Young, Reiser, and Dick's study of superior teachers' instructional planning

¶ … Superior Teachers…

Review of "Do Superior Teachers.."

Do Superior Teachers…"

Young, a., Reiser, R., & Dick, W (1998). "Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study," Educational Technology, Research and Development, 46:2, 65"

Young, a., Reiser, R., & Dick, W (1998). "Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study," Educational Technology, Research and Development, 46:2, 65"

The article "Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive Study" by Young, Reiser and Dick attempts to support the development of protocols or templates for systematic instructional planning, which clearly outline objectives and detail how instructional activities meet those objectives all in written form. The vested interest of the researchers is based on their own revamping of a systematic instructional planning procedure first developed by Ralph Tyler in 1949. The emphasis of the work is initially the importance of such written format planning, in both teacher education and classroom application and yet the "superior" teachers interviewed do not support this thesis. The main intention of the work was to discover if "superior" teachers where utilizing systematic instructional planning in the classroom and therefore determine if it is still important in the classroom beyond the learning of it.

According to the work it is surmised that instructional planning is an important aspect of classroom success as it is vital to influencing classroom instructional time, objective and even teaching styles. Student teachers are often introduced to instructional planning exercises and most often the objective-first planning model that was first outlined in 1949 by Ralph Tyler. This model has been in consistent use in teacher education almost since its inception. Two of the authors of this work, Reiser and Dick have developed a four point modernization of the model that includes; the clear definition of general goals and precise objectives to be achieved by the students, planning activities to meet defined objectives, measurement of the student's achievement and understanding of the objectives and finally the addition of a fourth step (adding to Tyler's objective-first model) the opportunity to alter the plan based on outcomes, to better meet the defined objectives of the lesson(s). According to the authors pre-service teachers often grasp this model, use it in both their own academic pursuits and by applying it to real time planning in the student teaching classroom and again according to the authors apply it with enthusiasm. Yet, in the classroom experienced teachers rarely utilize an objective-first written model but rather base planning activities on activities, i.e. they begin with the second step and rarely define objectives. In this skipping of a step the author's contend that some teachers may be missing an opportunity to discover how and why planned activities are effective (or ineffective) at achieving objectives for students. The supposition being that the teachers simply trust that past activities and even new activities are effective at meeting undefined objectives and finally imply that the revision opportunity at the close of the systematic planning process is no delineated and that teachers use less formal methods in the classroom to determine the effectiveness of any given activity. The authors then contend that the only way to ensure that teachers apply this planning model in the classroom would be to mandate it. Lastly the study group (i.e) the ten teacher respondents were taken from a list of teachers who had been identified as superior by peers and who were then nominated for "teacher of the year" in the U.S. Nineteen teachers were approached for the study and ten responded, the teachers were then surveyed using questionnaires and interviews with open ended questions.

Main Point

The main point of the article is to support through literature and evidence that systematic instructional planning is essential to "superior" teaching or at the least determine if teachers already designated as "superior" report the use of objective-first systematic instructional planning. The authors intention is not met with the study group used or with the research questions asked, as the designated research population was small, including only 10 respondents and the teachers supported non-written forms of instructional planning based on activities and student outcomes rather than clearly pre-defined objectives. The research offered to support the position is also conflicting, as the contrary literary evidence is overemphasized in the work. Yet, the author's still conclude with the argument that systematic instructional planning is important. The author's do however make the point that new teachers and teachers still in the teacher education system are the prime candidates for gaining from exposure to the application of systematic planning.

Main Argument

The authors contend that systematic instructional planning is supported through literature and anecdotal evidence to be a good template or model for understanding how to appropriately utilize objectives to plan instructional time and ultimately to meet those objectives. The authors contend through their own work and the work of others that developing such skill is foundational to meeting objectives with instructional time. The reasons the authors use to support their argument are demonstrated through literature but not through practical application.

Discussion of Conclusion

The authors conclude that "superior" teachers do not utilize "objective first" systematic instructional planning in their own planning but support that it is a proven, effective and welcomed teaching model for pre-service teachers.

Suggested Fixes

The sample might have been more effective if larger, the sample choice might have been reviewed and the goal of the overall research might have been better if the research developed a better indication of how objective first planning models might have influenced the existing sample in earlier times or a whole new sample of larger and broader implications, such as new teachers just entering the classroom setting independently or teachers who were actually mandated to use an objective's first model and how it is preferred or disliked by them.

Ultimately then, as questions did not focus on past instructional planning methodology but on real time instructional planning practices the practice of systematic "objectives-first" planning could have been very influential in teacher development but was ultimately abandoned in practical application, probably largely owing to time constraints, which are a consistently cited concern for teachers. The teachers studied simply offered the thesis that formal "objective-first" instructional planning is not practical and they prefer to plan in more timesaving and practical ways. If one were to include questions regarding past use or even possible future use of such methods the true efficacy of the model may have been tested.

Potential Effects of Fixes

The development of a case for systematic planning might have been made if a broader sample was utilized. The results might have concluded that some "superior" teachers do use an objective-first model or that they have done so in the past and developed instruction that works and no longer needs to be tested with every application. The researchers might have also utilized a different strategy to determine the efficacy of this type of system, by actually offering an application tool to one study group and not to another and then the results might have been compared, based on student outcomes for a given instructional method or curriculum. This of course would have changed the entire focus of the work but might have made a stronger case for "objective-first" systematic instructional planning.

Article Publication

The publication audience of this work, i.e. teachers, administrators, board members, and even teacher educators might benefit from a revised edition of this published work, i.e. one that included some of the main points of this assessment. Currently, the work challenges rather than support the thesis, indicating that "objective first" systematic instruction planning is not necessary over time and that other methods are superior or more time sensitive and better suited to real classrooms.

Resources

Young, a., Reiser, R., & Dick, W (1998). "Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study," Educational Technology, Research and Development, 46:2, 65