• Teacher and Student Roles in Instruction
• Materials Used in Instruction
• Classroom and Homework Activities
• Assessment of Student Learning
• Class, School, and Teacher Characteristics Associated With Teachers' Instructional Practices
• Conclusion
• References

As education goals have been expanded and articulated in recent years, policymakers, educators, researchers, and the public have become more interested in how elementary and secondary school teachers teach their students. As part of a larger standards-setting movement intended to improve learning, elementary and secondary school teachers, college and university faculty, other educators, and business leaders have developed voluntary national curriculum standards in many subject areas. In addition, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has developed standards for teaching various subjects at different grade levels. Together, these sets of standards provide both examples of reform-oriented teaching practice and a framework within which to examine teachers' practice at this stage of instruction reform.

This report presents estimates of the proportion of teachers who used a wide range of teaching practices, including both those frequently recommended in curriculum and teaching standards and those that have traditionally been part of teachers' practice. The report presents analyses of data collected in the 1994-95 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS:94-95), which administered for the first time a series of items on their instructional practices to a national sample of teachers in kindergarten through grade 12 and in all subject areas.

The report examines teachers' practices in four areas of instruction: the roles that teachers and students play in learning activities, the materials and technology that teachers and students use in the classroom, the kinds of learning tasks that students do both in the classroom and at home, and the methods that teachers use to assess and evaluate student learning. The report also discusses whether teachers' choices of instructional strategies vary with characteristics of teachers and their students.

Researchers and policymakers have become increasingly interested in teachers' grouping practices because of both the increasing popularity of cooperative learning techniques in the United States and international research on instructional strategies. In the United States, cooperative learning—which involves dividing a class of students into small groups in which students help each other learn material or collaborate to complete a project—has been advocated by a number of researchers as an effective strategy for improving both student motivation and learning (Cohen 1994; Johnson and Johnson 1994; Slavin 1996). Moreover, cooperative learning is an instructional strategy in which many teachers are being trained: in 1993-94, 50 percent of teachers reported that they had attended a professional development session on cooperative learning since the end of the previous school year (Henke et al. 1997).

The TFS:94-95 data indicate that teachers and students work together in a wide range of grouping patterns. Nearly all teachers reported that during the semester preceding the survey they had provided students in their designated class with whole group (98 percent) and individualized instruction (96 percent) at least once a week, and most (86 percent) reported using small group instruction on a weekly basis as well (table A).¹ Compared with teachers in higher grades, teachers in lower grades, who spend more time per week with the same group of students, were more likely to use small group instruction and to ask students to discuss as a class the work they had done in small groups. In addition, social studies teachers were less likely than teachers in the other core academic subjects—English, mathematics, and science—to use alternatives to whole class instruction.

Table A.— Percentage of teachers who used various grouping patterns at least once a week during the last semester, by class grade levels and subject areas: 1994-95

In addition, many recommendations for instruction reform emphasize that interaction among students and between teachers and students facilitates students' understanding of concepts. In the TFS:94-95, teachers were asked how frequently they used instructional strategies that can be broadly classified into three categories of interaction patterns: teacher talk, teacher-student talk, and student-student talk. All three of these interaction patterns quite commonly occurred in teachers' designated classes on a weekly basis. Most teachers reported that they lectured students (63 percent) and had students listen to and observe their presentations (76 percent) at least once a week, although teachers were more likely to report that they used teacher-student discussion strategies than lectures or presentations.

In addition to the roles they and their students play in instruction, teachers must decide what materials they and their students will use as they teach and learn, within the constraints imposed by their districts and schools. Print materials have been mainstays of U.S. elementary and secondary education since the first common and charity schools of the 19th century (Kaestle 1983), and materials such as textbooks, supplementary reading materials, and workbooks and worksheets are commonly used today. Many reformers urge teachers to make less use of routine exercises commonly provided in textbooks and workbooks or worksheets, and instead to provide students with more original source materials (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS] 1994; National Research Council [NRC] 1996). Moreover, print materials are not the only tools available to teachers today. In the past decade, instruction reformers have promoted the use of concrete materials (i.e., manipulatives, models, and other tools or objects) for mathematics and science lessons among older children as well as elementary grade children (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] 1989, 1991; NRC 1996). As computers, video, and other electronic technologies become both more common in society at large and less expensive, policymakers as well as education reformers are encouraging schools and teachers to make video, the Internet, and CD-ROMs part of everyday instruction (NCTM 1989; NRC 1996).

Although textbooks and workbooks or worksheets emphasizing routine practice were common, they were not used universally, and teachers assigned work with supplementary materials at least as often. Many teachers reported that their students used textbooks (74 percent) and supplementary printed materials (78 percent) in class at least once a week. About two-thirds of teachers had students do worksheets or workbook exercises emphasizing routine practice in class and at home weekly (68 and 65 percent, respectively). Overall, teachers were less likely to have students read supplementary materials than textbooks in their homework assignments, and this was particularly true of mathematics teachers.

Teachers' use of various print materials in class or homework assignments varies with their students' grade level. Compared with teachers in higher grades, teachers in lower grades were more likely to have students read supplementary materials in class and as homework and work on routine exercises in class. The proportion of teachers who had students read supplementary materials in class decreased from 91 percent of primary teachers to 66 percent of high school teachers, and the proportion who had students read supplementary materials as homework decreased from 57 percent among primary teachers to 43 percent among high school level teachers. In addition, intermediate teachers were more likely than teachers in the primary or middle and junior high grades to have students read textbooks in class (87 percent compared with 67 and 75 percent, respectively), perhaps because intermediate students have higher skills than primary students and spend more time with their teachers in class than middle and junior high school students, on average.²

Teachers commonly used concrete materials in their instruction, and less frequently used electronic media. Whereas 73 percent of teachers reported using manipulatives and models to demonstrate concepts, and 88 percent reported using the board or overhead to do so, 55 percent reported using a computer, video, or other electronic technology. Although primary teachers were more likely than teachers in other grade levels to have students use manipulatives at least once a week, 63 percent of high school teachers reported doing so. Mathematics, science, and social studies standards recommend that students use hands-on materials. However, science teachers were more likely to have students do so on a weekly basis: 79 percent of science teachers had students use hands-on materials weekly, compared with 62 percent of mathematics teachers and 43 percent of social studies teachers.

Reflecting the expansion of education goals to include higher order thinking as well as mastery of basic skills, curriculum standards in all four core academic subject areas emphasize that students' learning activities should include complex tasks that require higher order thinking.³ University faculty, government agencies, academic and teacher professional organizations, and business leaders have called for teachers to provide more opportunities for students to become proficient at higher order thinking. Such learning activities include solving complex problems that require students to analyze, organize, and synthesize information and to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing (Marshall and Tucker 1992; Murnane and Levy 1996; NCTM 1989; The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills 1991). Moreover, curriculum standards in several subject areas recommend that teachers include authentic or real-world problems in the activities they ask students to do (NCSS 1994; National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association 1996; NCTM 1989).

The TFS:94-95 data indicate that nearly two-thirds of teachers asked students at least once a week to explain how what they had learned in class related to the real world, and about 60 percent had students work on problems that had several answers or methods of solution. Teachers were less likely, however, to have students engage in similar activities in their homework assignments. For example, 13 percent of teachers reported that homework assignments included problems with no obvious method of solution at least once a week. Teachers were more likely to assign routine exercises as homework: 65 percent did.

Older children's greater knowledge and skills might lead their teachers to use higher order thinking tasks more often than teachers of younger children. This expectation, however, was not supported by the TFS:94-95 data. Compared with higher grade teachers, teachers in the lower grades were more likely to ask students to explain how what they learned in class was linked to the real world. Primary teachers were more likely than intermediate teachers to ask students to put events or things in order and explain why they were organized that way (56 percent, compared with 39 percent).Intermediate teachers were more likely than senior high teachers to have students work on problems that required several methods of solution (68 percent, compared with 54 percent). They were also more likely than middle and junior high teachers to have students work on a project, gather data, or do an experiment at home (35 percent, compared with 18 percent).

Researchers and education reformers have paid increasing attention not only to how teachers teach their students, but also to how teachers assess and evaluate students' learning (NCTM 1995; Stiggins and Conklin 1992). As the goals for elementary and secondary education have expanded to include higher order thinking skills, and as the school-age population becomes more culturally and linguistically diverse, some argue that assessment tools must expand beyond multiple-choice or short-answer tests in order to measure students' progress accurately (Herman, Aschbacher, and Winters 1992; Wiggins 1993). Although they are not without controversy (Shavelson, Baxter, and Gao 1993; Koretz et al. 1994), portfolios have been promoted as an assessment strategy that allows teachers to evaluate higher order, complex skills and also to provide opportunities for student goal setting and self-evaluation of progress (Arter and Spandel 1992; Darling-Hammond 1994).

Overall, 57 percent of teachers reported using portfolios during the semester preceding the survey. Teachers' use of portfolios was strongly associated with the grade level of their students. Nearly three-quarters of all primary teachers and 60 percent of intermediate teachers used portfolios to assess skills in at least one content area. In contrast, 41 percent of high school teachers reported using portfolios in at least one content area.

Teachers who use portfolios also use a wide variety of assessment tools, as shown by the kinds of student work they included in their portfolios. Teachers commonly included students' tests and assessments (62 percent) and worksheets (57 percent), and less commonly included homework assignments (35 percent) in portfolios (table B). These data indicate that many teachers are combining portfolios with traditional assessment strategies.

Table B.—Percentage of teachers who included various types of student work in student portfolios, by class grade level and subject area: 1994-95

Perhaps the most common use of all the assessment information teachers collect is in determining end-of-semester or end-of-year letter grades or formal progress reports. Teachers can consider many factors when they determine student grades (Stiggins and Conklin 1992). While some may rely only on the absolute level of student achievement, others may consider additional factors, such as level of effort and degree of growth or improvement shown by their students (Brookhart 1993). Most, however, probably use a mixture of these factors, assigning a higher level of importance to some than to others (Brookhart 1993; Stiggins and Conklin 1992).

In the TFS:94-95, teachers were asked to indicate the importance of various aspects of student performance in assigning grades, including absolute achievement, level of effort, individual improvement, achievement relative to the rest of the class, and portfolio items. Almost all teachers (97 percent) reported that measures of student effort were either very important or extremely important in determining grades. Eighty-four percent assigned the same level of importance to students' improvement over time, and 76 percent said that absolute achievement was very important. About one-half (49 percent) of teachers said that portfolio items were very important, and one-quarter said that achievement relative to the rest of the class was very important.

Beyond grade level and subject area, parents, educators, and policymakers are interested in whether and how instruction varies among teachers with different qualifications and among students of different backgrounds for at least two reasons. First, as debate regarding how teachers should teach continues, parents, educators, and policymakers worry that some children are consistently more likely to receive lower quality instruction than others. Second, some researchers claim that certain instructional strategies are particularly beneficial for children from low-income backgrounds or those with limited English proficiency (LEP) (Knapp 1995). To the degree that low-income children or children of cultural and linguistic minority backgrounds are better served by some instructional practices than others, therefore, systematic variation in instructional strategies may indicate appropriate, rather than lower quality, instruction.

Overall, the TFS:94-95 data indicate that public school teachers (who constitute 88 percent of all teachers) were generally more likely than private school teachers (12 percent of all teachers) to use recently recommended teaching practices in their classrooms.

Teachers' perceptions of student ability were associated in interesting ways with the instructional strategies they used. In the classroom, teachers who taught higher ability students tended to use recommended teaching strategies less often than did teachers who taught lower ability students. With homework assignments, however, teachers of higher ability classes were often more likely than teachers of lower ability classes to use recommended practices.

As the proportion of low-income students in their schools increased, teachers became more likely to use portfolio assessment of student work during the semester and to use the following recommended practices on a weekly basis: facilitating discussions, using manipulatives or models to demonstrate concepts, and having students use hands-on materials. However, teachers in schools with higher proportions of low-income students were also more likely to have students do traditional routine exercises, both in class and as homework.

In general, teachers of language minority children used recommended practices more often, and other practices less often, than did other teachers. For example, as LEP enrollment increased, so did the proportion of teachers who worked with small groups, had the whole class discuss the work that students had done in small groups, and had students interact primarily with other students in the class. Higher LEP enrollment was also associated with greater teacher use of higher level tasks as well as portfolio assessment of student work overall and, specifically, in English, mathematics, science, and other fields (but not social studies).

More experienced teachers were less likely than less experienced teachers to use some recommended practices and more likely to use some traditional practices. For example, 35 percent of teachers with 1 to 4 years of experience had the whole class discuss work that students had done in small groups, compared with 32 percent of teachers with 5 to 20 years of experience and 28 percent of teachers with more than 20 years of experience. Conversely, teachers with more years of experience were more likely than their less experienced counterparts to report that they had students read textbooks at home, a traditional practice.

Teachers with more advanced degrees were more likely than others to use a number of recommended practices, such as having students work on group projects for individual grades, engage in discussion primarily with other students in class, read supplementary materials in class and as homework, use calculators in class, work on problems with several answers or methods of solution in class, and apply concepts to unfamiliar situations in homework assignments. They were also more likely to use portfolios to assess student work.

In general, teachers who had participated in professional development about a year before completing the TFS:94-95 were more likely than those who had not to use recommended teaching practices. For example, teachers who participated in professional development on cooperative learning were more likely to use small group instruction in general and, specifically, to have students confer with other students, work on a group project for individual grades, and discuss with the whole class work they had done in small groups. Similar relationships were observed between professional development on education technology and the use of technology in the classroom, and between professional development on assessment and the use of portfolios to assess student work.

The TFS:94-95 offers a unique perspective on instruction in elementary and secondary schools in that it provides the first nationally representative data on instruction across subject areas. Consistent with previous research, these data indicate that students' grade level and the subject area of classes, as well as other characteristics of students, schools, and teachers themselves, are related to the instructional strategies that teachers choose. Future research will be able to determine whether teaching has changed in the 1990s, as states and localities adopt curriculum standards, as teachers continue to participate in professional development programs, as technology becomes more available, and as the size and demographics of the school-aged population change.

² Primary teachers teach in grades K-3, intermediate teachers in grades 4-6, middle and junior high teachers in grades 7-8, and senior high teachers in grades 9-12.

³ Core academic subject areas include English, mathematics, science, and social studies.