Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 31, No.

1, 2003

Determining the Effectiveness of a Teacher

Preparation Course by Exploring the Transfer of
Complex Teaching Models by Graduates

SHELLEYANN SCOTT & ROBERT G. BAKER, Curtin University of

Technology, Australia

ABSTRACT The area of research interest in this study was the degree of transfer of complex
teaching strategies or models of teaching into the ongoing classroom practice of newly graduated
teachers. The population surveyed, over two consecutive years, was all graduates of the
Graduate Diploma of Education who were in their first year of teaching at the time of the study
(response rate ⫽ 98%). The study sought information by means of a telephone survey using a
structured interview schedule utilising both quantitative and qualitative questions. This re-
search found a higher rate of transfer of complex teaching strategies than that reported in
similar studies drawn from a review of the literature. A third of the total number of respondents
in both populations implemented three strategies with some being successful with five different
complex models. Teachers who successfully utilised two or more complex strategies in their
regular teaching practices appeared to exhibit high levels of self-efficacy, sound self-reflection
techniques, and reported feeling more in control and less stressed than their colleagues. Gender
appeared to be a factor affecting the ability to incorporate new learning into a graduate
teacher’s regular teaching practices.

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the teaching skills unit in
a one-year intensive teacher preparation course. The students enter the course having
previously completed a three-year degree in their particular field of interest. There are
two teaching skills units in this course, the first introduces the students to basic teaching
micro-skills such as structuring lessons, using variability in gestures, media and materi-
als, classroom management, transitions, public speaking, self-reflection, etc. and the
second unit introduces more complex models of teaching [utilising Joyce et al. (2000)
as the set text].

Background
This study followed a previous project conducted with graduate teachers completed
in 1995 (Baker & Scott, 1995; Baker et al., 1997). In that earlier study, graduates of
the one-year teacher preparation programme were interviewed regarding their transfer
of a selection of micro-skills, such as public speaking characteristics, classroom
management skills, lesson preparation and transitions [set text: Arends (2001); refer-
ence text: Turney et al. (1987a, b)] and two selected teaching strategies (Concept
Attainment and Taba’s Inductive Thinking Model; Joyce et al., 2000). The findings
ISSN 1359-866X print; ISSN 1469-2945 online/03/010067-19
 2003 Australian Teacher Education Association
DOI: 10.1080/0955236032000060063
68 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

revealed a high transfer of the micro-skills (80–90%), and transfer rates of 30–40% for
the two complex teaching strategies. These results, while not entirely desirable for
professional preparation programmes, were higher than those reported in the literature
(Joyce & Weil, 1986; Showers & Joyce, 1996) and would normally be expected from
pre-service programmes which do not involve any continuing support for graduates in
the field. A major goal of this current research was to find out why this was the case,
if this higher transfer rate was consistent across year groups and with other models that
are taught.

Sample
The sample was drawn from two consecutive cohorts emerging from the Graduate
Diploma of Education course of one university who were employed as teachers in the
following year after graduation. The response rate was high in the study with almost all
the graduates (one declined in the first year due to illness) who had obtained teaching
positions agreeing to participate. As a result the sample was the entire population of
graduates (n ⫽ 66). The interviews, in both years, were conducted 8 months into the
school year, 10 months after the students had completed their pre-service programme.
This meant that the majority of the teachers had approximately 8 months’ of teaching
experience at the time of the survey. Over half (60%) of the first cohort obtained
country teaching positions contrasting with under half (44%) in the following year. The
sample included teachers of English, mathematics, languages other than English, social
studies, information technology, business education, science, and art.
The vast majority of the first cohort of teachers were in the 20–29 years age group
(72%) with the rest of the sample evenly spread across the other age groups of 30–39
years (16%) and 40–49 years (13%). The first category age range was similar in the
second cohort with 71% in the 20–29 years age group. However, the distribution in the
other categories was slightly different with only 6% in the 30–39 years age group, 15%
in the 40–49 years age group and 9% in the 50–59 years age group.
The gender distribution trend was similar across both sample groups, displaying
more females than males. There were 19 females in the first sample and 24 in the
second group and 13 males compared with 10 in the second group.

Literature Review
Two major processes were involved in the skills development unit under examination
in this research study: (1) the development of specific teaching/learning skills; and (2)
appropriate reflective practices. These were not separate processes but rather inter-
twined in the educational procedures. The other aspect explored was the knowledge
base in the teacher preparation programme comprised of Bandura’s social cognitive
theory (1986), complex teaching strategies or models of teaching (Joyce et al., 2000)
and humanistic ideals of creating appropriate learning environments. There were
approximately 11 models of teaching taught in the skills units in the professional
preparation programme. It is often assumed that when an individual undertakes a
course of study there will be a resultant change in knowledge and/or behaviour on the
part of the student. This assimilation and change in understanding and/or behaviour is
called transfer—‘the process that enables us to make previously learned responses in
new situations’ (Gage & Berliner, 1992, p. 352). Studies of this process have been
conducted by educational psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and David Ausubel
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 69

(Gage & Berliner, 1992; Woolfolk, 1993). Bruner believed that ‘meaningful learning’
occurred when students grasped the structure of a field of study (the nature of
fundamental ideas and how they related to one another) and ‘when they discover[ed]
these relationships themselves’ (Biehler & Snowman, 1993, pp. 440–443). Similarly,
Ausubel believed that meaningful learning occurred when the information received was
organised in such a way that it enabled easy assimilation into current knowledge schema
in order for students to formulate a ‘meaningful learning set’ (Biehler & Snowman,
1993, pp. 440–443).
Albert Bandura (1986) felt that there may be factors involved in the learning process
other than purely cognitive. He stated that ‘while learning may have occurred, it may
not be demonstrated until the situation is right’ where personal factors such as
motivation and thinking may interact with environmental and behavioural factors in the
process of learning (Woolfolk, 1993, p. 220). As a result of his research, Bandura
developed the social cognitive theory, an expanded perspective, which emphasised that
learning could take place through the observation of others (Bandura, 1986; Biehler &
Snowman, 1993). The four important elements in observational learning were: (1)
attention—focusing on the item or skill that is to be learnt; (2) retention—remembering
through mental rehearsing or practice; (3) production—practice, feedback and coach-
ing in order to refine performance of behaviours (self-efficacy, belief that we are capable
of performing the behaviour, is developed through practice); and (4) motivation and
reinforcement—once the behaviour has been learned it may not be performed unless
there is the required motivation to do so. Reinforcement is when the learned behaviour
produces a reaction either positive or negative. Positive reinforcement is important if
the behaviour is to be maintained and promoted (Woolfolk, 1993).
Following his initial work, Bandura identified a further key element which had up to
that time been missing, that of self-belief. He postulated that these belief structures
exerted a measure of control or influence over an individual’s actions and feelings
similar to the adage of ‘the power of positive thinking’. He associated this with the
‘distinctly human’ ability of self-referent or self-reflective thinking which enabled the
individual to analyse and alter their cognitive processes and resultant behaviour.
Therefore, behaviour is linked to three key aspects, that of knowledge and skills,
outcome expectations (a prediction of the likely consequence of a particular behaviour
or action), and self-efficacy beliefs. He specified that the latter is a strong ‘predictor of
behaviour’ due to its mediational role; tangentially it is an extremely complex relation-
ship (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995).

Effective Teaching and Learning Processes in Teaching Skills Development

From a historical perspective, Joyce & Showers, while evaluating staff development
programmes in the 1970s, found as few as 10% of the teachers would transfer new
learning into regular classroom use even when the teachers had volunteered for the
programme. This was initially attributed to ‘ “flaws” in the motivation, effort, and
attitudes of the teachers’ (Showers & Joyce, 1996, p. 13). These results led to further
investigation into why staff development programmes were relatively ineffective. Joyce
& Showers followed teachers through in-service teaching/learning procedures and
found that nearly all of them had the ability to refine existing skills and were able to
learn new strategies but certain conditions were necessary for new approaches to
teaching to be successfully incorporated into existing ‘repertoire’.
70 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

Emerging from their work in skills development, the following six major components
were found to be effective in a teaching/learning programme (Joyce & Weil, 1986,
p. 478):

1. Presentation of theory or description of skill or strategy;

2. Modelling or demonstration of skills or models of teaching;
3. Practice in simulated and classroom settings;
4. Structured and open-ended feedback (provision of information about performance);
5. Coaching for application (hands-on, in-classroom assistance with the transfer of
skills and strategies to the classroom);
6. Generating a ‘learning how to learn’ effect (the more learning takes place, the more
the ability to learn increases).

When examining these six aspects, the similarities to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive
theory become clear. The social cognitive theory’s essential aspects of modelling,
practice, feedback and coaching have been incorporated. Since these components were
identified, Joyce & Showers have been concentrating on the fifth phase of training—
coaching and collaborative teacher activities. Coaching in the literature is an interesting
aspect as it tends to translate in very different ways. In Joyce & Showers’ earlier studies
they felt that follow-up on-site coaching may increase the transfer significantly. They
initially believed that the coach must be an expert. Subsequent to this first study, the
in-service teachers were grouped into small self-support teams (PCST—peer coaching
study teams) who coached each other. These trials proved highly successful, establish-
ing that coaching did make a significant difference in teacher development (Baker &
Showers, 1984). Current educational trends are for professional development to be
based within school, to be organised into whole staff initiatives and to incorporate
collaborative teacher activities focused on improving student learning outcomes (Joyce
& Showers, 1995; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997;
Darling-Hammond, 1998). Unfortunately in this study, the professional preparation
programme does not have the facility to provide ongoing support in the form of
coaching or any influence on the environment within which graduates are placed.
Therefore, based on the literature, the best transfer rate that could have been expected
was around 10%.

The Transfer of New Learning into Regular Classroom Practice

Transfer refers to the ability of an individual to learn something new, either a skill or
knowledge, or where a previously learned skill or concept facilitates the learning of a
similar new skill (Joyce et al., 2000; Arends, 2001). The transfer of skills from a
practical workshop setting to the classroom environment is not necessarily an uncom-
plicated and linear process. Complex skills gained in a ‘simulated workplace’ may not
be automatically transposed directly into a ‘real world situation’. These newly acquired
strategies generally require modification to fit the particular needs of a class and
curriculum. The transfer of a new repertoire into classroom practice requires several
elements of learning (Showers, 1995):

• the development of skill with new instructional strategies;

• an understanding of the curriculum that enables appropriate application of the
instructional strategies;
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 71

• an understanding of the theory underlying the strategy such that appropriate

modifications can be made in actual practice.

Successful transfer dictates the need for practice of the newly acquired skill. This in
itself may be an obstacle as the application of the new strategy is often uncomfortable,
especially if it requires the ‘unlearning’ or dropping of a particular existing repertoire
which impedes the new strategy. Perseverance with the new strategy results in the
performance becoming more fluid. Gradually the strategy feels as comfortable as
previous ones, particularly as the teacher feels more ‘in control’ and the students
become familiar with it (Joyce & Showers, 1982, pp. 5–6).
If a newly acquired strategy is implemented with no modifications in a ‘real’
classroom exactly as it was learned in the workshop environment, the learning is
referred to as ‘horizontal transfer’ (Joyce et al., 2000, p. 438). In teaching, direct
implementation is rarely possible as each class is comprised of students with individual
needs and abilities and differing curriculum. Additionally, teachers are frequently
required to teach differing subjects across various age groups and, occurring more and
more, outside of their subject specialisation. These alternative scenarios require the
teacher to develop a capacity to adapt or modify the models to suit the unique situation
in which he/she is teaching. If the teacher is able to successfully modify the strategy to
suit these various factors, then the higher level of ‘vertical transfer’ has been achieved.
This higher level of transfer will only occur if the teacher perseveres with the new skill
even when encountering the occasional failure and through the initial ‘uncomfortable’
stage (Joyce et al., 2000, pp. 438–442).
Eventually, a teacher persisting in implementing a model acquires ‘executive control’
over the strategy. This means the teacher’s application displays superior understanding
through analysis of individual students’ needs, particular content material, objectives to
be achieved and the aspects of management required to perform the model appropri-
ately and effectively (Joyce & Showers, 1995, p. 133). The teacher also experiences an
increased comfort level with the new strategy, wherein the new feels as comfortable as
the ‘old’ methods of teaching (Joyce & Showers, 1982, pp. 5–6).
The vast majority of the research regarding the implementation of models of teaching
has been conducted with experienced teachers in in-service situations and yet novice
teachers face even greater challenges in implementing new strategies. Although they do
not have to ‘unlearn’ previous possibly obstructive teaching habits, they have a whole
plethora of concerns with which to contend. Some examples include developing
effective classroom management skills, becoming familiar with curriculum, acclimatis-
ing to a new workplace environment and possibly living alone in isolated areas divorced
from support systems. Because teaching style may be developed early in a teacher’s
career (Moffett et al., 1987), new graduates must attempt and persevere in implement-
ing the models while adjusting to their new work environment. If they wait until they
have acclimatised, research indicates that they are less likely to attempt or be successful
in transferring these complex strategies.

Reflection
An integral aspect of skills development and refinement is cultivating the ability to be
able to reflect and re-examine performance and processes. Reflection is not an auto-
matic characteristic exhibited in novice teachers and as such is therefore systematically
promoted and taught in the professional preparation course. This systematic approach
72 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

is in line with the views of Zeichner (1990, 1991, 1993) who examined the fashionable-
ness of the term ‘reflection’ and discussed the need to use the term carefully. In
Zeichner’s perception it has become popular for education preparation programmes to
promote reflective techniques in their graduates, nevertheless he cautions that there is
a need for establishing priorities for this reflection which should emerge from ‘reasoned
educational and social philosophy’ (Zeichner, 1990, p. 56). In other words, graduates
should have definitive guidelines on what they should be reflecting and why. He
emphasised the need for novice teachers to develop an explicit philosophy purporting
to their own teaching practices.
Zeichner & Liston (1990 in Zeichner, 1990), building on the work of Klierbard
(1986 in Zeichner, 1990), identified four traditions or paradigms of reform in the 20th
century in US teacher education. Further examination of this work by Zeichner &
Tabachnick (in Zeichner, 1993) resulted in an extension of the paradigms by
developing four versions of reflective practice. These were (1) an academic tradition—
emphasises content knowledge revolving around the representation and translation of
subject matter knowledge in order to promote students’ understanding; (2) a social
efficiency version—emphasises appropriate application of particular teaching strategies
suggested through a knowledge base external to one being studied, e.g. understanding
the research behind the theory; (3) a developmentalist version—emphasises and priori-
tises teaching practices sensitive to student interests, thinking and patterns of develop-
mental growth; and (4) a social reconstructionist version—stresses reflection about the
institution, social, and political context of schooling and the assessment of classroom
actions for their ability to contribute to greater equality, social justice, and humane
conditions in schooling and society (Zeichner, 1990).
Zeichner states that adopting just one version of reflective practice alone is in-
sufficient for ‘providing a moral basis for teaching and teacher education’ rather ‘good
teaching’ requires the attention to aspects of all four versions (Zeichner, 1990, pp. 56–
57). This perspective coincides with the theory and research underpinning the models
of teaching and the philosophy promoted within the professional preparation pro-
gramme under investigation in this study. If key aspects of all four versions of reflective
practice were not accommodated when implementing any of the models, the teacher’s
attempt would be less than successful in achieving the expected educational outcomes.
Additionally, all four versions were explicitly identified and discussed when outlining
the theory and modelling strategies during university demonstrations. Pre-service
teachers were required to demonstrate their ability to reflect on their performances,
incorporating the four versions of reflective practice.

Models of Teaching
Teaching is an interactive task between the teacher and the student with the forms of
interaction potentially varying considerably. One form of interaction is using the models
of teaching (Joyce et al., 2000). There are many models of teaching which have arisen
over the years. Some have emerged from teachers investigating the processes of
interaction within their own classroom, some from educational psychologists, some
resulting from industrial trainers and from teacher effectiveness studies. In the 1960s,
Bruce Joyce & Marsha Weil began a process of investigation into the types of strategies
and approaches that were available. These researchers developed a system of
classification for the various teaching strategies they encountered. The classification was
determinant on the theoretical underpinnings of each approach, the desired objectives,
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 73

the types of interaction and behaviours required of the teacher and student for the
approach to be successfully executed. Joyce & Weil (1972, in Arends, 2001) labelled
these approaches ‘models’. Arends (2001, p. 24) defines a model as ‘more than a
specific method or strategy. It is an overall plan, or pattern, for helping students to learn
specific kinds of knowledge, attitudes, or skills’. Models have a theoretical background
or philosophy and a series of steps in order to assist students to achieve a set outcome
or goal (Arends, 2001, p. 24). Research over a period of time with models has shown
they work; that is, they provide motivation to both teacher and student, initiate interest,
hold student attention, encourage higher level thought processes and create a positive
atmosphere aiding social growth (Kent, 1985; Servatius & Young, 1985; Bennett,
1987, 1997; Garmston, 1987; Moffett et al., 1987; Rogers, 1987; Showers et al., 1987;
Joyce et al., 1989; Garmston et al., 1993; Raywid, 1993; Baker et al., 1997).
Joyce and associates’ various Models of Teaching editions (Joyce & Weil, 1986; Joyce
et al., 1992, 2000) contain approximately 20 different models designed to promote
different learning outcomes. This does not mean the authors would expect teachers to
learn all of the various strategies. Conversely, they would not promote the adoption of
one strategy alone. Rather they endorse the development of a repertoire of four to six
complex teaching models so that teachers are optimally equipped to assist a diverse
student population. By teaching teachers how to learn and generating a ‘learning how
to learn’ effect, ongoing professional growth will be facilitated enabling them to
continue to attain new complex teaching strategies and update their skills (Joyce &
Weil, 1986, p. 478; Arends, 2001).

The Format of the Strategies of Teaching Unit

As the strategies of teaching unit is focused on the development of a repertoire of
models and their practical application, a flexible pattern of instruction based on
lecture/tutorials and workshop sessions has been adopted. The format of the unit is a
90 minute lecture/demonstration, incorporating the educational theory/conceptual
framework and rationale underpinning the use of various strategies, accompanied by a
demonstration of the model by the lecturer or others on video or CD–ROM (Baker &
Shortland-Jones, 1996; Bennett, 1997). Generally the lecturer uses models to teach
models.
In tutorial sessions, students prepare and present one ten-minute model lesson in
small groups each week, and observe and provide constructive feedback to their peers.
The two hour follow-up workshop/tutorial session is designed to provide a supportive,
psychologically safe and controlled environment where students can present their
prepared micro-lessons. This workshop environment was based upon the ideals of
humanistic teaching such as Roger’s (1969 in Gage & Berliner, 1992) principle that
learning is easiest and most meaningful when it occurs within a non-threatening
situation and Brown’s (1971 in Gage & Berliner, 1992) theory of confluent education,
where there is a merging of affective and cognitive elements. Additionally, Comb’s
(1965 in Biehler & Snowman, 1993, p. 476) views that the role of a teacher should be
that of ‘facilitator, encourager, helper, assister, colleague, and friend of his students’
were indicative of the workshop ethos, not only in the lecturer–student relationship, but
also was encouraged and promoted in peer–peer interaction and relationships within
that environment. Students are required to video tape their presentations each week to
facilitate their objective reflective practice. At the conclusion of the ten-week period the
74 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

students are encouraged to review their tapes in order to get an overview of their
development. This procedure is designed to increase students’ self-efficacy and
self-belief, as the development of skills is considerable over this period and improve-
ment is usually clearly evident. The early development of self-efficacy may actually
promote transfer of the models by encouraging the novice teacher to persist with
implementing the strategies because he/she believes the models can make a difference
to the students’ learning (Guskey, 1987; Martin, 1989).
Pre-service teachers are also required to compile a portfolio of teaching strategies.
This portfolio incorporates an in-depth evaluation of personal skills development over
the semester, personal lesson plans for each of the model lessons conducted throughout
the semester, peer and self-evaluations for each of the micro-lessons, and a collection
of full lesson plans developed by their peers. This resource was designed to assist in
their first year of teaching, by providing a ready-made set of model lessons, thereby
supporting the transfer process. Evaluations required for the portfolio are also designed
to continue the students’ development of sound reflective practices that were initiated
in the prerequisite skills development unit. Peer and self-evaluation forms are struc-
tured around all four of Zeichner’s versions of reflective practice.
The models approach used in the strategies of teaching course provides a basis for the
development of a repertoire of different strategies that teachers and curriculum devel-
opers can use to help different learners reach different goals. ‘This perspective assumes
there is no “one right way” in teaching. “Good teaching” needs to be in terms of “good
for whom” and “good for what”?’ (Baker & Scott, 1995, p. 6). The expected unit
outcomes are that students will:

• develop and demonstrate mastery of a number of selected teaching strategies for

secondary classrooms;
• explain the educational theory/conceptual framework underpinning each strategy;
• analyse and compare different instructional strategies;
• prepare, teach, analyse and evaluate instructional sequences based on selected
strategies presented by themselves and peers (accurate self-analysis and reflection is
a key objective);
• demonstrate in a classroom the appropriate application of a sequence of lessons
based on selected strategies and drawn from their chosen area of curriculum exper-
tise, i.e. transfer of skills and strategies to the workplace is an ultimate goal for the
course.

Methodology
The method used to collect the data for this study was survey research, specifically
utilising telephone interview procedures. This investigative process had been used
successfully in a previous study and was found to be most appropriate given the
resources available and the scope of the study (Baker & Scott, 1995; Baker et al., 1997).
Even though this method had been found to be highly effective previously it was felt
that it would be advisable to also explore alternative methods of data collection, such
as participant observation, log book diaries/journals, classroom observation, postal
questionnaire and exploratory, standardised and telephone interviews to ensure that an
optimal method was selected. These methods were found to have inherent advantages
and disadvantages, but due to the sample being widely distributed over the state
(approximately 1,000,000 km2) the previously mentioned methods were not feasible. A
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 75

structured telephone interview method was chosen as the most appropriate approach
given the specific parameters of the research proposed. Telephone interviews allow
more in-depth pursuit of key open-ended items, such as examples of recent uses of
specific teaching models, and this was imperative in exploring teachers’ responses,
perspectives on students’ comfort levels and descriptions of classroom teaching activi-
ties. The interview schedule was developed from material suggested by previous
research and research instruments utilised in this field (Baker & Showers, 1984, 1985;
Baker & Scott, 1995; Baker et al., 1997). A pilot study with graduate teachers from the
Bachelor of Education course from the same university was conducted to refine the
interview instrument.
The authors understood the ‘socially desirable’ aspects of bias related to ‘self-report’
data and explored the use of participant observation, log book diaries/journals, and/or
potential triangulation with superiors/superordinates in order to verify respondents’
accounts (Howard, 1994; Spector, 1994). These previously mentioned research meth-
ods would have been valuable in enabling personal or external validation (triangulation)
of the behaviours respondents reported. A major concern with participant observation
was that past experience revealed that placing an ‘expert/researcher’ in the classroom
had the capacity to alter the respondents’ behaviour in two ways (Baker & Showers,
1984, 1985). The respondent may have implemented the models in order to present
themselves in a favourable light, or conversely, may have been unwilling to participate
in the study due to feelings of inadequacy if they had not implemented the models in
their classroom practice. This latter aspect had been experienced in a previous study
where skills development was tracked for a period of time after a professional develop-
ment course. Some teachers in that study declined to be involved or implemented the
models in order to maintain social desirability (Baker & Showers, 1984, 1985). New
teachers are characteristically under pressure in terms of time, and this was certainly the
case in this study. Therefore, to ask them to maintain a log or journal of their
implementation of a range of models would not have been viewed favourably and again
may have affected implementation. In two cases, graduates had kept a journal of their
teaching activities for performance appraisal/management processes. Keeping these
journals was viewed very poorly by the respondents and was described as ‘a monumen-
tal time wasting exercise’ that had added considerably to an already heavy workload. All
new teachers in Western Australia undergo a performance appraisal process, the results
of which purportedly influence their job prospects for the following year. Consequently,
this process, which is carried out by a superordinate, is potentially highly stressful for
new teachers. It was considered ethically questionable to obtain data from this process,
particularly as many of these ‘superiors’ had little or no knowledge of the models of
teaching. The decision not to access performance appraisal data was validated by the
respondents’ obvious anxiety that their inclusion in the study would not affect their
future job prospects and would remain confidential.

Instrument Design
Using interviews as the data collection process to examine transfer required the
development of a superior instrument. Considerable research was undertaken into
the development of the interview schedule with emphasis on careful formulation of the
wording of the questions and numerous cross-checks throughout the instrument.
Careful wording was targeted to prevent leading respondents to supply an answer they
felt was desired by the interviewer (Gall et al., 1996). Numerous internal reliability
76 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

checks were included; for example, the respondents were asked to rate the comfort
levels of both themselves and their students with the model and these ratings were
checked with the comments recorded in the open-ended sections of the instrument.
The results from the pilot were also compared with those of the main study to compare
the reliability of the answers.
Validity was perceived to be important in this project for if the data received did not
answer the research questions it was immaterial if it had been reliably collected. Validity
is ‘concerned with whether an instrument is measuring what it is supposed to measure’
(Wolf, 1993). As the respondents were reporting on their own classroom practices, the
aspect of validity was of major concern. Teachers in the study were asked to give an
indication of their frequency of use of the models. They were asked to describe a lesson
where they had made use of the model and this was used as a validity check against the
frequency rating they reported. In the lesson description teachers were probed regard-
ing subject matter suitability, year or grade level, the ability level of the students, their
(the teacher’s) motivation in selecting that model and to outline exactly how the lesson
had proceeded. This detailed portrayal was cross-checked by the interviewer with the
phases in the model as the interview progressed (the phases of each model were clearly
outlined on the interview schedule to act as a prompt to the interviewer). If the
respondent appeared to have difficulty remembering, they were reassured and advised
to take their time, in order to belay anxiety. If, at the conclusion of the lesson recount,
steps in the model had been omitted the researcher probed for further information. If
more information was not forthcoming then the interviewer proceeded to the next
section where the comfort level with the model was explored.
If the respondents had stated that they frequently used a particular model but were
unable to remember a specific lesson where it had been implemented, encouragement
was given to generalise in the hope that as the recount continued specifics of the lesson
would be remembered. If this did not occur, the account was noted as possibly
questionable data, particularly if respondents were unable to provide specifics to other
questions. Generally, respondents who were not sure of the model would state that they
were having difficulties remembering the model. Most in this category stated
forthrightly that they either did, or did not, use that particular model. Some stated that
they used a model but could not remember the name and would continue to perfectly
describe the steps of a particular model which was noted on the interview schedule.
This was important as the research was focused on activities in relation to the model,
not on being able to remember the name of the model. The interview instrument was
designed to make guessing very difficult. In the case where the respondent stated that
they used a model frequently he/she was asked to provide a detailed account of a
specific lesson using that particular strategy, supplying most or all of the steps from
memory of what they had done on that occasion. Few of the respondents who stated
that they utilised the models were unable to comply with the requirements set out in the
interview schedule to verify their statements.

Data Collection
With interviewing, reliability also lies with the interviewing technique. In order to
develop an excellent technique, a thorough review of the literature on potential
problems and avenues of bias in interviews was conducted (Gano-Phillips & Fincham,
1992; Oppenheim, 1992; Dinham, 1993; Cohen & Manion, 1994; Howard, 1994; Gall
et al., 1996). Interviewer training was also undertaken in the trial prior to the study.
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 77

Additionally, to limit bias from different interviewers, all interviews were conducted by
the same person.
Manual note-taking procedures were used with the first cohort of graduates. This
proved to be a laborious task and necessitated frequent pauses. Initially these pauses
appeared to be a major disadvantage by slowing the flow of dialogue, but conversely,
these breaks served to remind respondents of other details they had forgotten in their
haste to recall the lessons. It also facilitated probing for clarification by the interviewer.
A real problem with note-taking was that it extended the duration of the interview,
which troubled the busy graduate teachers. Paradoxically, even though concerned
about time, once the teachers started relating their lesson activities it was easy to keep
them talking, with them becoming animated and eager to share their experiences. It is
acknowledged that there had to be some loss of data by reason of manual note-taking
rather than tape recording the interviews. This issue was considered when deciding to
expand the data collection to include in-depth interviewing of all the models the
respondents reported using frequently. As a result, in the second year, the data were
collected by both manual note-taking and tape recording through a hands-free speaker
telephone. All the respondents readily agreed to the taping of interviews. The rationale
that this procedure would speed up the interviews was explained. They were also
informed that once the data were transcribed, the tape would be recorded over on the
occasion of the next interview. Recording the data enabled a more accurate collection
and served to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the amount of necessary editing
which occurred throughout the interview.
Determining if, and to what extent, transfer of complex skills had occurred were key
issues in this study. In order to investigate new graduates’ transfer of skills into regular
repertoire it was necessary to incorporate the following fundamental criteria into the
interview schedule. Establishing that the following behaviours were occurring or start-
ing to occur and the teachers’ perceptions of the models would act as an indicator of
transfer. The criteria used to determine transfer were:

• frequency of use of the model;

• comfort level of the teacher;
• rationale for use of the model;
• comfort level of the students;
• appropriate use of the model;
• adaptations or modifications of the model;
• was the lesson described one prepared in the university workshop?;
• could the teacher provide further appropriate examples of lessons using the model?

These categories were incorporated into the interview schedule and, as a composite,
provided a more complete picture as to whether the beginning teacher had attempted
the models and, if so, at what stage of transfer they could be rated (horizontal, vertical
transfer or executive control over the model). The novice teachers were assessed as
having transferred the strategy from the theoretical into the actual classroom situation
successfully, if they were using the model frequently; were comfortable or very comfort-
able; were able to provide a theoretically sound rationale for use; noted that the
students were comfortable or very comfortable; the described lesson was complete and
appropriate to the model chosen; any modifications to the model were appropriate; if
the lesson was one which had been formulated subsequent to the workshop setting; and
they were able to provide further appropriate examples of lessons using the model. The
78 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

amount or degree of transfer (i.e. horizontal or vertical transfer, etc.) was determined
by the number and extent of the above criteria achieved by the teacher.
Self-efficacy was gauged from the graduate teachers’ open-ended comments in both
the structured and unstructured portions of the interview. The criteria correlated to
investigate self-efficacy with transfer were the respondents’ perceptions regarding their
own performance, the work situation, comfort levels with the models, the effect that
utilising the models had on their students, and their attitude towards their students,
their perception of their students and their ability to have an effect on them.

Results
Transfer per Respondent
Figures 1 and 2 display a representation of the number of models transferred per
respondent in the first and second cohorts.

FIG. 1. Number of models transferred per respondent in the first cohort.

Both sample groups were found to be comparable in the category of ‘number of

respondents who transferred three or more models’. Ten respondents (approximately
30%) from both years were in this category. All of these teachers displayed high levels
of self-efficacy and a positive attitude in general. There were slightly less in the first
sample who transferred two models, with six teachers (19%) in the first group

FIG. 2. Number of models transferred per respondent in the second cohort.

 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 79

compared with eight (24%) in the second cohort. The number of respondents who
transferred one model was comparable across both cohorts with seven respondents
(22%) in the first sample group and four (21%) in the second sample. The complement
of the sample represented those who had made no attempt to implement the models of
teaching, those who had been unsuccessful in the implementation process and/or those
who were implementing but not frequently enough to satisfy the criteria for transfer.
The reasons for non-use were reported as concerns with a lack of time, a lack of
understanding of the models, a lack of motivation to attempt them, and concerns with
management issues. This group of teachers displayed low levels of self-efficacy. Those
teachers who had attempted to implement the models but were not utilising them
frequently enough to satisfy the criteria for transfer usually displayed a positive attitude
to the models but were still consumed with becoming established in their teaching
practice. Many of these teachers stated that they would continue their implementation
of the models while developing their classroom and time management skills. Many
stated that they liked using the models and would continue because they had experi-
enced the inherent advantages to their students although preparation time was a
problem.

Transfer and Gender

Tables I and II display the distribution of female and male teachers, in both the first
and second samples, who successfully transferred between one and five complex
models.

TABLE I. Comparison of transfer with gender in the first cohort

No. of Gender
respondents No. of models transferred Females (n ⫽ 19) Males (n ⫽ 13)

10 3 7 3
6 2 5 1
7 1 3 3
23 49 15 7

In the first cohort, there were 23 graduates who successfully transferred 49 strategies
collectively (verified data). Of the 23 graduates, 15 were female and 7 were male.
In the second cohort, there were 22 graduates who successfully transferred 58
strategies in total. Of the 22 graduates, 17 were female and 5 were male.

TABLE II. Comparison of transfer with gender in the second cohort

No. of Gender
respondents No. of models transferred Females (n ⫽ 24) Males (n ⫽ 10)

3 5 2 1
2 4 2 0
5 3 4 1
8 2 6 2
4 1 3 1
22 58 17 5
80 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

Tables III and IV display the demographic distribution of females and males in both
the first and second samples. They also compare the percentage of females who
successfully transferred models into regular repertoire with females who were unsuc-
cessful and, likewise, males who were successful in implementing the complex models
with their unsuccessful counterparts.

TABLE III. First cohort gender demographics

Total no. of respondents Respondents transferring models % transferring

Female 19 15 79
Male 13 7 54

In the initial cohort, 79% of female teachers were successful in transferring complex
models, with 54% of male teachers being successful.

TABLE IV. Second cohort gender demographics

Total no. of respondents Respondents transferring models % transferring

Female 24 17 71
Male 10 5 50

In the second cohort, 71% of females successfully transferred models into their
regular classroom practices in comparison with 50% of their male counterparts. The
two sample groups demonstrated the same trend of females being more successful in
implementing complex teaching strategies than their male counterparts.

Discussion
Coalescent Curriculum Structure in Teacher Preparation
This research explored the success or otherwise of a coalescent curriculum structure for
skills development in a teacher education professional preparation course at an Aus-
tralian university. The coalescent curriculum structure involved Bandura’s (1986)
social cognitive theory of observational learning, a selection of Joyce et al.’s models of
teaching (1992), humanistic approaches (Comb, 1965 in Biehler & Snowman, 1993;
Brown, 1971 and Roger, 1969, in Gage & Berliner, 1992), and reflective techniques
based upon Zeichner’s four versions of reflective practice (1990, 1993). The effective-
ness of the teaching and learning processes in the teacher education professional
preparation course were determined by ascertaining the amount of transfer of the
complex teaching strategies into the regular repertoire by graduate teachers. Addition-
ally, the implementation of appropriate reflective practices within the classroom situ-
ation was indirectly examined throughout the interview process.
Interestingly, the rate of transfer on an individual basis was relatively even across
both year groups even though the demographics of the two samples were different. It
was pleasing to find that 23 teachers (72% of the total sample) in the first group and
22 (65% of the total sample) in the second sample, transferred at least one complex
teaching model into regular classroom use, figures which were significantly higher than
expected from similar teaching/learning courses (Showers & Joyce, 1996; Joyce et al.,
2000). Although Showers & Joyce recommend teachers build a repertoire of five to six
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 81

different strategies in order to better accommodate the various learning styles and needs
of students, many of these teachers stated that having experienced success with one
model they intended to continue to implement other models. This trend of higher
transfer rates was maintained in a subgroup of ten graduates in both cohorts (approx-
imately a third of the total number of respondents in both samples) who successfully
implemented at least three complex models. Some of this group were transferring as
many as five strategies into their regular repertoire of teaching practices and demon-
strated executive control over the model.
It was also interesting, although not entirely unexpected, that self-efficacy also
appeared to be linked with successful transfer. Teachers who implemented one model
appeared to be less sure of themselves and their perception of their own teaching and
students were less positive than those who had successfully mastered more than two
models. Those who had implemented three or more models demonstrated sound
reflection techniques, encompassing Zeichner’s four versions of reflection. They per-
ceived the models of teaching to constitute effective teaching endorsing many previous
studies exploring the effectiveness of a ‘models of teaching’ approach (Servatius &
Young, 1985; Kent, 1985; Rogers, 1987; Garmston, 1987; Moffett et al., 1987;
Bennett, 1987; Joyce et al., 1989; Raywid, 1993; Garmston et al., 1993). These
successful teachers also appeared to experience less stress related to their own teaching
than their less adventurous peers. Curiously many of these successful teachers were able
to identify that they felt less stressed with regard to their own teaching and were more
effective in the classroom and yet were stressed with aspects of teaching outside of their
control; for example, settling into the school culture and/or new town, and satisfying
the criteria for performance appraisal.
Changes in comfort level were noted in teachers who had transferred more than two
models. They reported feeling awkward initially and stated that their students were
hesitant and unsure, nevertheless after using the model frequently both teacher and
students became used to the different format, students participated more and indicated
that they enjoyed it more than transmissive modes of delivery. This finding endorsed
Joyce & Showers’ (1995) findings of transfer moving from horizontal to vertical and,
eventually, to executive control with a resultant change in comfort levels and expertise.
The general statement from teachers who had transferred a complex model was that
they would continue to implement more models having experienced success and seen
that their students were benefiting from the models. This endorsed Bandura’s (1986)
views that success with the models provides motivation and reinforces the behaviour in
this case implementation of the models. It also aligns with Guskey’s (1986) model of
teacher change whereby teachers will alter their behaviours after observing positive
affects on their student learning. It also endorsed Joyce & Showers’ (1995) research that
models have an effect on student participation and achievement.

Transfer and Gender

In a prior study (Baker & Scott, 1995; Baker et al., 1997) a large proportion of
innovative lessons were formulated and conducted by female teachers. Initial analysis
of the first cohort in this current study suggested there may have been a trend emerging
linking transfer to gender. Females appeared to consistently gain higher transfer rates
than their male counterparts. This trend was confirmed in the second year of the study.
Seventy-nine per cent of the female graduates in the first cohort group and 71% in the
second cohort were found to be successful in transferring models of teaching into their
82 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

regular repertoire of teaching strategies. This was contrasted with 54% of males in the
first sample and 50% in the second group.
It was initially proposed that subject contamination may have been a confounding
factor, suggesting that subject areas in which models of teaching were not routinely
utilised may have been dominated by males. Upon investigation this was not found to
be the case. There were only three ‘non-transfer’ males in these curriculum areas in the
first sample. In the second cohort group, the percentage of males successfully imple-
menting dropped to 50% from 54% the previous year, yet the percentage of males in
‘suspect’ subject areas (i.e. subject areas in which teachers did not routinely implement
models) dropped. If curriculum area was a significant factor affecting transfer rates, the
number of males implementing strategies should have risen in the second year rather
than fallen. Likewise, the female teachers were evenly distributed across curriculum
areas with many in ‘suspect’ content areas (e.g. art and computing) and yet this did not
appear to affect their implementation. Although there were more females overall
transferring the strategies, the proportions of male and female teachers demonstrating
a high level transfer stage (implementing three or more complex strategies and often
demonstrating executive control over the strategy) were comparable across both
cohorts (i.e. around 20% of males and just over 33% of females transferred three or
more models).
The gender differences that emerged were unexpected. Unfortunately there was
insufficient information upon which to draw definite conclusions regarding why females
were more successful in acquiring a repertoire of teaching strategies. This result raises
more questions than it answers. For example, are females more receptive to new
teaching strategies? Do females adjust to new environments at a faster rate than their
male counterparts enabling them to take on new learning earlier? Do males hold
stronger views as to what constitutes effective teaching rendering them less willing to
take on new learning that does not fit in with their schema? Are there more pressures
on males within particular environments than on their female counterparts? These
questions illustrate the multidimensional aspect of this issue, and how many extraneous
factors may influence transfer. It may also include student teachers’ personality type
and growth level. It can be seen that it would be difficult to make any categorical
statements regarding the issue of gender and transfer, nonetheless, it would be an
interesting area to pursue in a future study.

Conclusion
It would appear from the transfer rates obtained in this study, in addition to findings
obtained in a previous study with selected models (Baker & Scott, 1995; Baker et al.,
1997), that the strategies of teaching unit may be more effective than other courses of
a similar nature which profess similar outcomes. The format of the course and
instructional design of the workshops have been proposed as responsible for the high
rate of transfer being reported. In addition to the observation of models being per-
formed by lecturers, tutors, peers and themselves (on video), the students themselves
performed and received support from all involved in the unit. This practice promoted
the development of self-efficacy and skill with the model. The humanistic workshop
environment appeared to have provided the students with incentive and motivation to
attempt, and continue practising, their skills with the strategies. As outlined by Bandura
(Woolfolk, 1993) this incentive and motivation was a key aspect in the adoption of new
learning. Overtly teaching reflective techniques (e.g. reflection of self and peers in
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 83

micro-teaching workshops, on the models and the formulation of the environments

required for the models to be effective, in assignment preparation and on teaching
practice within the school sphere) appeared to have the effect of increasing self-efficacy,
confidence and motivation. This endorsed Martin’s (1989) findings that the more
teachers observed and participated in satisfactory micro-teaching the more their self-
image improved in terms of being an effective teacher.
All educators involved in teaching any course would like to believe that their teaching
was having a positive effect on their students and the content is vitally relevant to the
current employment situation. Unfortunately, the research on effective training indi-
cates that these are not necessarily definite outcomes. Finding that the majority of the
graduates in this study demonstrated a clear theoretical understanding of the models
and had reportedly established a constructive classroom environment built upon sound
humanistic ideals was reassuring. They displayed clear, focused reflective techniques in
being able to identify areas within their own teaching and within the school or
classroom environment, which required modification in order to bring about improve-
ment. They also displayed awareness of the need for lifelong learning to ensure their
professionalism. The findings from this study have led to a number of significant
modifications to the course content and assessments, such as, a reduction in the
number of models covered from 11 to 5 and introducing simple and complex co-oper-
ative learning strategies. Assessments are more focused on providing students with
readily available resources for use in their first year of teaching. It is anticipated that
recommendations from students and modifications will result in an even more effective
course structure. It is also anticipated that this will result in higher transfer rates,
thereby ensuring that newly graduated teachers will be better equipped to meet the
varying needs of their students.

Correspondence: Shelleyann Scott, Coordinator of Teaching and Learning, Academic

Development, Curtin Business School, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box
U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia (e-mail: scotts@cbs.curtin.edu.au).

REFERENCES
ARENDS, R. (2001) Learning to Teach, 5th edn (New York, McGraw-Hill).
BAKER, R.G. & SCOTT, S. (1995) The Transfer of Teaching Skills into Classroom Practice: a follow-up study
of newly graduated teachers (Bentley, Curtin University Printing Services).
BAKER, R.G., SCOTT, S. & SHOWERS, B. (1997) Attacking the articulation problem in teacher
education, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 22(2), pp. 1–6.
BAKER, R.G. & SHORTLAND-JONES, B. (1996) Professional skills development. An interactive multime-
dia package (CD-ROM) for primary, secondary and tertiary teaching.
BAKER, R.G. & SHOWERS, B. (1984) The effects of a coaching strategy on teacher transfer of training
to classroom practice: a six month follow-up study, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
BAKER, R.G. & SHOWERS, B. (1985) Transfer of training to classroom practice: the effects of a
follow-up coaching strategy, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for
Research in Education, Hobart.
BANDURA, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a social cognitive theory (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
BENNETT, B. (1987) The effectiveness of staff development training practices: a meta-analysis, PhD
Thesis, University of Oregon.
84 S. Scott & R. G. Baker

BENNETT, B. (1997) Integrating teaching models for secondary teachers, The LPD Video Journal of
Education, Salt Lake City, UT.
BIEHLER, R.F. & SNOWMAN, J. (1993) Psychology Applied to Teaching, 7th edn (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin).
COHEN, L. & MANION, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education, 4th edn (London, Routledge).
DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1998) Teacher learning that supports student learning, Educational Leader-
ship, February, pp. 6–11.
DARLING-HAMMOND, L. & MCLAUGHLIN, M. (1995) Policies that support professional development in
an era of change, Phi Delta Kappan, April, pp. 597–604.
DINHAM, S. (1993) The use of the telephone interview in educational research: one case study,
Education Research and Perspectives, 21, pp. 17–27.
GAGE, N.L. & BERLINER, D.C. (1992) Educational Psychology, 5th edn (Boston, Houghton Mifflin).
GALL, M.D., BORG, W.R. & GALL, J.P. (1996) Educational Research. An introduction, 6th edn (White
Plains, Longman).
GANO-PHILLIPS, S. & FINCHAM, F.D. (1992) Assessing marriage via telephone interviews and written
questionnaires: a methodological note, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, pp. 630–635.
GARMSTON, R.J. (1987) How administrators support peer coaching, Educational Leadership, 44(5),
pp. 18–26.
GARMSTON, R.J., LINDER, C. & WHITAKER, J. (1993) Reflections on cognitive coaching, Educational
Leadership, 51(2), pp. 57–61.
GUSKEY, T.R. (1986) Staff development and the process of teacher change, Educational Researcher,
May, pp. 5–12.
GUSKEY, T.R. (1987) Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of
mastery learning, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Washington, DC.
HOWARD, G.S. (1994) Why do people say nasty things about self-reports?, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, pp. 385–392.
JOYCE, B., MURPHY, C., SHOWERS, B. & MURPHY, J. (1989) School renewal as cultural change,
Educational Leadership, 47(3), pp. 70–78.
JOYCE, B. & SHOWERS, B. (1982) The coaching of teaching, Educational Leadership, 40(1), pp. 4–16.
JOYCE, B. & SHOWERS, B. (1995) Student Achievement Through Staff Development (New York, Long-
man).
JOYCE, B. & WEIL, M. (1986) Models of Teaching, 3rd edn (New York, Prentice Hall).
JOYCE, B., WEIL, M. & CALHOUN, E. (2000) Models of Teaching, 6th edn (New York, Allyn & Bacon).
JOYCE, B., WEIL, M. & SHOWERS, B. (1992) Models of Teaching, 4th edn (New York, Allyn & Bacon).
KENT, K.M. (1985) A successful program of teachers assisting teachers, Educational Leadership, 43(3),
pp. 30–33.
MARTIN, O.L. (1989) Does teacher efficacy begin with teacher education? Implications from student
teacher candidates, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Little Rock, AR.
MOFFETT, K.L., ST. JOHN, J. & ISKEN, J.A. (1987) Training and coaching beginning teachers: an
antidote to reality shock, Educational Leadership, 44(5), pp. 34–36.
OPPENHEIM, A.N. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement (London, Pinter).
PAJARES, F. & KRANZLER, J. (1995) Competence and confidence in mathematics: the role of self
efficacy, self concept, and general mental ability in mathematical problem solving, Florida Educational
Research Council Research Bulletin, 26 (Sanibel, FL, Florida Educational Research Council).
RAYWID, M.A. (1993) Finding time for collaboration, Educational Leadership, 51(1), pp. 30–35.
ROGERS, S. (1987) If I can see myself, I can change, Educational Leadership, 45(2), pp. 64–67.
SERVATIUS, J.D. & YOUNG, S.E. (1985) Implementing the coaching of teaching, Educational Leadership,
42(7), pp. 50–53.
SHOWERS, B. (1995) Designing site-based school improvement programs, a paper presented to Primary
Principals, Education Department of Western Australia, Nedlands.
SHOWERS, B. & JOYCE, B. (1996) The evolution of peer coaching, Educational Leadership, 53(6),
pp. 12–16.
SHOWERS, B., JOYCE, B. & BENNETT, B. (1987) Synthesis of research on staff development: a
framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis, Educational Leadership, 45(3), pp. 77–87.
SPARKS, D. & HIRSH, S. (1997) A New Vision for Staff Development (Alexandria, VA, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Oxford, OH, National Staff Development Council).
 Transfer of Complex Teaching Models by Graduates 85

SPECTOR, P.E. (1994) Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a
controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, pp. 385–392.
TURNEY, C., ELTIS, K.J., HATTON, N., OWENS, L.C., TOWLER, J., WRIGHT, R., CAIRNS, L.G. &
WILLIAMS, G. (1987a) Sydney Micro Skills Redeveloped: series I handbook (Sydney, University of
Sydney Press).
TURNEY, C., ELTIS, K.J., HATTON, N., OWENS, L.C., TOWLER, J., WRIGHT, R., CAIRNS, L.G. &
WILLIAMS, G. (1987b) Sydney Micro Skills Redeveloped: series II handbook (Sydney, University of
Sydney Press).
WOLF, R.M. (1993) Data quality and norms in international studies, Measurement and Evaluation in
Counselling and Development, 26(1), pp. 35–40.
WOOLFOLK, A.E. (1993) Educational Psychology, 5th edn (Boston, Allyn & Bacon).
ZEICHNER, K.M. (1990) Educational and Social Commitments in Reflective Teacher Education Programs.
Proceedings of the National Forum of the Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher
Education (Milwaukee, WI).
ZEICHNER, K.M. (1991) Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: a case
study from the United States, Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), pp. 119–136.
ZEICHNER, K.M. (1993) Traditions of practice in U.S. preservice teacher education programs, Teaching
and Teacher Education, 9(1), pp. 1–13.