1887
Volume 2013, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 1703-1958

Abstract

Qatar K-12 school reform emphasizes student-centered classrooms where students actively engage in enquiry and use their critical thinking and problem solving skills. Classrooms characterized by these elements should emerge as more successful on Qatari standards-based assessments, but little research has been done to examine the relationship between these characteristics and standards attainment. This study investigated the conditions for student-centered teaching and learning through examination of teacher and student perceptions, and student achievement in math and science classrooms in higher and lower achieving elementary schools. Data were collected in 17 schools randomly selected from 46 schools that had implemented the standards for at least 3 years. Findings indicate that the percentage of standards met by schools is very low and the incidence of classroom behaviors associated with student-centered classrooms is also very low across schools. However, schools making more progress meeting standards tended to exhibit higher levels of student-centered behaviors. The implications of these findings for professional development and the implementation of reform in Qatar were discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2013.4
2014-01-01
2019-11-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nmejre/2013/1/nmejre.2013.4.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2013.4&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Knight S, Ikhlef A, Parker D, Joshi RM, Eslami Z, Sadiq H, Al-Ahraf M, Al Saai A. Investigation of math and science teaching and learning in Qatari independent elementary schools. In: Gitsaki C, ed. Teaching and Learning in the Arab world. New York: Peter Lang Publishers 2011;:249274.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Education Institute. National Professional Standards. Doha, Qatar: State of Qatar Supreme Education Council 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brewer D, Augustine C, Zellman G, Ryan G, Goldman C, Stasz C, Constant L. Education for a New Era: Design and Implementation of K-12 Education Reform in Qatar. Santa Monica, CA: Rand 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. In: Bransford JDBrown ALCocking RR, eds. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. In: Bransford JBrown ACocking RR, eds. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. In: Minstrell Jvan Zee E, eds. Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Zimmerman B, Schunk D. Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Laurence Erlbaum 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Knight S, Parker D, Zimmerman W, Ikhlef A. Investigating the relationship between perceived and observed student-centered learning environments in Qatari elementary math and science classrooms. Learning Environment Journal. (In Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ikhlef A, Knight S. Conditions for student-centered teaching and learning: relationship between perceptions of classroom processes and school achievement of curriculum standards. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Loucks-Horsley S, Hewson PW, Love N, Stiles KE. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press 1998.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Putnam R, Borko H. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher. 2000; 29:1:415.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Motschnig-Pitrik R, Holzinger A. Student-centered teaching meets new media: concept and case study. Educational Technology & Society. 2002; 5:4.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Sawyer K. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New york: Cambridge 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brophy J, Good T. Teacher behavior and student achievement. In: Wittrock MC, ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan 1986.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Zellman GL, Ryan GW, Karam R, Constant L, Salem H, Gonzalez G, Orr N, Goldman CA, Al-Thani H, Al-Obaidi K. Implementation of the K-12 Education Reform in Qatar's Schools. Rand Qatar Policy Institute 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser B, Fisher D. Development and validation of short forms of some instruments measuring student perceptions of actual and preferred classroom learning environment. Science Education. 1983; 67::115131.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser B. Classroom and school climate. In: Gabel D, ed. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: MacMillan 1994;:493541.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fraser B. Science learning environments: assessment, effects, and determinants. In: Fraser BTobin K, eds. International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 1998;:527564.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fraser B. Classroom learning environment. In: Abell SLederman N, eds. Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 2007;:103124.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Green BA, Miller RB, Crowson M, Duke BL, Akey L. Predicting high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Conemporary Educational Psychology. 2004; 29::462482.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jadullah N, Pounder D. Middle school reform and its relationship to learning environments and student outcomes. In: Hoy WDiPaola M, eds. Studies in School Improvement. Charlotte, NC: Information age 2009;:95136.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zedan R. New dimensions in the classroom climate. Learning Environments Research: An International Journal. 2010; 13::7588.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. In: Duschl RSchweingruber HShouse A, eds. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fouts J, Brown C, Theiman G. Classroom Instruction in Gates Schools: A Baseline Report. Seattle, WA: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibson S, Dembo MH. Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Ecuational Psychology. 1984; 76::569582.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellet C, Monsaas J. Cross-Sample Validation of a Measure of Teaching and Learning Environments in Science and Mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 2007, April.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Spinner H, Fraser B. Evaluation of an innovative math program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, New Orleans, LA, 2002, April.
  28. Supreme Education Council Evaluation Institute. Qatar comprehensive educational assessment (QCEA) 2009 results. Doha, Qatar: Supreme Education Council 2010;. . Retrieved from http://www. english.education.gov.qa/section/sec/evaluation_institute/sao/_qcea .
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Doyle W. Classroom organization and management. In: Wittrock MC, ed. Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan 1986;:392431.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Tschannen-Moran M, Woolfolk Hoy A, Hoy WK. Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research. 1998; 68::202248.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tschannen-Moran M, Woolfolk Hoy A. Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2001; 17:7:783805.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hoy AW, Spero RB. Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2005; 21:4:343356.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Grassi E, Barker H. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schunk D, Zimmerman B. Motivation and Self-regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Reeve J, Ryan R, Deci E, Jang H. Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: a self-determination theory perspective. In: Schunk DZimmerman B, eds. Motivation and Self-regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum 2008;:223244.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Good T, Brophy J. Looking in Classrooms. 8th ed. New York: Longman 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Boekaerts M. Self-regulated learning: where are we today. International Journal of Education Research. 1999; 31::445457.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hawley WD, Valli L. The essentials of effective professional development: a new consensus. In: Darling-Hammond LSykes G, eds. Teaching as the Learning Profession. San Francisco: Jossey Bass 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2013.4
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/nmejre.2013.4
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error