed (Zuzovsky & Libman, 2003). It can be claimed

that teacher educators’ rights are violated and they are not valued

as professionals if people from outside the profession generate a

list of standards and impose it on them. Therefore, as Smith

(2003) advocates, this group should be given an important role in

formulating the content of the profile and standards for their

profession. Another criticism is that standards usually do not take

the complexity and unpredictability of teaching and learning into

account (i.e., Korthagen, 2004). Some authors also add that too

much emphasis is placed on standards as sole assessment tools,

and that normative systems lead toward deprofessionalization

(e.g., Cochran-Smith, 2001; Valli & Rennert-Ariev, 2002).

Correspondingly, some question the validity, reliability, and

practical feasibility of assessments of teacher educators based on

competence descriptions (e.g., Zeichner, 2005). It is believed there

 66

is then little incentive for these professionals to reflect on their own

norms and values, as they have to rely on external rules. On the

other hand, standards, if used properly, can provide guidelines for

teacher educators themselves, for decision-makers, and for

program designers, as well as serving as benchmarks for the

assessment of teacher educators and their work. Standards are an

invaluable resource for professional development. As Ingvarson

(1998) states, “In a standards-based professional development

system, standards provide a guide and a reference point to plan for

personal professional development” (p.136). Even many who

criticize the establishment of standards support the value of a

professional profile for this reason (see Zuzovsky & Libman, 2003).

Therefore, standards should be used as guidelines for work within a

specific context and allow for individual routes to professional

competence and growth (Crooks, 2003). They should not, on the

other hand, be aimed at creating an authoritarian assessment

system (Ingvarson, 1998) that puts constraints on professional

autonomy, inhibits professional creativity and development, and

eventually erects a barrier to the quality of teacher educators and

teacher education. Overall, standards serve as a blueprint for

training and evaluation (Smith, 2005) and help establish a

 67

knowledge base that will make public the characteristics of teacher

education for people from both in and outside of the profession.

The elements which comprise the expertise of teachers have

been the topic of several recently published studies in the field of

teacher education. Most studies seem to agree that teachers’

expertise relates to subject matter knowledge and knowing how to

transfer this to others (didactical knowledge); awareness of how

individuals learn, feel and develop (pedagogical knowledge); and

learned understanding of socio-cultural/institutional context; and

demonstrating organizational competence (Fish, 1995; Day, 1999).

Despite the focus on a knowledge base for teachers, little attention

has been given to the expertise of teacher educators (Smith,

2005). Nonetheless, with the growing consciousness of teacher

educators as professionals, driven by research performed by

teacher educators as stakeholders themselves (Munby, Russell, &

Martin, 2001), teacher educators’ expertise—what they need to

know and be able to do (Ingvarson, 1998, p. 128)—has become an

important area of inquiry in developing standards, and ultimately,

in assessing and improving teacher educators’ performance,

effectiveness and growth in the field. Teacher educators’ expertise

 68

is diverse and complex in nature; yet there is a popular assumption

that a good teacher will automatically make a good teacher

educator. Smith (2003) examines this issue by discussing some of

the literature on the subject, and by asking novice teachers and

teacher educators about their perceptions of the characteristics of

good teacher educators, the professional knowledge of teacher

educators and the difference between the expertise of teacher

educators and classroom teachers. Findings indicated that even

though there is much overlap, there are also distinct differences in

the expertise of the two groups of professionals in the following

areas: Articulation of reflectivity and meta-cognition; Quality of

knowledge; Knowledge of how to create new knowledge; Teaching

children vs. teaching adults; Comprehensive understanding of the

educational system; Professional maturity and autonomy.

According to Smith (2005), unlike teachers, who are mainly

required to be good practitioners, teacher educators are expected

to be self-aware and to reflect and articulate tacit knowledge of

teaching and make it available to teachers-to-be, thus bridging

theory and practice. Teacher educators’ professional knowledge is

expected to be more comprehensive, rich and extensive, both in

terms of the specific subject matter taught and in relation to areas

 69

such as didactics, pedagogy and psychology. Teacher educators

should engage in curriculum development and research, which is

viewed as an indispensable part of their professional development.

Unlike teachers, they are expected to be skilful in teaching learners

of all age groups and to present a high level of professional

maturity and autonomy. Finally, they are to have a comprehensive

understanding of the educational system that goes beyond their

own personal teaching context.

Teachers are the first-hand witnesses of teacher educators’

work and practice. Therefore, an important aspect of looking at

standards, in addition to the above-mentioned idea of giving the

teacher educators themselves an important role in formulating the

content of standards, is finding out what qualities teachers think

teacher educators should possess. In eliciting answers to what it

means to be a good language teacher educator, Smith (2005)

found differences between the views of novice teachers and

teacher educators, despite a general agreement on the statement

that good teacher educators provide support and show patience

and empathy to student teachers for the sake of their growth. For

instance, from the perspective of new teachers who have had

 70

access to a wide array of teacher educators, a gap between theory

and practice exists, and thus, they feel that it is important for good

teacher educators to “practice what they preach” (p. 185). A

similar attribution to modeling can be seen in the ATE standards

urging teacher educators “to model professional teaching practices”

(ATE, 2006, standard 1).

Another main point noted by novice teachers which was not

mentioned by teacher educators in Smith’s (2005) study was the

need for teacher educators to teach meta-cognitively and to

articulate their tacit knowledge of teaching, explaining the whys

and hows of their actions and in-action decision making. Ethell and

McMeriman (2000), confirming this view, affirmed that the

articulation of the thinking of expert teachers facilitates the

understanding of theoretical and practical components of teacher

education.

In addition, most teachers referred to school experience and

the desire to work with teacher educators who had recent

experience as school teachers. These teachers questioned the

credibility of the guidance of teacher educators who lack knowledge

of today’s schools and students; they believed that effective

teacher educators should be knowledgeable about the current

 71

educational system. Murray (2001) points out a similar issue that

of whether all teacher educators must be qualified teachers with

experience in teaching in schools, as one of the matters on which

there is no professional consensus. Finally, unlike teacher

educators, almost half of the novice teachers in the study believed

that good teacher educators are also good managers of time and

people. According to Smith (2005), teacher educators, in contrast,

ranked “enhancement of reflection in trainees” as the most

prominent feature of good teacher educators. They also mentioned

self-awareness and being involved in on-going professional

development as characteristics of good teacher educators,

supporting the view of professional growth based on reflective

practice represented in the Association of Teacher Educators

(2006) list of standards. Half of teacher educators listed research

as an important part of their professional activities, whereas novice

teachers mainly brought up the quality of teaching of teacher

educators in their responses. Research is also highlighted as an

important requirement in the criteria for tenure and promotion,

both by teacher educators and in the ATE standards. Nevertheless,

some experts believe that there is not necessarily a correlation

between research and effective teaching (Marsh & Hattie, 2002).

 72

Further characteristics of good teacher educators listed by teacher

educators and not by novice teachers are related to ethical aspects

of the profession, such as acting upon one's beliefs

and believing in education as a worthwhile and rewarding

enterprise; collegial aspects, such as focusing on teamwork and

supporting colleagues; and personal characteristics, such as being

assertive and confident regarding work and professional

development. In another study dealing with the quality

requirements needed for teacher educators, Koster et al. (2005)

explored what teacher educators themselves consider to be the

main quality requirements, as well as vital tasks and competencies.

They made a distinction between the tasks teacher educators have

to carry out and the competencies they should possess as

components of a professional profile, and tried to identify these

categories based on both a literature search and several rounds of

interviews with fellow teacher educators. Based on average scores,

three task areas were determined to be necessary for every

individual teacher educator: the teacher educator working on

his/her own development and that of colleagues (professionalism

and well-being); providing a teacher education program (i.e.,

teaching, assessing, counselling); and taking part in policy

 73

development and development of teacher education. “Organizing

activities for and with teachers” and “selecting future teachers”

were considered necessary to some extent. Although “carrying out

research” was not always considered significant for individual

teacher educators, the reason was tied to the different views of

university-based and non-university-based teacher educators

regarding research. The study also asked what teacher educators

thought were the important elements in a competence profile.

Content competencies (i.e., being able to discuss one's professional

field with others) and communicative and reflective competencies

(i.e., being able to evaluate one's own teaching and make changes

accordingly) fell into the category of “very necessary,” whereas

organizational competencies (i.e., being able to work in a team)

and pedagogical competencies (i.e., being able to make one's own

pedagogical approach accessible to student teachers) were

established to be “necessary.” Koster et al. mentioned that their

study focused on knowledge and skills, and not on the attitudes,

motives and personal characteristics of teacher educators, as they

believed such elusive aspects are already reflected in tangible

aspects such as skills. Successfully performing the tasks described

here is not a straightforward process. It requires that teacher

 74

educators deal with a complex dual role (Ducharme, 1993) of not

only teaching student teachers, but also practicing what they

preach through modeling. In this regard, a major aspect of teacher

educators’ expertise is the ability to make professional knowledge

and competence about teaching and learning explicit (Smith,2003)

—in other words, to “explicitly model for their students, the

thoughts and actions that underpin one's pedagogical approach”

(Loughran & Berry, 2005). Therefore, rather than putting too much

emphasis on explicit aspects of teaching and on conceptual/expert

knowledge, it is vital that teacher educators are able to articulate

the tacit aspects of teaching and explain these to student teachers

in order to develop their perceptual knowledge. This, however,

requires that teacher educators are aware that recognizing what

informs their teaching about teaching is just as important as how

they teach, as these two elements operate together in offering

opportunities for constructive practice and professional

development. In this regard, one of the qualities of an effective

teacher educator is the ability to help student teachers explore and

build on their perceptions by providing the opportunity to reflect

systematically on the details of their practical experiences

(Korthagen et al., 2001, p. 29). This is particularly important in

 75

preparing teachers for very likely cases where theory will fail to

respond to their practical concerns. Similarly, Loughran and Berry

(2005) discuss the significance of explicit modeling in teacher

education. They believe that teacher educators should depart from

the traditional role of transferring information and practice explicit

modeling that operates concurrently at two levels: on one level, it

is about teacher educators doing in their practice what they expect

their students to do in their teaching. On another, it is about

teacher educators offering teacher candidates the opportunity to be

familiar with the pedagogical reasoning, feelings, values, and

actions that accompany the practice across a range of teaching and

learning experiences. Thus, teacher educators should create a

balance between delivering essential knowledge and creating

opportunities for student teachers to make knowledge meaningful

through practical wisdom.

However, as Loughran and Berry (2005) affirm, making their

expertise explicit and accessible to others through articulation of

knowledge of practice is a difficult and complex task for teacher

educators which demands considerable awareness and knowledge

of ‘self,’ pedagogy and students. Loughran and Berry (2005)

mention a variety of techniques teacher educators can use to make

 76

their non-cognitive knowledge accessible to their students:

Carrying out think-alouds; Journaling; Discussions during and after

class both in groups and with individual student teachers;

Questioning; Probing and inquiring through pedagogic interventions

during teaching; Debriefing of their shared teaching and learning

experiences. They consider that “the ability to be explicit about

what one is doing and why, is enhanced through systematically

inquiring into learning through experience (self-study) so that the

relationship between knowing and doing might be more accessible”

(p. 194). However, as Cochran-Smith (2005) argues, knowledge of

public theory should be part of teacher educators’ expertise, and

thus, personal theories developed by self-studies should be linked

to public theory for the sake of developing a functioning

knowledge-base for teacher education and advancing the status of

teacher educators in academia.

Facets of modeling good teaching mentioned above highlights

the importance of professional critique, another key quality in

teacher education that involves constructive analysis of teacher

educators’ teaching and self-learning, as well a s their students’

learning and student-teaching. Therefore, effective teacher

 77

educators work toward the development of both themselves and

their students by inquiring systematically into practice, by being

committed to lifelong professional development, by highlighting

particular instances in student teachers’ teaching, and by

challenging even their expert status at times to share their own

pedagogical thoughts and actions for critique, and thus, to make it

possible for student-teachers to “ ‘see into practice’—all practice,

not just the ‘good things we do’ ” (Loughran & Berry, 2005, p.

200). Besides providing support to students, effective teacher

educators are also in service of their profession and its

development through leadership and scholarly work.

Teacher educators serve in professional organizations and

provide leadership at the local, state, national, and international

levels in developing, implementing, and evaluating theory and

practice for high-quality education. Moreover, teacher educators

contribute to the field by carrying out and publishing research,

systematically integrating the knowledge from research into their

pedagogical repertoire and applying it to new contexts. As

Cochran-Smith (2005) demonstrates, successful teacher educators

are not just “smart consumers of research,” (p. 224) but they also
 78

conduct research in relation to their own professional experiences

and programs.

The exact nature of the relationship between the

interpersonal behavior and competencies of teachers has still been

of little findings and thus needs a thorough study to be explored. A

clearer understanding of the inter-relationship of the various facets

of interpersonal behavior and teacher competence offers the

opportunity for improved analysis of cause and effect in an

organization.

Elizur and Shye (1990) concluded that quality of work

performance is affected by quality of working life. Ellis and Pompli

(2002) identified a number of factors contributing to job

dissatisfaction and quality of working life in nurses, including: poor

working environments, resident aggression, workload, inability to

deliver quality of care preferred, balance of work and family,

shiftwork, lack of involvement in decision making, professional

isolation, lack of recognition, poor relationships with

supervisor/peers, role conflict, lack of opportunity to learn new

skills.

Work performance and personal satisfaction are found to be

interdependent (Salsali, 2005). Many factors contribute to Quality

 79

of Work Life which includes adequate and fair remuneration, safe

and healthy working conditions and social integration in the work

organization that enables an individual to develop and use all his or

her capacities (Gupta & Sharma, 2011).

An important finding for organizations to note is that job

satisfaction has a rather weak correlation to productivity on the

job. A recent meta-analysis found surprisingly low correlations

between job satisfaction and performance (Judge, et al, 2001).

Further, the meta-analysis found that the relationship between

satisfaction and performance can be moderated by job complexity,

such that for high-complexity jobs the correlation between

satisfaction and performance is higher than for jobs of low to

moderate complexity. Additionally, one longitudinal study indicated

that among work attitudes, job satisfaction is a strong predictor of

absenteeism, suggesting that increasing job satisfaction and

organizational commitment are potentially good strategies for

reducing absenteeism and turnover intentions (Cohen & Golan,

2007). In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is

not as straightforward as often assumed and can be influenced by

a number of different work-related constructs, and the notion that

 80

a happy worker is a productive worker should not be the

foundation of organizational decision-making.

Edstrom (2008) conducted a survey to determine the value

of student evaluations in improving teaching or course design at a

university in Sweden revealed flaws inherent in the student

evaluation process. The process inadvertently punished the

instructor who experimented with new teaching methods.

Questions which rate teaching activities may show negative results

yet are not correlated with an innovative teaching approach that

failed during an earlier application. Thus, the incentive to explore

and create new methods is inadvertently squelched. Evaluations,

especially those with quantitative measurements, provide little

guidance in how to improve. If a course received a “3 out of 5” on

the laboratory activities, what was missing? Even with comment

fields provided, students are hesitant to provide additional input.

Davidovitch and Soen (2006) completed a study to examine

teaching quality differences based on age and seniority in 182

faculty members in Israel. Over a five semester period, younger

faculty members were perceived as better teachers, regardless of

rank and across all age groups. Also, faculty members with higher

rank across all age groups were rated as possessing greater

 81

teaching abilities. Both evaluations were measured by student

evaluations of teachers. The authors found the results contrary:

older faculty members don’t teach as well but the more senior

faculty members are better teachers. The authors did not provide

possible explanations.

Carlson, Lee and Westat (2004) examined the characteristics

of Special Education teachers in secondary education. A positive

correlation was noted between teaching experience and student

achievement. Educational background was evaluated via

credentials: number of areas of certification, level of certification

and higher degree earned. The results yielded the level of

certification as the most important factor, higher degree earned

next important and the number of areas of certification as least

important.

Ferraren (2007) recognized further, the need of competent

clinical instructors. If clinical instructors are found to be less

competent in teaching, they would find ways and means whereby

they could improve their teaching performance. On the other hand,

the administration will be made aware of their clinical instructor’s

teaching inadequacies. These pieces of information would give

them the idea of what particular program to embark; such that the
 82

teacher-learning process becomes improved and the delivery of

quality education will be assured.

Hence, competency based education simply means teaching

the students specific competencies and measuring the achievement

of that learning before processing to new competencies. Like other

forms of behaviorism, competency-based education uses a

mechanistic model of learning and attempts to exert direct control

over student behavior (Spring, 2001).

The foregoing related literature and studies were utilized by

the researcher as guide in doing this investigation. These materials

served as his bases in understanding the interpersonal behavior

and competencies of public elementary school teachers handling

Mathematics subject.
83
84