Teacher Education, Educational Leadership & Policy ETDs

Publication Date

7-9-1979

Abstract

This study is a replication with modifications of the research of Bussis, Chittenden, and Amarel (1976) to determine if teachers' frames of reference concerning underlying curriculum constructs can be identified and classified as being broad, middle-range, or narrow. The two modifications are (1) a different population, and (2) use of the Physical Setting and Materials subsection of the work of Bussis and associates, rather than their total Teacher Interview. Since identifying and classifying teachers' frames of reference constitute a relatively new approach in education, this study is of a descriptive nature. Fifteen subjects participated, each one an experienced teacher of pre-school or elementary age children at the time of the study. They shared the common experience of having been students in a core selection of graduate courses at the University of New Mexico. Using the Physical Setting and Materials Interview, the researcher asked the teachers questions on classroom arrangement, value of semi-structured and environmental and natural materials, and most essential classroom materials. Their responses were coded by use of the Physical Setting and Materials coding scheme. It was found that the Physical Setting and Materials Interview did distinguish this sample's frames of reference concerning underlying curriculum constructs as being broad, middle-range, or narrow. In addition, some teachers' frames of reference consisted of a combination of middle-range to broad priorities. Further, it was found that the Physical Setting and Materials Interview, used alone and not as a part of the entire Teacher Interview of Bussis et al., was sufficient in itself for distinguishing teachers' frames of reference as being broad, middle-range, or narrow, and even a combination of priorities. In addition, when segments of the Physical Setting and Materials Interview were examined, it was found that teachers were labeled according to the data from the segments in the same way as they had been labeled in the data from the Physical Settings Interview. Although the Physical Setting and Materials Interview differentiated among teachers' frames of reference, one of its coding scheme's categories was inappropriate for this particular sample because of the subjects' common educational experience. The conclusions of this descriptive research study suggest that the Physical Setting and Materials Interview, a subsection of the Teacher Interview of Bussis et al., has tentative uses in research at the present time, while, concurrently, further development of the instrument is conducted.

Document Type

Dissertation

Language

English

Degree Name

Elementary Education

Level of Degree

Doctoral

Department Name

Teacher Education, Educational Leadership & Policy

First Committee Member (Chair)

Catherine Ellen Loughlin

Second Committee Member

Marlis Eckles Mann

Third Committee Member

F. Keith Auger

Fourth Committee Member

Richard Elmer Lawrence

Fifth Committee Member

Marie Morrison Hughes

Download

Share

COinS