Models of Teaching

This fully updated edition of a classic text explores established approaches to teaching
that are grounded in research and experience to ensure high levels of learning.
Models of Teaching combines rationale and research with real-life examples and
applications in the classroom, showing how teachers, professional learning communi-
ties, and school faculties can improve student attainment. The volume contains the
major psychological and philosophical approaches to teaching and schooling, includ-
ing thoroughly documented research on the models of teaching and their effects on
student success, and offers teachers the tools to accelerate student learning.

Features include:
■ three completely new chapters covering the origins of models in teaching, explicit
strategy instruction and metacognition for teaching reading comprehension, and
best practices for teachers coaching other teachers, expanding instruction, and
supporting school renewal;
■ scenarios for each model to explore the concepts in action;
■ discussions of research relevant to each model throughout the text;
■ advice from the authors about the use of the models in teaching;
■ support for incorporating the language arts and science standards and supporting
STEM instruction.
With the aim of providing a strong impact on student achievement while keeping
in line with the current emphasis on standards-based education, this classic resource
will be essential reading for pre-service and new teachers as well as current teaching
professionals.
This text is supported by extensive multimedia materials, including video demon-
strations of the models in action, PowerPoint slides and an Instructor’s Manual, avail-
able at www.modelsofteaching.org.

Bruce Joyce is a practitioner–scholar in education, who has previously held profes-

sorships at the University of Delaware, USA; The University of Chicago, USA; The
Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, Canada; and Teachers College, Columbia,
USA.

Emily Calhoun, former Coordinator of the League of Professional Schools the

University of Georgia, USA, is currently the director of The Phoenix Alliance in
Saint Simons Island, Georgia, USA.
Models of Teaching
Tenth Edition

Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun

Designed cover image: Hulinska_Yevheniia / Getty
Tenth edition published 2025
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2025 Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun
The right of Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun to be identified as authors of this work has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
This book was previously published by Pearson Education, Inc.
First edition published by Pearson 1972
Ninth edition published by Pearson 2018

ISBN: 9781032596037 (hbk)

ISBN: 9781032576015 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003455370 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003455370

Typeset in Bembo
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
 Dedication

To those who hold high the candle that brings new light to education as exem-
plified by the credo of the Bank Street College of Education, written about
100 years ago by Lucy Sprague Mitchell …

What potential in human beings—children, teachers, and ourselves—do we want to

develop?

■■ A zest for living that comes from taking the world with all five senses alert.
■■ Lively intellectual curiosities that turn the world into an exciting laboratory and
keep one ever a learner.
■■ Flexibility when confronted with change and ability to relinquish patterns that no
longer fit the present.
■■ The courage to work, unafraid and efficiently, in a world of new needs, new
problems, and new ideas.
■■ Gentleness combined with justice in passing judgment on other human beings.
■■ Sensitivity, not only to the formal rights of the other fellow, but to him as another
human being seeking a good life through his own standards.
■■ A striving to live democratically, in and out of schools, as the best way to advance
our concept of democracy.

We fervently hope that the models of teaching we open in this book will live up to her
manifesto and keep her candle burning.
 Contents

Foreword by David Hopkins and Pasi Sahlberg xvi

Preface xxvi
Preamble xxix

Part I: Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

1 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate: Introducing the
Models of Teaching 3
2 Creating Communities of Expert Learners: Building on Our
Students’ Capacity to Learn 17

Part II: Basic Information-Processing Models of Teaching

3 Learning to Learn Inductively: Exploring Data Sets, Building
Categories, and Developing Concepts 33
4 Scientific Inquiry: Building Learning around Investigations and
Teaching the Culture of Sciencing 63
5 Concept Attainment: The Explicit Teaching of Concepts 85
6 The Picture Word Inductive Model: Developing Literacy
through Inquiry 103

Part III: Special Purpose Information-Processing Models

7 Synectics: Teaching the Left Brain to Put the Right Side to Work 133
8 Memorization: Getting the Facts Straight, Now and for the
Long Term 155
9 Using Advance Organizers to Design Presentations: From Lectures
to Courses, Including Media 175
viii Contents

Part IV: The Social Family of Models of Teaching

10 Partners in Learning: Getting Everybody on Board 189
11 Group Investigation—The Classic Democratic-Process-
Inquiry-Driven Model: Beginning with a Puzzlement, a
Problem, or a Project 199
12 Role Playing for the Study of Values 211

Part V: The Personal Family of Models

13 Nondirective Teaching: The Learner at the Center 229
14 The Inquiry Training Model: Improving Questioning Skills
and Analysis of Evidence 243

Part VI: The Behavioral Family of Models

15 Using Explicit Instruction and Metacognition When Teaching Reading
Comprehension 265
16 Mastery Learning: Bit by Bit, Block by Block, We Climb Our Way to
Competence 280
17 Direct Instruction: Applied Psychology Goes to Work 287

Part VII: The Conditions of Learning and Educators as Curriculum

Developers, Learners, and Leaders of School Renewal
18 The Dynamics of Disequilibrium: Making Discomfort Productive 297
19 The Conditions of Learning: Creating Curricula and Designing
Instruction 303
20 Teachers Coaching Teachers: Facilitating Learning and
Neutralizing the Discomfort of Change 313

Appendix: Peer Coaching Guides 321

References and Related Sources 375
Index 398
 Detailed Contents

Foreword by David Hopkins and Pasi Sahlberg

Preface
Preamble

Part I: Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

Introducing models of teaching, where they came from, and how they build inquiring
communities of learners.

Chapter 1: The Search for Effective Ways to Educate: Introducing

the Models of Teaching
We discuss where and when the various models of teaching were invented and brief ly
introduce them and their purposes. From the time of the academies in Greece and
Rome, teachers have generated and shared innovative approaches to learning and
teaching. Succeeding generations have given birth to additional ways of helping stu-
dents learn. As teachers we can draw on these products and use them to help our stu-
dents become effective and creative learners.

Chapter 2: Creating Communities of Expert Learners: Building

on Our Students’ Capacity to Learn
Great teaching is made by helping our students become great learners. In various
ways our models of teaching bring students into collaborative communities whose
members work together and support each other’s personal inquiries. We explore
elementary, middle, and high school classes as their teachers lead them with a variety
of models.
x Detailed Contents

Part II Basic Information-Processing Models of Teaching

How can we and our students best acquire information, organize it, and explain it?
Here are several models that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) frameworks,
and the Next Generation Science Standards—all of which embrace teaching students
with the methods of the disciplines underlying them.
As we remind ourselves continuously, a major outcome of these models is the
development of capacity to learn, to collect and approach information confidently,
and to help one another become a community of learners. The tools learned by find-
ing and managing information support the social, personal, and behavioral families.
Information-processing models provide academic substance to social models, ways of
thinking for personal inquiry, and goals for many of the behavioral models.

Chapter 3: Learning to Learn Inductively: Exploring Data Sets, Building

Categories, and Developing Concepts
Human beings are born to build concepts. The infant, crawling around, feeling things
and bumping into them, observing people’s actions and listening to them, is born to
acquire information that is sifted and organized, building the conceptual structures
that guide our lives. The inductive model builds on and enhances the inborn capacity
of human beings to organize information about their environments and build and test
categories—forming concepts—that make their world more comprehensible and
predictable.

Chapter 4: Scientific Inquiry: Building Learning around Investigations

and Teaching the Culture of Sciencing
From the time of Aristotle, we have had educators who taught science in the making
rather than teaching facts and hoping for the best. Here, we introduce a model of
teaching that is science in the making. Today, students can identify a domain of study
or problem, conduct investigations of their own, and connect to studies available on
the web. Virtual investigations and simulations can shorten time and bring students
into labs and field studies where complex equipment is available and faraway settings
can be studied. Although in this chapter we give considerable emphasis to the scien-
tific disciplines, including the social sciences, the model applies to all curriculum areas
as well as personal inquiries.

Chapter 5: Concept Attainment: The Explicit Teaching of Concepts

Learning concepts is fundamental to all curriculum areas, from phonics to categories
of nations and living things and the table of elements. This model is a method for
teaching them, how to apply them, and how to build them. Bruce and Fred Lighthall,
capitalizing on studies of how people attain concepts and build them, developed vari-
ations on this model and its applications to a range of curriculum areas.
 Detailed Contents   xi

Chapter 6: The Picture Word Inductive Model: Developing

Literacy through Inquiry
With a nod to the language experience approach to literacy, the picture word induc-
tive model (PWIM) enables beginning readers to develop sight vocabularies, learn to
inquire into the structure of words and sentences, and compose sentences and para-
graphs. In addition to video demonstrations, www.modelsofteaching.org provides
two dozen pictures that can be used to start inquiries. This model is used with younger
beginning readers and older struggling readers as part of our Read to Succeed curricu-
lum. PWIM can also be an excellent multi-disciplinary model for learners at a range
of literacy levels.

Part III: Special Purpose Information-Processing Models

The models in Part II can be used for some very broad purposes, including designing
lessons, units, courses, and distance offerings. The more specialized models in Part III,
however, are designed specifically to:

■■ Learn to use analogies to think divergently

■■ Learn to memorize more effectively, including facts, concepts, and even the core
ideas of philosophies
■■ Design presentations with advance organizers
■■ Teach basic inquiry skills

Chapter 7: Synectics: Teaching the Left Brain to Put the Right Side to Work
Creative thought has often been considered as something genetically given to a
special few, and something that the rest of us cannot aspire to. Not so. Synectics
brings to all students the development of metaphoric thinking—learning to break
set to think and solve problems. A serious assist when learning to write. And, synec-
tics is fun! In addition to education, synectics has been used extensively in programs
to develop problem-solving ability in a wide variety of organizations.

Chapter 8: Memorization: Getting the Facts Straight, Now

and for the Long Term
Memorization has had something of a bad name, mostly because of deadly drills and
poorly designed textbooks and lectures. However, contemporary research and inno-
vative teachers have created methods that not only improve our efficiency in memori-
zation, but with processes that are delightful. Importantly, the model stresses that a
major key to remembering things is giving them close attention. The demonstrations
lead readers through exercises where they learn some things that will stick. Also,
when you hear complaints that students forget a lot over vacations, particularly in the
summer, but what they lose was lightly learned, the message is to teach for retention.
xii Detailed Contents

Chapter 9: Using Advance Organizers to Design Presentations: From

Lectures to Courses, Including Media
Learning from presentations has had almost as bad a name as learning by memoriza-
tion. David Ausubel developed a system for creating lectures and other presentations
that will increase student cognitive activity and, subsequently, learning. An advance
organizer provides a cognitive map of the material, helping students to connect
material and retain it. Imagine teaching a curriculum unit and when you open it
you provide concepts—ideas—that the students can use to guide their learning as
they read, watch videos, and listen. As the unit evolves, you help the student con-
nect those ideas to the content. When reviewing material with them, you again
explicitly connect those ideas to the review. Will they learn a little more and retain
it a little better? Yes.

Part IV: The Social Family of Models of Teaching

Working together just might enhance all of us. The social family expands what we
can do together and generates the creation of democratic relationships in venues
large and small. In addition, the creation of learning communities can enhance the
learning of all students dramatically. Interestingly, collaboration among people in
different settings is remarkably satisfying, as witnessed in the rise of social media.
A large (data included from over 30,000 schools) study found that when teachers
collaborate in governance of the school, student learning is enlarged (Ingersoll &
Collins, 2019).

Chapter 10: Partners in Learning: Getting Everybody on Board

Can two students increase their learning when paired? Yes. Will they develop better
social and academic skills if they work together on projects? Yes. Can most students
profit from training to collaborate? Yes. Do collaborative classrooms increase produc-
tive study and time on task and decrease unproductive and disruptive behavior?
Usually. Are cooperative learning models applicable to K-12 and across curriculum
areas? Yes. This chapter looks at some of the basic, easy-to-implement forms of coop-
erative learning.

Chapter 11: Group Investigation—The Classic Democratic-Process-Inquiry-

Driven Model: Beginning with a Puzzlement, a Problem, or a Project
Can students organized into a democratic learning community learn to apply scien-
tific methods to their learning? You bet they can. Group investigation can be used to
redesign schools; increase personal, social, and academic learning among all students;
and satisfy both learners and teachers. Herbert Thelen drew heavily on John Dewey
and the post-Sputnik Academic Reform movement to modernize the model which
we and others have continued to update and use as a basic professional development
and school improvement model.
 Detailed Contents   xiii

Chapter 12: Role Playing for the Study of Values

Values provide the center of our behavior, helping us understand ourselves and others.
Policy issues involve the understanding of values and the costs and benefits of selecting
some solutions rather than others. In these models, values are central. Think for a
moment about the issues that face our students right now—research on cells, interna-
tional peace, the battles against addiction, poverty, and who controls the decisions
about pregnancy and abortion, not to mention just getting along together and cele-
brating our common values and our differences and whether accommodation is
desirable.

Part V: The Personal Family of Models

When teachers engage with students, it is to help them learn. One’s personality inter-
acts with the learning environment. How do we give the learner centrality when we
are trying to get that same person to grow and respond to tasks we believe will
enhance growth? And how can electronic connections be shaped so that they are not
just a matter of arguing online, but yield ref lection and growth? Oddly, some kinds of
distance counseling can be quite helpful. Virtual counseling is a developing field.
And, by the way, do we learn while we teach? Inevitably.

Chapter 13: Nondirective Teaching: The Learner at the Center

How do we think about ourselves as learners? As people? How can we organize
schooling so that the personalities and emotions of students are taken into account?
Let us inquire into the person who is the center of the education process. This is a
major avenue to personalization and social-emotional learning (SEL).
Nondirective methods can be supported through distance means. During the school
years and later, students can be better connected to their teachers and counselors and
supported as they ref lect on themselves and take steps to build their self-esteem and
ability to relate to others. Much of the support that students need when undertaking
investigations involving ICT resources, including online courses and other types of
distance courses, can be provided in a nondirective fashion.

Chapter 14: The Inquiry Training Model: Improving Questioning Skills

and Analysis of Evidence
Suchman’s inquiry training model works for teaching basic inquiry skills and for
developing students’ questioning and analytical skills and their capacity to construct
knowledge and modify it based on new information. Its general goal is to help stu-
dents develop the intellectual discipline and skills necessary to raise questions and
search out answers stemming from their curiosity—cognitive habits that will serve
them in school and beyond.
xiv Detailed Contents

Part VI: The Behavioral Family of Models

We enter the world of tasks, performances, and positive and aversive reactions. The
study of how behavior is acquired has led to a wide variety of approaches to training.
Here we will deal with some of the useful behavioral models.

Chapter 15: Using Explicit Instruction and Metacognition When Teaching

Reading Comprehension
For a long time the teaching of comprehension seemed elusive, although reading
without much comprehension is not actually reading at all. Then researchers began to
study what expert readers do and develop ways to teach students those processes, strat-
egies, and ways of interacting with texts. The resulting model is generally referred to
as explicit strategy instruction in reading, cognitive strategy instruction in writing
(and mathematics), or structured think-alouds in any discipline.

Chapter 16: Mastery Learning: Bit by Bit, Block by Block, We Climb

Our Way to Competence
This is a fundamental training model, where new content and skills are introduced,
modeled, practiced, and added to the working repertoire. Planning and assessment are
the complex parts of the model, but the investment pays off.

Chapter 17: Direct Instruction: Applied Psychology Goes to Work

Why beat around the bush when you can just deal with things directly? Let’s go for it!
However, finesse is required, and that is what this chapter is all about. The basic
model here is derived from social learning theory. Many distance models—a good
deal are of the online variety—are direct, but several need better designs and students
need to learn how to use them.

Part VII: The Conditions of Learning and Educators as Curriculum

Developers, Learners, and Leaders of School Renewal
In Chapter 18, we continue to study the nature of learning, focusing on how learn-
ing new things requires us to make a place for that learning, integrate it with our
current concepts and skills, and cope with the inevitable discomfort that even joyful
learning produces. In Chapter 19, we discuss the application of Robert Gagné’s work
to developing curriculum and designing instruction. And in Chapter 20, we introduce
our research on how teachers learn new things and how collaborative study—peer
coaching—helps ensure that the learning stays around and can be used in the long
haul. We apply our research to lay out how teachers can effectively fill the role of
coach in a school or school district. Altogether, this chapter provides the design for
professional development.
 Detailed Contents   xv

Chapter 18: The Dynamics of Disequilibrium: Making Discomfort

Productive
By definition, learning requires knowing, thinking, or doing things we couldn’t do
before the learning took place. Curricula and teaching need to be shaped to take us
where we haven’t been. The trick is to develop an optimal mismatch so that we are
pushed but not overwhelmed. Vygotsky (1986) popularized the term zone of proximal
development to refer to content, conceptual understanding, skills, and processes that are
just beyond our current development but not so demanding that we get lost. These
concepts are very important because content and process that are well within our
comfort zone, while soothing, do not challenge us to grow.

Chapter 19: The Conditions of Learning: Creating Curricula

and Designing Instruction
Robert Gagné developed a framework that examined learning in terms of degrees of
complexity, from responding and learning specifics to building conceptual chains
between those items and upwards to problem-solving in a fashion that one can use to
design lessons and curricula and choose models of teaching. His groundbreaking work
combined research on levels and types of learning with the problem of designing
instruction that builds on how we think and build knowledge.
You can use Gagné’s ideas to organize a curriculum unit in terms of the types of
learning tasks that are required. This is not a model of teaching but a framework that
helps you choose the models best suited for what you are teaching.

Chapter 20: Teachers Coaching Teachers: Facilitating Learning

and Neutralizing the Discomfort of Change
From the research on how teachers learn, we analyze effective practices where teach-
ers help one another and particularly where they work together to expand their teach-
ing repertoires. Best practices for coaching are laid out, including how to make study
groups and professional learning communities effective.

Appendix: Peer Coaching Guides

References and Related Sources
Index
 Foreword to the Tenth Edition
by David Hopkins and Pasi
Sahlberg

The publication of the tenth edition of Models of Teaching is a signal moment in the
history of educational discourse. Since its first publication in 1972, Models of Teaching
has led the argument and occupied the moral high ground on the nature of teaching
and learning and the creation of powerful learning experiences that enable all our
students to reach their potential. In so doing, Bruce Joyce and his co-authors across
the years, Marsha Weil and Emily Calhoun, have followed a distinguished tradition of
educators that, as we shall see, have spanned a number of millennia. This tradition
provides pathways to the creation of learning experiences that not only enhance the
individual student’s achievement and learning skills but by that token also contribute
to the development of society itself.
We are enormously f lattered to have been asked to contribute the Foreword to this
tenth edition of Models of Teaching. But on ref lection, despite us being quirky individu-
als, perhaps it was not such a bizarre invitation. By nationality, one of us is a Welshman
and the other a Finn, but the quirkiness is not so much related simply to our place of
birth, but to the fact that as educationalists we have deliberately positioned our careers
at the intersection of policy, research, and practice. Very few educators have placed
their f lags in that contentious terrain, and it has not always been easy to maintain such
positioning. Yet, as we are committed to both equity and excellence in improving
education, we believe fervently that there is no other place to plant ours. The other
characteristic that unites us is that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to Bruce Joyce for
his mentorship and friendship over the years. It was he who, through his own exam-
ple, introduced us to this place. We begin this Foreword by saying a little more per-
sonally about our interaction with Models of Teaching and Bruce Joyce over the years
before becoming more descriptive and then analytical about the importance of the
publication of this tenth edition.
Before we do, we should make two key points.
The first, as intimated above, is that Models of Teaching is not a contemporary f lash-
in-the pan panacea or the “next big thing” in school improvement. Rather, as is noted
 Foreword to the Tenth Edition   xvii

in Chapter 1, Models of Teaching has a distinguished heritage. From the time of the
academies in Greece and Rome, teachers have generated and shared innovative
approaches to learning and teaching. Succeeding generations have given birth to addi-
tional ways of helping students learn. In the Preamble, the authors point out the con-
tributions of Comenius, Rousseau, and Locke—all of whom argued strenuously for
equity and democracy as well as breadth and individual achievement. Slightly more
contemporaneously, the authors refer to the contribution of John Dewey who also had
a powerful vision of society and education. We are both committed to Dewey’s con-
cept of experiential education and see in Models of Teaching tools and scaffolding for
achieving such ends. We could go on; the point, however, is that Models of Teaching
follows a rich tradition of educators and social innovators driven by a vision of indi-
vidual competence and social development.
The second point that we wish to make at the outset is that Models of Teaching is
grounded in the solid global evidence base. All the teaching strategies in this book
have strong empirical support as to their impact: they are both theoretically rich and
demonstrably effective. As our mentor, Bruce was uncompromising in his commit-
ment to empirical rigor and was always challenging us to look at the data and refine
our strategies accordingly. We see in the pages that follow the data emanating from a
variety of meta-analyses that support the application and utilization of the variety of
Models of Teaching in a range of contexts. We should also note, parenthetically, the
contribution that our friend and colleague John Hattie has made to establishing the
empirical base to effective teaching and enabling us to be far more discriminating in
differentiating between low- and high-impact approaches. The linking of theory to
empirical support is a major strength of Models of Teaching. This is one of the reasons
why Richard Elmore’s salutary warning, which he shared with one of us several years
ago, that “teaching is a profession without a practice” is gladly becoming increasingly
less true.
So let us say a little more individually about our interaction with Models of Teaching
and Bruce Joyce over the years.

Models of Teaching and School Improvement

I, David Hopkins, first met Bruce Joyce in San Francisco in the spring of 1979. We
met at a US national education conference where Bruce was presenting. At the time I
was a graduate student at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, whose research was
being supervised by Michael Fullan (OISE) and Marv Wideen (SFU). We had planned
a Summer Institute at SFU for 1980 around the emerging theme of school improve-
ment, and I had been f lown down from Vancouver to encourage Bruce to participate.
Bruce was characteristically generous in embracing my naivety and agreed to partici-
pate. The subsequent six-week Institute on the iconic SFU Burnaby Mountain campus
had recruited other global leading educational thinkers and activists. We all taught a
course in the Summer School, engaged in twice-weekly seminars with each other
over dinner, and made a keynote presentation at the Institute. We subsequently pub-
lished the keynotes as chapters in Alternative Perspectives on School Improvement (Hopkins
and Wideen, 1984).
During that six-week period we became our own professional learning commu-
nity, well before that term became popular. We were excited and stimulated by each
other’s research and insights but were also motivated by the awareness that we were
xviii Foreword to the Tenth Edition

laying the intellectual basis for what was becoming the emerging field of school
improvement. The year before the Institute, Michael Rutter and his colleagues published
their landmark book Fifteen Thousand Hours (Rutter et al., 1979). It was this book that
laid the basis of the effective schools movement that generated increasingly sophisti-
cated descriptions of the characteristics of those schools that made a significant differ-
ence to the progress of their students, irrespective of socioeconomic background. We
were galvanized by the thought that we were contributing to a parallel movement.
This was becoming known as “school improvement,” and its proponents were gener-
ating a methodology and developing strategies that enable schools to become increas-
ingly effective.
Bruce Joyce’s contributions to our discussions that summer were seminal. His cha-
risma and personal leadership were pervasive, and he was so much fun to be around.
More than that, however, he exerted an intellectual discipline on the group that was
both challenging and liberating. For example, he helped me understand that moral
purpose and strategic action are the opposite sides of the same coin. If we are to create
powerful learning experiences for our students—experiences that are sustained and
impact on both equity and excellence—we need to keep the goals of education in
mind whilst at the same time creating increasingly specific strategies for both peda-
gogy and professional development that will enable the achievement of those goals.
The word specific is important here because it implies precision rather than didacticism.
For as another contributor to the Institute, Lawrence Stenhouse, commented in one
of our seminars, “Specific, yes; prescriptive, no.” It was Bruce’s focus on a range of
specific pedagogies that promote learning, together with his articulation of peer-
coaching strategies for professional development, that provided the essential infra-
structure for the emerging field of school improvement.
We would like to think that our sojourn on Burnaby Mountain that summer of
1980 was inf luential not just for the participants in the Institute and the students on
the courses we ran, but more widely in helping to shape the development of the school
improvement movement. This was particularly the case in terms of Bruce’s emphasis
on models of teaching and peer coaching. Certainly, our collective presentations and
publications inf luenced the OECD’s International School Improvement Project
(Hopkins, 1987) and the subsequent Improving School Leadership project (Pont et al.,
2008). As the global interest in school improvement as the strategy for achieving both
equity and excellence has burgeoned, Bruce’s inf luence through the twin emphasis on
models of teaching and professional development has been transformational.
Since those early beginnings, Bruce and I have remained close professional col-
leagues and friends. He has contributed to numerous conferences and consultancies
over the years, and he has been enormously supportive in terms of the design, contri-
bution of materials and provision of training for our school improvement programs,
particularly Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) and Curiosity and
Powerful Learning. Space precludes more detail here, but one vignette is illustrative.
In 1997, when I was Dean of Education at the University of Nottingham, Bruce
and Emily visited us to provide professional development for my faculty staff and
the school improvement groups in our IQEA network. As part of the professional and
social interactions, Bruce and Emily met the headteacher of Hempshill Hall Primary
School which my two youngest children, Jessica and Dylan, attended. The conversa-
tion led to a visit and eventually to Emily demonstrating the picture word inductive
model (see Chapter 6) to staff through teaching a series of classes of which Jessica was
a member. I still remember Emily’s calm and precise language, her warm positive
 Foreword to the Tenth Edition   xix

interaction with the children and the strategic scaffolding she brought to the series of
lessons. Subsequently, we wrote up the visit for Educational Leadership ( Joyce, Calhoun,
Puckey, & Hopkins, 1997) and included a more extended case study in The New
Structure of School Improvement ( Joyce, Calhoun, & Hopkins, 1999). The point is that
Models of Teaching is no arcane, research-based, add-on to a school’s provision, but is
rather the lived reality of how we achieve both equity and excellence through precise,
concerted professional action. We concluded the chapter on Hempshill Hall ( Joyce,
Calhoun, & Hopkins, 1999, p. 147) in this way:

Hempshill Hall refines aspects of its operation on a continual basis. How? By

doing it. The Head has convinced the teachers and parents that school improve-
ment is part of teaching and parenting and has created a climate that matches the
vision. A healthy climate for adults becomes a healthy place for children. The
mode of continual search for improvement rubs off on the children.
The inquiry continues …

And so it does. Despite the passage of time, Bruce, Emily, and I regularly continue
our now close to half-century-long conversation about school improvement.
So that is a précis of the Welshman’s story. Let us now turn to an account of the
impact of Models of Teaching in Finland.

Models of Teaching Arrives in Finland

I, Pasi Sahlberg, first heard about Bruce Joyce in 1984 when I had just started my
educational journey towards a doctorate degree at the University of Helsinki. That
was the time before the internet and ebooks, when the best way to read a textbook
was to line up in the university library and have a hard copy of a book for a week or
two. Mine was the second edition (1980) of Models of Teaching that had clearly been
read by many students before me.
The book was made required reading for anyone who intended to complete
advanced studies in educational sciences at that time. In the late 1980s when I was
working on my teaching diploma and further academic studies in education, Finland
had experimented with research-based primary and secondary teacher education for a
decade. Students aiming to teach in Finnish K-12 schools needed to hold a master’s
degree. Models of Teaching was a foundational part of pedagogical literature in most
primary teacher education curricula. The philosophy of the power of a diverse reper-
toire of teaching methods as the bedrock of the teaching profession sat perfectly in the
long pedagogical tradition in Finland ranging from Uno Cygnaeus in the nineteenth
century to Mikael Soininen and Matti Koskenniemi during the twentieth century.
Models of Teaching arrived in Finland at the right time. The new comprehensive
school that replaced the parallel two-pathway nine-year compulsory school system in
1972 was built on ideas of integration and inclusion that brought all Finnish children
to be educated in one type of school instead of sorting them based on their, or their
parents’, academic orientations and aspirations. This required, first and foremost, that
teachers were able to craft their teaching according to a much more diverse range of
learners than before. Initial teacher education was recalibrated accordingly. All teach-
ers, including those teaching in primary schools, had to have advanced studies in
education that often meant expanding their pedagogical knowledge and practical
skills. Teachers were expected to design and choose their teaching methods according
xx Foreword to the Tenth Edition

to curricula goals and students’ needs. Models of Teaching became an answer to these
expectations.
I spent the second half of the 1980s as a teacher in a teacher training school run by
the University of Helsinki. Models of Teaching became my most important reference
when supervising new science and mathematics teachers who did their practical train-
ing in my school. My colleagues and I were particularly interested in how different
teaching methods in that book could serve improving student outcomes in science and
mathematics. This gave us an idea to translate some of the most promising and suitable
models into Finnish so that all teachers could use them in improving their teaching.
Inductive thinking, concept attainment, inquiry training, group investigation, synec-
tics, direct instruction, and nondirective teaching were among those that hundreds of
Finnish schools and thousands of teachers experimented with in their classrooms and
often adopted as part of their pedagogical practice repertoires.
The core part of the Finnish way of Models of Teaching was an intensive development
of teaching methods that would fit in the philosophy of the new comprehensive school
and that would support the emerging culture of teacher professionalism in schools.
Two books that included detailed descriptions of 15 teaching methods and tested
examples from Finnish classrooms were published in 1988 and 1989. A final single-
volume updated edition of these teaching methods appeared in 1990 and became a
high-demand pedagogical manual across the country (Sahlberg, 1990). The National
School Improvement Network that was facilitated by the National Board of (General)
Education was an innovation that had an impact on how teachers taught and especially
how they thought about knowledge, learning, and teaching.
Since the creation of the new comprehensive school in 1972, Finland made big
investments in teacher and leadership development. Part of that was traditional whole-
school training days about the national reform, including curriculum, pedagogical
development, special education, and so on. An important part of teachers’ and school
leaders’ professional learning happened in the national educational training center in
the small town of Heinola, 90 minutes north of Helsinki. Thousands of teachers every
year gathered there for week-long courses planned and facilitated by the NBE staff.
One of the key policy priorities in these courses was developing teachers’ knowledge
and skills in diverse teaching methods that were needed to succeed with the ongoing
national school reform. This is where Bruce Joyce comes in.
In 1989 my colleagues and I invited Bruce to speak about Models of Teaching to the
group of teacher educators and regional lead teachers in Heinola Training Centre.
Bruce generously accepted our invitation just like he did David’s a decade earlier. But
rather than just speak about the teaching methods, he offered to run a week-long
masterclass on what effective teaching methods look like in practice and how teachers
best learn to use them in school. This was a game-changing opportunity for all of us.
We learned about these teaching methods by acquiring these same methods under
guidance from Bruce. We explored the inquiry training method using inquiry train-
ing; we learned about synectics through synectics; and we practiced group investiga-
tion through cooperative learning methods. By the end of the week, we were not just
filled with a deeper understanding of a wide range of teaching methods, but we had
learned about necessary conditions to design effective professional learning for other
teachers on models of teaching. Bruce left his mark on the science and art of pedagogy
that inf luenced the evolving new era of schooling in Finland in the 1990s.
Without a doubt, Models of Teaching had a significant positive impact on the direc-
tion of educational policy and practice in Finland after Bruce’s visit. It certainly
 Foreword to the Tenth Edition   xxi

changed the way we understood teaching and what is needed to expand teachers’
active teaching repertoires. I soon took these lessons with me to the next chapter of
my career. In 1991, I was offered a position as a senior advisor in science education in
the newly established national education authority called the National Board of
Education (NBE). I continued to support the ongoing experimentation and pedagogi-
cal innovation in teaching methods in Finnish schools. Two years later I moved to
establish and lead the Teaching Methods Unit in the NBE. This unit provided support
to schools in their work on models of teaching and researched different aspects of
change in schools. That continued until the end of the 1990s.
In my doctoral research project that I designed soon after meeting with Bruce, I
investigated the effectiveness of peer coaching in the Finnish context. Just like Bruce
had described in Models of Teaching and his other works, we realized that changing the
way teachers learn to use different teaching methods effectively in their classrooms
requires more than listening to lectures and practicing new skills in workshops. A few
years earlier, Bruce had demonstrated in Heinola that the transfer of new skills from staff
development to practice must also include opportunities to practice new skills in safe
environments, receive feedback from experts and colleagues, and have opportunities to
rehearse these new teaching methods in their own classrooms with trusted colleagues.
“Researchers, teacher-educators, and policymakers decided to adopt peer coaching as a
fundamental principle for the new teacher education and school improvement program
nationwide,” as I wrote in FinnishEd Leadership (Sahlberg, 2018, p. 11). Bruce left a per-
manent mark on Finland’s educational culture by showing Finnish teacher-educators
that teachers learn from one another while planning their teaching, developing curricu-
lum, co-teaching shared classes, and exploring together the impact on their students’
learning. Most Finnish education reforms during the 1990s were built on these founda-
tional principles of teacher collaboration and professionalism.
The intriguing question is: What is the role of Models of Teaching in the Finnish
educational saga that became well known since the launch of the OECD’s Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000. Finnish 15-year-olds’ achieve-
ment was on top among the OECD countries—against all expectations in Finland. It
was, and still is, difficult to explain the unexpectedly high performance of Finnish
students compared to other countries (Sahlberg, 2021). One common theory has been
that research-based teacher education has equipped Finnish primary schools with
professionals who have advanced capabilities to think about teaching and combine
theory and praxis to benefit different learners in their schools. I have argued that it is
exactly this fertile professional and pedagogical foundation that gave roots to the
Models of Teaching—and learning—to grow in Finnish schools. The verdict? I am
confident to conclude that earlier editions of this book you are reading have made
Finnish teachers better by expanding their understanding of learning and improving
their repertoires of teaching methods.
Having ref lected on our personal histories with Bruce Joyce and Models of Teaching,
it is important that we now say something further about the concept of a model of
teaching and the book itself.

Models of Teaching—an Overview

In Models of Learning Tools for Teaching, we (Joyce, Calhoun, & Hopkins, 2009) wrote that:
“Learning experiences are composed of content, process and social climate. As learners we
xxii Foreword to the Tenth Edition

create for and with our children opportunities to explore and build important areas of
knowledge, develop powerful tools for learning, and live in humanizing social conditions”
(p. 7). Not only is this a pithy description of what Richard Elmore (City et al., 2009) has
called the “instructional core,” it also identifies the crucial characteristic of a model of
teaching, in that it is also a model of learning. Skilled teachers seek to integrate curriculum
content, teaching and learning strategies, and school culture. When they do, the effect is
to lift their students’ academic achievement and simultaneously extend their learning
capability. When teachers add a range of teaching models to their professional repertoire,
they then have the skills to enable their students to learn how to learn at the same time as
acquiring curriculum content.
How we teach has a large impact on our students’ abilities to educate themselves.
Each model of teaching has a core purpose that relates how to organize teaching with
ways of learning. So, for example:

■■ Cooperative group work strategies quicken and deepen learning experiences and gen-
erate meta-cognitive moments. At the same time students also learn how to dis-
cuss, coach each other, and develop social skills.
■■ Inductive teaching moves from the presentation of data to having students sort and
classify data and to think deeply about collecting and sifting information. Working
in this way not only helps students generate hypotheses but also to think in a logi-
cal way.
■■ The synectics teaching model assists students in generating creative solutions to prob-
lems and in so doing develops their creative capacity across the curriculum.
■■ Direct instruction is the most ubiquitous teaching model, widely referred to as
whole-class teaching. It has significant positive impact on student achievement
and can also enhance the student’s ability to extract information and concepts
from lectures and presentations.

In this tenth edition of Models of Teaching, Joyce and Calhoun identify and describe
close to two dozen different models of teaching that have a variety of both precise
pedagogic (for the teacher) and learning effects (for the student). The authors divide
this collection of models into four different families that each ref lect a distinct learn-
ing focus:

Basic information-processing models of teaching: The models in this family assist students to
acquire information, organize it, and explain it. For teachers, these models have a
broad range of pedagogic purposes, including designing lessons, units, courses, and
distance offerings. They also fit well and can deliver across a range of national and
local curriculum frameworks as well as teaching students the methods of the disci-
plines underlying them. These models include the inductive, scientific inquiry,
concept attainment, and the picture word inductive model.
Special purpose information-processing models: The more specialized models are designed
specifically to assist students to use analogies to think divergently (synectics), to
learn how to memorize more effectively (mnemonics), and design presentations
(advance organizer).
The social family of models of teaching: Working together can enhance the learning of
students dramatically. The social family expands what students can do together and
 Foreword to the Tenth Edition   xxiii

generates the creation of democratic relationships in venues large and small. These
models include partners in learning, group investigation, and role playing.
The personal family of models: When teachers engage with students, it is to help them
learn. The challenge is how to give the learner centrality whilst trying to get them
to grow and respond to tasks that will enhance growth. It is here that the non-
directive and inquiry training models play a vital role.
The behavioral family of models: The study of how behavior is acquired has led to a wide
variety of approaches to training and learning. In this section the authors describe
some of the most useful behavioral models, such as explicit instruction and meta-
cognition when teaching reading comprehension, mastery learning, and direct
instruction itself.

In the final section—“The Conditions of Learning and Educators as Curriculum

Developers, Learners, and Leaders of School Renewal”—the authors focus on the
school-level architecture necessary to support the adoption of models of teaching.
They first focus “on how learning new things requires us to make a place for that
learning, integrate it with our current concepts and skills, and cope with the inevitable
discomfort that even joyful learning produces.” They also discuss the application of
Robert Gagné’s work to developing curriculum and designing instruction. And
finally, they reprise their seminal work on how teachers learn new models and how
collaborative study and peer coaching help ensure that this learning is embedded and
can be used in the long haul.
These sections and chapters, although theoretically grounded and empirically evi-
denced, are no dry research summaries. Each model has its own distinctive pedagogy
described in a series of phases, or syntax to use the authors’ word, that are laid out
clearly in a succinct and operational way. The Appendix includes a sample of peer-
coaching guides that complement the models and serve as professional development
tools that can be used in a formative professional relationship to aid implementation
and refine skill development for teachers and students. These are essentially profes-
sional development tools that enable teachers, in collaboration, to learn about and add
individual models to their burgeoning professional repertoires.

Models of Teaching for Equity

Teaching to the success for all is not easy. Teaching is difficult because students are
different. They have different interests; their life circumstances are not the same; and
their brains are wired differently to process information and make meanings of the
world around them. Around the world, schools have become more diverse compared
to what they used to be in the twentieth century. And yet, the overall goals of educa-
tion are often built around achieving both excellence and equity simultaneously.
Until the end of the 2000s, quality of educational outcomes remained the primary,
and often the only, goal that schools and education systems pursued. Since then, as the
OECD (2019) and other international agencies have noted, equity of learning out-
comes has become an integral element of great schools and high-performing educa-
tion systems. In plain terms, equity in education is about fairness—that means that
personal or social circumstances such as gender, ethnic origin, or family background
are not obstacles to achieving educational potential—and inclusion that ensures that all
xxiv Foreword to the Tenth Edition

children in school reach at least a basic minimum level of education. More equitable
education means that differences in student achievement in school are not the result of
differences in family’s wealth, income, power, or possessions—in other words, home
background.
Teaching methods in this book have been tested and researched in a wide range of
educational settings. Since these methods lead to different kinds of learning processes,
their impacts on students’ cognitive, social, and behavioral outcomes also vary
depending on the context in which they are used. The chapters of this book make it
evident that when used appropriately and according to their initial design, these mod-
els of teaching can significantly ensure student achievement. An intriguing question
is: how do these teaching methods serve the growing need of making teaching in
schools improve learning of all students?
Equity of education outcomes is fundamentally about crafting teaching to meet the
needs of different learners in the classroom. Our own lived experiences in schools, just
like those of other teachers, confirm that teaching methods that suit one student don’t
necessarily work for other students. The art and science of good teaching is about
knowledge and skills to use different teaching methods in harmony to offer all stu-
dents better opportunities to achieve their learning goals. Different models of teach-
ing, when used purposefully, can enhance students’ models of learning that allow
them to understand and better regulate their own learning.
Achieving better equity in education requires much more than different pedagogy
or powerful teaching. Research has made it clear that out-of-school factors account
for about 60 percent of the variance in student-measured achievement in school while
the inf luence of teachers and other in-school factors is responsible for about 40 percent
of the variance. We also know that teachers are the most important in-school element
inf luencing student achievement, and that schools’ resources and instructional support
can make a big difference in the equity of these outcomes. Diversity of teaching meth-
ods used in school can make an additional boost to the achievement of different
learners.

A Final Word
We have just mentioned the phrase “the art and science of good teaching.” A brief
reprise on this theme and the role that Models of Teaching plays in achieving this union
is probably a good place to conclude this Foreword. One of the enduring myths in
education is that teaching is either an art or a science. Our response is that it is neither
one, nor the other—it is both. And Models of Teaching, as we have been arguing, ena-
bles teachers to do just that.
Let us put it simply:

■■ Teaching is a science in so far as there are strategies and practices that a body of
research has shown to be effective in enhancing learning. Just like doctors and
other professionals, teachers should use research to inform and understand their
practice. Models of Teaching provides such a rich set of evidence-based protocols.
■■ Teaching is an art in so far as teachers must bring themselves fully into their teaching—
their values, passion, and joie de vivre. But they must also expand their personal reper-
toire of practices so that through a process of reflection they discover how to construct
the most powerful learning experiences for their students. Models of Teaching are
 Foreword to the Tenth Edition   xxv

specifications, not prescriptions, that teachers can internalize into their repertoires to
enhance their personal professional practice.
■ Teaching is an art and a science when teachers are first (science) continually observing
their students in order to see how they learn best; and then (art) using their collec-
tive professional judgment—akin to surgeons operating on a patient or actors
performing in a play—to adapt their teaching practice(s) to fit the learning needs
of their students. Models of Teaching not only provide teachers with guides of
how to do this, but through using the peer-coaching guides establish professional
learning communities in the school to enhance collective practice.

This is the power of Models of Teaching, and we commend this tenth edition to you
warmly. There is much wisdom, inspiration, and joy in the pages that follow. By using
these models of teaching judiciously, as we saw in the quote from earlier, you will
have tools for creating with your students opportunities to explore and build impor-
tant areas of knowledge, develop powerful tools for learning, and live in humanizing
social conditions.
This is the essence of achieving equity through excellence and Models of Teaching
helps us make that aspiration possible.

References
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hopkins D. (Ed.) (1987). Improving the quality of schooling. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Hopkins, D. & Wideen, M. (Eds.) (1984). Alternative perspectives on school improvement. Falmer.
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., & Hopkins, D. (1999). The new structure of school improvement: Inquiring schools
and achieving students. Open University Press.
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., & Hopkins, D. (2009). Models of learning—Tools for teaching (3rd ed.). Open
University Press.
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., Puckey, M., & Hopkins, D. (1997). From England/Inquiring and collabo-
rating at an exemplary school. Educational Leadership, 54(8), 63–66.
OECD (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. Paris: OECD.
Pont, B., Nusche D., & Hopkins D. (Eds). (2008). Improving school leadership, Volume 2: Case studies
on system leadership. Paris: OECD/SSAT.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J., with Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand
hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books.
Sahlberg, P. (Ed.) (1990). Luonnontieteiden opetuksen työtapoja. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
Sahlberg, P. (2018). FinnishEd leadership: Four big, inexpensive ideas to transform education. Corwin.
Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland. New
York: Teachers College Press.
 Preface

Models of Teaching connects educators and policymakers to a supply of well-developed

and studied ways of teaching. These models have strong rationales, have generated
lines of research and evaluation, and provide examples of the kinds of student learning
we can expect from them. All of them are informed by the experience of the hundreds
of educators who have used and refined them. Thus, the models represent a base for
professional teaching—professional meaning “using research and grounded experi-
ence to guide practice.”
Years ago many educators expected that research on teaching would result in a
single model that was superior for all types of educational objectives and person-
related differences among students or at least a set of teaching skills that work for most
students and most objectives. However, that was not the case when we began writing
Models of Teaching, and it is not the case today. Excellent teaching is made up of a rep-
ertoire of skills that are very good for particular purposes but need to be assembled to
generate an optimum learning environment for all our students. In other words, good
teaching has not been a one-dimensional operation.
The pandemic years dramatized the strength of teachers, parents, and students, all
of whom made distance-based teaching and learning work remarkably well. In spite
of negative claims from many publicized nay-sayers, the results from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress indicated that “test scores” were remarkably simi-
lar between 2020 and 2023. Students, teachers, and parents turned out to increase
energy and skill where they had to and f lexing when they needed to. Zoom and
Skype made the virtual a present reality and made peer coaching out of strangers,
while Infinite Campus and similar networks brought parents/caregivers and teachers
closer together.
Even today some policymakers hope that research will reduce the characteristics of
effective teaching into a few principles or a prescribed science of teaching. There are,
in fact, some things that we all should do as teachers, and other things we should
avoid, but it’s an application of knowledge and continuous learning about what works
and about our students, rather than a few principles, that make us effective.
Helping students learn is what we aspire to do. And interactive teaching is not the
only tool we have. All students need a high-quality laptop or tablet. Should a school
be a digital hot spot for its neighborhood? You bet it should! Information and
 Preface   xxvii

communications technology (ICT) f lattens out the distance-caused problems of com-

munication in rural areas and eases person-to-person communication in inner cities.
Some 20 years ago, we worked with the Northern Lights School District in Alberta,
Canada. The district covers a little over 5700 square miles (14,800 km) and spans
124 miles (200 km). In about the middle of the district was a tower designed to
make digital communication available to all the schools in the district. We knew
aff luent suburban schools that were less connected to each other.
For the energetic and ICT-savvy, a wide range of curricular resources are now
commonplace. You can watch international meetings on your screen and order physi-
cal books from libraries near and far. Speaking of which, every classroom in every
school needs to surround its students with several hundred physical books, fiction and
nonfiction. This classroom immersion in books provides access to quality text to read,
mentor texts for use when composing, and disciplinary texts for expanding knowl-
edge. Electronic media gives access to vast resources that represent a real advance over
available on-site print media. The web connects modern classrooms and students to
global networks. The study of history can be supported by original documents that
are easy to access, including graphic material such as the 1,000,000 photos in the
Library of Congress collection (www.loc.gov).
Digital technology enables any class to be connected with classes in many of the
countries of the world, enhancing the study of geography, global connections, geo-
politics. NASA provides information about space exploration that was available to
only insiders a dozen years ago. The Citizen Science projects from https://scistarter.
org/ and CitSci.org to others listed in https://www.citizenscience.gov/# allow stu-
dents to participate in hands-on science activities as they investigate questions, gather
and analyze data, and communicate within a collective inquiry community. And
https://www.sciencefriday.com/ is a delightful site for students and teachers, with
simulations available to incorporate into units and courses. Young children can follow
Jane Goodall’s career from her earliest studies to the development of the worldwide
organization of children and adults who work together to create a better environment
for all living things (including ourselves).
In our case, we have come from writing manuscript on yellow tablets and typing
the result with bottles of corrective f luid on hand. From there, the process evolved to
writing and communicating with editors with word processors and graphics files. And
at present, more of you will experience Models of Teaching as an ebook rather than a
paper book. With both formats backed up by www.modelsofteaching.org, which
brings materials for instructors and students and leads readers to video demonstrations
of models, talks providing tips for learning them, PowerPoint tutorials, and more. We
don’t just write today, we relearn how to write.
The current science and social studies frameworks and literacy and mathematics
standards are greatly improved over their predecessors and provide direction for
K-12 teaching and learning (www.nextgenscience.org, https://www.socialstudies.org/
standards/c3, https://thecorestandards.org). Thus, developed models of teaching can
become even more effective because support materials, both print and electronic, have
become richer.
Our cause is passionate. Education is not only present life; it is also the life of the
future. As time passes, all of these models of teaching will be radically changed or
replaced by better ones. For now, let us give students the best that we know. Or to put
it another way: All the models in this book work with students from every socioeco-
nomic status (SES) and ethnic background!
xxviii Preface

What students learn today affects their lives in the long term. When we teach our
children to read, we are helping them become lifelong readers. When they are learn-
ing to work together, they are becoming collaborative citizens of our democracy.
When they learn science, they are developing the inquiry skills and habits to educate
themselves and solve current and future problems.
Teaching is helping people create themselves. The effects of a teacher’s work are
still multiplying a half-century or more after students’ formal education is completed.
 Preamble
Literacy and Democracy Generated
Educational Research and Development

The Greco-Roman culture furthered literacy and inf luenced Europe, where, in par-
allel cultural cadences, languages and countries were being created whose cultural
variations and migrating citizens were important as the New World was populated.
The ideas of universal literacy and full participatory democracy formed and actualiz-
ing them was uneven, but the idea stayed alive.
Highly educated spokespeople appeared, even in autocratic societies. Consider
these three leaders who spoke strongly about universal education. All of them had
read the Romans, the Greeks, and religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, and
could build on their ideas.

■■ John Amos Comenius (1592–1670) was a Czech religious and educational leader
who advocated universal education to provide high qualities of living for indi-
viduals and collective knowledge for the improvement of society.
■■ Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was a French philosopher who also advocated
an education to enable all citizens to reach their potential and build a strong base
for social improvement. His book Emile feels remarkably relevant today.
■■ John Locke (1632–1704) represents British scholars who advocated universal liter-
acy. A scientist and political activist, he strongly believed that democratic, rather
than authoritarian, processes should make up the social contract and that educa-
tion for all would underpin democratic behavior and institutions.

Colonial America
The first English colonists in America included among them men and women who
could read and write and that fact greatly inf luenced the society that they developed.
The history of schooling in the United States begins with those first settlers. The
documents that founded Plymouth in 1620 contained a compact that promised partici-
patory governance. Soon afterward, William Bradford, who was the elected governor
xxx Preamble

for 30 years, produced written documents that outlined democratic processes and
promised literacy as an obligation of the community. Just 15 years later, the first
schoolhouse, called the Latin Grammar School, later renamed the Boston Latin
School, was built in 1635 as a preparatory school for boys from all socioeconomic classes.
Now, where would the graduates of a preparatory school go to college? Well,
Harvard College was founded in 1636, providing an answer and right in town. An
inscription beside the Johnston Gate that leads to the grounds of Harvard captures the
poignant awareness of the colonists about the generations to come, even as they were
creating their first towns and institutions.

After God had carried us safe to New England/and wee had builded our houses/
provided necessaries for our liveli hood/reard convenient places for Gods
worship/and setled the civill government/one of the next things we longed for/
and looked after was to advance learning/and perpetuate it to posterity/dreading
to leave an illiterate minister/to the churches when our present ministers/shall lie
in the dust.

Note that both the Latin Grammar School and Harvard College provided formal
education to males. Schooling for women was much slower to develop. A striking
example is that it was 1879 before Radcliffe College was established for women on a
“co-institutional basis” with Harvard. In 1999 a complete integration with Harvard
was managed. Ironically, as this is written, in American public colleges today, three-
fifths of the students are females.

The American Revolution and the Early Republic

In the United States, a number of strong voices addressed education during the period
that led up to independence and the ratifying of the Constitution. Prominent in them
were Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson whose talks and writings generated
discussions that continue today. They both believed that education should be universal
and was an essential condition of democracy. ( Jefferson developed a framework where
progression through the levels of education would be attained by success at each level.)
Both argued that issues should be resolved by reasoned argument and empirical
inquiry rather than superstition, tradition, or rhetoric. Processes like that would
depend on an educated citizenry.
Oddly, however, the Constitution did not mention education, and the states became
responsible for establishing it. The colonial states differed widely in their readiness for
this task. Some had made considerable strides by the time of independence. By 1765,
there were 25 newspapers in the 13 colonies (https://www.britannica.com/topic/
American-colonies/Imperial-organization). Boston, alone, had five newspapers by 1770,
including the influential Boston Gazette, which was founded in 1719 (https://www.loc.
gov/rr/news/circulars/bostongazette.txt). Literacy was obviously well-established, despite
slowness in providing education for girls.
And, while declaring that “all men are created equal,” the Declaration of
Independence gave only an indeterminate place to women and none to slaves. Note
that not until 1920 were women granted the right to vote. And in 2023, in the United
States, provisions to ensure that all racial and ethnic groups have equal access to the ballot in all
places in the country are still needed. And reproductive freedoms are still debated.
 Preamble   xxxi

For education, the battle to provide quality education for all has been confounded
by the effects of socioeconomic status. Family and community resources continue to
have a very large effect on both access to and the results of schooling. The models of
teaching in this book reach everyone.

Modern Empirical Educational Research: Building and Testing

Models of Curriculum and Instruction
John Dewey and Progressive Education: The First Major Reform
Movement and the Beginning of Educational Research
John Dewey (1859–1952) had a powerful vision of society and education. He regarded
students as citizens-in-the-making and believed that educational processes should be
based on the needs and responsibilities of citizens in a democracy as individuals and
collectively. Students would be organized into collaborative groups that would be
taught to use scientific inquiry and disciplined discourse as basic tools for learning.
Tracing ideas from Franklin and Jefferson to Dewey shows a direct translation from
ideas in the Constitution to the shaping of education at the dawn of the twentieth
century.
By the early 1900s, a major movement developed as Progressives—political advo-
cates for social improvement—turned their attention to education. Two ideas were
central: One is that preparation for life in a democracy should be conducted with the cooperative,
collaborative processes that are the core of democratic life. The other is to conduct education with
the best tools we have for testing ideas—the methods of scientific inquiry. Thus, cooperative
inquiry becomes the method of education.
As educational research began to develop during the first half of the 1900s, efforts
were made to compare Progressive schools with tradition-conserving schools in dis-
tricts that did not use cooperative-inquiry modes of teaching. A beautifully con-
structed research study compared students from 30 Progressive secondary schools with
students from 30 proudly “traditional” schools through the high school years and
college, dealing with the often-asked question of whether cooperative-inquiry meth-
ods would stand up academically. And they did! The students from the Progressive
schools did well academically and were more actively involved in civic affairs on and
off campus (see Chamberlin and Chamberlin, 1943).

World War II Increases Research and Development in Education

During the 1940s an increasing number of researchers, impelled by the needs of the
military, was funded to study leadership, integrativeness in groups and organizations
(think crews of bombers, warships, and infantry platoons) and various models of
training. Those scholars emerged from the war years with well-developed lines of
inquiry that were applied in civilian institutions. The psychological needs of return-
ing servicemen gave rise to advances in therapy and self-help protocols. Thus a much
larger community of psychologists, social psychologists, and therapists came into
existence. Research on training and interpersonal relations laid the base for models of
teaching that are used to this day (see Lumsdaine and Glaser, 1960). The National
Training Laboratories for Group Development, soon referred to simply as NTL, was
founded in 1946–1947, and generated and expanded ways of developing interpersonal
xxxii Preamble

health for individuals and healthy and effective group and organizational develop-
ment. Simultaneously, the bases for training and group development models of teach-
ing were being laid.

The Post-Sputnik Burst of Energy

Through the first half of the twentieth century, most Americans believed that the
United States possessed the best educational system in the world. Many Europeans
disputed this. Americans disagreed, saying that if European achievement was higher,
it was largely because their systems were selective, favoring high-achieving students,
while the American policy of educating everyone reduced measured quality to a “lowest
common denominator” level.
The discussion about educational quality was abruptly accelerated in 1957 when
USSR scientists succeeded in putting a small satellite into orbit around the Earth, and
it emitted a “mechanical beep” sound as it traveled. The sound of Sputnik caused an
incredible uproar in the United States. Fueled by politicians and the media, a virtual
hysteria occurred. Many wondered if we had been kidding ourselves that our educa-
tion was, really, the best in the world.
A picture of the satellite appears below. (https://www.nasaspacef light.com/
wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-10-04-172511-350x242.jpg)

FIGURE 0.1 Sputnik

 Preamble   xxxiii

The response by the United States was to direct resources into scientific and engi-
neering endeavors (Mazuzan, 1994). In 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) was established and funds for scientific research increased
dramatically. The Department of Defense received considerable resources to apply
science to the development of new technologies. Similarly, funding for the National
Science Foundation (NSF), which had been established in 1950 for research and
development and dissemination of scientific knowledge, was increased substantially.
Education also received serious attention (Hunt, 2023). The United States govern-
ment came, very quickly, to believe that the Soviet educational system had exceeded
ours, ultimately leading to better scientists (and other professions). President
Eisenhower and Congress sought ways to strengthen the U.S. education system at all
levels—elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions. Thus, in 1958, the
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was approved by Congress. NDEA was a
major educational reform act, signaling large-scale involvement by the federal gov-
ernment in school improvement.

The Academic Reform Movements: 1955 to the Present

The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) enabled the federal government to
become active in education. Because educating citizens was the responsibility of the
states, direct action from the federal level, including funding, did not happen until this
time (with the exception of the “Land Grant” legislation in the 1860s). But the reac-
tion to Sputnik was to direct federal monies toward educational development. The
National Science Foundation, together with private philanthropies such as the Ford
and Carnegie Foundations, generated a major reform movement. In addition to the
development of curricular and instructional models, the movement generated consid-
erable amounts of research and evaluation, enabling us to estimate the effects of newly
developed content and process when they are used in schools and classrooms.
Because a considerable amount of research on teaching and curriculum was con-
nected to the academic disciplines, particularly the biological, physical, and social sci-
ences, the effect was to bring scientific concepts and processes into education in three
phases or waves of energy. The first phase took place from the late 1950s until about
1985. The second phase occurred between 1985 and 2008 and built on the first move-
ment. We are in the third phase now, as the National Research Council (2012)—
comprising members from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy
of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine—has published its framework
for K-12 science standards (2012, http://nap.nationalacademies.org/13165) and its
update on implementation, Taking Stock of Science Standards Implementation: Planning for
Progress (2022, https://doi.org/10.17226/26549).

Conducting Research on the Models of Teaching Generated

by the Academic Reform Movements
Studies of Curriculums at the Secondary Level in Mathematics and Science
A set of meta-analyses of more than 300 studies on science curriculum and teaching
was coordinated at the University of Colorado (Anderson, Kahl, Glass, Smith, &
Malone, 1982). Taking into account that the research on science teaching is complex
and studies vary considerably in their objectives and conduct, a persistent focus was on
xxxiv Preamble

the effect of efforts that are characterized within cooperative/inductive inquiry.

Particularly, did students acquire information, build and study data sets, form concepts
by organizing and analyzing information in those sets, and engage in investigations
(formulate questions, devise methods, and study results)? Put another way, did the
students learn academic content and processes for solving problems by studying sci-
ence content with empirical methods and engaging with the inductive processes that
cross curriculum areas?
Ronald D. Anderson (1983), a senior researcher at the Laboratory for Research in
Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Colorado in Boulder, sum-
marizes concisely the results of the sets of studies: “Pertinent information from four
of the meta-analyses is discussed here and, in general, points to a positive vote for
inquiry teaching” (p. 500). Anderson, however, was concerned about the extent
that inquiry methods are actually implemented in long-term curricular implemen-
tations. He points out that in the Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport (1983) meta-analysis
of 105 studies (1000 classrooms with, conservatively, 150,000 students), degrees of
use of inquiry methods did not generate differences in effects. However, even in the
control groups, all of the curricula studied were based on science content and pro-
cesses, and most of the studies were of six months or more, so differences of degree
may not be large.

Studies at the Elementary Level

In addition to the set of University of Colorado studies, Bredderman (1983) pulled
together the studies of the inquiry-oriented, hands-on science curriculum at the ele-
mentary level.
Bredderman drew on research on three “activity-based” programs funded through
federal resources and assembled by scholars in education, scholars and district consult-
ants in the sciences, and teachers. The three programs varied considerably in structure,
with the Elementary Science Study being the most open ended and Science: A Process
Approach being the most structured. None were structured around textbooks in ele-
mentary science. Students acquired data largely through observation and experimen-
tation. Among the three programs, there were 57 controlled studies reported over a
five-year period, involving 900 classrooms and, conservatively, about 13,000 students.
Two-thirds of the studies involved ten or more classrooms. Half of the studies were a
year or more long, and most lasted two years or longer.
The mean effect size for learning science processes was 0.52. The effect size for
scientific content was 0.16. Attitude toward science and process was 0.28. Smaller
subsets examined effects on creativity (0.42) and measures of intelligence (0.48).
Computation and mathematical understanding increased modestly. The aggregated
mean effect size was 0.30 (Bredderman, 1983, p. 512).
Those curriculums emphasized the parent disciplines of the sciences, mathe-
matics, social sciences, and literacy and emphasized teaching that used the collabo-
rative inquiry processes that facilitated knowledge and skill attainment. In a real
sense, the research tested the results of collaborative, inquiry-based curriculum
and instruction.

The Second Phase of the Academic Reform Movement

Over the next 20 years, research on inquiry teaching continued, and in 2010, Minner,
Levy, and Century presented a synthesis that included 138 studies from 1984 to 2002.
Nearly 2000 classrooms and about 40,000 students were involved.
 Preamble   xxxv

Like Anderson 27 years before them, Minner, Levy, and Century are able to make
a definitive statement about the effectiveness of the inquiry-based science curriculum
during what we characterize as the second phase of the Academic Reform Movement.

Findings … indicate a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-based instructional

practices, particularly instruction that emphasizes students’ active thinking and
drawing conclusions from data. Teaching strategies that actively engage students in
the learning process through scientific investigations are more likely to increase
conceptual understanding than are strategies that rely on more passive techniques.
(p. 474)

Generally speaking, the results from the Minner, Levy, and Century synthesis are
somewhat larger than the results from the studies associated with the Academic
Reform Movement. Probably this is a result of the increased refinements in curricu-
lum and instruction—and we can expect more.

The Third Phase of the Academic Reform Movement

The National Academy of Science’s Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Research Council, 2012) provides the conceptual
foundation for the next core curriculum in science and has generated a third phase of
the Academic Reform Movement. The inclusion of engineering and technological
content enhances content and process significantly. From the 60 years of studies drawn
on previously, we can predict that not only the teaching/learning process will be
upgraded, but that student learning will also rise.
The authors of the framework recommend even more powerful curricula than their
predecessors. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were derived from the
framework and designed to help teachers bring this curriculum to their K-12 students
(National Research Council, 2013). The development of hybrid curricula that draw on
information and communication technology (ICT) and the increased use of interactive
electronic media in and out of school should increase the use of investigation as part of
the curriculum. There is now ample evidence that the success of ICT in education will
depend on the models of teaching and learning that are implemented.
STEM initiatives support and go beyond NGSS. The director of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) began using the acronym for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in 2001. That same year, governors of seven
states began securing extra funding for science and/or STEM education. In 2015,
Congress passed the STEM Education Act of 2015, strengthening teacher training and
adding computer science to the STEM curriculum. And the effort to improve instruc-
tion and student learning within and across these disciplines continues with the Raise
the Bar: STEM Excellence for All Students (U.S. Department of Education, 2022).
The major themes of the first Academic Reform Movement are reiterated and expanded
in the frameworks and initiatives described above. Again, the disciplines are emphasized (the
documents—Framework for K-12 Science Education, Next Generation Science Standards, Common
Core State Standards in Mathematics and English Language Arts—are courses in themselves), but
applications to problem-solving, collaboration, and multidisciplinary instruction have a
strong emphasis, as does attention to student agency and preparing students to successfully
navigate the twenty-first century, multiple workplaces, and higher education.
The time between the research conducted during World War II and now generated
many of the models of teaching introduced in the pages that follow.
PA R T

I
Models of Teaching and
Communities of Learners

We survey a selection of models of teaching, examine them as models of learning for

students, and consider how to build communities of learners.
Chapter 1 opens our inquiry. We examine the concept of models of teaching and
learning, and begin to study where these models have come from. In Chapter 2, we
delve into the social aspects of learning, for effective learning in most classrooms
involves the development of communities of learners. The models of teaching pre-
sented are selected not only by how well they help students achieve the specific objec-
tives toward which they are directed (for example, social skill, information, ideas,
self-esteem, creativity) but also by how well they increase the ability to learn, which is
their fundamental purpose.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003455370-1
CHAPTER

1
The Search for Effective
Ways to Educate
Introducing the Models of Teaching

Effective teaching is made up of a toolkit of ways to reach students and help them
build their reservoir of knowledge, skills, and enduring values.

The classic definition of teaching is creating environments to facilitate learning. A

model of teaching is a way of building a nurturant and stimulating ecosystem within
which the students learn by interacting with its components. Various models pull stu-
dents into particular types of content (knowledge, values, skills) and increase their
competence to grow in the personal, social, and academic domains.
We use models in many ways, ranging from planning and using lessons, units, and
curricula, to designing instructional materials, including multimedia programs. This
concept replaces the “gas station” image of education, where students drop by to be
loaded with cognitive fuel. That rather obsolete picture of teaching emphasizes the
time-honored picture of a person imparting knowledge or skill by talking, exhorting,
and drilling students—taking them through their paces in a grinding fashion. Happily,
there are models for designing and delivering good lectures, motivating students, and
carrying out effective lessons. There are times when we need to use the traditional
delivery or transmission modes, but when we do, we should use the best models avail-
able for designing learning experiences and always be aware of the purposes that any
approach can and cannot fulfill.
The last few decades have generated a number of fresh ways to enhance learning
environments that existed only in dreams when we were writing the first edition of
Models of Teaching. Even then we were using film, video recording and playback, simu-
lations, a dozen or so models of teaching, and a variety of other technologies both in
our school and our teacher education programs. Those media are still important, but
some are still underused in schools and universities. The best models of teaching in
the earlier era are still effective today, along with some new ones, and all are enhanced
by information and communication technology (ICT) and the available digital edu-
cation tools that enable students to have access to more powerful sources of informa-
tion for processing. We don’t yet know the impact of AI on schools, but believe the
innovations it generates will permeate classrooms more quickly than previous
technology.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003455370-2
4 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

The Search for a Professional Repertoire: Models of Teaching Emerged

We have been fortunate enough to study with many educators who have developed
and tested a variety of approaches to education and have developed the literature from
the 1960s to the present. We visit schools and classrooms and study current research on
teaching and learning. We also study teaching in settings other than K-12 schools,
such as therapies and training in industrial, military, and athletic settings.
We have found models of teaching in abundance. Some have broad applications,
whereas others are designed for specific purposes. They range from simple, direct
procedures that yield immediate results to complex strategies that students acquire
gradually from patient and skillful instruction.
For Models of Teaching, we selected models that constitute a basic repertoire for
schooling. With these models we can accomplish most of the common goals of
schools—and at a high standard. In any school, students can achieve many goals that
only outstanding students in outstanding schools once aspired to achieve. Using models
in combination, we can design schools, curricula, units, and lessons. The selection
includes many, but not all, of the major philosophical and psychological orientations
toward teaching and learning. All have a solid theoretical basis—that is, their creators
provide us with a rationale that explains why we expect them to achieve the goals for
which they were designed. The selected models also have histories of extensive practice
behind them: they have been refined through experience so that they can be used
comfortably and efficiently in classrooms and other educational settings. Furthermore,
they are adaptable to the learning styles of students and to the requirements of many
curriculum areas. Education comes to curriculum standards with a well-stocked store-
house of effective models that address the most demanding standards.
In addition to being validated by experience, all are backed by formal research and
disciplined action research that tests their theories and their abilities to yield positive
effects. The amount of related research varies from model to model. Some are backed
by a few studies; others have hundreds of items of research. As we discuss each model,
we provide key references and links—ones that provide access to the research litera-
ture and will include page-long descriptions of some of the more revealing studies.
They were designed to have positive effects on student learning, and we try to make
the warrants (evidence and reasoned analysis) under their stated effects as transparent
as possible.
We carried out development and research on various models and on methods for
teaching them to teacher candidates and in-service teachers. At the same time Bruce
and Fred Lighthall, capitalizing on studies of how people attain concepts and build
them, developed a concept attainment model that turned the research into an instruc-
tionally useful configuration. From that research and the creation of print materials
and video-taped demonstrations, we reached the point where it was possible to write
the first edition of Models of Teaching.

Research on Models and Preparing Teachers to Use Them

During the years that followed, research was developed with three types of objectives
applied to specific models.

■■ One was directed at engineering the model and learning if it could help students
acquire the behaviors embedded in it.
 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate   5

■■ Two was determining whether it could have short-term effects on student learn-
ing related to very specific content.
■■ Three was whether, as part of a curriculum area or a school improvement effort, it
would result in improving student learning in general.

For example, synectics is designed to teach students to create analogies. The first type
of research objective on the model was to learn whether it enables students to do just
that—to create analogies, particularly metaphors. The second type was whether the
model can enable students to apply analogies to curriculum areas such as writing or
use them to think conceptually about problems and complex dimensions in specific
areas, such as using analogies to help generate ways of increasing job opportunities in
the communities where the students live. The third type of research was whether,
possibly in conjunction with other models, it can increase student learning in general,
such as in the social studies or problem-solving in mathematics. In this type of study,
the use of the model or models is compared with results from the “traditional” or
normal mode in schools at the time when the research is conducted.
All models have been accompanied by the first type, assessing whether students can
learn the basic skills, knowledge, or attitudes the model was designed for and can use
them. All have examined whether students can transfer the model to increase learning
in specific areas. And several have been tested in general curriculum or school
improvement efforts. As each model is presented, we will inquire into the research
that has accompanied its development.

Models of Teaching as an Educator’s Basic Toolkit

No one way of teaching builds the skills of learning that embrace the whole of what
needs to be learned. Taken together, however, several strong models help students
build the complement of learning skills that enable them to fully educate themselves.
Any given model builds part of the set of ways of learning that students need to
develop fully in personal, social, and academic domains of inquiry. Each model pulls
students into particular types of content (knowledge, values, skills, self-understanding)
while increasing their competence to grow in the long term.

The Families of Models

We have grouped the models of teaching into four families whose members share
orientations toward human beings and how they learn. These are:

■■ The Information-Processing Family

■■ The Social Family
■■ The Personal Family
■■ The Behavioral Systems Family

We turn now to these four families, what they emphasize, and the models and the
people who invented them, studied them, and advocated for them. As you read, keep
in mind that, as a teacher, you can begin with a few that have wide applicability and
then add others to reach particular goals more readily.
6 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

The Information Processing Family

Basic Information-Processing Models (Part II)
Information-processing models emphasize ways of enhancing the human being’s
innate drive to make sense of the world by acquiring and organizing data, sensing
problems and generating solutions to them, and developing concepts and language for
conveying them. Some models help the learner find information and build concepts
and hypotheses to test. Some emphasize teaching concepts directly. Some generate
creative thinking. Others teach the processes of the disciplines that underlie the core
subjects. All are designed to enhance general intellectual ability.
Seven information-processing models are discussed in Part II and III. Part II is
focused on four broadly applicable models and Part III on more narrowly oriented
“special purpose” models. Table 1.1 displays their names and the primary developers
and redevelopers of each. In some cases, dozens of research-practitioners have contrib-
uted to the creation and renewal of particular approaches to teaching.

TABLE 1.1 Information-processing models

Model Developer Purpose

(Redeveloper)

Inductive thinking* (Classification) Hilda Taba Development of classification skills, hypothesis building
(Bruce Joyce and testing, and understanding of how to build
& many others) conceptual understanding of content areas

Scientific inquiry* Joseph Schwab and Learning the research system of the academic
many others disciplines—how knowledge is produced and organized

Concept attainment* Jerome Bruner Learning concepts and studying strategies for attaining
Fred Lighthall and applying them; building and testing hypotheses
(Bruce Joyce)

Picture word inductive model* Emily Calhoun Learning to read and write; inquiry into language

Synectics* William Gordon Help break set in problem solving and gain new
perspectives on topic

Mnemonics* Michael Pressley Increase ability to acquire information, concepts,

Joel Levin (and conceptual systems, and metacognitive control of
associated scholars) information processing capability

Advance organizers* David Ausubel (and Increase ability to absorb information and organize it,
many others) especially in learning from lectures and readings
Cognitive growth Jean Piaget Increase general intellectual development and adjust
Irving Sigel instruction to facilitate intellectual growth
Constance Kamii
Edmund Sullivan
* Indicates a model that has a full chapter or section in this text
 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate   7

Inductive Thinking (Chapter 3)

The ability to analyze information and create concepts is generally regarded as the
fundamental thinking skill. Although the model has been discussed since ancient
times, the contemporary literature was given movement by the work of Hilda Taba
(1966) and contemporaries who studied how to teach students to find and organize
information and to build and test hypotheses. The model has been used in a wide
variety of curriculum areas and with students of all ages—it is not confined to the
sciences. Phonics and structural analysis depend on concept learning, as do rules of
grammar. The structure of the field of literature is based on classification. The
study of communities, nations, and history requires concept learning. Even if con-
cept learning were not so critical in the development of thought, the organization
of information is so fundamental to curriculum areas that inductive thinking
would be a very important model for learning and teaching school subjects. The
model as presented is based on the adaptations by Joyce and Calhoun (1996, 1998),
and Joyce, Hrycauk, and Calhoun (2001) in programs designed to accelerate stu-
dent ability to learn.
This model is listed first because inductive processes are such an important dimen-
sion of cognition and cognitive ability, because it leads easily to cooperative study and
action, and because it combines well with other models.

Scientific Inquiry (Chapter 4)

The Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Concepts, and Core Ideas and Next
Generation Science Standards (National Research Council, 2012, 2013) are marvelous
documents that set forth a forward-looking framework for K-12 science curriculum
and teaching. The comprehensive scope and readable style of the Framework make it a
fine resource for teachers of all grade levels and in all science areas. The inclusion of
engineering and technology makes applied science more prominent than in the past
and the “cross-cutting concepts” that look across the disciplines are an important
contribution to science curriculum. The specificity of the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) describes student expectations and provides much guidance for
teachers as they design instruction and work on implementation. However, much
remains to be done in implementing the vision of the Framework and the student per-
formances described in the NGSS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2022a). Scientific inquiry can accelerate this implementation and help
teachers engage students in the practices that scientists employ as they investigate and
build models and theories about the world.

Concept Attainment (Chapter 5)

Originally built around studies conducted by Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1967),
and adapted and applied to education by Lighthall, Joyce, and others, concept attain-
ment is a close relative of the inductive model. Whereas the inductive process calls on
students to form concepts, concept analysis leads the students to attain concepts devel-
oped by others. The teacher develops a data set containing exemplars of a concept and
items where the attributes of the concept are not present. The students then study
pairs of contrasting items until they are clear about the concept. The model is an effi-
cient method for presenting organized information from a wide range of topics to
students at every stage of development and also enables students to become more
effective at concept formation.
8 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

The Picture Word Inductive Model (PWIM) (Chapter 6)

Developed by Emily Calhoun (1999), this model was designed from research on
how students acquire print literacy, particularly reading and writing, but also
how listening–speaking vocabularies are developed. PWIM incorporates the
inductive thinking and concept attainment models as students study words, sen-
tences, and paragraphs. The model is the core of some very effective curricula
where kindergarten and primary students learned to read and older beginning
readers and writers were engaged in “safety net” programs for upper elementary,
middle school, and high school students (see Joyce, Calhoun, Jutras, & Newlove,
2006; and Joyce & Calhoun, 2010, 2012). ICT provides access to enormous reser-
voirs of pictures that can be used in PWIM and support for investigations initi-
ated with the model.

Special Purpose Information-Processing Models (Part III)

All the basic models teach us ways of learning. These special-purpose models
enhance particular capacities. Synectics teaches how to build and use analogies to
express ourselves and solve problems. Mnemonics teaches ways of learning for the
long-term, and how, as teachers, to teach so that content and skills are retained.
The Advance Organizer shows us how to structure presentations, from talks to
movies and simulations, so that the message is clear and the facts stick with our
students.

Synectics (Chapter 7)
Developed first for use with “creativity groups” in industrial settings, synectics was
adapted by William Gordon (1961) for use in elementary and secondary education.
Synectics is designed to help people “break set” in problem-solving and writing activi-
ties and to gain new perspectives on topics from a wide range of fields. In the class-
room it is introduced to students in a series of sessions until they can apply the
procedures individually and in cooperative groups. Although designed as a direct
stimulus to creative thought, synectics has the side effect of promoting collaborative
work and study skills and a feeling of camaraderie among students. Studies and devel-
opment by Keyes (2006) and Glynn (1994, 2015) have pushed the model a welcome
new distance.

Mnemonics and Memorization (Chapter 8)

Mnemonics are strategies for memorizing and assimilating information. Teachers can
use mnemonics to guide their presentations of material (teaching in such a way that
students can easily absorb the information), and they can teach devices that students
can use to enhance their individual and cooperative study of information and con-
cepts. This model also has been tested over many curriculum areas and with students
of many ages and characteristics. We include variations developed by Pressley, Levin,
and Delaney (1982); Levin and Levin (1990); and popular applications by Lorayne and
Lucas (1974) and Lucas (2001). Because memorization is sometimes confused with
repetitious, rote learning of obscure or arcane terms and trivial information, people
sometimes assume that mnemonics deal only with the lowest level of information.
That is by no means true. Mnemonics can be used to help people master complex
concepts, and in addition they can be a great deal of fun.
 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate   9

Advance Organizers (Chapter 9)

During the last 60 years this model, formulated by David Ausubel (1963), has accumu-
lated a good-sized body of research. The model is designed to provide students with a
cognitive structure for comprehending material presented through lectures, readings,
and other media. It has been employed with almost every conceivable content and
with students of every age. It can be easily combined with other models, for example,
when presentations are mixed with inductive activity.
Table 1.1 displays the information processing models and their inventors.

The Social Family

When we work together, we generate a collective energy called synergy. The social
models of teaching are constructed to take advantage of this phenomenon by building
learning communities. Essentially, classroom management is a matter of developing
cooperative relationships in the classroom. The development of positive school cultures
is a process of developing integrative and productive ways of interacting and norms that
support vigorous learning activity. Our selections for the social family of models includes
Partners in Learning for cooperative learning, Group Investigation for collaboratively
solving problems and building projects, and role playing for the study of values.

Partners in Learning (Chapter 10)

There has been a great deal of development work on cooperative learning and devel-
oping strategies that help students work effectively together. The contributions of
three teams—led respectively by Roger and David Johnson, Robert Slavin, and
Shlomo Sharan—have been particularly notable, but the entire cooperative learning
community has been active in exchanging information and techniques and in con-
ducting and analyzing research. The result is a large number of effective means of
organizing students to work together. These range from teaching students to carry
out simple learning tasks in pairs to complex models for organizing classes and even
organizing whole schools into learning communities.
Cooperative learning procedures can facilitate learning across all curriculum
areas, ages, and academic learning goals, as well as improve self-esteem, social skills,
and solidarity. Constructive controversy, a form of cooperative learning, can improve
decision making, discourse when there are conf licting views, and creativity. And as
Johnson and Johnson (2018/2019, Ch. 5, p. 59) remind us, it “is the foundation on
which many of the active learning procedures are based.”

Group Investigation (Chapter 11)

John Dewey (1916) was the major spokesperson for the idea—extended and refined by
a great many teachers and shaped into a powerful definition by Herbert Thelen
(1960)—that education in a democratic society should teach the democratic process
directly. A substantial part of students’ education should be through cooperative
inquiry into important social and academic problems. The model also provides a social
organization within which many other models can be used when appropriate. Group
investigation has been used in all subject areas, with children of all ages, and even as
the core social model for entire schools (Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 1943; Joyce,
Calhoun, & Hopkins, 1999).
10 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

Group Investigation requires advanced cooperation as students seek to answer dif-

ficult questions and try to solve puzzling situations and problems. The model is
designed to lead students to clarify questions/define problems, explore various per-
spectives, and study together to master information, ideas, and skills—simultaneously
developing their social competence. The teacher or facilitator organizes the group
process and disciplines it, helps the students find and organize information, and
ensures that there is a vigorous level of activity and discourse. Sharan and Shachar
(1988) and Joyce and Calhoun (1998) have extended the model and combined it with
findings on the development of inquiring groups. It can also function as the social
framework for project-based and problem-based learning.

Role Playing (Chapter 12)

Role playing is included next because it leads students to understand social behavior,
their role in social interactions, and ways of solving problems more effectively.
Designed by Fannie and George Shaftel (1982) specifically to help students study their
social values and ref lect on them, role playing also helps students collect and organize
information about social issues, develop empathy with others, and attempt to improve
their social skills. In addition, the model asks students to “act out” conf licts, learn to
take the roles of others, and observe social behavior. It is an excellent model for use
with restorative practices, and with appropriate adaptation, role playing can be used
with students of all ages.
Table 1.2 identifies the models and several of the developers of the social models.

TABLE 1.2 Social models

Model Developer Purpose

Partners in Learning* David Johnson Development of interdependent strategies of social

Roger Johnson interaction; understanding of self–other relationships and
Elizabeth Cohen emotions

Structured social inquiry Robert Slavin and colleagues Academic inquiry and social and personal development;
cooperative strategies for approaching academic study

Group investigation* John Dewey Development of skills for participation in democratic

Herbert Thelen process; simultaneously emphasizes social development,
Shlomo Sharan academic skills, and personal understanding
Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz

Social inquiry Byron Massialas Social problem solving through collective academic study
Benjamin Cox and logical reasoning

Laboratory method National Training Laboratory Understanding of group dynamics, leadership,

(many contributors) understanding of personal styles

Role playing* Fannie Shaftel Study of values and their role in social interaction; personal
George Shaftel understanding of values and behavior
Jurisprudential inquiry James Shaver Analysis of policy issues through a jurisprudential
Donald Oliver framework; collection of data, analysis of value questions
and positions, study of personal beliefs
* Indicates a model that has a full chapter or section in this text
 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate   11

The Personal Family

Ultimately, human reality resides in our individual consciousnesses. We develop
unique personalities and see the world from perspectives that are the products of our
experiences and positions. Common understandings are a product of the negotiation
of individuals who must live and work and create families together.
The personal models of learning begin from the perspective of the self hood of
the individual. They attempt to shape education so that we come to understand
ourselves better, take responsibility for our education, and learn to reach beyond
our current development to become stronger, more sensitive, and more creative
in our search for high-quality lives. The cluster of personal models pays great
attention to the individual perspective and seeks to encourage productive inde-
pendence, so that people become increasingly self-aware and responsible for their
own destinies.

Nondirective Teaching (Chapter 13)

Nondirective Teaching is the key to personalized learning, as the teacher works to
lead students to understand themselves as they learn. Working non-directly requires
tremendous energy
The model is used in several ways. First, at the most general (and least com-
mon) level, it is used as the basic model for the operation of entire educational
programs (Neill, 1960). Second, it is used in combination with other models to
ensure that contact is made with the students. In this role, it moderates the edu-
cational environment. Third, it is used when students are planning independent
and cooperative study projects. Fourth, it is used periodically when counseling
students, f inding out what they are thinking and feeling, and helping them
understand what they are about. Although designed to promote self-understanding
and independence, it has fared well as a contributor to a wide range of academic
objectives. Cornelius-White’s (2007) review of many years of research on
learner-centered, teacher–student relationships—119 studies involving more than
300,000 students—examined the impact on cognitive, affective, and behavioral
outcomes and reported positive effects and, importantly, that for applications
where academic content was included, gains in content were correlated with gains
in affect, including self-concepts.

Inquiry Training (Chapter 14)

The inquiry training model was developed by Richard Suchman (1961) to teach stu-
dents a process for investigating and explaining unusual phenomena. Suchman’s model
takes students through miniature versions of the kinds of procedures that scholars use
to organize knowledge and generate principles. Based on a conception of the scientific
method, it attempts to teach students some of the skills, habits, and language of schol-
arly inquiry.
One premise of the model is that a student’s desire to know will lead to engage-
ment with the content. Along with improving students questioning and analytical
skills and their capacity to construct knowledge in the content being studied,
another objective of the model was for students to transfer these skills or ways of
learning to other areas of their lives, in and out of school, for academic and personal
issues.
Table 1.3 displays some of these models and their developers.
12 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

TABLE 1.3 Personal models

Model Developer Purpose

Nondirective teaching* Carl Rogers Building capacity for personal development, self-understanding,
autonomy, and self-esteem

Inquiry training* Richard Suchman Building basic inquiry skills and developing the capacity to construct
knowledge and modify it based on new information

Positive self-concepts* Abraham Maslow Development of personal understanding and capacity for development

Awareness training Fritz Perls Increasing self-understanding, self-esteem, and capacity for
exploration; development of interpersonal sensitivity and empathy

Classroom meeting William Glasser Development of self-understanding and responsibility to self and others
Conceptual systems David Hunt Increasing personal complexity and flexibility in processing information
and interacting with others
* Indicates a model that has a full chapter or section in this text

The Behavioral Systems Family

A common theoretical base—most commonly called social learning theory, but also
known as behavior modification, behavior therapy, and cybernetics—guides the design of the
models in this family. The stance taken is that human beings are self-correcting com-
munication systems that modify behavior in response to information about how suc-
cessfully tasks are navigated. For example, imagine a human being who is climbing
(the task) an unfamiliar staircase in the dark. The first few steps are tentative as the
foot reaches for the treads. If the stride is too high, feedback is received as the foot
encounters air and has to descend to make contact with the surface. If a step is too low,
feedback results as the foot hits the riser. Gradually, behavior is adjusted in accordance
with the feedback until progress up the stairs is relatively comfortable.
Capitalizing on knowledge about how people respond to tasks and feedback, psy-
chologists (see especially Skinner, 1953) learned how to organize task and feedback
structures to make it easy for human beings’ self-correcting capability to function. The
result includes programs for reducing phobias, learning to read and compute, develop-
ing social and athletic skills, replacing anxiety with relaxation, and learning the com-
plexes of intellectual, social, and physical skills necessary to pilot an airplane or a space
shuttle. Because these models concentrate on observable behavior and clearly defined
tasks and methods for communicating progress to the student, this family of teaching
models has a firm research foundation. The behavioral models have been widely used
in programmed instruction and online courses. Behavioral techniques are appropriate
for learners of all ages and for an impressive range of educational goals.

Using Explicit Instruction and Metacognition When Teaching Reading

Comprehension (Chapter 15)
Here we begin with the explicit teaching of reading comprehension strategies.
Although reading without comprehension is not really reading, the explicit teaching
and mental modeling of comprehension has not been common in schools. However,
research and development, practice, and results have given us a serviceable model.
 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate   13

Every teacher will find this model useful, although many find that their initial
attempts at sharing their thinking as they comprehend is challenging.

Mastery Learning (Chapter 16)

The most common application of behavioral systems theory for academic goals takes
the form of what is called mastery learning (Bloom, 1971). First, material to be learned
is divided into sections ranging from the simple to the complex. The material is pre-
sented to the students, generally working as individuals, through appropriate media
(readings, video clips, activities). Piece by piece, the students work their way succes-
sively through the units of materials, after each of which they take a test designed to
help them find out what they have learned. If they have not mastered any given unit,
they can repeat it or an equivalent version until they have mastered the material.
Instructional systems based on this model have been used to provide instruction to
students of all ages in areas ranging from the basic skills to highly complex material
in the academic disciplines. With appropriate adaptation, they have also been used
with gifted and talented students, students with emotional problems, and athletes and
astronauts.

Direct Instruction (Chapter 17)

From studies of the differences between more and less effective teachers and from
social learning theory, a paradigm for instructing directly has been assembled. Direct
statements of objectives, sets of activities clearly related to the objectives, careful
monitoring of progress, feedback about achievement, and tactics for achieving more
effectively are linked with sets of guidelines for facilitating learning. Two approaches
to training have been developed from the cybernetic group of behavior theorists. One
is a theory-to-practice model and the other is simulation. The focus here is on the
theory-to-practice model, which mixes information about a skill with demonstra-
tions, practice, feedback, and coaching until the skill is mastered. For example, if an
arithmetic skill is the objective, it is explained and demonstrated, practice is given
with corrective feedback, and the student is asked to apply it with coaching from peers
or the instructor. This variation is also commonly used for athletic training.
Table 1.4 displays the models and their developers.

Common Characteristics Across All Models

Learning is the reason for all models, but other attributes are common and integral to
the teaching stances represented by the models. Here are some of the characteristics
that all of the selected models share.

Helping Students Learn How to Learn

In their own fashion, each of the models include helping students increase their reper-
toire of strategies for learning. While using any model, teachers study how the students
learn and help them expand their capacity to do so.

■■ Helping students take responsibility for learning and supporting their

efforts. Even when being highly directive, which can be the case while introduc-
ing students to new ways of learning, we emphasize that they need to build the
14 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

TABLE 1.4 Behavioral models

Model Developer Purpose

Social learning Albert Bandura The management of behavior: learning new

Carl Thoresen patterns of behavior, reducing phobic and other
Wes Becker dysfunctional patterns, learning self-control

Explicit instruction P. David Pearson & Learning to be a strategic reader

and metacognition* Margaret Gallagher
Ruth Garner
Gerald Duffy
Laura Roehler and others

Mastery learning* Benjamin Bloom Mastery of academic skills and content of all types
James Block

Programmed learning B. F. Skinner Mastery of skills, concepts, factual information

Direct instruction* Thomas Good Mastery of academic content and skills in a wide
Jere Brophy range of areas of study
Wes Becker
Siegfried Englemann
Carl Bereiter

Simulation Carl Smith & Mary Foltz Smith Mastery of complex skills and concepts in a wide
provided guidance through 1960s range of areas of study
when design had matured
Harold Guetzkow
Many developers
Anxiety reduction David Rinn Control over aversive reactions; applications in
Joseph Wolpe treatment and self-treatment of avoidance and
John Masters dysfunctional patterns of response
* Indicates a model that has a full chapter or section in this text

capacity to take increasing responsibility for their learning. We move from a need
to provide extensive coaching to students to a situation where students are coach-
ing themselves.
■■ Helping students reach toward new knowledge, skills, and self-understand-
ing. The essence of learning, in school and out, is acquiring new cognitions, abilities,
and even emotions and values. A major part of teaching is helping students learn to go
beyond where they are. When a six-year-old says, “I don’t like to read!” the underly-
ing emotion is that the child wants to avoid the labor of learning to read and, possibly,
the feeling of embarrassment while overcoming difficulties in learning.

A Constructivist Orientation
In their own fashions, all these models seek to help students build knowledge, skills, and
values. The instructional aims of several models are almost purely constructivist with
respect to academic content (see Vygotsky, 1986). For example, inductive inquiry
(Chapter 3) designs the environment so that the student constructs categories, tests them,
and from them generates inferences and hypotheses, leading to more testing. A very
 The Search for Effective Ways to Educate   15

different model, nondirective teaching (Chapter 13), is designed to help students under-
stand themselves better—to construct self-knowledge—and set goals in the personal,
social, and academic domains.

Scaffolding the Learning Process

Built into their processes, all the selected models provide avenues for teachers to
“boost” students over difficulties and into the next levels of learning. Vygotsky
described the process as seeking the “zone of proximal development” where learning
tasks are at a level slightly above the student’s zone of complete comfort, but not so far
above that the student cannot manage. Conceptual systems theorists, including the
present authors, describe this as providing an “optimal mismatch” designed to enable
students to pull themselves into ever-higher levels of capability (see Chapter 18). For
example, when teaching new skills with direct instruction models (as in Chapter 17), a
skill is explained and demonstrated and then the student has to try the skill. At that
point, if a student shies away, scaffolding in the form of encouragement may be enough
to lift them to try. Possibly more explanation or another demonstration may be in
order, but providing motivation may be the difference between success and discour-
agement. Scaffolding by a teacher can be a critical support when a student is engaged
in distance learning, such as taking part or all of a course online. More than ever,
students need to learn to profit from distance offerings. Even those who are highly
skilled at downloading and learning to play games may need help when downloading,
organizing, and using large quantities of information.

Formative Assessment and Adjustments

Closely related to scaffolding is the use of formative assessment to determine whether
more or a different kind of support is needed to help a student make progress. ICT is
an increasingly important resource for classes as a whole, as well as providing accel-
eration for students who are sprinting ahead and tutoring for those who need extra
help along the way. Helping students become aware of their progress and needs is a
critical component of formative assessment. Parents are also brought into the process
when they can help, which is frequently. All models of teaching provide the oppor-
tunity for teachers and students to study progress, continue things that are working
well, and make adjustments by adding processes and replacing ones that are not
working.

Twenty-First-Century Skills
We continue to focus on what is termed twenty-first-century skills—types of exper-
tise that have come to the fore as the global, multicultural, and digital worlds continue
to expand. Some twenty-first-century skills are versions of competence that have been
around for a while. Some have been emphasized in current literacy, science, and social
studies standards, and some are emerging as digital technology and artificial intelli-
gence expand. They are not just a collection of technology or ICT skills. Though ICT
literacy is important, the vital skills are cognitive: learning to question, to inquire, to
build and test ideas, to categorize, to summarize and synthesize, to argue with evi-
dence, to understand the perspectives of others. These have been with us a long time,
and they continue to be essential, more so now than when we wrote the last edition of
16 Models of Teaching and Communities of Learners

Models of Teaching. However, while everyone may not need coding, everyone needs
the skills for searching the web and analyzing the veracity of sources; for locating
and using distance instruction; for using software for word processing, graphics,
photo and video editing; for organizing and manipulating data; and for communi-
cating digitally in multiple modes, whether it’s mini-documentaries, podcasts,
photo essays, etc.

Cultural Literacy and Global Awareness

One of the most striking characteristics of today’s digital world is the rise of a global,
cross-national culture and its effects on relations near and far, including our classrooms
and our neighborhoods and our homes. These effects change the nature of our society,
increase interdependence, and generate a considerable need for intercultural under-
standing. The implications are apparent as nations and their well-being have become
more interdependent, economies more connected; and we as individuals are in contact
with, well, almost everyone instantly. A provincial perspective today can have devas-
tating consequences.

Collaborative and Cooperative Skills

We need each other. We always have, but the price of failure to work with others near
and far has become unsustainable. Schools need to develop a rich culture to teach
students to work and play together, to disagree and argue peacefully, and to reach
consensus or compromise when needed. In fact, the campus is such an important place
because it is the major social laboratory for the young. As they reach out into cyber-
space and information and ideas zip back from global sites, students need each other
and caring/competent adults for perspective. The simpler cooperative learning models
need to pervade the school, and the most complex models—cooperative/inquiry
models and group investigation—should propel major inquiries, including those
launched by student questions and concerns.
The models in this book share these characteristics and goals.

In Sum
The models brief ly introduced here have been selected from many other possibilities.
We are sure these can be used in classrooms and in cyberspace. Their effectiveness has
been substantiated by experience and formal research. As we will see later, achieving
mastery over them takes practice. Teams of teachers working together to master a
model can share ref lections and companionship as one progresses from being a novice
to achieving executive control over that model.
Trying to do our best fits with the challenge offered by the developer of the car, the
Mustang, that is still with us almost 60 years later:

In a completely rational society … the best of us would aspire to be teachers and

the rest of us would have to settle for something less, because passing civilization
along from one generation to the next ought to be the highest honor and the
highest responsibility anyone could have.
(Iacocca, 2007, p. 17)
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from
www.achieve.org/next-generation-science-standards
Adey, P. , with Hewitt, G. , Hewitt, J. , & Landau, N. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice
and theory. London, UK, and Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Adey, P. , & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (3), 267–285.
Adkins, D. C. , Payne, F. D. , & O'Malley, J. M. (1974). Moral development. In F. N. Kerlinger & J. B. Carroll
(Eds.), Review of research in education. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Afflerbach, P. , Pearson, P. D. , & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading
strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61 (5), 364–373.
Alexander, P. , & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic
performance. Review of Educational Research, 58 (4), 375–404.
Aliki . (1989; Revised edition, 2015). My five senses. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in intervention: Research-based designs. Boston: Pearson.
Almy, M. (1970). Logical thinking in second grade. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, H. , & Brewer, H. (1939). Domination and social integration in the behavior of kindergarten children
and teachers. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 21 , 287–385.
Anderson, L. M. , Evertson, C. M. , & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first
grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79 (4), 191–223.
Anderson, L. W. , Scott, C. , & Hutlock, N. (1976). The effect of a mastery learning program on selected
cognitive, affective, and ecological variables in grades 1 through 6. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Anderson, R. (1983). A consolidation and appraisal of science meta-analyses. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 20 (5), 497–509.
Anderson, R. , Kahl, S. , Glass, G. , Smith M. , & Malone, M. (1982). Science meta-analysis project. Boulder,
CO: University of Colorado Laboratory for Research in Science and Mathematics Education.
Applebee, A. , Langer, J. , Jenkins, L. , Mullis, I. , & Foertsch, M. (1990). Learning to write in our nation's
schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Aristotle . (1912). The works of Aristotle ( J. A. Smith & W. D. Ross , Eds.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Arlin, M. (1984). Time variability in mastery learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21 (4), 103–120.
Aronson, E. , Blaney, N. , Stephan, C. , Sikes, J. , & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Arosemena, E. (n.d.). Quote from the Commissioner of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In a
nutshell …. https://www.canalcidh.org/ Organization of the American States. (2023). Who we are.
https://www.oas.org/en/about/who_we_are.asp
Aspy, D. N. , & Roebuck, F. (1973). An investigation of the relationship between student levels of cognitive
functioning and the teacher's classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 65 (6), 365–368.
Aspy, D. N. , Roebuck, F. , Willson, M. , & Adams, O. (1974). Interpersonal skills training for teachers. (Interim
Report No. 2 for NIMH Grant No. 5PO 1MH 19871.) Monroe, LA: Northeast Louisiana University.
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Memnotechnics in second language learning. American Psychologist, 30 , 821–828.
Augustine . (1931). The city of God. (J. Healy, Trans.). London, UK: J. M. Dent.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal
material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 , 267–272.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1980). Schemata, cognitive structure, and advance organizers: A reply to Anderson, Spiro, and
Anderson. American Educational Research Journal, 17 (3), 400–404.
Ausubel, D. P. , & Fitzgerald, J. (1962). Organizer, general background, and antecedent learning variables in
sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53 , 243–249.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, R. G. (1983). The contribution of coaching to transfer of training: An extension study. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Oregon.
Baker, R. G. , & Showers, B. (1984). The effects of a coaching strategy on teachers’ transfer of training to
classroom practice: A six-month followup study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning.
Bandura, A. , & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barnes, B. R. , & Clausen, E. U. (1973). The effects of organizers on the learning of structured anthropology
materials in the elementary grades. Journal of Experimental Education, 42 , 11–15.
Barnes, B. R. , & Clausen, E. U. (1975). Do advance organizers facilitate learning? Recommendations for
further research based on an analysis of 32 studies. Review of Educational Research, 45 (4), 637–659.
Barnett, W. S. (2001). Preschool education for economically disadvantaged children: Effects on reading
achievement and related outcomes. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 421–443). New York, NY: Guilford.
Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personal vitality and creative freedom.
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Barron, R. R. (1971). The effects of advance organizers upon the reception, learning, and retention of general
science concepts. (DHEW Project No. IB-030.)
Bascones, J. , & Novak, J. (1985). Alternative instructional systems and the development of problem-solving in
physics. European Journal of Science Education, 7 (3), 253–261.
Baumert, J. , Kunter, M. , Blum, W. , Brunner, M. , Voss, T. , Jordan, W. , et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical
knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research
Journal, 47 (1), 97–132.
Baveja, B. (1988). An exploratory study of the use of information-processing models of teaching in secondary
school biology classes. Ph.D. thesis, Delhi University.
Baveja, B. , Showers, B. , & Joyce, B. (1985). An experiment in conceptually-based teaching strategies. Saint
Simons Island, GA: Booksend Laboratories.
Beck, I. L. , & Beck, M. E. (2013). Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Becker, W. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field
research. Harvard Educational Review, 47 , 518–543.
Becker, W. , & Carnine, D. (1980). Direct instruction: An effective approach for educational intervention with the
disadvantaged and low performers. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in child clinical psychology (pp.
429–473). New York, NY: Plenum.
Becker, W. , Engelmann, S. , Carnine, D. , & Rhine, W. (1981). Direct instructional model. In W. R. Rhine (Ed.),
Making schools more effective. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Becker, W. , & Gersten, R. (1982). A followup of follow through: The later effects of the direct instruction model
on children in the fifth and sixth grades. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 75–92.
Bellack, A. (1962). The language of the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bencke, W. N. , & Harris, M. B. (1972). Teaching self-control of study behavior. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 10 , 35–41.
Bennett, B. (1987). The effectiveness of staff development training practices: A meta-analysis. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Oregon.
Bennett, L. , & Berson, M. (Eds.) (2007). Digital age: Technology-based K-12 lesson plans for social studies .
NCSS Bulletin 105 . Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
Bennis, W. G. , & Shepard, H. A. (1964). Theory of group development. In W. G. Bennis , K. D. Benne , & R.
Chin (Eds.), The planning of change: Readings in the applied behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Bereiter, C. (1984). How to keep thinking skills from going the way of all frills. Educational Leadership, 42 , 1.
Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner & W. Whitson (Eds.), Situated
cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 281–300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C. , & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension
strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2 (2), 131–156.
Bereiter, C. , & Englemann, S. (1966). Teaching the culturally disadvantaged child in the preschool. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bereiter, C. , & Kurland, M. (1981–82). Were some follow-through models more effective than others?
Interchange, 12 , 1–22.
Berger, M. (2007). The mystery of magnets. Sundance/Newbridge Big Books.
https://www.sundancenewbridge.com/
Berger, P. , & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Berman, P. , & McLaughlin, M. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 4. The findings in
review. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing words for primary
grade vocabulary instruction. In A. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing
research to practice (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In S. Neuman
& D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 41–51). New York, NY: Guilford.
Biemiller, A. (2010). Vocabulary development and implications for reading problems. In A. McGill-Franzen and
R. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disabilities research (pp. 208–218). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bird, M. (1980). Reading comprehension strategies: A direct teaching approach. Doctoral dissertation, The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Bishop, M. (2000). Tunnels of time. Regina, Saskatchewan: Coteau Books.
Block, C. C. , & Duffy, G. G. (2008). Research on teaching comprehension: Where we've been and where we're
going. In C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (3rd ed.,
pp. 19–37). New York: Guilford.
Block, J. W. (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Block, J. W. (1980). Success rate. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn. Washington, DC:
Program on Teaching and Learning, National Institute of Education.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY:
McKay.
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bodach, V. K. (2016). Leaves . Capstone Press.
Bonsangue, M. (1993). Long term effects of the Calculus Workshop Model. Cooperative Learning, 13 (3),
19–20.
Boocock, S. S. , & Schild, E. (1968). Simulation games in learning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Boothroyd, J. (2015). Animal pollinators . Minneapolis: Lerner.
Borg, W. R. , Kelley, M. L. , Langer, P. , & Gall, M. (1970). The minicourse. Beverly Hills, CA: Collier-Macmillan.
Borman, G. D. , Slavin, R. E. , Cheung, A. , Chamberlain, A. , Madden, N. , & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for
all: First year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27 (1),
1–22.
Braden, V. , & Burns, B. (1996). Laugh and win at doubles. Boston: Little Brown.
Bradford, L. P. , Gibb, J. R. , & Benne, K. D. (Eds.) (1964). T-Group theory and laboratory method. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 499–518.
Brookover, W. , Schwitzer, J. H. , Schneider, J. M. , Beady, C. H. , Flood, P. K. , & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978).
Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15 (2),
301–318.
Brooks, J. G. , & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brophy, J. E. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51 , 5–32.
Brown, A. L. (1995). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and
instruction (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. , Armbruster, B. B. , & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J.
Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. , & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick
(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 234–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, C. (1967). A multivariate study of the teaching styles of student teachers. Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Brown, C. (1981). The relationship between teaching styles, personality, and setting. In B. Joyce , L. Peck , &
C. Brown (Eds.), Flexibility in teaching (pp. 94–100). New York, NY: Longman.
Brown P. , & Bybee, R. (2023). Promoting sensemaking. Science & Children , 60 (4), 30-33.
Bruce, W. C. , & Bruce, J. K. (1992). Learning social studies through discrepant event inquiry. Annapolis, MD:
Alpha Press.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. , Goodnow, J. J. , & Austin, G. A. (1967). A study of thinking. New York, NY: Science Edition.
Bruner, J. S. , Goodnow, J. J. , & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking . New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Buckley, J. , Seery, N. , & Canty, D. (2018). Examining the components of fluid intelligence: Implications for
STEM education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326225579
Burns, S. , Griffin, P. , & Snow, C. (1998). Starting out right. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Calderon, M. , Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. , & Tinajero, J. (1991). Adapting CIRC to multiethnic and bilingual
classrooms. Cooperative Learning, 12 , 17–20.
Calhoun, E. (1997). Literacy for all. Saint Simons Island, GA: The Phoenix Alliance.
Calhoun, E. (1998). Literacy for the primary grades: What works, for whom, and to what degree. Saint Simons
Island, GA: The Phoenix Alliance.
Calhoun, E. F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calhoun, E. F. (1999). Teaching beginning reading and writing with the picture word inductive model.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calhoun, E. (2004). Using data to assess your reading program. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Calkins, L. (2000). The art of teaching reading. Boston: Pearson.
Calkins, L. , & Harwayne, S. (1987). The writing workshop: A world of difference. New York, NY: Heinemann.
Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language arts instruction: The
constructivist framework of an instructional theory. In A. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Instruction.
Cameron, J. , & Pierce, W. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 64 (2), 363–423.
Campbell, P. F. , & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student
achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (3), 430–454. doi:10.1086/657654
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows. New York, NY: Norton.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64 , 722–733.
Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1971). Problems of measurement related to the concept of learning for mastery. In J. H. Block
(Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Carroll, J. B. (1977). A revisionist model of school learning. Review of Educational Research, 3 , 155–167.
Carson, M. K. , & Dawson, J. D. (2023). Outdoor school: Tree, wildflower, and mushroom spotting: The
definitive interactive nature guide . Macmillan.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chamberlin, C. , & Chamberlin, E. (1943). Did they succeed in college? New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Chesler, M. , & Fox, R. (1966). Role-playing methods in the classroom. Chicago, IL: Science Research
Associates.
Chin, R. , & Benne, K. (1969). General strategies for effecting change in human systems. In W. Bennis , K.
Benne , & R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (pp. 32–59). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cho, B.-Y. , & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading
comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research
on reading comprehension (pp. 109–134). New York: Guilford.
Clark, C. , & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (pp. 225–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Clark, C. , & Yinger, R. (1979). Three studies of teacher planning. (Research Series No. 55.) East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
Clark, H. H. , & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycho-linguistics. New York,
NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Clauson, E. V. , & Barnes, B. R. (1973). The effects of organizers on the learning of structured anthropology
materials in the elementary grades. Journal of Experimental Education, 42 , 11–15.
Clauson, E. V. , & Rice, M. G. (1972). The changing world today. (Anthropology Curriculum Project Publication
No. 72-1.) Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading: Modelling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension.
Theory into Practice, 50 (2), 107–115.
Coleman, J. S. , Campbell, E. Q. , Hobson, C. J. , McPortland, J. , Mood, A. M. , Weinfield, E. D. , et al. (1966).
Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Collins, A. , & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and
schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
Collins, K. (1969). The importance of strong confrontation in an inquiry model of teaching. School Science and
Mathematics, 69 (7), 615–617.
Comenius, J. (1967). The great didactic. Brasted, Kent, UK: Russell and Russell Publishing.
Cook, L. , & Cook, E. (1954). Intergroup education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cook, L. , & Cook, E. (1957). School problems in human relations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cooper, L. , Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R. , & Wilderson, F. (1980). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic experiences on interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous peers. Journal of Social
Psychology, 111 , 243–252.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher–student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 113–173.
Cornett, J. , & Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp.
192–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Counts, G. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York, NY: John Day.
Courmier, S. , & Hagman, J. (Eds.) (1987). Transfer of learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Crosby, M. (1965). An adventure in human relations. Chicago, IL: Follet Corporation.
Cunningham, A. E. , & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22
(Spring/Summer), 8–15.
Cunningham, J. (2002). The national reading panel report. In R. Allington (Ed.), Big Brother and the national
reading curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cunningham, P. M. (1990). The names test: A quick assessment of decoding ability. The Reading Teacher, 44 ,
124–129.
Cunningham, P. M. (2005). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn &
Bacon.
Cunningham, P. (2009). What really matters in vocabulary. Boston: Pearson.
Cunningham, P. M. (2016). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Daane, M. , Campbell, J. , Grigg, W. , Goodman, M. , & Oranje, A. (2005). The Nation's Report Card.
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Dale, P. (2007). Ten in the bed. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick.
Dalton, M. (1986). The thought processes of teachers when practicing two models of teaching. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Oregon.
Dalton, M. , & Dodd, J. (1986). Teacher thinking: The development of skill in using two models of teaching and
model-relevant thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
de Jong, T. , and van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of
conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 179–201.
Deal, T. E. , & Kennedy, A. A. (1984). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Deshler, D. , & Schumaker, J. (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Desimone, L. (2009) Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better
conceptualizations and measures. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Desimone, L. M. , & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United
States. Psychology, Society and Education, 7 (3), 252–263.
Desoete, A. , & De Craene, B. (2019). Metacognition and mathematics education: An overview. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 51 , 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01060-w
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1937). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1956). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1960). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dickinson, D. K. , McCabe, A. , & Essex, M. J. (2006). A window of opportunity we must open to all: The case
for preschool with high-quality support for language and literacy. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research: Vol. 2 (pp. 11–28). New York, NY: Guilford.
DK & Smithsonian Institution . (2019). Trees, leaves, flowers and seeds: A visual encyclopedia of the plant
kingdom . DK Publishing.
Dole, J. A. , Duffy, G. G. , Roehler, L. R. , & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research
on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 239–264.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002239
Downey, L. (1967). The secondary phase of education. Boston, MA: Ginn and Co.
Duffelmeyer, F. A. , Kruse, A. E. , Merkley, D. J. , & Fyfe, S. A. (1994). Further validation and enhancement of
the Names Test. The Reading Teacher, 48 (2), 118–128.
Duffy, G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction (pp. 28–41). New York, NY: Guilford.
Duffy, G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Duffy, G. G. (2014). Explaining reading (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Duffy, G. , Roehler, L. , & Herrmann, B. (1988). Modeling mental processes helps poor readers become
strategic readers. The Reading Teacher, 41 , 762–767.
Duffy, G. G. , Roehler, L. R. , Sivan, E. , Rackliffe, G. , Book, C. , Meloth, M. S. , Vavrus, L. , Wesselman, R. ,
Putnam, J. , & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/747973
Duke, N. , & Pearson, P. D. (undated). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. East Lansing,
MI: College of Education, Michigan State University.
Duke, N. , Pearson, P. D. , Strachan, S. , & Billman, A. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching
reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction (pp. 48–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dunn, R. , & Dunn, K. (1975). Educators’ self-teaching guide to individualizing instructional programs. West
Nyack, NY: Parker.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Durkin, D. (1978/1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 14 (4), 481–533.
Durkin, D. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series. Reading Research Quarterly,
16 (4), 515–544.
Eastman, P. D. (1961). Go, dog, go. New York, NY: Random House.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, 9 (5), 28–32.
Education Commission of the States . (2019/2022). 50-state comparison: Does the state require induction and
mentoring support for new teachers? If so, what is the required length? Education Commission of the States.
https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-teacher-recruitment-and-retention-2022/
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading,
18 (2), 116–125.
Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme–phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.
Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehri, L. C. (1999). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and instructional implications. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9 (2),
167–188.
Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 55 (S-1), S45–S60.
Ehri, L. C. (2022). What teachers need to know and do to teach letter-sounds, phonemic awareness, word
reading, and phonics. The Reading Teacher, 76 (1), 53–61.
Ehri, L. C. , & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and
disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14 (2), 135–163.
Ehri, L. , Nunes, S. , Stahl, S. , & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to
read. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), 393–447.
Elefant, E. (1980). Deaf children in an inquiry training program. Volta Review, 82 , 271–279.
Elementary Science Study (ESS) . (1971). Batteries and bulbs: An electrical suggestion book. New York, NY:
Webster-McGraw-Hill.
Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk. New York, NY: Knopf.
El-Nemr, M. A. (1979). Meta-analysis of the outcomes of teaching biology as inquiry. Boulder, CO: University of
Colorado.
Emmer, E. , Evertson, C. , & Anderson, L. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the
school year. Elementary School Journal, 80 , 219–231.
Ende, A. , Schindel, A. , Tripp, J. , Wang, C. , & Christ, T. (2023). Integrating critical pedagogy of place. NSTA
Science and Children, 60 (4), 21–25.
Engel, S. (2015). The hungry mind: The origins of curiosity in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Estes, W. E. (Ed.) (1976). Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Volume 4: Attention and memory.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farstrup, A. E. , & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.) What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Filderman, M. J. , Austin, C. R. , Boucher, A. N. , O'Donnell, K. , & Swanson, E. A. (2022). A meta-analysis of
the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling
readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88 (2), 163–184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211050860
Fisher, C. W. , Berliner, D. C. , Filby, N. N. , Marliave, R. , Cahen, L. C. , & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching
behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman
(Eds.), Time to learn: A review of the beginning teacher evaluation study (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Education. (Full text downloaded 1-13-2024 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED192454.pdf.)
Fisher, D. , & Frey, N. (2021). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release
of responsibility (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence
(pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fletcher, S. , & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.) (2012). Sage handbook of mentoring and coaching in education .
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flint, S. (1965). The relationship between the classroom verbal behavior of student teachers and the classroom
verbal behavior of their cooperating teachers. Doctoral dissertation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Frey, N. , Fisher, D. , & Everlove, S. (2009). Productive group work . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York, NY: Harper.
Fronius, T. , Darling-Hammond, S. , Persson, H. , Guckenburg, S. , Hurley, N. , & Petrosino, A. (2019).
Restorative justice in U.S. schools: An updated research review. WestEd.
Fuchs, L. , Fuchs, D. , Hamlett, C. , & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance
on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American
Educational Research Journal, 35 (2), 227–267.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G. , Bennett, B. , & Bennett, C. R. (1990). Linking classroom and school improvement. Educational
Leadership, 47 (8), 13–19.
Fullan, M. , & Park, P. (1981). Curriculum implementation: A resource booklet. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of
Education.
Fullan, M. , & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of
Educational Research, 47 (2), 335–397.
Furtak, E. M. , Seidel, T. , Iverson, H. , & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of
inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 82 (3), 300–329.
Gage, N. L. (1979). The scientific basis for the art of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gage, N. L. , & Berliner, D. (1983). Educational psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gagné, R. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagné, R. (1970). The conditions of learning, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagné, R. , & White, R. (1978). Memory structures and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
48 (2), 137–222.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gaskins, I. , & Elliot, T. (1991). Implementing cognitive strategy instruction across the school. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
Gentile, J. R. (1988). Instructional improvement: Summary and analysis of Madeline Hunter's essential
elements of instruction and supervision. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Gersten, R. , Beckmann, S. , Clarke, B. , Foegen, A. , Marsh, L. , Star, J. R. , & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting
students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE
2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Services, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Gersten, R. , Fuchs, L. , Williams, J. , & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to
children with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 (2), 279–320.
Gibbons, G. (1991). From seed to plant . Holiday House.
Giese, J. R. (1989). The progressive era: The limits of reform. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education
Consortium.
Glade, M. E. , & Giese, J. R. (1989). Immigration, pluralism, and national identity. Boulder, CO: Social Science
Education Consortium.
Glaser, R. (Ed.) (1962). Training research and education. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Glass, G. V. (1975). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 7 (3), 33–50.
Glynn, S. M. (1994). Teaching science with analogies. Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center,
University of Georgia.
Glynn, S. (2015). Analogies, role in science learning. In Richard Gunstone , (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science
Education (pp. 44–48). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_89
Goffman, I. (1986). Gender advertisements. New York, NY: Harper.
Good, T. , Grouws, D. , & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York, NY: Longman.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. , & Klein, F. (1970). Looking behind the classroom door. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1955, December). Some environmental aspects of creativity. Paper delivered to the
Department of Defense, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1956). Creativity as a process. Paper delivered at the First Arden House Conference on
Creative Process.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Graham, S. , & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle
and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York . Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Graves, M. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Graves, M. F. , Juel, C. , & Graves, B. B. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Graves, M. F. , Watts, S. M. , Graves, B. B. (1994). Essentials of classroom teaching: Elementary reading
methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Green, J. , & McElfatrick, C. (2019). The magic and mystery of trees . DK Publishing.
Greenberg, J. (2006) Biological Sciences Curriculum Study: Blue version—A molecular approach. Glencoe, IL:
McGraw-Hill.
Gregory, A. , & Evans, K. R. (2020). The starts and stumbles of restorative justice in education: Where do we
go from here? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved 5/15/2023 from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/restorative-justice
Gunning, T. (1998). Best books for beginning readers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Halberstam, D. (1998). The children. New York, NY: Random House.
Halberstam, D. (2002). Firehouse. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Hall, G. , & Hord, S. (2015) Implementing change. Boston: Pearson Inc.
Hanson, R. , & Farrell, D. (1995). The long-term effects on high school seniors of learning to read in
kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (4), 908–933.
Hart, B. , & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.
Paul H. Brookes.
Harvey, O. J. , Hunt, D. , & Schroeder, H. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Hawkes, E. (1971). The effects of an instruction strategy on approaches to problem-solving. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hebert, M. , Bohaty, J. J. , Nelson, J. R. , & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on
expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (5), 609–629.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082
Heroman, C. (2017). Making & tinkering with STEM: Solving design challenges with young children .
Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1993). Using group investigation to enhance Arab–Jewish relationships. Cooperative
Learning, 11 (2), 13–14.
Hill, H. , Rowan, B. , & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2), 371–406.
Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership, 44 (8), 71–82.
Hoetker, J. , & Ahlbrand, W. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational Research Journal,
6 , 145–167.
Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of Educational
Research, 58 (3), 327–345.
Hopkins, D. (1987). Improving the quality of schooling. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Hopkins, D. (1990). Integrating staff development and school improvement: A study of teacher personality and
school climate. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development. 1990 Yearbook of the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Howes, E. , & Cruz, B. (2009). Role-playing in science education: An effective strategy for developing multiple
perspectives, Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21 (3), 33–46.
Hrycauk, M. (2002). District weaves a safety net. Journal of Staff Development, 23 (1), 55–58.
Huberman, M. , & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close. New York, NY: Plenum.
Huhtala, J. (1994). Group investigation structuring an inquiry-based curriculum. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hunt, D. E. (1966). A conceptual systems change model and its application to education. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.),
Experience, structure and adaptability (pp. 277–302). New York, NY: Springer.
Hunt, D. E. (1970). A conceptual level matching model for coordinating learner characteristics with educational
approaches. Interchange: A Journal of Educational Studies, 1 (2), 1–31.
Hunt, D. E. (1971). Matching models in education. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Hunt, D. E. (1975). The B-P-E paradigm in theory, research, and practice. Canadian Psychological Review, 16 ,
185–197.
Hunt, D. E. , Butler, L. F. , Noy, J. E. , & Rosser, M. E. (1978). Assessing conceptual level by the paragraph
completion method. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Hunt, D. E. , & Joyce, B. (1967). Teacher trainee personality and initial teaching style. American Educational
Research Journal, 4 , 253–259.
Hunt, D. E. , & Sullivan, E. V. (1974). Between psychology and education. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Hunt, T. C. (2023). National Defense Education Act. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Defense-Education-Act
Hunter, I. (1964). Memory. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Iacocca, L. , with Whitney, C. (2007). Where have all the leaders gone? Scribner.
Ingersoll, R. M. , & Collins, G. J. (2019). Accountability, control and teachers’ work in American Schools. In S.
Zepeda & J. Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of educational supervision (pp. 159–181). New York: Wiley-
Blackwell.
International Reading Association . (1998). Position statement on phonemic awareness and the teaching of
reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
International Reading Association & The National Association for the Education of Young Children . (1998).
Position statement on learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ivany, G. (1969). The assessment of verbal inquiry in elementary school science. Science Education, 53 (4),
287–293.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or
individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44 , 213–240.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and
individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence
theory and cooperative learning. Educational Research, 38 (5), 365–379.
Johnson, D. , & Johnson, R. T. (2018/2019). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In S. M.
Brito (Ed.), Active learning – Beyond the future (pp. 59–70). IntechOpen.
Johnson, D. , Johnson, R. , & Holubec, E. (1994). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnston, F. R. (1999). The timing and teaching of word families. The Reading Teacher, 53 (1), 64–75.
Joswick, C. , & Hulings, M. (2023). A systematic review of BSCS 5E instructional model evidence. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10357-y
Joyce, B. (1991). Common misconceptions about cooperative learning and gifted students. Educational
Leadership , 48 (6), 72–74.
Joyce, B. , Bush, R. , & McKibbin, M. (1982). The California Staff Development Study: The January report.
Sacramento: The California Department of Education.
Joyce, B. , & Calhoun, E. (Eds.) (1996). Learning experiences in school renewal. ERIC Clearinghouse.
Joyce, B. , & Calhoun, E. (1998). Learning to teach inductively. Allyn & Bacon.
Joyce, B. , & Calhoun, E. (2010). Models of professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Joyce, B. , & Calhoun, E. (2012). Realizing the promise of 21st century education: An owner's manual. Corwin.
Joyce, B. , & Calhoun, E. (2019). Peer coaching in education: From partners to faculties and districts. In S.
Zepeda & J. Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of educational supervision (pp. 307–316). New York: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Joyce, B. , Calhoun, E. , & Hopkins, D. (1999). The new structure of school improvement: Inquiring schools and
achieving students. Open University Press.
Joyce, B. , Calhoun, E. , & Hrycauk, M. (2003). Learning to read in kindergarten. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (2),
126–132.
Joyce, B. , Calhoun, E. , Jutras, J. , & Newlove, K. (2006). Scaling up: The results of a literacy curriculum
implemented across an entire 53-school education authority. Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Educational
Research Association, Hong Kong.
Joyce, B. , Calhoun, E. Puckey, M. & Hopkins, D. (1997). From England/inquiring and collaborating at an
exemplary school. Educational Leadership, 54 (8), 63–66.
Joyce, B. , Hopkins, D. , & Calhoun, E. (2014). Winning with coaching: Strengthening the links between
professional learning, CCSS, and STEM. Changing Schools (Fall, pp. 8–10). Denver Co: McRel.
Joyce, B. , Hrycauk, M. , & Calhoun, E. (2001). A second chance for struggling readers. Educational
Leadership, 58 (6), 42–47.
Joyce, B. , Hrycauk, M. , Calhoun, E. , & Hrycauk, W. (2006). The tending of diversity through a robust core
literacy curriculum: Gender, socioeconomic status, learning disabilities, and ethnicity. Paper presented at the
Asian Pacific Educational Research Association, Hong Kong.
Joyce, B. , Murphy, C. , Showers, B. , & Murphy, J. (1989). School renewal as cultural change. Educational
Leadership, 47 (3), 70–77.
Joyce, B. , Peck, L. , & Brown, C. (Eds.) (1981). Flexibility in teaching (pp. 94–100). New York, NY: Longman.
Joyce, B. , & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40 (1), 4–8, 10.
Joyce, B. , & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B. , & Showers, B. (2004). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B. , Weil, M. , & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Joyce, B. , Weil, M. & Wald, R. (1981). Can teachers learn repertoires of models of teaching? In B. Joyce , L.
Peck , & C. Brown (Eds.), Flexibility in teaching (pp. 141–156). New York, NY: Longman.
Joyce, B. , & Wolf, J. M. (1996). Readersville: Building a culture of readers and writers. In B. Joyce & E.
Calhoun (Eds.), Learning experiences in school renewal. An exploration of five successful programs (pp.
95–115). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 437–447.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for
Teachers.
Kagan, S. , & Kagan, M. (2015). Kagan cooperative learning . San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Kamii, C. , & DeVries, R. (1974). Piaget-based curricula for early childhood education. In R. Parker (Ed.), The
preschool in action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Karplus, R. (1964). Theoretical background of the science curriculum improvement study. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Kay, K. (2010). 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we get there. In J. Bellanca & R.
Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. xiii–xxi). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
Keyes, D. K. (2006). Metaphorical voices: Secondary students’ exploration into multidimensional perspectives
in literature and creative writing using the synectics model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Houston.
Klauer, K. , & Phye, G. (2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78
(1), 85–123.
Klein, S. (1985). Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Kohlberg, L. (1966). Moral education and the schools. School Review, 74 , 1–30.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). The cognitive developmental approach to moral education. In D. Purpel & K. Ryan (Eds.),
Moral education: It comes with the territory. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Kraft, M. A. , Blazar, D. , & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A
meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88 (4), 547–588.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Kramarski, B. , & Maravech, Z. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of
cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (1), 281–310.
Kretlow, A. , & Bartholomew, C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A
review of studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643
Kucan, L. , & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and
social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67 (3), 271–299.
Kuhn, D. , Amsel, E. , & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Kulik, C. C. , Kulik, J. A. , & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60 , 265–299.
Kurtz, L. (1990). The self-help movement: Review of the past decade of research. Social Work with Groups, 13
(3), 101–115.
Lawton, J. T. (1977). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of logical operations in social
studies concepts. American Educational Research Journal, 14 (1), 24–43.
Lawton, J. T. , & Wanska, S. K. (1977, Summer). The effects of different types of advance organizers on
classification learning. American Educational Research Journal, 16 (3), 223–239.
Leithwood, K. , Harris, A. , & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership
revisited. School Leadership & Management, doi:10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Levin, J. R. , McCormick, C. , Miller, H. , & Berry, J. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic strategies for
children. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 121–136.
Levin, J. R. , Shriberg, L. , & Berry, J. (1983). A concrete strategy for remembering abstract prose. American
Educational Research Journal, 20 (2), 277–290.
Levin, M. E. , & Levin, J. R. (1990). Scientific mnemonics: Methods for maximizing more than memory.
American Educational Research Journal, 27 , 301–321.
Levy, D. V. , & Stark, J. (1982). Implementation of the Chicago mastery learning reading program at inner-city
elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Lindvall, C. M. , & Bolvin, J. O. (1966). The project for individually prescribed instruction. Oakleaf Project.
Unpublished manuscript, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Linn, M. , & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18 (8), 17–19,
22–27.
Lippitt, R. , Fox, R. , & Schaible, L. (1969). Social science laboratory units. Chicago, IL: Science Research
Associates.
Locke, J. (1927). Some thoughts concerning education ( R. H. Quick , Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lorayne, H. , & Lucas, J. (1974). The memory book. Briercliff Manor, NY: Lucas Educational Systems.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Loucks, S. F. , Newlove, B. W. , & Hall, G. E. (1975). Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual for
trainers, interviewers, and raters. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas.
Lucas, J. (2001). Learning how to learn. Frisco, TX: Lucas Educational Systems.
Luiten, J. , Ames, W. , & Ackerson, G. A. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on
learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17 , 211–218.
Lumsdaine, A. A. , & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (1960). Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Lunis, N. (1997). Discovering electricity . Sundance/Newbridge Big Books.
https://www.sundancenewbridge.com/
Lunis, N. , & White, N. (1999). Being a scientist. New York, NY: Newbridge Educational Publishing.
Madaus, G. F. , Airasian, P. W. , & Kellaghan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Madden, N. A. , & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of mainstreamed
academically handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 17 , 171–182.
Mahoney, M. , & Thoresen, C. (1972). Behavioral self-control: Power to the person. Educational Researcher, 1 ,
5–7.
Maloney, D. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning (pp. 327–354). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
Mastropieri, M. A. , & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Books.
Mastropieri, M. A. , & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). A practical guide for teaching science to students with special
needs in inclusive settings. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Mayer, R. F. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research,
49 (2), 371–383.
Mazuzan, G. T. (1994, July 15). The National Science Foundation: A brief history.
https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/nsf8816.jsp
McCarthy, B. (1981). The 4mat system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Barrington,
IL: Excel.
McDonald, F. J. , & Elias, P. (1976). Beginning teacher evaluation study: Phase II, 1973–74. Executive
summary report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
McGill-Franzen, A. , & Allington, R. (1991). The gridlock of low achievement. Remedial and Special Education,
12 , 20–30.
McGill-Franzen, A. , Allington, R. , Yokoi, I. , & Brooks, G. (1999). Putting books in the room seems necessary
but not sufficient. Journal of Educational Research, 93 , 67–74.
McGill-Franzen, A. , & Goatley, V. (2001). Title I and special education: Support for children who struggle to
learn to read. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 471–484). New
York, NY: Guilford.
McKibbin, M. , & Joyce, B. (1980). Psychological states and staff development. Theory into Practice, 19 (4),
248–255.
McKinney, C. , Warren, A. , Larkins, G. , Ford, M. J. , & Davis, J. C. III . (1983). The effectiveness of three
methods of teaching social studies concepts to fourth-grade students: An aptitude–treatment interaction study.
American Educational Research Journal, 20 , 663–670.
Medley, D. M. (1977). Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: American Association
of Colleges of Teacher Education.
Medley, D. M. (1982). Teacher effectiveness. In H. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp.
1894–1903). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Medley, D. , Soar, R. , & Coker, H. (1984). Measurement-based evaluation of teacher performance. New York,
NY: Longman.
Merrill, M. D. , & Tennyson, R. D. (1977). Concept teaching: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology.
Miles, M. , & Huberman, M. (1984). Innovation up close. New York, NY: Praeger.
Millar, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity to process
information. Psychological Review, 63 , 81–87.
Miller, M. J. (1980). Role-playing as a therapeutic strategy: a research review. The School Counselor , 27 (3),
217–226.
Minner, D. , Levy, A. , & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it matter?
Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (4),
474–496.
More, T. (1965). Utopia. New York: Dutton.
Morris, R. (1997, September). How new research on brain development will influence educational policy. Paper
presented at Policy Makers Institute, Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology. Atlanta,
GA.
Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive
literacy. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Nagy, W. , & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in printed English? Reading Research Quarterly,
19 , 304–330.
Nagy, W. E. , & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth in vocabulary knowledge. In M. G. McKeown & M. E.
Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nagy, W. , Herman, P. , & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 ,
233–253.
Natale, J. (2001). Early learners: Are full-day kindergartens too much for young children? American School
Board Journal, 188 (3), 22–25.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine . (2019). Science and engineering for grades 6–12:
Investigation and design at the center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25216. Retrieved 4/6/2023 from https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25216#
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . (2022a). Science and engineering in preschool
through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . (2022b). Taking stock of science standards
implementation: Planning for progress: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26766
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine . (2007). Rising
above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future . Washington, DC:
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11463
National Center for Education Statistics . (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Available from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics . (2011–2013). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and Teacher
Followup Survey (TFS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. NCES.
National Council for the Social Studies . (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework
for teaching, learning, and assessment.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers . (2010a).
Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and
technical subjects: Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards and glossary of key terms.
Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf.assets/Appendix_C.pdf
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers . (2010b).
Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from
https://www.thecorestandards.org/Math/
National Reading Panel . (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction—Reports of the subgroups.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Available at
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
National Research Council . (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council . (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Neuman, S. , & Dickinson, D. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
New Standards Primary Literacy Committee . (1999). Reading and writing: Grade by grade. Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh.
New Teacher Center . (2013). TELL. Maryland Research Survey Brief. Santa Cruz, CA. New Teacher Center.
Retrieved from https://tellmaryland.org/uploads/File/MD113 Brief Val Rel.pdf
Newby, T. J. , & Ertner, P. A. (1994). Instructional analogies and the learning of concepts. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
NGSS Lead States . (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Nicholson, A. M. , & Joyce, B. (with D. Parker & F. Waterman ). (1976). The literature on inservice teacher
education. (ISTE Report No 3.) Syracuse, NY: National Dissemination Center, Syracuse University.
Nolan, V. , & Williams, C. (2010). Imagine that: Celebrating 50 years of synectics. Boston: Synectics World.
Nucci, L. P. (Ed.) (1989). Moral development and character education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Obama, M. (2018) Becoming. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group, A division of Penguin.
Olson, D. R. (1970). Cognitive development: The child's acquisition of diagonality. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) . (2009). OECD programme for international
student assessment (PISA) 2009 results. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) . (2013). Results: What makes schools
successful? Resources, policies, and practices (Vol. IV). Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD . (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and
interpretations . Paris: OECD.
Owen, R. (2019). Roots, stems, leaves, and flowers: Let's investigate plant parts . Ruby Tuesday Books.
Parker, L. , & Offer, J. (1987). School science achievement: Conditions for equality. International Journal for
Science Education, 8 (2), 173–183.
Pavlov, I. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V.
Anrep, Trans.). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
PBS Teacherline . (2005). An introduction to underlying principles and research for effective literacy instruction.
PBS Electronic Catalog. Washington, DC: PBS Teacherline.
Pearson, P. D. , & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new
conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88 (2), 151–165.
Pearson, P. D. , & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8 (3), 317–344.
Peng, P. , Wang, W. , Filderman, M. J. , Zhang, W. , & Lin, L. (2023). The active ingredient in reading
comprehension strategy intervention for struggling readers: A Bayesian network meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 94 (1). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231171345
Perkins, D. N. (1984). Creativity by design. Educational Leadership, 42 (1), 18–25.
Perls, F. (1968). Gestalt therapy verbatim. Lafayette, CA: Real People Press.
Peterson, P. , & Clark, C. (1978). Teachers’ reports of their cognitive processes while teaching. American
Educational Research Journal, 15 (4), 555–565.
Peterson, P. , Marx, R. , & Clark, C. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 15 (4), 417–432.
Phenix, P. (1961). Education and the common good. New York, NY: Harper.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.
Piaget, J. (1960). The child's conception of the world. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Pinnell, G. S. , Lyone, C. A. , Deford, D. , Bryk, A. , & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the
literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (1), 9–38.
PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world . (2007). OECD briefing note for the United States.
Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/28/39722597.pdf
Plato . (1945). Republic (F. M. Cornford, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pont, B. , Nusche D. , & Hopkins D. (Eds) (2008). Improving school leadership, Volume 2: Case studies on
system leadership . Paris: OECD/SSAT.
Pressley, M. (1977). Children's use of the keyword method to learn simple Spanish words. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69 (5), 465–472.
Pressley, M. (1992). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced literacy (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Pressley, M. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves student performance. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.),
What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291–310). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Pressley, M. (2005). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Pressley, M. , & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive
reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. , & Brainerd, C. (Eds). (1985). Cognitive learning and memory in children. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M. , & Dennis-Rounds, J. (1980). Transfer of a mnemonic keyword strategy at two age levels. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 72 (4), 575–607.
Pressley, M. , & Levin, J. R. (1978). Developmental constraints associated with children's use of the keyword
method of foreign language learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26 (1), 359–372.
Pressley, M. , Levin, J. R. , & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational
Research, 52 (1), 61–91.
Pressley, M. , Levin, J. , & Ghatala, E. (1984). Memory-strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23 (2), 270–288.
Pressley, M. , Levin, J. R. , & McCormick, C. (1980). Young children's learning of foreign language vocabulary:
A sentence variation of the keyword method. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5 (1), 22–29.
Pressley, M. , Levin, J. , & Miller, G. (1981a). How does the keyword method affect vocabulary, comprehension,
and usage? Reading Research Quarterly, 16 (2), 213–226.
Pressley, M. , Levin, J. , & Miller, G. (1981b). The keyword method and children's learning of foreign vocabulary
with abstract meanings. Canadian Psychology, 35 (3), 283–287.
Pressley, M. , Samuel, J. , Hershey, M. , Bishop, S. , & Dickinson, D. (1981). Use of a mnemonic technique to
teach young children foreign-language vocabulary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6 , 110–116.
Pressley, T. , Allington, R. L. , & Pressley, M. (2023). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
instruction (5th Ed.). New York: Guilford.
Purkey, S. , & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 427–452.
Purpel, D. , & Ryan, K. (Eds.) (1976). Moral education: It comes with the territory. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Qin, Z. , Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving.
Review of Educational Research, 65 (2), 82–102.
Raver, C. , Jones, S. , Li-Grining, C. , Zhai, F. , Bub, K. , & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP's impact on low-income
preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82 (1),
362–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: Academic Press.
Rhine, W. R. (Ed.) (1981). Making schools more effective: New directions from follow through. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Rimm, D. C. , & Masters, J. C. (1974). Behavior therapy: Techniques and empirical findings. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Ripple, R. , & Drinkwater, D. (1981). Transfer of learning. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
research (Vol. 4, pp. 1947–1953). New York, NY: Free Press, Macmillan.
Roberts, J. (1969). Human relations training and its effect on the teaching-learning process in social studies.
(Final Report.) Albany, NY: Division of Research, New York State Education Department.
Roebuck, F. , Buhler, J. , & Aspy, D. (1976). A comparison of high and low levels of humane teaching/learning
conditions on the subsequent achievement of students identified as having learning difficulties. (Final Report:
Order No. PLD6816-76 re the National Institute of Mental Health.) Denton, TX: Texas Woman's University
Press.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1971). Client centered therapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1982). Freedom to learn in the eighties. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Rogers, S. , & Evans, J. (2008). Inside role-play in early childhood education: Researching young children's
perspectives . London: Routledge.
Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1986). Four models of teaching: A meta-analysis of student outcomes. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Oregon.
Romberg, T. A. , & Wilson, J. (1970). The effect of an advance organizer, cognitive set, and postorganizer on
the learning and retention of written materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behaviours and student achievement . Slough, England: National Foundation
for Educational Research in England and Wales.
Rosenshine, B. (1985). Direct instruction. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia
of education (Vol. 3, pp. 1395–1400). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1983). Emile. New York, NY: Dutton. (Original work published 1762.)
Rowe, M. B. (1969). Science, soul, and sanctions. Science and Children, 6 (6), 11–13.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on language, logic, and
fate control. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11 , 81–94.
Rutter, M. , Maughan, R. , Mortimore, P. , & Oustin, J. , with Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours:
Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sadker, M. , & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness. New York, NY: Touchstone (Simon & Schuster).
Sahlberg, P. (Ed.) (1990). Luonnontieteiden opetuksen työtapoja . Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
Sahlberg, P. (2018). FinnishEd leadership: Four big, inexpensive ideas to transform education . Corwin.
Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland . New York:
Teachers College Press.
Sanders, D. A. , & Sanders, J. A. (1984). Teaching creativity through metaphor. New York, NY: Longman.
Sanders, W. , & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic
achievement: Research progress report. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
Assessment Center.
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Scanlon, R. , & Brown, M. (1969). In-service education for individualized instruction. Unpublished manuscript.
Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
Scardamalia, M. , & Bereiter, C. (1984). Development of strategies in text processing. In H. Mandl , N. Stein , &
T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 370–406). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schaefer, L. M. , & Schaefer, A. (2016). Because of an acorn. Chronicle.
Schaefer, R. (1967). The school as a center of inquiry. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Schaubel, L. , Klopfer, L. E. , & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a
science model of experimentation. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 28 (9), 859–882.
Schlenker, R. (1976). Learning about fossil formation by classroom simulation. Science Activities, 28 (3),
17–20.
Schmuck, R. A. , & Runkel, P. J. (1985). The handbook of organizational development in schools (3rd ed.). Palo
Alto, CA: Mayfield Press.
Schmuck, R. A. , Runkel, P. J. , Arends, R. , & Arends, J. (1977). The second handbook of organizational
development in schools. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Press.
Schön, D. (1982). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Schrenker, G. (1976). The effects of an inquiry-development program on elementary schoolchildren's science
learning. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.
Schroeder, H. M. , Driver, M. J. , & Streufert, S. (1967). Human information processing: Individuals and groups
functioning in complex social situations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schroeder, H. M. , Karlins, M. , & Phares, J. (1973). Education for freedom. New York, NY: Wiley.
Schutz, W. (1967). Joy: Expanding human awareness. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Schutz, W. (1982). Firo. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schwab, J. (1965). Biological sciences curriculum study: Biology teachers’ handbook. New York, NY: Wiley.
Schwab, J. (1982). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Schwab, J. , & Brandwein, P. (1962). The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shaftel, F. , & Shaftel, G. (1967). Role playing of social values: Decision making in the social studies.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shaftel, F. , & Shaftel, G. (1982). Role playing in the curriculum. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shanahan, T. , Callison, K. , Carriere, C. , Duke, N. K. , Pearson, P. D. , Schatschneider, C. , & Torgesen, J.
(2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES practice guide. NCEE
2010–4038. What Works Clearinghouse.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement,
attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 241–271.
Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York, NY: Praeger.
Sharan, S. , & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980a). Academic achievement of elementary school children in small-
group versus whole-class instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 48 (2), 120–129.
Sharan, S. , & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980b). A group investigation method of cooperative learning in the
classroom. In S. Sharan , P. Hare , C. Webb , & R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in education (pp.
14–46). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
Sharan, S. , & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1982). Effects of an instructional change program on teachers’ behavior,
attitudes, and perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18 (2), 185–201.
Sharan, S. , & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Sharan, S. , & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. In S.
Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York, NY: Praeger.
Sharan, S. , Slavin, R. , & Davidson, N. (1990). The IASCE: An agenda for the 90's. Cooperative Learning, 10 ,
2–4.
Showers, B. (1980). Self-efficacy as a predictor of teacher participation in school decision-making. Ph.D. thesis,
Stanford University.
Showers, B. (1982a). A study of coaching in teacher training. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and
Management, University of Oregon.
Showers, B. (1982b). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational
Policy and Management, University of Oregon.
Showers, B. (1984). Peer coaching and its effect on transfer of training. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42 (7), 43–49.
Showers, B. (1989, March). Implementation: Research-based training and teaching strategies and their effects
on the workplace and instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Showers, B. , Joyce, B. , & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for
future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45 (3), 77–87.
Showers, B. , Joyce, B. , Scanlon, M. , & Schnaubelt, C. (1998). A second chance to learn to read. Educational
Leadership, 55 (6), 27–31.
Shymansky, J. , Kyle, W. , & Alport, J. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (5), 387–404.
Sigel, I. E. (1969). The Piagetian system and the world of education. In J. Hunt (Ed.), Intelligence and
experience. New York, NY: Ronald.
Sill, C. (2013). About birds: A guide for children . Atlanta, GA: Peachtree.
Simon, A. , & Boyer, E. G. (1967). Mirrors for behavior: An anthology of classroom observation instruments.
Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.
Sitotnik, K. (1983). What you see is what you get: Consistency, persistence, and mediocrity in classrooms.
Harvard Educational Review, 53 (1), 16–31.
Sizer, T. R. (1985). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1978). Reflections on behaviorism and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1977a). How student learning teams can integrate the desegregated classroom. Integrated
Education, 15 (6), 56–58.
Slavin, R. E. (1977b). A student team approach to teaching adolescents with special emotional and behavioral
needs. Psychology in the Schools, 14 (1), 7.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York, NY: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Mastery learning re-reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 60 (2), 300–302.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and “untracking” harmful to the gifted? Educational Leadership,
48 (6), 68–70.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Making cooperative learning powerful. Educational Leadership, 72 (2), 22–26.
Slavin, R. E. , & Madden, N. (2001). One million children: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Slavin, R. , Madden, N. , Dolan, L. , & Wasik, B. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for all. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Smith, D. (2012). The state of the world atlas. New York, NY: Penguin.
Smith, M. L. (1980). Effects of aesthetics educations on basic skills learning. Boulder, CO: Laboratory of
Educational Research, University of Colorado.
Soar, R. S. (1973). Follow through classroom process measurement and pupil growth (1970–71). (Final
Report.) Gainesville, FL: College of Education, University of Florida.
Spaulding, R. L. (1970). E. I. P. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Stagg, B. C. , & Donkin, M. E. (2015). Mnemonics are an effective tool for adult beginners learning plant
identification. Journal of Biological Education, 50 (1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.1000360
Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Stauffer, R. (1969a). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive-learning process. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Stauffer, R. G. (1969b). Teaching reading as a thinking process . New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Stauffer, R. (1970). The language-experience approach to the teaching of reading. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Staver, J. (1989). A summary of research in science education. Science Education, 70 (3), 245–341.
Steinbeck, J. (1952). East of Eden. New York, NY: Viking Press.
Sternberg, R. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effectiveness of intellectual skills programs. Educational
Leadership, 44 , 60–67.
Stevens, R. J. , & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’ achievement,
attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 321–351.
Stevenson, H. W. , Lee, S. , & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and
American children. Science, 231 , 693–699.
Stevenson, H. W. , & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap. New York, NY: Summit Books.
Stockard, J. , Wood, T. W. , Coughlin, C. , & Khoury, C. R. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction
curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88 (4), 479–507.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 51 (4),
194–199.
Suchman, J. R. (1961). Inquiry training: Building skills for autonomous discovery. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of
Behavior and Development, 7 (3), 147–169.
Suchman, J. R. (1962). The elementary school training program in scientific inquiry. Champaign, IL: University
of Illinois Press.
Suchman, R. (1981). Idea book for geological inquiry. Chicago, IL: Trillium Press.
Sullivan, E. V. (1984). A critical psychology: Interpretations of the personal world. New York, NY: Plenum.
Sutcher, L. , Darling-Hammond, L. , & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply,
demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Swartz, S. , & Klein, A. (1997). Research in reading recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children. (Cooperative
Research Project 2404.) San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State College.
Taub, E. (2010). The web way to learn a language. New York Times, October 27. Technology, p. 1.
Taylor, C. (Ed.) (1964). Creativity: Progress and potential. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tennyson, R. D. , & Cocchiarella, M. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching
concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56 , 40–71.
Tennyson, R. , & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature.
Review of Educational Research, 50 (1), 55–70.
Thelen, H. (1954). Dynamics of groups at work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Thelen, H. (1960). Education and the human quest. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Thelen, H. (1981). The classroom society: The construction of education. New York, NY: Halsted Press.
Thoresen, C. (Ed.) (1973). Behavior modification in education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative process in animals. In
Psychological Review, 8 (Suppl. 2). New York: Macmillan.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The psychology of learning: Volume II: Educational psychology. New York: Teachers
College.
Tobias, S. (1993). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.
Tobin, K. (1986). Effects of teacher wait time on discourse characteristics in mathematics and language arts
classes. American Educational Research Journal, 23 (2), 191–200.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Gifted children in the classroom. New York, NY: Macmillan.
U.S. Department of Education . (2022, December 7). U.S. Department of Education launches new initiative to
enhance STEM education for all students [Press release for Raise the Bar: STEM Excellence for All Students
initiative].
Vaughn, M. , Parsons, S. A. , & Massey, D. (2020). Aligning the science of reading with adaptive teaching.
Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S-1), S299–S306.
Vaydylevich, Y. (2015, May). Iceland study provides insights into disease, paves way for large-scale genomic
studies. NIH: National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved 4/20/2023 from
https://www.genome.gov/27561444/iceland-study-provides-insights-into-disease-paves-way-for-largescale-
genomic-studies
Vellutino, F. , & Scanlon, D. (2001). Emergent literacy skills, early instruction, and individual differences as
determinants of difficulties in learning to read: The case for early intervention. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinsons
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 295–321). New York, NY: Guilford.
Voss, B. A. (1982). Summary of research in science education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Vygotsky, L. , (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
Wade, N. (2002, June 18). Scientist at work/Kari Stefansson: Hunting for disease genes in Iceland's
genealogies. The New York Times, p. 4.
Wadsworth, B. (1978). Piaget for the classroom teacher. New York, NY: Longman.
Walberg, H. J. (1985). Why Japanese educational productivity excels. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Walberg, H. J. (1986). What works in a nation still at risk. Educational Leadership, 44 (1), 7–11.
Walberg, H. J. (1990). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base. Phi Delta Kappan,
71 (6), 70–78.
Wallace, K. (2000). Born to be a butterfly. New York, NY: Dorling Kindersley.
Wallace, R. C. , Lemahieu, P. G. , & Bickel, W. E. (1990). The Pittsburgh experience: Achieving commitment to
comprehensive staff development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Walston, J. , & West, J. (2004). Full-day and half-day kindergarten in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Wang, H. H. , Hong, Z. R. , She, H. C. , Smith, T. J. , Fielding, J. , & Lin, H. S. (2022). The role of structured
inquiry, open inquiry, and epistemological beliefs in developing secondary students’ scientific and mathematical
literacies. International Journal of STEM Education , 9 (14). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00329-z
Wasik, B. A. , & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five
programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28 (2), 186–207.
Watson, J. B. (1916). The place of conditioned reflex in psychology. Psychological Review, 23 , 89–116.
Watson, J. B. , & Rayner, R. (1921). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 ,
1–14.
Weikart, D. (Ed.) (1971). The cognitively oriented curriculum: A framework for preschool teachers. Washington,
DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.
Wentzel, K. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61 (1), 1–24.
White, B. Y. , & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to
all students, Cognition and Instruction, 16 (1), 3–118.
White, B. , Frederiksen, J. , & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than
a marriage of convenience. In D. J. Hacker , J. Dunlosky , & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition
in education (pp. 175–205). New York: Routledge.
White, S. (2002). Developmental Psychology as a Human Enterprise. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
White, T. G. , Sowell, J. , & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching elementary children to use word-part clues.
Reading Teacher, 42 (4), 302–308.
Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wiederholt, J. L. , & Bryant, B. (2001). Gray oral reading test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wiederholt, J. L. , & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray oral reading test (5th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wilford, J. (2013). Skull fossil suggests simpler human linkage. The New York Times, October 17, Science, p.
1.
Williams, K. (2017). National Geographic Readers: Plants (Level 1 Co-reader). Washington, DC: National
Geographic Kids.
Wilson, C. D. , Taylor, J. A. , Kowalski, S. M. , & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-
based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47 (3), 276–301.
Wing, R. (1965). Two computer-based economic games for sixth graders. Yorktown Heights, NY: Board of
Cooperative Educational Services, Center for Educational Services and Research.
Wolfe, P. , & Brandt, R. (1998). What do we know from brain research? Educational Leadership, 56 (3), 8–13.
Wolpe, J. (1969). The practice of behavior therapy. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Wood, K. , & Tinajero, J. (2002, May). Using pictures to teach content to second language learners. Middle
School Journal, 47–51.
Worthen, B. (1968). A study of discovery and expository presentation: Implications for teaching. Journal of
Teacher Education, 19 , 223–242.
Wright, D. M. , & Ehri, L. (2007). Beginners remember orthography when they learn to read words: The case of
doubled letters. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (1), 115–133.
Zepeda, S. , & Ponticell, J. (Eds.) (2019). The Wiley handbook of educational supervision. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Zhao, Y. , Lei, J. , Yan, B. , Lai, C. , & Tan, H. (2005). What makes the difference: A practical analysis of
research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107 (8), 1836–1884.
Ziegler, S. (1981). The effectiveness of cooperative learning teams for increasing cross-ethnic friendship:
Additional evidence. Human Organization, 40 , 264–268.
Zimmer, C. (2015, March 15). In Iceland's DNA, new clues to disease-causing gene. The New York Times.
Retrieved 4/20/2023 from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/science/in-icelands-dna-clues-to-what-genes-
may-cause-disease.html