The Teaching-Learning Process: A Discussion of Models

Deborah A. McIlrath and William G. Huitt

Citation: McIlrath, D., & Huitt, W. (1995, December). The teaching-learning process: A
discussion of models. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State
University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/modeltch.html

Return to: |Readings in EdPsyc | EdPsyc Interactive: Courses |

Many researchers have tried to put together classroom- or school-based models that describe
the teaching-learning process. A model is a visual aid or picture which highlights the main ideas
and variables in a process or a system. The models presented in this paper include words or
diagrams intended to give an understanding of the variables associated with school learning,
especially as measured by scores on standardized tests of basic skills. The main models
discussed and compared are by Carroll (1963), Proctor (1984), Cruickshank (1985), Gage and
Berliner (1992) and Huitt (1995).

Two major questions are addressed in educational psychology: (1) "Why do some students learn
required knowledge and skills taught in school, while others do not?" (a criterion-referenced
evaluation question) and (2) "Why do some students learn more than other students?" (a norm-
referenced evaluation question.) Unfortunately, the possible answers to these questions are
enormous. Oftentimes research findings and theories of teaching and learning seem to contradict
one another. What is an educator to do?

In this paper we will explore several models of teaching and learning. Gage & Berliner (1992)
state that the use of models as learning aides have two primary benefits. First, models provide
"accurate and useful representations of knowledge that is needed when solving problems in some
particular domain" (p. 314). Second, a model makes the process of understanding a domain of
knowledge easier because it is a visual expression of the topic. Gage and Berliner found that
students who study models before a lecture may recall as much as 57% more on questions
concerning conceptual information than students who receive instruction without the advantage
of seeing and discussing models. Alesandrini (1981) came to similar conclusions when he
studied different pictorial-verbal strategies for learning:

Research on the effectiveness of pictorial learning strategies indicates that learning is improved
when pictures supplement verbal materials, when learners draw their own pictures while
studying, and when learners are asked to generate mental pictures while reading or studying...the
factor of sex was also included in the analysis due to its observed (although unexpected) effect
(pp. 358, 363).

Interestingly, the females in this study had a tendency to benefit more than males if they related
the specifics of their pictures to the whole concept.
Models have been used extensively in educational psychology to help clarify some of the
answers researchers have found that might shed light on such questions as, "How do students
learn effectively?" Or, "What is happening in this classroom that facilitates learning better than
in another classroom?"

John Carroll's Model

Most current models that categorize the variables or explanations of the many influences on
educational processes today stem from Carroll's (1963) seminal article defining the major
variables related to school learning. Carroll specialized in language and learning, relating words
and their meanings to the cognitive concepts and constructs which they create (Klausmeier &
Goodwin, 1971). In his model, Carroll states that time is the most important variable to school
learning. A simple equation for Carroll's model is:

School Learning = f(time spent/time needed).

Carroll explains that time spent is the result of opportunity and perseverance. Opportunity in
Carroll's model is determined by the classroom teacher; the specific measure is called allotted or
allocated time (i.e., time allocated for learning by classroom teachers.) Perseverance is the
student's involvement with academic content during that allocated time. Carroll proposed that
perseverance be measured as the percentage of the allocated time that students are actually
involved in the learning process and was labeled engagement rate. Allocated time multiplied
by engagement rate produced the variable Carroll proposed as a measure of time spent, which
came to be called engaged time or time-on-task.

Carroll (1963) proposed that the time needed by students to learn academic content is contingent
upon aptitude (the most often used measure is IQ), ability to understand the instruction
presented (the extent to which they possessed prerequisite knowledge), and the quality of
instruction students receive in the process of learning. Carroll proposed that these specific
teacher and student behaviors and student characteristics where the only variables needed to
predict school learning; he did not include the influences of family, community, society and the
world that other authors discussed below have included.

The principles of this model can be seen in Bloom's (1976) Mastery Learning model. Bloom, a
colleague of Carroll's, observed that in traditional schooling a student's aptitude for learning
academic material (IQ) is one of the best predictor's of school achievement. His research
demonstrated that if time is not held constant for all learners (as it is in traditional schooling)
then a student's mastery of the prerequisite skills, rather than aptitude, is a better predictor of
school learning. Mastery Learning's basic principle is that almost all students can earn A's if

1) students are given enough time to learn normal information taught in school, and
2) students are provided quality instruction.

By quality instruction Bloom meant that teachers should:

(1) organize subject matter into manageable learning units,
(2) develop specific learning objectives for each unit,
(3) develop appropriate formative and summative assessment measures, and
(4) plan and implement group teaching strategies, with sufficient time allocations, practice
opportunities, and corrective reinstruction for all students to reach the desired level of mastery.

Proctor's Model

Prior to the sixties the research on important school- and classroom-related variables was
directed toward the best traits or characteristics of teachers in an attempt to identify good
teaching and the important characteristics of schools and communities that support good
teaching. Proctor (1984) provides a model that updates this view by including important teacher
and student behaviors as predictors of student achievement. It is derived from other teacher- and
classroom-based models but is redesigned to emphasize teacher expectations. Proctor states that
it is possible for a self-fulfilling prophesy (as researched by Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) to be
an institutional phenomenon and the climate of a school can have an effect on the achievement of
its learners. The attitudes, the norms, and the values of an educational faculty and staff can make
a difference in achievement test scores. The paradigm most influencing Proctor's model is that of
a social nature and not of a teacher/student one-on-one relationship. The other models include
the variables that provide the focus for this model, but show these variables in a more
subordinate manner.

Proctor's (1984) model begins with the factor of the School's Social Climate. Some of the
variables included in this would be attitudes, norms, beliefs, and prejudices. This school climate
is influenced by a number of factors, including such student characteristics as race, gender,
economic level, and past academic performance.

The student characteristics also influence teacher attitudes and teacher efficacy. More recent
studies support Proctor's (1984) position that student self-image and behavior are affected by
teacher efficacy (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).

The next category of variables is the interaction among the individuals involved in the schooling
process. This includes the input of administrators as well as that of teachers and students. If
expectations of learning are high (i.e., the school has good, qualified teachers and students who
can learn) and there is high quality instructional input, corrective feedback, and good
communication among students, parents, and educators, then the intermediate outcomes of
student learning and student self-expectation goes up. On the other hand, adverse or negative
attitudes on the part of instructors and administrators will cause student self-esteem, and
consequently, student achievement to spiral downwards.

The interactions in Proctor's (1984) model include the school's overall policy on allowing time
for children to learn or promoting other forms of student-based help when needed. This could
include quality of instruction (as in Carroll's (1963) model above) or teacher classroom
behaviors (as in Cruickshank's (1985) model below). These behaviors have an effect on student
classroom performance (especially academic learning time and curriculum coverage) and self-
expectations .

Finally, the student's achievement level in Proctor's (1984) model is an outcome of all previous
factors and variables. It is hypothesized that there is a cyclical relationship among the variables.
In Proctor's model, the main concept is that achievement in a specific classroom during a
particular school year is not an end in itself. It is refiltered into the social climate of the school
image and the entire process begins all over again. Proctor's model implies that change can be
made at any point along the way. These changes will affect school achievement, which will
continue to affect the social climate of the school.

Cruickshank's Model

The model by Cruickshank (1985) is more classroom- and teacher-based; he was heavily
influenced by models created by Mitzel, Biddle, and Flanders. Mitzel contributed the concept of
classifying variables as "product, process, or presage" (Cruickshank, p. 17). Product is learning
on the part of the student (change in behavior or behavior potential) while process involves
interaction between student and teacher. Presage is the teacher's intelligence, level of
experience, success and other teacher characteristics. Presage is supposed to affect process and
then, of course, process will affect the product.

Biddle (as cited in Biddle & Ellena, 1964) showed a relationship between specific learning
activities and teacher effects. In his model, Biddle offers seven categories of variables related to
schooling and student achievement: school and community contents, formative experiences,
classroom situations, teacher properties, teacher behaviors, intermediate effects, and long-term
consequences. This provides the foundation for Cruickshank's (1985) model.
Biddle also contributed a model of the transactional process of the classroom by analyzing the
structure and function of the communication process. This is reflected in Cruickshank's model
through the use of arrows depicting the interaction between teacher and pupil classroom
behavior.

Biddle constructed his models to help answer questions he thought parents might ask, such as:
"How often does my child get individual attention from the teacher?" Or, "Does the teacher
really understand Junior's special problem?" (Adams & Biddle, 1970, p. 6). Biddle also helped
define non-cognitive variables which contribute to the affective domain (i.e., self-concept and
self-esteem of the students). An example of these variables would be teacher genuineness,
"teacher-offered conditions of respect...and modification of low self-concept" (Good, Biddle &
Brophy, 1975, p. 195).

Flanders (as cited in Cruickshank, 1985) offered the variables of teacher- and student-classroom-
talk and devised an instrument which focused on this behavior. "His was the most frequently
used instrument. It permitted observation of teachers' use of 'verbal influence,' defined as 'teacher
talk' and 'pupil talk,' in a variety of classroom situations" (Cruickshank, p. 17). Cruickshank put
them all together and added additional presage variables such as pupil characteristics, properties
(abilities and attitudes) and school, community and classroom climate.

Gage and Berliner's Model

Gage and Berliner (1992) developed a model of the instructional process that focuses on those
variables that must be considered by the classroom teacher as she designs and delivers
instruction to students. This model attempts to define more precisely what is meant by "quality
instruction" and presents five tasks associated with the instruction/learning process. The model is
classroom- and teacher-based and centers around the question, "What does a teacher do?"

A teacher begins with objectives and ends with an evaluation. Instruction connects objectives
and evaluations and is based on the teacher's knowledge of the students' characteristics and
how best to motivate them. If the evaluations do not demonstrate that the desired results have
been achieved, the teacher re-teaches the material and starts the process all over again.
Classroom management is subsumed under the rubric of motivating students. Gage and Berliner
suggest that the teacher should use research and principles from educational psychology to
develop proper teaching procedures to obtain optimal results.

Huitt's Model

The most recently developed model to be discussed (Huitt, 1995) identifies the major categories
of variables that have been related to school achievement. The model is not only school-,
classroom-, teacher-, and student-based, but includes additional contextual influences as well.
Huitt's model attempts to categorize and organize all the variables that might be used to answer
the question, "Why do some students learn more than other students?" This is a revision of a
model by Squires, Huitt and Segars (1983) which focused only on those variables thought to be
under the control of educators. This earlier model focused on school- and classroom-level
processes that predicted school learning as measured on standardized tests of basic skills. One
important addition in this model is the redefinition of Academic Learning Time. It had long been
recognized that Carroll's conceptualization of time spent measured the quantity of time engaged
in academics, but was lacking in terms of the quality of that time. As discussed in Proctor's
(1984) model, Fisher and his colleagues (1978) had added the concept of success as an important
component of quality of time spent and coined the term Academic Learning Time (ALT) which
they defined as "engaged in academic learning at a high success rate." Brady, Clinton, Sweeney,
Peterson, & Poynor (1977) added another quality component--the extent to which content
covered in the classroom overlaps to content tested--which they called content overlap. Squires
et al. used the more inclusive definition of ALT proposed by Caldwell, Huitt & Graeber (1982)--
"the amount of time students are successfully engaged on content that will be tested."

Huitt's (1995) model adds variables related to context and student and teacher characteristics,
some of which were the focus of the models by Proctor (1984) and Cruickshank (1985). It is an
interactive model along the lines of Biddle and Ellena (1964), Cruickshank, and Laosa (1982).

Huitt advocates that important context variables must be considered because our society is
rapidly changing from an agricultural/industrial base to an information base. From this
perspective, children are members of a multi-faceted society, which influences and modifies the
way they process learning as well as defines the important knowledge and skills that must be
acquired to be successful in that society. Huitt's model shows a relationship among the categories
of Context (family, home, school, and community environments), Input (what students and
teachers bring to the classroom process), Classroom Processes (what is going on in the
classroom),and Output (measures of learning done outside of the classroom). These categories
appear superimposed in the model since it is proposed they are essentially intertwined in the
learning process.

This model shows Input and Output as the beginning and end of the teaching/learning process.
Huitt (1995) believes that educators must first identify or propose an end result (as stated by
Gage & Berliner, 1992) because how you identify and measure the end product (Output) will
influence the selection of important predictor variables (e.g., What You Measure Is What You
Get, Hummel & Huitt, 1994). Until the outcome objectives are known, nothing else can be
considered. Once outcome measures are selected, educators can begin to focus on those variables
that can explain fluctuation or variability in those measures. Considering or changing specific
goals or objectives may change the predictor variables from each of the other three categories.
Thus, the Output or Outcome category is the most important and the focus of Huitt's model.

In the United States, the most often cited Output measures are scores on standardized tests of
basic skills such as reading, language arts, and mathematics as well as science and social studies.
Since the United States is ranked 14th out of 15 countries in mathematics knowledge and 13th in
science (Office of Policy and Planning, 1992), we need to take a very close look at how we can
improve achievement on these measures. For example, the federal government focused on the
task of increasing the Output measurements of students when it adopted Goals 2000 (Swanson,
1991).

However, student achievement in basic skills is not the only desired outcome of American
education. The Secretary of Labor presented additional requirements in the report by the
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS; Whetzel, 1992). The SCANS
report focuses on the skills necessary for students to find work in the information economy. It
addresses two categories of skills: foundations (basic skills, thinking skills and personal
qualities) that provide the platform on which the other skills will be built and competencies
(handling resources, interpersonal skills, informational skills, system skills, and technology
utilization skills) that more closely describe what workers will actually be doing. [Note: Huitt
(1997) provides a critique of the SCAN report that addresses important outcomes that were
omitted.]

The most direct impact on important measures of school learning are those variables related to
Classroom Processes. This category includes two major subcategories (Teacher Behavior and
Student Behavior), and an Other (or miscellaneous) subcategory that includes such variables as
classroom climate and student leadership roles..

The category of Teacher Behavior includes the subcategories of planning (getting ready for
classroom interaction), management (getting the class under control), and instruction (guiding
the learning process). In general, planning activities have little predictable relationship to student
achievement (Gage & Berliner, 1992). Both management and instructional variables are
moderately related to achievement, but the lack of a strong relationship may be due to be a factor
of teacher inconsistency (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). That is, teachers often change their
management and instructional practices based on the time of day or the characteristics of a
particular group of students. Three single variables, teachers providing corrective feedback (e.g.,
give an explanation of what is correct or incorrect and why), teachers' use of reinforcement, and
level of student-teacher interaction (a variable developed from the work of Flanders, as cited in
Cruickshank, 1985) seem to be the best single classroom predictors of student success
(Rosenshine & Stevens). Direct or explicit instruction (Rosenshine, 1995) appears to be the best
model of instruction when scores on standardized tests of basic skills is used as the outcome
measure.

Huitt supports Proctor's (1984) position that intermediate outcomes, or more specifically
Academic Learning Time (ALT) is one of the best Classroom Process predictors of student
achievement. As stated above ALT is defined as "the amount of time students are successfully
involved in the learning of content that will be tested." There are three components to ALT and
each is as important as the other. The first is Content Overlap, defined as "the extent to which
the content objectives covered on the standardized test overlaps with the content objectives
covered in the classroom." This variable has also been labeled as "time-on-target." The idea is
simple: if an objective or topic is not taught, it is not likely to be learned, and therefore we
cannot expect students to do well on measures of that content. In fact, to the extent the content is
not specifically taught, the test becomes an intelligence test rather than an achievement test. The
fact that many educators do not connect instructional objectives to specific objectives that will be
tested (Brady et al., 1977), is one reason that academic aptitude or IQ is such a good predictor of
scores on standardized tests. Both tests measure the same construct: the amount of general
knowledge an individual has obtained that is not necessarily taught in a structured learning
setting.

The second component of ALT is Student Involvement, defined the same way that Carroll
defined engaged time or time-on-task (allocated time X engagement rate). If the students are not
provided enough time to learn material or are not actively involved while teachers are teaching
they are not as likely to do well on measures of school achievement at the end of the year.

The last element is that of Success, defined as "the percentage of classwork that students
complete with a high degree of accuracy." If a student is not successful throughout the year on
classroom academic tasks, that student will likely not demonstrate success on the achievement
measure at the end of the year.

Huitt proposes that these three components of Academic Learning Time should be considered as
the "vital signs" of a classroom. Just as a physician looks at data regarding temperature, weight,
and blood pressure before asking any further questions or gathering any other data, supervisors
need to look at the content overlap, involvement, and success before collecting any other data or
making suggestions about classroom modifications. Classrooms where students are involved and
making adequate progress on important content are reasonably healthy and quite different from
those classrooms where students are not.

In addition to the teacher's classroom behavior, other time components such as the number of
days available for going to school (the school year), the number of days the student actually
attends school (attendance year), and the number of hours the student has available to go to
school each day (school day) can influence ALT (Caldwell et al., 1982). None of these
additional time variables were included in Carroll's (1963) model.

What teachers and students do in the classroom will depend to some extent on the characteristics
or qualities they bring to the teaching/learning process. In Huitt's (1995) model these are labeled
Input variables. The subcategory of Teacher Characteristics includes such variables as values
and beliefs; knowledge of students and the teaching/learning process; thinking, communication
and performance skills; and personality. While each of these is important to the classroom
environment, teacher efficacy is one of the best predictors of student success from this
subcategory (Proctor, 1984; Ashton, 1984). If a teacher believes that, in general, students can
learn the knowledge or skills, and that, specifically, he can teach them, then that teacher is more
likely to use the knowledge and skills he has and the students are more likely to learn.

A second subcategory of Input is Student Characteristics. This includes all of the descriptions
of students that might have an influence on the teaching/learning process and student outcome.
Study Habits; Learning Style; Age; Sex/Gender; Race/Ethnicity; Motivation; and Moral,
Socioemotional, Cognitive, and Character Development all become important in the relationship
of classroom processes/behavior and school achievement (Huitt, 1995). However, student
aptitude and/or prerequisite skills are probably the best student characteristic predictors (Bloom,
1976). If time is held constant, then intelligence or ability to learn academic content will be a
better predictor than prior knowledge because the amount of content learned in the classroom is
allowed to vary. That is, if everyone has the same amount of time in which to learn, then the
speed at which one learns (aptitude) will be the best predictor of achievement. However, if we
vary the time students have to learn and keep the content to be learned constant (such as in
Mastery Learning), then prior knowledge is more salient. Though we do not initially modify the
student characteristics that each student brings to the classroom, as Proctor (1984) pointed out
the teacher can arrange the teaching/learning process and modify each student's experience. This
results in different Outcomes, which in turn becomes the Input for the next learning cycle.
Finally, Huitt (1995) includes the category of Context that includes such subcategories as
School Processes and Characteristics, Family, Community, State and Federal Government,
TV/Movies, and the Global Environment. For example, research shows that student
achievement is impacted by class size (e.g., Bracey, 1995) and school size (e.g., Fowler, 1995;
Howley, 1996). While all of the variables in these subcategories are important and influence
variables in the other three major categories, probably the two most important are Family and the
Global Environment. Mother's education and family expectations for student achievement have
been shown to be excellent predictors of student achievement (e.g., Campbell, 1991; Voelkl,
1993; Zill, 1992) as well as the amount of technology in the home (Perelman, 1992). Perhaps
even more significant is the movement from the industrial age to the information age (Perelman;
Toffler & Toffler, 1995). This is because it is redefining the outcomes that ought to be the focus
of schooling and is providing new technologies that can radically alter the teaching/learning
process.

An simple example of how some of these variables might interact is shown in the following
model. The size and region of the community combine with family characteristics and processes
to impact teacher and student characteristics. School and state policies combine with teacher and
student characteristics to impact teacher behavior, while student characteristics and teacher
behavior influence student behavior. Student classroom behavior then influences teacher
classroom behavior in an interactive pattern that eventually results in student achievement as
measured by instruments influenced by state policies. Student achievement at the end of one
school year then becomes a student characteristic at the beginning of the next.

Summary and Conclusions

Each of the above models identifies important factors related to school learning and contributes
important information as we attempt to answer the question "Why do some students learn more
than others?" Over a period of years, the models have been examined, reviewed, revised and
edited to fit into today's modern society. Beginning with Carroll (1963) and ending (at least as
far as this review is concerned) with Huitt (1995), we see teachers and school systems, families,
communities and entire countries having an influence on students' school learning. None of the
variables appears to be so influential that we need only pay attention to that particular factor in
order to produce the kinds of educational changes we desire. For example, an individual teacher
could project his self-fulfilling prophesies on a student (as seen in Cruickshank's 1985 model),
but so also could the institution itself (as seen in Proctor's 1984 model). Or the school may be
successful in developing students' basic skills, but students could still not be successful in life
because other important outcomes were not developed (Whetzel, 1992).
Understanding all the variables and the relationships among each other and to student success
may be more than we can expect of any educator. We may never fully grasp the significance of
the entire process, but we can make every effort to understand as much as possible as we develop
the teaching/learning processes appropriate for the information age. We can also identify the
most important variables within a category or subcategory and make certain we attend to a wide
variety of variables across the model.

Models are useful tools to better understand not only the learning processes of students, but
ourselves as educators. At a glance the models might provide only more questions, but a careful
study of the models can provide starting points to begin developing more appropriate educational
experiences for our society's next generation.

References

• Adams, R., & Biddle, B. (1970). The classroom scene. Realities of Teaching. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
• Alesandrini, K. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in science
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 358-368.
• Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32.
• Biddle, B., & Ellena (1964). Continued research on teacher effectiveness. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
• Bloom, B. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
• Bracey, G. (1995, September). Research oozes into practice: The case of class size. Phi
Delta Kappan, 77(1), 89-91.
• Brady, M., Clinton, D., Sweeney, J., Peterson, M, & Poynor, H. (1977). Instructional
Dimensions Study (IDS). Washington, DC: Kirschner Associates, Inc.
• Caldwell, J., Huitt, W., & Graeber, A. (1982). Time spent in learning: Implications from
research. The Elementary School Journal, 82(5), 471-480.
• Campbell, F., & others.(1991). Parental beliefs and values related to family risk,
educational intervention, and child academic competence. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 6(2), 167-182.
• Carroll, J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teacher College Record, 64, 723-733.
• Cruickshank, D. (1985). Profile of an effective teacher. Educational Horizons, 90-92.
• Fowler, W. (1995). School size and student outcomes. Advances in educational
productivity, 5, 3- 26.
• Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1992). Educational psychology (5th ed.), Princeton, New
Jersey: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Good, T., Biddle, B., & Brophy, J. (1975). Teachers make a difference. New York: Holt
Rhinehart and Winston.
• Howley, C. (1996). The Matthew principle: A West Virginia replication? Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 3(1). Retrieved October 1995, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n18.html
• Huitt, W. (1995). A systems model of the teaching/learning process. Educational
Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: College of Education, Valdosta State University.
Retrieved October 1995, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/materials/tchlrnmd.html
• Klausmeier, H., & Goodwin, W. (1971). Learning and human abilities. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.
• Laosa, L. M. (1982). School, occupation, culture, and family: The impact of parental
schooling on the parent-child relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6),
791-827.
• Perelman, L. (1992). School's out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of
education. New York: William Morrow.
• Proctor, C. P. (1984). Teacher expectations: A model for school improvement. The
Elementary School Journal, 469-481. Retrieved May 2009, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001371
• Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational
Research, 88(5), 262-268.
• Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (376-391). New York: Macmillan.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
• Squires, D., Huitt, W., & Segars, J. (1983). Effective classrooms and schools: A research-
based perspective. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
• Toffler, A.,& Toffler, H. (1995). Creating a new civilization. New York: Turner
Publishing.
• Voelkl, K. (1993). Achievement and expectations among African-American students.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 42-55.
• Whetzel, D. (1992, March). The Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills. ERIC Digest. [ERIC Document: ED 339749]. Retrieved October 1995,
from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org//files/scansrpt.html
• Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs
about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.
• Zill, N. (1992). Trends in family life and children's school performance. Washington,
DC: Child Trends, Inc. (ERIC Reproduction No. ED378257).