Zahorik identifies three broad concep tual categories of good teaching: science-research, theory-philosophy, and art-craft. Various conceptions of teaching within each category are then defined and discussed. The author con cludes with a description of how the needs of teachers and developmental stages of teacher growth will dictate the conception of teaching that should be emphasized during preservice and inser vice teacher education experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2.
Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1977). Process-product correlations in the Texas effectiveness study: Final report. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
3.
Coker, H., Lorentz, C., & Coker, J. (1980). Teacher behavior and student outcomes in the Georgia study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
4.
Eisner, E. (1983). The art and craft of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, 5-13.
5.
Fisher, C., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., Dishaw, M., Moore, J., & Berliner, D. (1978). Beginning teacher evaluation study, technical report series. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Research and Development.
6.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization . American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
7.
Gage, N. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching, New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
Good, T., & Grouws, D. (1975). Process-product relationships in fourth grade mathematics classrooms, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri .
9.
Haberman, M. (1983). Research on preservice laboratory and clinical experiences. In K. Howey and W. Gardner (Eds.), The education of teachers: A look ahead (pp. 98-117). New York: Longman.
10.
Hunter, M. (1974). The science of the art of teaching. In D. Allen & J. Hecht (Eds.), Controversy in education (pp. 1-21). Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders.
11.
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.
12.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1980). Models of teaching (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Nuthall, G., & Snook, I. (1973). Contemporary models of teaching. In R. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 47-76). Chicago: Rand McNally.
14.
Rosenshine, B. (1976). Classroom interaction. In N. Gage (Ed.), The psychology of teaching methods. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
15.
Rubin, L. (1985). Artistry in teaching. New York: Random House.
16.
Soar, R. ( 197 3). Follow-through classroom process measurement and pupil growth (1970-71): Final reportGainsville, FL : University of Florida.
17.
Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow-through classroom observation evaluation, 1971-1973. Menlo Park, CA: SRA.
18.
Suchman, R. (1962). The elementary school training program in scientific inquiry. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
19.
Tom, A. ( 1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
