Similarities and Differences in Teachers’ Practical Knowledge About Teaching Reading Comprehension PAULIEN C. MEIJER NICO VERLOOP DOUWE BEIJAARD Leiden University ABSTRACT The similarities and differences in language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading compre- hhension to 16- to 18-year-old students were explored. A ques- tionnaire was developed that consisted of closed-format ques- tions derived from a qualitative in-depth study on teachers? practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. ‘The results indicate that part of teachers’ practical knowledge was shared knowledge and that 4 scales of (anshared) practi- cal knowledge could be distinguished. On the basis of those seales, 4 clusters of teachers were identified, each representing specific focus of teachers’ practical knowledge. Key words: language teachers’ practical knowledge, question- naire designed from qualitative study, teaching reading ‘comprehensi ———— [its tt esate: esearch on teasing has ineeas- ingly focused on the cognitions that underlie teachers’ classroom practice, rather than on their behaviors (Beijaard & Verloop, 1996; Calderbead, 1996; Carter, 1990), That ‘change in focus was reinforced by developments in cogni- tive psychology that were based on the fundamental assumption that one’s cognitions and actions influence each other, and, likewise, that teachers” cognitions and their classroom behaviors mutually affect each other (ef. Clark & Peterson, 1986). In the present article, the cogni referred to as teachers’ practical knowledge are those that Underlie teachers’ actions. The term practical knowledge is 4 or < =), of which 4 items con- tributed to two scales. ‘The fact that items in the subject-matter subcategories, relationship with other skills and relationship with other subjects, loaded high on the first component (i.e., impor- tance of teaching reading comprehension) like the items about purposes indicated that these are correlated. In the second principal component (i.e., identifying students’ characteristics and difficulties), it was specifically those items about the categories Students and Student Learning ‘and Comprehension that were related to each other, An item, about lesson preparation—a subcategory of Instructional ‘Techiniques—also was involved in this component. The third component (ie. relating texts and students) was more diverse and included items about subject matter, student ‘motivation, goals, and dealing with differences between stu- ‘dents. The fourth component (ic., segments of reading ‘comprehension) comprised items taken from various cate-178 “Twhle4—Pattern Mates of the Four Extracted Principal Components of the Second-Order Principal Component ‘Analysis Alter Varimax Rotation Principal eomponcat (2) Loaing ‘Componeat I: Importance of teaching reading ‘comprebersion 108) Relationship wit cher skills Reading comprchensen i the most important ski. 50 ‘Ope tends to overemphasized pote of realing comprehension “a Relationship wit other subjects “Teaching reading comprehension i the same Focal languages, =s0 ‘Stadens mus ern the same skills in all languages.—57 Reading comprehension is important fr: Enabling students to collet information efficiently 74 CContsting wo students” general education n CContibuing to student ingot inition 7 CConttuing to students’ persona development 62 Encouraging stidents to examine texts eatcally SH (Goals in caching tending comprchonsion ae: "Expanding siden” general knowlege n ‘Molin sudoas personals ‘1 Encouraging students formulate opinions 5 Developing stems critical atiudes Ss [Encouraging stent philsophical hiking 5s ‘Teaching sident to hale language ceaively SL. Component 2: Kenting tude characteris ‘and ifcais 2.1) Tn general, sade re Tecsporsible 36 Demanding as Motivated os Environment prompts students tobe demanding. 88 Students have ditfcues: ‘Understanding stractaes in texts 81 Esamining txts erally 74 Determining esemial sses in text n Determining autos” intentions 9 Seeing or denying relationships in texts 6s inking tents to other stations 4 Annlyng krowledge sad skills in nonschool ‘Statens io genera, ead ehooialy. ss Preparation of lessons snot nee Pease Lets ‘fara, at Component 8: Relating txt and studems (7.5) Reading comprehension is Relating tex and exviomment st Relating text ais contest, a Posse np ino txt suctre a1 Prereaisits for eading comprehension are ‘Arai to nk one's ona bnowledge @ rc atid 50 Stalens te motivated by Trvolvement in fess preparacion « (Motcrl related to thet por knowledge so Metra elated thei erst 52 Use of reabifeasignmens 40 (table continues) ‘The Journal of Educational Research “Table Continued Principal eampones 2) Loading ‘Goal in teaching reading comprehension ae: ‘Developing students’ erica! aioe, st Encouraging wens wo formulae thei oan ‘pinions a ‘Gd students receveexrahomewavk “ Ale stadens do nt nes extra stenton, “4 Component Segment of reading comprehension (7.4) ‘Reading comceason s preparing forthe Binal Prerequises for eading comprehension a: ‘Grammar n Understanding syle elemens 1 ocabulary 3s ‘Mair examination king satepies 32 Studens experience diclis wit: ‘Seeing o denying flaonsips in ext as Determining esc sues ext 2 Dilfeerces in studens' wading sls re caused by silerences i Mastery of necessary knomledge and skills a Aili concentrate a6 Feat of failure a A goa in teaching reading comprebension Preparing sents to deal withthe formato the Fiat examinations. a ‘Nowe, Only items with lalings = 4 or < —A ae included. refers to he percentage of valance explained by each rated componen ‘gories and subcategories as follows: Subject Matter, Stu- dent Learning and Comprehension, and Goals. Seales for Teachers’ Practical Knowledge ‘The four-component solution was used as the basis for a seale-construction procedure, Four seales were constructed Each one was deduced from a second-step principal com- ponent. We assumed that reducing the numberof items for each scale would make it easier to capure the essence of the differences in teachers’ practical knowledge. First, four scales were formed of the items that had high loadings on the second-step principal components (ithe items listed in Table 4) and their internal consistencies, (Cronbach's @) were computed. Scores on items with nega- tive correlations to the scales (ie. item-total correlation) were inverted. For each scale, items were omitted if a scale’s internal consistency would increase if these were deleted. In that way, the total number of items was reduced tut there were no more items that would lower the scale’s internal consistency. For the first scale, that operation meant that 5 ofthe 15 items were omited; for the second scale, 9 ofthe 13 items were omitted: fr the third scale, 6 of the 13, items were excluded: and for the fourth scale, none of theJanuary/February 2001 (Vol. 94(No.3)] items were excluded. The internal consistency of all the scales was high (see Table 5). The first scale was labeled the Importance scale because the items contributing to this scale concermed the impor tance of reading comprehension or the goals that emphasize reading comprehension as being essential for students in ‘general. The second scale consisted of only four items, all ‘of which concerned the difficulties that students encounter 179 in reading comprehension or, more specifically, their difi- culties in reading texts. That scale was therefore labeled the ‘Student Difficulties scale. ‘The third scale consisted of items involving students and texts and was labeled Students and Texts scale. The items about subject matter are all formulated in terms of the text (Gc, items concerning the definition of reading comprehen- sion) or the students (ce, items concerning prerequisites for ‘Tahle $—Seaes, tem-Total Coreations, and Internal Consistency ofthe Scales (Cronbach's «) om-tota Seale comeition a MSD Inportance scale 9 M9 77 ‘Reading comprehension is important for CContibuing o students’ peronl development » CComtibuing sade inguisti nition 6 CConrbring studs’ general education 6 Enabling stint o collet information ecient @ Encouraging students 1 examine txts critically 50 ‘Goals ineaching reading comprchension ar: Expanding student’ general knowledge n Molding siden’ personalities 8 Encouraging stodents to formulate opinions 3 Developing siden crcl atitades 8 Encouraging student’ philosophical thinking 8 Student Dificties scale 9 12 3a ‘Stdents have dificult: Determining essa issues intext a denutying rlaonships in text B Determining aus inetion 7 ‘Understanding structures i xis m” ‘Students and Texts sale Bl 6 48 Reading compreheson i: "elaing text and enirament 3 ‘Relaing tex and its coment. 8 Prerequisites for reading comprehension are ‘Abily tink to one's owt knowledge 6 Crit aide 0 Students are motivated by eating to thir previous knowledge 8 Goals in waching reading comprehension ae Developing stents’ cic atiudes 8 "Encouraging students to formulate opinions 32 Segments of Reading Comprehension sale 79 383 60 Reading eompretensin s preparation for fina examinations 38 Prereausites for reading comprehension re ‘Grammar 6 Unierstaning syle cleents Ss Mastery of examination aking stages o Vocabulary “4 Students have tio Determining essential issues intext 46 entying flationships in exe 4 Ditferences in students’ reaing skills ae cats by diferencs in ‘Ability to concetate a1 ‘Mastery ofthe necescary knowledge and skills 0 Fear of fare 35 ‘A goal in teaching reading comprehension i preparing students 0 desl ‘vith dhe fermat of ina examiations M180 reading comprehension). Finally, the fourth scale consisted ‘of items primarily about small elements of reading compre hension, such as struggling with elements of a text and preparation for the final examinations. That seale was labeled the Segments of Reading Comprehension scale. ‘The Importance and Students’ Difficulties scales consist- eof items from only one category each: Purposes and Stu- dent Leaming and Comprehension, respectively. The Stu- dents and Texts and Segments of Reading Comprehension scales included items from several categories. Furthermore, there were four items that contributed to two scales: (a) goal: developing students’ critical attitudes, (b) goal: encouraging students to formulate their own opinions, (c) student prob- Jems in determining essential issues in a text, and (4) student problems in observing or identifying relationships in a text, Items a and b contributed to the Importance scale as well as to the Students and Texts scale, and Items c and d con- tributed to both the Student Difficulties scale and the Seg- ‘ments of Reading Comprehension scale, Apparently, the items were multidimensional Clusters of Teachers ‘To determine whether groups of teachers with relative- ly similar practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension could be identified, we performed a clus ter analysis using complete linkage on the teachers’ scores, ‘on the four scales, Two teachers were identified as outliers inthis analysis because they did not belong to any cluster; they were excluded from the analysis. On the basis of a fairly large increase in the value of the distance measure (ie., squared Euclidean distance) from a five-cluster t0 a four-cluster solution, we identified four clusters of teach- crs (see Figure 1; N= 67), Means and standard deviations were determined for each cluster (see Table 6). The bot- tom row of Table 6 shows that the clusters could be con- sidered as separate populations on each of the four scales, according to the Kruskal-Wallis test, meaning that on each, scale, each cluster could clearly be separated from the other clusters ‘As cain be inferred from Table 6, the first cluster of teach- cers (= 11) was characterized by relatively low scores on the Student Difficulties scale and the Segments of Reading ‘Comprehension scale, in combination with average scores ‘on the Importance scale and the Students and Texts scale Low scores on the two scales indicate that teachers in this cluster did not think that students were encountering signif ieant difficulties in reading comprehension and that they were not particularly concemed about the small compo- nents of reading comprehension, such as grammar or the final examinations, Furthermore, teachers in this cluster ‘considered reading comprehension to be important, and, to some extent, seemed to be faitly concemed about the rela- tionship between students and texts. The teachers appeared to emphasize the larger elements of teaching reading com. prehension (with respect to students as well as to the read- ‘The Journal of Educational Research ing comprehension). Thus, the cluster was termed the “large ‘element view on teaching reading comprehension. ‘Teachers in the second cluster (n = 25, the largest cluster) had high scores on the Student Difficulties seale and the ‘Segments of Reading Comprehension scale. in combination with average scores on the two other scales. That result is almost the opposite of that forthe teachers inthe frst clus- ter. Those teachers’ scores indicate that they were particu- larly concerned with the difficulties that students encounter in reading comprehension and with the small elements of reading comprehension. That cluster was termed the “seg- mental view on teaching reading comprehension.” ‘Teachers in the third cluster (n = 11) had relatively high scores on the Importance scale, and, even more specifically, the Students and Texts scale, In addition, they had low scores on the Student Difficulties scale and average scores ‘on the Segments of Reading Comprehension scale. The scores indicate that teachers in that cluster considered read- ing comprehension to be very important and that they were particularly concerned with the relationship between stu- dents and texts. Furthermore, they were not focused on the difficulties that students encounter in reading comprehen- sion. Apparently, those teachers considered the combination of texts and students important, and, perhaps on that basis, they indicated the significance of teaching reading compre-January/February 2001 [Vol 94(No. 3)] hhension. It seems that texts and students are related in reaching the various goals in teaching reading comprehen- sion. The cluster was described as “weaching reading com- prehension by relating students and texts.” ‘Teachers inthe fourth cluster (n = 20) had relatively low scores on the Importance scale and fairly low scores on the ‘Students and Texts scale. Furthermore, the teachers had a reasonably high score on the Student Difficulties scale. ‘That pattern was almost the opposite for teachers in the third cluster. It appears that those teachers questioned the importance of teaching reading comprehension, perhaps because they saw it merely as causing problems for stu- denis, That cluster was termed “low appreciation for read- ing comprehensio Text and Reading Procedure At this point, we used the variables reading procedure and text in the analysis process. First, associations between the two variables and the four scales were specified by conduct- ing an analysis of variance for each scale separately with the {wo variables (see Table 7). significant relationship seemed to occur between the Segments of Reading Comprehension seale (Scale 4) and the variable, reading procedure, which indicates teachers’ practical knowledge of the subcategory 181 reading procedure. Figure 2 shows that the teachers who indicated that there is a fixed reading procedure—meaning that they believed there is only one right way to read a text— scored higher on the Segments of the Reading Comprehen- sion scale than did the teachers who said that there is no fixed procedure for reading texts. Apparently, teachers who ‘emphasized the small components of reading comprehension teach their students to read in a specific fashion. Perhaps that reading procedure is the one that students need to use on the final examinations, which are an important element in the ‘Segments of Reading Comprehension scale Second, we computed Pearson chi-square statistics to estimate whether the four-cluster solution was related to the variables reading procedure and text used, Table 8 shows that only the reading procedure variable was not indepen- dent of the division of the teachers in the four clusters Figure 3 emphasizes that teachers in the first and third clus- ters (je. large element view on teaching reading compre- hhension and teaching reading comprehension by relating, texts and studemts) frequently thought that there was no fixed way of reading texts, whereas teachers in the second. and fourth clusters (i.e., segmental view on teaching read- ing comprehension and low appreciation for reading com- prehension) frequently indicated that texts should be read according to a fixed method. on the Four Seales Importance ray Ma 4a as 2125) 3942s 3a) ua 36s 400) ago rsiset sad Chisqures aise ‘Table 6—Number of Teachers in Each Cluster, Means, and Standard Deviations of Custer Scores Student Ditculties scale ‘sale ay" aa Daa Pa a i i’ a is me 2, a om oS Oe arpseen onsen suas Segments ot Reading Compecheasion “Texts scale eale Sodas and Analyses of Variance Segments Seadene oF Reading Imporasce _Difficules Swen and_—_ Compson Varabie a ‘ale Text cae eale Reading procedure 58 10 1a a 330 Tex wed a 3 a as a 812 ‘Summary of Results Our questionnaire contained 22 items (13.1%) that were identified as shared knowledge (see Table 3). Teachers closely agreed in their responses to those items, Principal ‘components were computed on the unshared-knowledge items to give more detailed information about the structure of the six categories of teachers’ practical knowledge According to those insights, we idemtified and summarized in four principal components (sec left column of Table 9) items that appeared to provide information about teachers practical knowledge. The components provided insights into the relationships between the categories. tems that contributed to the components were used as the basis for the construction of four scales, which we assumed captured the essence of the differences in teachers" practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehen: sion. Thus, the scales were deduced from the principal com- ponents (see Table 9), (On the basis of the teachers’ scores on the four scales, four clusters of teachers were discerned. The clusters were described as follows: 1. Large-element view on teaching reading comprehension 2. Segmented view on teaching reading comprehension igure 2. Boxpot of Reading Procedure by Scores onthe ‘The Journal of Educational Research 3. Teaching reading comprehension by relating texts and students 4, Low appreciation for reading comprehension, ‘The clusters—segmented view on teaching reading com- prehension and low appreciation for reading comprehen: sion—consisted of many more teachers than the other two clusters, indicating that these “types” of teachers were more ‘common than others. (One can conclude that although there was shared knowl- edge among the teachers, there were large differences in their practical knowledge. We tried to capture the differ- fences in four scales, and, according to the teachers’ scale scores, we identified four separate clusters of teachers. One could also conclude that a relatively large number of teach- cers appeared to focus on small components of teaching reading comprehension, and, furthermore, that a relatively large number of teachers appeared to consider reading ‘comprehension as not being very important. In addition, of the teachers did not seem to be very concerned with the relationship between students and texts. Discussion (One can conclude that this investigation was reasonably successful in capturing the content of teachers’ practical knowledge through the use of the questionnaire. Those sec tions of teachers’ practical knowledge that concerned their shared knowledge were identified. Furthermore, large dif ferences were found in teachers’ practical knowledge, along with some strong pattems that provided indications about the essence of the differences. In this study, we provided insights into the categories that could be distinguished in that type of knowledge and into the relationships between the categories. Together, the insights led to the identification ‘Table 8—Pearson Chi Square, Contingency Coefficient (CO), ‘Number of Cases, and Degrees of Freedom forthe Variables inthe Four-Chster Solation Variable ne Reading procedure = 573} Texted B60 fk Figure 3 Bar Chart of lasers, by Reading Procedure Reading procedureJanuary/February 2001 [Vol. 94(No. 3)] ‘Table 9—Relationship Between the Principal Components and the Four Seales Principal component Seales Importance of teaching reading comprehension entfying stent characteristics ‘nd dfiultes Rela texts and stents Segments of eine compechemsion Inmportace scale Sader Dificsies sale Students and Texts scale Segments of Renting ‘Comprehension sale of four scales about teachers’ practical knowledge concern- ing the teaching of reading comprehension. On the basis of their scores on these scales, teachers could be grouped into four clusters Many studies on the content of teachers’ practical knowl- edge are small-scale qualitative studies that typically do not ‘g0 beyond the identification of categories in teachers’ prac- tical knowledge (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Van Driel et al., 1998) and suggestions that these categories are interrelated or integrated. For example, Cochran et al. (1993) focused their study on pedagogical content knowing, which they described as follows: “A teacher's integrated [italics added] understanding of four components of pedagogy. subject matter content, student characteristics, and the environmen- tal context of learning” (p. 266). The instruments used in those kinds of studies often con- cern (semistructured) interviews, resulting in in-depth information about the specifics of each teacher's knowledge (Meijer et al., 1999), The advantage of a larger scale study is that suggestions resulting from such in-depth information ccan be examined and made explicit. The results of the study described in this article indicate that there are two scales in particular in which the suggested combination of categories is manifest, Although the Importance scale and the Student Difficulties scale each consisted of items from only one cat- ‘egory, the four clusters of teachers could be described by teachers’ scores on several scales, indicating that teachers do combine the categories of practical knowledge, ‘The questionnaire provided a great deal of detailed infor- ‘mation about teachers’ practical knowledge. The procedure that we followed in the development of the questionnaire \was reasonably successful. That conclusion, however, was weakened by a number of problems that we encountered. ‘One problem was that there was no information available on the response rate and on the reasons why teachers did not receive or fill in the questionnaire. Conclusions about the results of this study have to be viewed accordingly. The pro- cedure followed in contacting teachers was not very effec- tive because we relied on the school administrators to dis- tribute the questionnaire. Another important procedural problem was that there \was no a priori theoretical basis. We had aimed at doing jus- tice to the specific character of teachers’ practical know!- 183 ‘edge. However, that intention implied that many items did not provide much information about the general themes in teachers” practical knowledge and that many items were redundant. That issue isa fundamental but inevitable one. It ‘might have been better if we had not based the question- naire on all the teachers’ responses in the qualitative study bu, instead, on the teachers’ responses that were directly related to the results of that study. That difference would hhave rendered many more opportunities for analysis because it would have given the questionnaire a theoretical structure. However, if we had chosen that procedure, then the present (quantitative) study would have been focused on. testing the results of the qualitative study. At the beginning of this article, we indicated that we desired to do justice to the knowledge of teachers. We considered that approach to bbe most adequately achieved by studying teachers’ practical knowledge in an open procedure, Notes ‘We acknowledge the insighfl and challenging questions and com mens offered by De Pieter Kroonenburg. Weare grateful for his interest and support ding the staisical analyses toughout the study 1. the Netherands, reading compeension forms the core of the final examination in all languages Bocas stent are sped learn toundrsand texts and books in hee native language aswel ko foeian languages. That achievement is considered particularly inpoaat for high ‘choo! students in university preparstory program Decase De have 10 ‘eal with huge ammouns of writen information in various languages Throughout ter academic careers REFERENCES, Alexander, PA. Sellen DL, & Hae, VC. (1991). Coming ot How researchers n Jeaming and ery tal about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 610), 315-383, Bela, D., & Verlop, N. (1996). Assesing teaches’ practical knowl. ‘ge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 220), 275-286. ‘Bork, He Puna, RT. (1096), Leaning wo tach In DC. Berliner & RC. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (Pp. 1673-708). New York: Macmillan Brown, JS. Colins A. & Duguid, P (1989). Siated cognition snd the lire of lesen. Educational Resear 18(1), 32-12 Calderbead, J (1989). Reflective teaching and teaching edocation. Teach Ing and Teacher Education, 51) 43- CCaldeebead, (1996) Teachers: Beis and knowlege. la D.C. Bediner ERC. Callee (Eds), Handbook of educational prychologs (op 709-725) New York: Mami, CCalderbead. J. & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Sudentteach- es ely conceptions of classroom practice Teaching and Teacher Ee tion, 10), 1-8 (Caner K. (1990) Teachers’ knowledge and learing to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed), Handbook of research on teacher education (9p. 291-310) New York: Maca, (lark, C. M, & Peterson, P-L (1986). Teacher’ thought processes n M. . Wituock (EA), Handbook of research on teaching (Sede 255-296) New York: Macilan, (Cochran, KF, De Raiter, J... & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical con- ‘ent kaowing: An negative model fr teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 444), 263-272, CConvelly FM, & Ctndinin DJ, (1985, Personal practical knowledge ‘ad the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and earning. In Eisner (Eh), Learning and teaching the ways of owing (pp. 174-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CConvelly FM. & Clann, D. J. (1990) Stories of experienced and nar tative inguin Edncaronal Researcher 113), 2-18. bar, FL (1983). Teacher thinking: sud of practical koledge. Lon184 The Journal of Educational Research 2 Pana, R.T & Borko, H, (1997. Teacher karin: Implications views of cognition In BJ. Bk, TL The knower and the known: The natn the, G, By & Horvath, J. A. (1999) Ts for mii Terma idbook of teach in leadership Paper peseted st the anal mee American Ea 1223-1296), Dordect, The Netherlands Klowe nal Research Associaton San Franc Richardson, V. (196) The role of atitades ad betes in arin o teach Grimmett, PP, & MacKinnon, AM. (1992) Craft knowledge aa the Ind. Sikuls (Ed), Hondbook of research on teacher eduction (9. Grossman, P.(1989)-A stay incon: Sources of pedagogical eontat ll T, & Munby H. (1991). Refaming: The role of experience in far secondary English Journ Education. 403) opin profesional knowledge, In DA. Schin (Ed) The reflective rn. C in and on edu ce (Pp. fe presented a the sal meeting othe American tn. New Alana action San Francis i: Knowledge growth in ne Peonel ken legs and profesional ——-Stinan 18. (987), ing: Foundations ofthe new [LondonyNew Yor: Cass frm Harvund Educational Review 3%). Kagan, D. M. (1992) Implications of research on teacher boi, Educu- SPSS Ie. (196). SPSS 7-5 for Windows. Chicago, Il: SPSS Ine tl Paychoogit, 21), 65-50 Torn, A. & Vili, L (1960), Professional knowledge for eacher. In W. Leinhard, G (1998) On teaching. In R Glaser (Ed) Ades in instr RR Hoacon (Ed), frist Nahar cca App al pveholog (p.1-$8). Hillsdale, NI: alain 33-392), New York: Mam Meijer FC. Veroop, Ni & Bijan, D, (19. Exploring language Taub, RE (1994). Ria for the social sciences (Vl, 3), Thousand teachers’ practical Kpowiedge about teaching reaing competension Dabs, CA: Sage Trashing kod Teacher Easton 11) 04, Van Drs: J. Hy & Verloop,N. (1997) Teachers'development of experts Mertens, .M. (1998), Research mel ato ana sch ‘about the teaching of models in science education. Paper presi st Legale dr tative end qualaatve approc he blanaual conference ofthe Inerstiondl Study Assosaion on Thownand Oaks. CA: Suge Teacher Thinking, Kit, German Moser PK, Male, DH & dee. Oxford: Oxford Univers 3, D. (1998). The theory of daowt of Research in S Educational Research, 620) a oop, N Nemunt,JD. Van Dri, JH, ( her Education, 211), 11-28 or TP & Loe. M. (1989), Teach Peierson, PL, Feanema, E Cars Nata MCU CM EL etic) are now available from Bell & Howell Information and Learning * Online, Over ProQuest Direct™—state-of-the-art online information system featuring thousands of articles from hundreds of publications, in ASCII full-text, full-image, of innovative Text+Graphics formats * In Microform—from our collection of more than 19,000 periodicals and 7,000 newspapers * Electronically, on CD-ROM, and/or magnetic tape—through our ProQuest* databases in both fullmage ASCII full text formats Call toll-free 800-521-0600, ext. 3781 International customers please call: 724-761-4700 BELLQ@ HOWELL 4°:2228.°°-20% 1948, 00 rors zeeb Rood, Ann Aor, 48106-1988 For comprehensive information on Inirmation nd Be & Howell Information and Learning product, aig visit our home page: hep. um. com