Levantamiento de Requisitos

This dimension is concerned with the manner in which the lesson is conducted. It focuses on matters of authority, reaction to misbehaviour and teacher expectations, which together create an impression that the teacher is in control. This impression is conveyed by the tone of confi dence and fi rmness regarding teaching and control, together with positive expectations regarding the quality of work and behaviour occur-ring in the lesson.

7 Withitness

This notion, developed by Kounin, deals with the teacher’s monitoring of the lesson. It refers to the teacher being alert to learning problems and misbehaviour, so that he or she can largely pre-empt their occurrence or take swift action when they do occur.

8 Encouragingness

This dimension explicitly examines the nature of teacher–pupil interaction in terms of the extent to which the teacher uses a mixture of praise, instructive criticism, enthu-siasm and good humour to develop a positive and encouraging tone in the lesson, which will foster and support pupils’ self-confi dence and self-esteem.

While these eight qualities overlap in some respects, they appear to represent the key classroom teaching qualities that warrant attention. In a study based on using these scales, 40 lessons (each given by a different teacher) were observed in two secondary schools (Kyriacou and McKelvey, 1985). Each lesson was rated on each of these eight dimensions using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 denoted the right-hand (less desirable) description and 5 the left-hand (more desirable) description. The fi ndings of the study indicated, surprisingly, that for all but one dimension, more than half of the 40 lessons received a rating of 5. This is a much higher proportion of positive qualities being displayed than was expected. The exact number of lessons (out of 40) receiving a rat-ing of 5 on each dimension was as follows:

Preparedness 31

Pace and fl ow 24

Transitions 24 Cognitive matching 24 Clarity 33 Business-like 26 Withitness 22 Encouragingness 14

The fact that only 14 of the 40 lessons received a rating of 5 on encouragingness refl ected the somewhat tired or bored or bored tone of some teachers, and instances of teachers using sarcasm or being deprecating in their interaction with pupils.

Four of the 40 lessons rated all 5s. These were all characterised by:

a coherence of presentation

Ɂ

a pace that seemed to suit the pupils’ needs and maintain their interest

Ɂ

an ability to deal with matters of discipline without interrupting the lesson (although

Ɂ

few incidents of misbehaviour were evident)

ease in moving between activities without spending time repeating or controlling the

Ɂ

class

a general awareness of what was going on

Ɂ

a positive and enthusiastic relationship with pupils.

Ɂ

Nevertheless, there were also notable differences between these four lessons. One les-son was very formal and highly structured, requiring a great deal of individual work from pupils and little discussion. In contrast, in another lesson, the teacher read to the class, talked to pupils, and pupils talked among themselves and reported back to the teacher. Although these two lessons received identical ratings (all 5s), they had very different learning atmospheres.

Of the 40 lessons, a further 14 received a profi le of ratings that contained only 5s and 4s. This bias in the lessons observed towards ratings of 5s and 4s (the desirable descrip-tors) was no doubt in part a refl ection of the fact that the 40 teachers observed were all experienced teachers, and had all agreed to allow the researcher to observe a lesson (some teachers who were approached did not agree to take part in the study). In this respect, the descriptions used for the eight qualities did not suffi ciently discriminate between such lessons.

Using such rating scales in the context of initial teacher training has been very useful indeed. It raises an agenda of qualities against which student teachers can discuss and compare their views of effective teaching and their assessment and evaluation of

K^{EYCLASSROOMTEACHINGQUALITIESANDTASKS} 85 eotaped lessons. The views of student teachers, together with the lack of discrimination between the lessons of experienced teachers shown above, points to three important observations concerning the search for the key qualities of classroom teaching. These apply not only to the qualities discussed here, but to all such sets, including those used by Ofsted and in the Stanford Teacher Competence Appraisal Guide already discussed.

The fi rst observation is that a list of rating scales fails to do justice to the intellectual quality of the lesson (how the content and learning activities are marshalled to set up the educational experience appropriate to achieving the teacher’s intended outcomes).

In part, this requires one to consider the development of the lesson as a whole unit.

This becomes very evident when one looks at a description of a whole lesson and sees how the different parts and activities were related. Rating scales fail to adequately convey this.

The second observation is that such ratings also fail to do justice to the nature of the rapport between teacher and pupils, and to measure how such rapport is developed.

Such rapport extends beyond its purely affective tone to include the hidden curriculum, in terms of the types of activities used and the ‘language climate’ of the classroom. The language climate, which refers to the teacher’s choice of words and phrases to describe and comment on pupils’ behaviour, and how they exert control over when and how pupils may speak, is particularly important. In addition, the rapport between teacher and pupils can change many times during the course of a lesson, as the teacher puts on ‘different hats’ (e.g. encouraging, explaining, counselling and reprimanding).

The third observation concerns the importance of teachers being able to see the prog-ress of a lesson from the pupils’ perspective and to make appropriate decisions and modifi cations to the lesson while it is in progress. Many regard this quality of social sensitivity (seeing things from another’s perspective) as an important contributor to all qualities of effective teaching, since it relates to a teacher’s awareness of how their own actions will be experienced by pupils.

Together these three observations have a common thread. This is that the dynamic nature of a lesson, in terms of how the scenario unfolds and how the qualities and phases of a lesson are interrelated, is fundamental to one’s overall judgement and appreciation of a lesson taken as a whole. As such, the value of using ratings scales is that they provide a valuable set of agenda items for discussion and refl ection. However, it is how one discusses these qualities that is important, since no one set of qualities alone can adequately capture the full richness of a lesson. In effect, rating scales are best regarded as a very useful heuristic device that enables one to probe the nature of effective teaching in terms of its underlying characteristics.

The study reported here also highlights how such rating scales seem to provide a useful basis for considering the general qualities underlying effective teaching, but cannot adequately discriminate between ‘good teaching’ and ‘outstanding teaching’. In other words, both ‘good teaching’ and ‘outstanding teaching’ will share these same general qualities, but what makes outstanding teaching different from good teaching owes something to the notion of ‘master classes’ or ‘virtuoso performance’. This involves a variety of additional factors, such as exceptional teaching skills, charisma, fi rst-class commitment and preparation, and an ability to tailor a learning experience perfectly to the needs of pupils. At such an extreme of overall quality, one begins to deal with case studies of unique teachers and teaching, rather than a consideration of the general qualities addressed in typical sets of rating scales.