See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258510464

The Effect ofTeachersJ Beliefs on Students' Academic Performance During

Curriculum Innovation

Article  in  The High School Journal · January 1996

CITATIONS READS

16 189

1 author:

Linda S Behar-Horenstein
University of Florida
213 PUBLICATIONS   1,387 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GIS Mapping of Animal Intake to Alachua County Animal Services View project

Enhancing Research Skills and Professional Development in the Clinical and Behavioral Sciences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Linda S Behar-Horenstein on 14 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Effect of Teachers' Beliefs on Students' Academic Performance during Curriculum
Innovation
Author(s): Linda S. Behar-Horenstein, Frank Pajares and Paul S. George
Source: The High School Journal, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 1996), pp. 324-332
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364501
Accessed: 18-09-2017 17:13 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The High School Journal

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Effect of Teachers' Beliefs on
Students' Academic Performance
During Curriculum Innovation
were
Linda S. Behar-Horenstein
University of Florida-Gainesville
Frank Pajares
Emory University
Paul S. George influence their behavior in the classroom as
University of Florida-Gainesville
well as their educational practices and objec-
tives (Fenstermacher, 1979, 1986; Munby, 1982;
tional
© 1996 The University of North Carolina Press
324
This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Researchers have demonstrated that teachers'
beliefs influence their classroom behavior and
student outcomes, although less is known about
how beliefs may influence instruction or stu-
dents' academic outcomes during curricular
innovations. The purpose of this study was to
assess the influence of teachers' beliefs on
their instructional practices and on student
course grades as a result of the implementa-
tion of a nontraditional curriculum approach.
Academic grades increased or decreased de-
pending on whether the curriculum innova-
tion was supported or unwelcomed by teach-
ers. Teachers' beliefs about the innovation
reflected in their efforts to differentiate
instruction to heterogeneously grouped stu-
dents.
Researchers have long argued, and many have
demonstrated, that the beliefs teachers hold
Nespor, 1987). Teachers' beliefs include spe-
cific perspectives about students, the learning
process, curriculum, and pedagogy. However,
although the literature is replete with studies
about how beliefs affect teaching practice and
student- and self-perceptions (see Ashton &
Webb, 1986; Brophy & Good, 1970), less is
known about how beliefs influence the devel-
opment of curricular innovation (Guskey, 1986,
1989; Peterman, 1991) or about how they affect
academic outcomes (Ashton & Webb, 1986;
Pajares, 1992). For example, teachers' beliefs
related to the implementation of curriculum
innovations are hypothesized to influence the
success or failure of such innovations (Guskey,
1986, 1989). In addition, their beliefs in the
wisdom and practicality of such innovations
are likely to influence the student outcomes
related to them (Peterman, 1991). Empirical
data showing how such beliefs affect innova-
tions or outcomes, however, has not been forth-
coming.
The purpose of this study was to assess the
influence of teachers' beliefs on their instruc-
practices and on student course grades
 Students' Academic Performance

after the implementation of a curriculum inno-tracks of the various academic disciplines.

vation. The innovation was the implementa-
Department heads were unanimous in their
tion of a nontraditional curriculum approach
belief that the curriculum innovation of per-
that consisted of teachers being asked to differ-
entiate their instruction to classrooms of het- mitting students to self-select into either of the
two tracks had been an administrative response
erogeneously grouped honors and regular stu-
to continuing financial exigencies. The "Hon-
dents. Whereas, traditionally, the students in
ors" designation on courses brought more
our study had been academically tracked into
money from the state. In recent years, funding
segregated honors and regular classrooms ac-
formulas for the high school had changed and,
cording to teacher choice, the innovation con-
as a result, the annual school budget depended
sisted of allowing students to select them-
more on numbers of students in the program
selves into the track of their choice. Our ques-
tions centered on how the teachers' beliefs
than had previously been the case when fund-
ing was more a reflection of site-based pro-
about (and subsequent support of) the innova-
grammatic decisions. Decreases in state fund-
tion influenced their instructional practices
ing decreased the school's ability to offer sepa-
and, subsequently, whether their students'
rate honors and regular sections for academic
academic progress was affected.
classes. Consequently, according to most teach-
We used quantitative methods to assess the ers, the curriculum innovation was primarily
mean change in students' grades in English, an attempt to retain the honors program when
social studies, mathematics, and science be- separate honors sections became impossible
tween Year 1 (before the innovation) and Year due to the numbers of students enrolled in
2 (after the innovation). We used qualitative them.
methodology to determine (a) how teachers'
In addition, the schools' existence depended
beliefs influenced their response to the cur-
on its unique mission as a university attached
ricular innovation, (b) how this response was
reflected in their efforts to differentiate in-
developmental research school. For some years,
the school staff had struggled to define a unique
struction to heterogeneously grouped students,
mission for a university laboratory school. The
and (c) how students perceived the teachers'
efforts to differentiate classroom instruction.
attempt to pilot a program that might offer
Data sources included interviews with teach-
something new in high school curriculum de-
velopment had some appeal as a rationaliza-
ers, students, and the building principal, re-
tion for what had to be done. One teacher
sponses to a researcher-constructed student observed that the curriculum innovation was
survey, and grades for Year 1 and Year 2.
"the right thing for the wrong reasons," argu-
Data Sources and Methods ing that the innovation was a good idea that
The Curricular Innovation - Background came about as an expedient response to the
The high school in our study initially imple-realities of funding and full time equivalency
mented an honors program as a response to (FTE)
a calculations.
perceived need to compete for enrollment with
In essence, most teachers agreed that the inno-
surrounding schools. Two neighboring high
vation had come about due to financial prob-
schools had implemented similar honors pro- lems that threatened the survival of the honors
grams, and, at the same time, an International
program, which all perceived as essential to
Baccalaureate program was instituted at a third
the continued attraction of students. Nonethe-
high school. Consequently, the honors pro-
less, teachers also agreed that the project was
gram was established to demonstrate that such
desirable because it would help the school
opportunities were available at the school with
maintain its uniqueness as a university labora-
the aim of recruiting students. Previous to Year
tory school and facilitate the scheduling of
1 of our study, teachers selected students for
honors classes in the face of dwindling state
placement into either the honors or regularresources.

325

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The High School Journal- April/May 1996

The school offered a full complement of aca- they believed would make the process more
demic courses distributed throughout six 50- effective and efficient for themselves and for
minute class periods. During Year 1 of our their students, and what specific materials or
study, these classes were classified as either support they required.
regular or honors, and teachers placed stu-
One of the researchers spent a week serving as
dents in them according to traditional crite-
a substitute teacher to provide planning time
ria - grades, achievement test results, previ- for teachers who were interested in successful
ous academic progress. During Year 2, stu-
implementation of the curriculum innovation
dents selected the track they were scheduled
in their classrooms. During this time, the re-
into. The implementation of the innovation
resulted in the elimination of the traditional searcher-substitute distributed a survey to a
randomly selected group of 150 students. The
practice of scheduling segregated honors and
survey was used to assess student's beliefs
regular classes. As a result, teachers of English,
about the curriculum innovation and to deter-
mathematics, social studies, and science were
mine their participation in and their percep-
required to teach honors and regular students
within the same class.
tions of the curriculum differentiation pro-
cess.

Quantitative Data Collection

Collection and analysis of data to
We obtained course grades for English, social
simultaneously (Glaser & Strauss, 19
studies, mathematics, and science classes, as
views were taped and transcribed
well as information regarding students' self-
protocols appropriately coded and
selection of an honors or regular track within
(Spradley, 1979). On all occasions wh
each discipline. To enhance the validity of the
were taken during observations, we
study, a group consisting of students at a neigh-
dard qualitative procedures (Merr
boring school who had been traditionally
Spradley, 1979, 1980). In our ana
tracked by their teachers during both years was
were guided by Spradley's (1980)
compared to the students in our study. Signifi-
domain analysis and by the constant
cant mean changes in grades were determined
tive method of data analysis propose
using dependent sample t-tests. The random-
and Strauss (1967). Domain analysis
ized student sample (N = 134) was comprised
of 75% Caucasians and 25% minorities.
worksheets were created to organize quota-
tions from protocols into categories.
Qualitative Data Collection
Results and Implications
Fourteen high school teachers were inter-
The findings are reported in three sections.
viewed at the beginning and end of Year 2.
First, the results related to the quantitative
Initial interviews focused on their preparation
data are discussed. Next, the findings associ-
for and impressions of the curriculum innova-
ated with the qualitative data are presented. In
tion. Subsequent interviews were concerned
this section, teachers' beliefs, students' be-
with ascertaining their beliefs related to the
liefs, and a description of the classroom obser-
innovation and identifying concerns and re-
vations is provided. Last, the quantitative re-
lated needs. Additionally, teachers were asked
sults are analyzed within the context of the
to reflect on the year's successes and failures.
Academic classes were observed to determine qualitative findings.
instructional strategies that teachers used andQuantitative findings
whether different instruction was provided for Table 1 presents the results of dependent
honors and regular students in the heteroge- samples t-tests for the students in our study.
neous classes. Following classroom observa- Students were assigned grades consistent with
tions, teachers' feedback was elicited concern-a traditional A (5 points) to F (1 point) school-
ing how they felt about instructing honors and wide scale. The only significant increase in
regular students within the same class, whatmean grades between Year 1 and Year 2 oc-

326

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Students' Academic Performance

Variable Year 1 Year 2 Difference T Prob>T

English 3.56 3.94 .38 4.74 0.0001*
Social Studies 3.83 3.33 -.50 -3.57 0.0006**

Science 3.52 3.51 .01 -0.36 0.7190

Mathematics 3.64 3.29 -.35 -4.061 0.0001*

Note:N=134 *=p<.0001 **=p<.005

Table 1. Mean Grade Differences by Academic Subjects

curred in English (.38). Conversely,created

statisti-
reality of the teachers' need to "differ-
cally significant mean changes were entiate instruction."
observed
in the decreased grade averages in social stud-
At the end of Year 2, teachers were mailed an
ies (-.50) and mathematics (-.35). Students'
anonymous questionnaire asking them to re-
grades in science remained the same.flect on their effectiveness with the curricu-
lum innovation efforts. When asked to judge
Results for the comparison group demonstrated
the extent to which the curriculum innovation
that, as expected, there were no significant
mean differences between Year 1 and Year 2 had been successful, most teachers reported
grades in any academic subject. that they believed it had been decidedly un-
successful and that their individual classroom
Qualitative Findings efforts had not met with success. When asked
Teachers' beliefs. It was evident from our in-to think about how successful the curriculum
terviews that, at the beginning of the school
innovation was likely to be in the next two
year (Year 2), there was confusion as to whom
years, most of the teachers reported that they
had actually made the decision to implement
expected subsequent attempts to be equally
the curriculum innovation. Teachers reportedunsuccessful. One teacher observed that "it
that it had been essentially an administrative
couldn't be worse than this year!" Teachers
decision; the building principal, however,
also reported that the administration was ei-
claimed that teachers had voted to implement
ther "not helpful enough" or "not helpful at
the curricular change. Virtually all teachers, all." In fact, none said that the administration
with the exception of department chairs, said
had been helpful in any way and none identi-
that they first learned about the proposed cur-
fied staff development on curriculum and in-
riculum innovation during preplanning at the
structional strategies as likely to benefit their
beginning of Year 2. When teachers expressed
concern about the suddenness of the decision efforts. In a similar connection, none reported
that the administration had provided the su-
and lack of proper preparation, administrators
told them that the curriculum innovation "was pervision, consultation, or support necessary
to ensure that the teaching staff's efforts were
no big sweat." One teacher recalled being told consistent with the mission of the innovation.
that those concerned "were making too much
of this" or were "alarmists." Many teachers Students' beliefs. Students revealed that they
complained that they had neither the time nor favored the social aims of the curriculum inno-
had been provided with the guidance they vation, but they were critical of the academic
needed to implement the new program. But, as results. Although they viewed having choice
observed by one teacher, "the administration's in selecting an honors or regular curriculum
attention is elsewhere," - teachers saw positively, they felt that they had not received
administrator's time and attention devoted to the attention they desired. Students indicated
logistics and scheduling, not to the newly that they needed more individual attention,

327

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The High School Journal- April/May 1996

new program "made regular students feel equal

with what they believed was their individual
share of the teacher's time and effort. One
to honors students." They also indicated that
student commented that "honors don't get they
thefelt "a lot less pressure because there was
"no division between students." Students said
attention they need and are being held back
from learning" and that they did not receive
that they were able to "be with a larger variety
"enough individual attention due to largerof people" since classes were a "balanced mix"
and
classes." Others reported that they did not getthat the use of heterogeneous groups gave
"students
all the attention they needed because "some of a chance to interact with people they
may not have [interacted with] if classes were
the regular students disrupt and aren't serious
separate."
about learning, making it harder for honors to In general, they felt empowered by
their
stay serious." Another related that some of the new-found ability to chose their aca-
regular students "demanded so much disci- demic track and they believed that the more
pline from the teacher, that it took away heterogeneous
from classes put them on a more
the learning environment." equal footing with their peers.
Classroom Observations. Our observations of
Most students reported that teachers were
unable to deliver a differentiated curriculum classroom instruction showed that there was a
or individualize instruction. They described
predominant amount of whole class instruc-
tion and little emphasis on reinforcing con-
teachers as unprepared and disorganized. Some
observed that honors students received "un-cepts, checking for understanding, or eliciting
student feedback. We observed little evidence
clear directions" and that "assignments were
of differentiated instruction for honors and
not discussed enough." Others claimed that
classes were "not challenging or thought-pro- regular students within the heterogeneous class
settings, and few efforts to individualize. How-
voking" and that they felt that it was "hard for
the whole class to do the same activities on ever, some teachers did attempt to provide
different levels." Some observed that the cur- consultation and facilitate instruction to hon-
ors students in an American History course
riculum innovation put "too much stress on
teachers" because it was "very demanding forand
a in various sections of English, and several
teacher to have two separate groups of studentsteachers attempted to differentiate assignments.
in one class." Students could see that teachers
What these efforts at differentiation generally
meant, however, was that honors students
did not "like having to teach two groups in one
were assigned more homework or papers than
period." Because teachers "didn't want to bother
were regular students. Occasionally, honors
with both [tracks], they taught the whole class
students were given the opportunity to use
either honors or regular." In general, teachers
were described as "unorganized." class time to conduct independent study in the
library.
Approximately 44 percent of the students self-
selected into honors classes. However, theseClearly, teachers' inability to use curriculum
students reported that honors work was largely knowledge affected their ability to implement
tedious because it was rarely different; often, the
it curriculum innovation (see Behar, 1994;
Behar & George, 1994). However, internal and
was simply just "more of the same thing the
external forces also influenced their teaching.
regular students were doing." More often than
A lack of understanding regarding how to
not, honors work was "just a lot of busy work
differentiate or individualize instruction was
that many times was not related to the sub-
evidenced in the preponderance of teacher
ject." Because students did not always know
directed and whole instruction that was dem-
whether an assignment was given for honors or
onstrated in almost all classes. Many students
regular students, they were not always sure
which assignments they should be doing. were passively engaged in learning, discon-
nected from the process, or engaged in off-task
Nonetheless, students lauded the social re-
behaviors.
sults of the innovation. They reported that the

328

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Students' Academic Performance

Quantitative Findings within a Qualitativeobservations of social studies classes revealed

Context passive instruction, off task behaviors that
The literature on teacher engagement in schoolteachers did not attend to either directively or
restructuring suggests that certain factors are nondirectively, and, in one instance, nearly
integral to successful curricular innovations. one-fifth of the students engaged in talk about
These include personal goals and participa- noninstructional matters. We believe that the
tory goal-setting (Leithwood, Dart, Jantzi, & decrease in students' social studies grades was
Steinbach, 1992); self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura,influenced by factors resulting from teachers'
1986) enhanced by feelings of success and beliefs that students were incapable of suc-
supportive feedback from administration, ceeding in their self-selected tracks as well as
peers, and students (Smylie, 1990); strong en-from the teachers' inadequate instructional
couragement from credible colleagues (Louis practices.
& Smith, 1991); and context beliefs, whereby
The mathematics faculty had the greatest dif-
teachers perceive that the interpersonal cli-
ficulty in accepting and implementing the
mate of the school is caring, supportive, and
innovation. They cited beliefs that differentia-
trusting and that the overall school culture and
tion within the same classroom was virtually
direction are compatible with their personal
impossible and that they lacked adequate sup-
goals (Chase, 1992). Ingenerai, it was clear that
port to proceed instructionally. They also re-
these factors were not in evidence during the
ported a lack of materials and planning time,
process of bringing about a curricular innova- and frustration toward and dislike for the in-
tion at the school we studied. As a result, many
of the teachers did not believe in the innova- novation. We observed obvious, if passive,
resistance from teachers who clung to tradi-
tion, and they did not believe they could bring
tional whole group instruction methods, failed
about the "needed" change.
to check for students' comprehension or to
We believe that the increase in English gradesactively engage them in the learning process,
and the decrease in social studies and math- and ignored students who were noticeably off
task. One mathematics teacher shared that she
ematics grades that we found may be explained,
in part, by differences in teachers' beliefs"didn't
re- like" the curriculum innovation and
lated to the innovation. In the English depart-
was not "happy with it;" another reported that
ment, there was evidence that the facultythe hadmathematics department was "not very
discussed the innovation at some length and excited" with the innovation, that he felt "little
had initiated a coordinated effort to imple- support as to how to proceed instructionally,"
ment it in their classrooms. Teachers in this and that he was "frustrated with having to do
department made vigorous attempts to treat this."
honors and regular students differently, and
Knowing what steps were needed to imple-
they attempted to find ways to spend time
ment the innovation were not common knowl-
working with honors students in small groups.
edge among the staff, and this contributed to
They also attempted to recruit parent volun-
the partly unsuccessful attempt to implement
teers to supervise their classes and to volun-
teer for other duties so that the teachers could the change. Many teachers felt that the school
administration was unable or unwilling to
spend more time with honors students. The
provide financial or professional development
English teachers' proactive approach to the
resources to support the innovation. Further-
curriculum innovation undoubtedly played a
more, the school culture was inconsistent with
role in the observed increase in students' grades.
the teachers' need for autonomy. The support-
In contrast, social studies teachers were par- ive environment essential to effective innova-
ticularly vocal about their belief that many tion was not discernible.
students had chosen the honors tracks even
Reflections
though they were not prepared for them. Our
Effective implementation of curriculum inno-

329

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The High School Journal- April/May 1996

vation depends on how closely the teachers' istration either had not been helpful enough or
beliefs, knowledge, and instructional exper- not helpful at all. In their view, the school
tise match curricular philosophy and demands leadership was unresponsive at a time when
(Bratt, 1991; Peterman, 1991). The success of responsiveness was especially required.
the change depends, at least in part, on the When we observed classroom instruction in
extent that the proposed innovation is per-
action, we noted passive resistance, teachers
ceived as compatible with teaches' beliefs about
clinging to traditional whole group instruction
appropriate programs and instruction and the
methods, failure to check for students' com-
priority given by teachers to the change initia-
prehension or to actively engage them in the
tive. Clearly, it is the nature of teachers' com-
mitment to curriculum innovation that deter- learning process, and teachers generally ignor-
ing students who were noticeably off-task. It
mines the quality of their teaching and the
was clear that the school's faculty neither
successfulness of the change effort (MacDonald,believed in the innovation nor believed it
1 991). Teachers' beliefs about the relationship
could fulfill its aims (which they had found
between programs and instruction to curricu-
problematic from the start). As important, they
lum innovation may also be integrally related
did not believe that they had the expertise to
to the teacher's process of refining personal and
successfully bring about curriculum change,
professional goals. Teachers need to experience
and they did not believe that students would,
a process in which they become more clear
or could, succeed under the new program. The
about a gap that may exist between what is being
notable exception were the members of the
accomplished and what ought to be accom-
English department, who, although they also
plished (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993).
had their doubts about the new program and
Teachers' commitment to implement curricu-were equally skeptical about its origins, were
lum innovations is a function of both alterable willing to, in essence, give it the benefit of the
and unalterable variables (see Bloom, 1980).
doubt. They worked as a team to engage in
Although unalterable variables such as the proactive strategies to make the best of what
teachers' gender, race/ethnicity, age, and length they previously considered a difficult situa-
of teaching experience were not variables in tion. The English teachers believed that, in
this study, these may have influenced their spite of the lack of training, funds, or adminis-
views and actions regarding the curriculum trative support, they could make the innova-
change (Kushman, 1992). The teachers in our tion work. This personal and professional sense
sample were almost equal in the distribution of efficacy was instrumental in their develop-
among females and males, and all were Cauca- ing teaching strategies to complement the in-
sian. All were "veterans" in the field, having novation and in the subsequent increase in
taught more than five years. student performance.
Alterable variables included the teachers' de- We found three reasons that help explain why
cision-making power, the nature of the school the beliefs and behaviors of teachers in the
leadership, the teachers' beliefs in the curricu-
English department differed from those of their
lum innovation, and their sense of personal
colleagues' behavior. First, the chair of the
and teaching efficacy. Our findings suggest
department believed that regardless of the man-
that most teachers did not believe they had had
ner in which the new program had come about,
the curricular innovation was both practical
a voice in determining whether or not to imple-
ment the curriculum innovation. As they had and useful. Through her guidance and under
not felt instrumental in selecting the innova-her influence, other members in her depart-
ment came to share her beliefs. In fact, it was
tion, they did not feel a responsibility to work
toward its success. None said that the admin- clear that she infused her department col-
istration had been helpful in facilitating theleagues with both a sense of hopefulness and a
innovation. In fact, all believed that the admin-
dose of optimism. Second, we found that the

330

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Students' Academic Performance

tion. However, most teachers were frustrated

English teachers were more secure in their
curriculum knowledge than were their col-
by the presence of multi-ability students in
leagues. Consequently, they more readily felt
their "honors" classes, and they were unable,
that they could modify their curriculum prac-
or unwilling, to implement a differentiated or
tice to make the innovation work. Third, we individualized curriculum that would have
found that the English faculty had more previ-enabled their students to succeed. Recall that
ous experience working through innovative students reported that the innovation had posi-
changes - experiences in which they realizedtive social aims and results - they felt empow-
successful change efforts. ered and "equal." In the final analysis, the
administration's failure to include faculty in
We argue that successful implementation of a
curriculum innovation involves several fac- the decision-making process, the lack of prepa-
ration and training, and the faculty's inability
tors: (a) teachers' belief in the need for such a
to extend this empowerment into the students'
change; (b) teachers' ability and willingness to
academic domain prevented a promising in-
modify their practice; (c) an appropriate
novation from succeeding.
reconceptualization of the teaching role that is
in line with the needs of the innovation; (d)Toanalter traditional and long held beliefs, teach-
administration and school that supports inno- ers must be provided with adequate planning
vation; (e) accountability to ensure that the
time, administrative support and guidance,
teaching staffs efforts are consistent with and
the staff development (Guskey, 1986, 1989).
mission of the innovation; and (f) instructional
More important, engaging teachers in partici-
guidance. patory processes and decision-making pro-
mote ownership, a sense of commitment, and
We believe that the innovation in our study
collegiality. When teachers are endowed with
also required that all teachers understood what
differentiated instruction is and knew how to decision making ability to institute school
innovations, engage in new teaching practices
modify the curriculum to reflect differentia-
of their own volition, and receive training in
tion. With the exception of the willingness of
areas in which they demonstrate deficiencies,
teachers in the English department to modify
belief change is fostered and innovation has
their practice and reconceptualize their role,
the greatest opportunity for success (Guskey,
these factors were in short supply.
1986, 1989; Peterman, 1991). To this end,
Consistent with the theoretical framework that teachers must be acknowledged as decision
guided our investigation, our results suggest makers in the curricular process. Moreover, it
that the curricular innovation would have had must be understood that teachers' beliefs are
a greater chance of success if a number ofan integral component in the making or break-
safeguards had been implemented either bying of curriculum innovation.
administration or faculty departments. ForReferences
example, teachers could have selected teach-Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference:
ing strategies and learning activities in which Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement.
students were engaged as active learners. Only New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
the English department made efforts to that action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
end, and only their students showed evidence Prentice-Hall.
of academic progress. Additionally, teachers Behar, L. S. (1994). The knowledge base of curriculum: An
empirical analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of
should regularly have assessed students' level America.
of comprehension, engaged in frequent ques-Behar, L. S., & George, P. S. (1994). Teachers' use of
tioning, and checked for understanding. curriculum knowledge. Peabody Journal of Education,
69{3), 48-69.
Clearly, ways to connect classroom learning toBloom, B. S. (1980). The new direction in educational
research: Alterable variables. In The state of research
students' experiences outside the classroom on selected alterable variables in education (Mesa
should have been a regular feature of instruc- Seminar, 1980). Chicago: Department of Education,

331

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The High School Journal- April/May 1996
University of Chicago. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New
Bratt, S. J. (1991, July). The administrator's role in York: Holt.
participatory curriculum development. Paper presented Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York:
at the Biennial meeting of the International Council on Holt.
Educational Leadership. Shanghai, China.
Brophy , J. E. , & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication
of differential expectations for children's classroom
performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.
Chase, A. M. (1992). School level factors predicting
teachers' sense of professional engagement, efficacy,
commitment and job satisfaction: An application of
Structural equation modeling. Boston: Harvard Graduate
School of Education.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on
teaching: Three aspects. In W. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd Ed., pp. 37-
49). New York: Macmillan.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago: Aldine.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of
teacher chanee. Educational Researcher. 15 (5Ì. 5 12.
Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in
teachers. International Journal of Educational Research,
13, 439-453.
Kushman, J. W. (1992). The organizational dynamics of
teacher workplace commitment: A study of urban
elementary and middle schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 28 (1) 5-42.
Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1992).
Fostering organizational learning: A study of British
Columbia intermediate developmental site initiatives
(Final report). Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry
of Education.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1993, April).
Secondary school teachers' commitment to change:
The contributions of transformational leadership. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.
Louis, K. S., & Smith, S. (1991). Restructuring, teacher
engagement and school culture: Perspectives on school
reform and the improvement of teachers' work. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(1), 34-52.
JvlacJJonald, B. 11991J. Critical introduction: from
innovation to reform - a framework for analysis. In J.
Ruddich, Innovation and Change. Toronto: OISE Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A
qualitative approach. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teacher's beliefs in research
on teacher thinking and decision making, and an
alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 1 1 , 201-
225.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of

teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 19, 317-328.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers béliers and educational
research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307-322.
Peterman, F. P. (1991, April). An experienced teacher's
emerging constructivist beliefs about teaching and
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Smyhe, M. A. (1990). Teacher ethcacy at work. In P. Reyes
(Ed.). Teachers and their workplace, (pp. 48-66).
Newbury Park: Sage.

332

This content downloaded from 130.184.252.20 on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:33 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms