BERA

Psychopedagogy: Theory and Practice in Teaching

Author(s): Edgar Stones
Source: British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1978), pp. 1-19
Published by: Wiley on behalf of BERA
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501117
Accessed: 06-06-2020 18:13 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501117?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley, BERA are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British
Educational Research Journal

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1978

Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in

teaching

EDGAR STONES, Professor of Education, University of Liverpool

Introduction

Research and teaching in education has suffered for some time from an
unfortunate dichotomy in the conceptualisation of two of its most important
elements: the study of educational psychology and the study of practical teaching.
One difficulty connected with the study of educational psychology is that the
same term is used to refer to two different fields of application of concepts from
psychology, namely clinical educational psychology as applied to child guidance
and used in the school psychological service, and academic educational psychology
related to practice and research in normal school and classroom settings. Another
difficulty is that the study of educational psychology in the second sense has rarely
made contact with classroom practice. Preoccupations such as psychometrics,
structure of intellect and personality testing have kept educational psychologists at
computer terminals and in armchairs with relatively few forays into places where
people are learning.
The study of teaching has burgeoned over the last decade or so. However, this
study has not been noticeably influenced by principles from the field of psychology.
Hypotheses in relation to classroom activities have tended to be sui generis in the
main and although there has been some cognizance of psychological concepts, for
example in instruments recording teachers' reinforcing behaviour, the concepts
have rarely been consciously and explicitly articulated with teaching activities.
Only recently in the U.K. has attention been paid to pupils' learning, a factor that
one might have thought of some importance in the study of teaching.
Thus educational psychology and the study of teaching have rarely converged in
joint scrutiny of how best to help people to learn. Since I take this question to be of
central importance to both fields of study I have attempted to make some
movement towards a rapprochement between the two. In an attempt to indicate the
aspiration towards this convergence I use the term psychopedagogy, which is taken
from European usage and seems to me to mark its focus on teaching and learning
and its non-clinical orientation. Psychopedagogy embraces theoretical principles
from psychology and the practical application of those principles in teaching with
the central aim of enhancing learning, and its affective context. In the pages which

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

follow I expand upon this theme in an attempt to make connexions between theory
and practice in psychology and teaching that be helpful in making progress in both.

Divisions

The schism between the theoretical elements in courses of educational studies and
the practice of teaching is a hardy perennial in discussions of teacher preparation.
Some British colleges in recent years have bestowed institutional approval on this
division by creating separate departments of education and of practical teaching
(under various names). It is also common for colleges to separate off courses
concerned with the teaching of particular subjects. Staff teaching Education will
tend to have qualifications in the field of the academic study of Education such as
educational psychology, sociology, history or philosophy. Staff responsible for
methods of specific subject teaching are likely to be those who teach the academic
subject itself (English, Maths, History etc.). Staff supervising teaching practice may
be drawn from any field and will almost certainly have made no study of teaching
other than that which formed part of their own initial training. There will generally
be no attempt to induct them into the role of supervisor of teaching practice. It is
also extremely unlikely that there will be any consideration of teaching as a subject
for serious academic study in its own right, and any integration of educational
theory with teaching practice is likely to be left for the student to effect on his own.
In view of the strong signals coming from institutions indicating to students that
educational theory and the practice of teaching are seen as very distinct phenomena
we should not be surprised if students treat them as separate.
There are other factors at work, of course. The nature of educational theory has
all too frequently had only tangential bearing on the job of the teacher in the
classroom. Student texts often eschew teaching as a subject for study or, possibly
worse, extrapolate from other fields to classroom conditions on the most tenuous
grounds (Desforges & McNamara, 1977). In the field of psychology the problem is
particularly acute since this is the field that offers most promise for the
development of a useful body of theory related to practical teaching (Dunkin &
Biddle, 1974; McNamara & Desforges, 1978).
On the other hand recent years have seen the development of techniques for
investigating practical teaching and classroom events. Ideas from such fields as
skills training and educational technology together with techniques for observing
interactions in human groups have helped provide a growing number of methods of
scrutinising what happens when teachers and learners interact. Some of these
methods owe allegiance to theoretical positions, some to none. However, whatever
their merits, none of them links the practice of teaching with any body of
theoretical principles in a systematic way.
The problem of the overall assessment of teaching competence is similarly
afflicted. Assessment on a five or fifty point scale is clearly intuitive rather than
informed by any identifiable rationale. I have been critical of this approach in
various places (Stones & Morris, 1972b). Elsewhere it has been found to be a
method that produces more supervisor consensus than other approaches (Shavelson
& Dempsey, 1976). However, there is little doubt that this consensus is a function
of the vagueness and generality of the categorisation 'good' and 'bad' teacher.
Raters of many different persuasions can well agree on the overall grade and yet
have quite different conceptions of what constitutes the desirable traits of a good

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

teacher. Apart from the general unsatisfactoriness of this spurious consensus the
global rating approach has little utility as a diagnostic tool. Being told that his
performance is C- is little help to a student anxious to improve. He may do his
best to improve his blackboard work when in fact his main weakness is his poor
punctuality and unconventional clothes. On the other hand, his friend in the same
school with the same grade, may well be advised to get some practice on the
blackboard if he aspires to a higher grade.
Analytical approaches using schedules comprising items related to specific
teacher activities are probably more useful to students and at least explicate the
bases for judgements. But virtually all current schedules can also be criticised on
several grounds. Usually they still use high inference variables, for example,
'sincerity', 'exposition', which leave the rater and student without guidelines. (One
man's sincerity is another man's dissimulation) (Norris, 1975; Yocknep, 1976). In
addition, in most schedules currently in use, a large proportion of the items relate
to the personal qualities of the teacher unconnected with work in the classroom.
The Stanford Teacher Competence Appraisal Guide has four items dealing with
community and professional matters. Among categories found in British schedules
are such things as 'Acceptability with school staff, and 'Keenness and cooperation
in school activities' (Stones & Morris, 1972a). Whatever one thinks about such
categories, it can hardly be denied that they are peripheral to the activity of
teaching. The explication of the constituent elements in grading reveals a
heterogeneity of criteria that suggests that different training institutions reward
different qualities in their student teachers and points to the probable nature of the
origins of the criteria. A very large proportion of these schedules preserve, like
geological strata, layers of attitudes to teachers and teaching accreted over the years
[1]. Rarely is claim made to a theoretical basis for the selection and description of
the items in the schedules. Astonishingly few schedules pay much attention to
pupils' learning as a criterion of successful teaching although some undoubtedly
include teacher activities that we might reasonably take to be helpful. But, in the
main the schedules trap us in the past, offer no rationale for improvement and tend
to be innocent of theory.
Similar comments could be made about the various schedules relating to skill
training employed in analytical approaches such as microteaching. While these
schedules are much more likely to count notions from psychological theory among
their progenitors, their pedigrees are still somewhat obscure. Most are likely to trace
some part of their ancestry to originals in the Stanford ark. They tend to arise ad
hoc, faithful replicas of the originals, disparate and not related to each other in any
logical or systematic way. Thus skills such as beginning a lesson, asking questions,
pupil participation are likely to form part of an undifferentiated list, their
conceptual incongruity completely unchallenged, their debt to psychological
principles unrealised.
We thus have three difficult problems when we come to scrutinise teaching with
an attempt at a theoretical perspective. One is that theory or theories that might be
valuable have been divorced from classroom practice. A second is that methods of
evaluating teaching are atheoretical, imprecise, heterogeneous in their constitution
and of undemonstrated (but, I would argue, highly suspect) validity. A third is that
although some interesting and promising moves have been made in the field of
specific skill training, there is still a great lack of theoretical rationale and no basis
for assessing their relevance to teaching as a complex multifaceted skill. Common

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

to all the approaches is the difficulty of generating in any informed way new
perspectives that offer the possibility of developing and testing hypotheses about
teaching to permit of systematic development of practice that could in turn interact
with and enhance the development of theory.

Criteria

A common feature of the three approaches to the study of teaching I have

discussed, is that none of them gives much attention to children's learning. I want
to suggest that taking pupils' learning as the criterion of teacher competence helps
us to deal with the problems referred to above. Other qualities of a teacher thought
desirable could form the basis for parallel study, but since most workers in the field
actually focus on teaching/learning encounters when they study teaching, it seems
reasonable to take as a central focus for the study of teaching the process and
effectiveness of activities aimed at helping children to learn.
Let me hasten to say that I am not advocating the use of crude and simplistic
measures sometimes employed in performance based teacher education, or of
standardised tests such as are used in some British schools. I am referring to the
assessment of pupils' learning related directly to the teacher's intentions as to what
he hopes they will learn, and that this assessment be based on a grasp of theory of
evaluation and of pedagogy. I am not unaware of the utopian nature of my
advocacy. I have rehearsed elsewhere the largely unacknowledged problems
connected with assessment in education, the vestigial knowledge of the subject
provided by most training institutions, and the enormous inertia of institutional
attitudes (Stones, 1975a). The point is, however, that an approach focusing on what
the teacher hopes to teach his pupils should direct our attention to the question of
evaluation as well as to the teacher's interaction with the learners. The joint
explorations of these topics, together with a common preoccupation with enhancing
children's learning in the context of a theoretical grasp of relevant general
principles, is more likely to advance our understanding of the evaluative and
interactive aspects of teaching and provide a helpful orientation for student
teachers than present practice. The student's aim would be to help his pupils to
learn. He studies this in his theoretical work and tests its validity in his practical
teaching.
I have developed this theme at greater length when discussing objectives in the
teaching of educational psychology and the problems of practical teaching (Stones
& Anderson, 1972; Stones & Morris, 1972). In the former I argued for educational
psychology in teacher preparation to be clearly distinguished from clinical
educational psychology in the school psychological service. I also argued that a
course in educational psychology for student teachers should have as its central
focus the need for students to acquire a sound grasp of psychological principles
relating to human learning and the ability to apply them in the classroom. Indeed,
it seemed to me that this type of educational psychology should be viewed as part
of a theory of teaching and because of this it seemed more appropriate to use the
term 'psychopedagogy' than 'educational psychology'.
With this perspective the separate areas of study, educational psychology,
professional studies and teaching practice coalesce. All focus on how best to help
children learn. 'Theory' in a course taking this approach would not connote merely
that which takes place in the lecture theatre, but the body of principles that informs

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

and provides regularity to practical teaching activities. Practical teaching itself

provides a test bed for the theories, or perhaps more appropriately, hypotheses, that
we seek to apply to it. Each refines the other. The fact that our level of
understanding of both is extremely limited is no reason for not taking this kind of
approach. Indeed, it is more than likely that our limited knowledge is a
consequence of our not having taken this kind of approach in the past.
There is a further dimension to this perspective. Since every teaching act is
bound to be unique given the complexities and diversities of subjects, pupils,
classes, schools and teachers, every teacher is an experimenter every time he
teaches. His plan is his hypothesis, his teaching is the experiment, and the
evaluation of his teaching is the findings of his experiment, providing confirmation
of his hypothesis or indications for its modification. The lack of congruence
between this model of teaching and reality, it seems to me, is more a consequence
of the mismatch between theory and practice discussed above than a deficiency in
the model. Given an integrated approach to teaching practice and psychological
theory in teacher preparation it becomes possible to conceive of more informed
planning and execution in teaching that really makes it possible to envisage
teaching as a form of experimental psychology.
The acid test of a course in psychopedgagogy must be the success of its practical
application by the student teacher of the principles he has learned about human
learning. Therefore my analysis of the overall aim of a course in psychopedagogy,
i.e. that it should equip students to apply principles from the psychology of
education to teaching, has this orientation. In the analysis I draw attention to the
fact that the very specific objectives derived from the general aim, provide the bases
for actual specific teaching plans and lend themselves readily to use in training
approaches similar to those used in skills training.
In my discussion of practical teaching (Stones & Morris, 1972) I outlined an
approach to task analysis that I had found useful in preparing teaching
programmes. I suggested that this approach could be seen as complementing the
method of generating objectives. The objectives decided upon indicate what we
hope to achieve in our teaching, they point to our destination; the task analysis
when applied to specific objectives helps to chart our route. It does not tell us which
way to go, any more than the approach to the derivation of objectives tells us which
objectives are the right ones. Both are devices that depend on one's theoretical (or
ideological) position for their working out. In the case of psychopedagogy as I
conceive it, both procedures embrace my current position on psychological theory
as it seems to apply to the practice of teaching and any description or prescription
in regard to them would necessarily reflect that position. However, I believe that
the approach to the generation of objectives and to task analysis is adaptable and
dynamic, and may be applied to other fields of study. There is some evidence that
this is the case (Mascia, 1976). Amenability to change is also an important quality
since it permits of the accommodation to new theoretical insights in a logical way.

Connexions

So far the analysis I describe is completely theoretical drawing on my prese

knowledge of the important factors in human learning. I take a wide perspective o
pupils' learning. As indicated earlier, the overall objective is one that I think m
teachers would subscribe to. To teach bodies of concepts, attitudes, and skill

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

effectively and in such a way that pupils will enjoy the learning. I am aware of the
prior questions of what skills and what attitudes? I do not address myself to that
any more than anyone else in the field of practical teaching. Not that I do not have
my own views. Just that the focus of this article is different. However, because of
this orientation towards pupil learning the analysis produces descriptions of the
conditions of learning appropriate to different circumstances and these in turn
indicate the needed activity of the teacher to achieve the objectives from which the
analysis is derived. It is at this stage that we move into the area of teaching skills,
these being taken as those activities the teacher has to engage in in order to help
pupils to learn. This, it seems to me, is where the link between the theoretical
analysis and practical activities can be made.
When one takes the objectives specified with this orientation and one conducts
an appropriate task analysis, the product is a set of guidelines that indicates actions
likely to be conducive to pupils' learning. The teacher activities indicated by this
analysis bear some resemblance to the check lists of teacher activities found in
schedules related to the practice of specific teaching skills in microteaching. Listing
the activities derived from the specification of objectives and the task analysis
produces a list or schedule that bears a superficial resemblance to the schedules
employed for assessing practical teaching. The resemblance is mainly formal,
however. The fundamental difference is that the schedules described here are
produced by the systematic analysis from a theoretical standpoint focusin
pupils' learning unlike the heterogeneous, atheoretical lists commonly emplo
teacher training.
I have produced schedules in four areas. One relates to the teaching
conceptual matter. This I take to be what most teachers are trying to do most of
time, i.e. teaching content. One relates to the teaching of psychomotor skil
aspires to embrace the type of skills most teachers are likely to be concerned wi
some stage in their careers. It does not claim to be exhaustively applicable
specialist areas such as craft subjects or physical education, although, I belie
could be of some use even here. The third area covered relates to the creation of a
positive classroom atmosphere. This refers to the affective side of learning. The
fourth area considers the key elements in teaching pupils ways of tackling
problems.
It is important not to regard the schedules as being concerned with quite
independent activities. Indeed they are to all intents and purposes inseparable. The
affective element clearly permeates the whole of teaching, finding expression in the
teacher's attitude to his task and his pupils. But similarly there are cognitive aspects
to the learning of all motor skills and probably more motor aspects to the learning
of cognitive skills than is sometimes realised.
Two important characteristics of the approaches I have outlined are fundamental
to the claim to unite theory and practice. One is the claim that the schedules of
teaching activity are derived within a systematic framework. The other is that they
are testable in practice. The validity of the former will be determined by attempting
to apply the methods outlined in planning teaching activities; inconsistencies and
errors on a large scale or sheer inutility in producing suitable teaching methods will
invalidate the approach. The practical validity of the approach will be demon-
strated by the extent to which it is capable of producing schedules of teaching
activities of benefit to a student teacher. Thus if an individual student were
unsuccessful in his teaching we could compare his performance with the sc

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

of suggested teacher activities to diagnose likely shortcomings. On the other hand, a

teacher following the suggestions of the schedule would be more likely to be
successful. If, however, teachers following the guidelines of the schedule are
universally unsuccessful, the schedule and possibly the whole approach would be
invalidated. In view of our present state of knowledge of process-product
interactions, this point of view may seem extremely naive. I do not think this is so.
It seems to me the most fruitful way of tackling the process-product problem.
Theory and practice can be tested against each other step by step with the likely
refinement of both. I should now like to turn to a more detailed consideration of
the methods of objectives specification and analyses in the production of schedules
related to teaching.

Aspirations

It is not possible to give a complete account of the method of generating objectives

I have referred to above (see Stone & Anderson, 1972, for details). However, I will
attempt to present the salient features synoptically so as to illustrate the general
line. Basically I have taken the view that competence in a given field depends on
the exercise of three types of skills. Type A demands that the learner demonstrate
competence in a given activity according to agreed criteria. Type B demands that
the learner is able to recognise a competent performance of the given activity. Type
C demands that the learner 'knows' the principles underlying competent perfor-
mance. Competence in skill A depends on competence in skill B which depends in
turn on competence in skill C.
I do not claim that skills are by nature hierarchical, or that one cannot acquire a
type A skill intuitively, as it were, without being able to articulate the principles
underlying it. But since teaching is a systematic attempt to assist learners to acquire
skills insightfully and with economy there seems much to be said for an approach
to the specifying of objectives in the manner proposed. The method also has the
advantage of paralleling closely, common approaches to teacher preparation. The
stress is on teaching and we are more likely to be successful in teaching teaching (a
complex A skill) if we have first taught the student teacher the relevant pedagogical
principles and given him practice in appraising the attempts of others to implement
the principles in practical situations.
The principles underlying competent performance in teaching that the student
teacher has to get to know (type C skill), to appraise in practice (type B), and to put
into practice himself (type A), are principles derived from the study of human
learning and teaching. I find it useful when relating skills to knowledge in the
derivation of objectives to look upon the body of principles in a field of study as
having different levels of generality. The most general concepts together constitute
the complete body of knowledge in a field, the most specific, particular elements in
the field. This approach facilitates the preparation of actual teaching plans which
are likely to be concerned with specifics. The approach is a heuristic device, not a
statement about the nature of knowledge.
To exemplify, let us consider objectives related to teaching for concept learning.
A type A skill at a general level might demand that the teacher show competence in
the whole field of teaching concepts. A less general type A objective might demand
that he show competence in, for example, the presentation of exemplars of a
particular concept. Type B and C skills would be prerequisite for both. Thus his

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

understanding of principles of presenting exemplars for concept learning (type C)

would form the basis for his evaluation of an example of concept teaching (type B)
and his own practical teaching of concepts (type A). In respect of pedagogy,
mastery of type C objectives implies the grasp of theoretical principles such as
might well be taught in courses on educational psychology as applied to teaching.
Mastery of type B objectives implies that a student can use the learned principles to
analyse and evaluate specimens of teaching as has been suggested by B. O. Smith
(1969) in protocol usage. The protocol is an example of teaching, real or recorded
in some way or other. The idea is that by applying his theoretical knowledge to the
analysis of an example of practical teaching, the student teacher consolidates and
clarifies his understanding of the underlying principles. Mastery of type A
objectives implies competence in performance such as would be looked for in skill
training, and particularly in connexion with microteaching. Competence in
practical teaching here is the acid test of the grasp of theory.

Dissections

Although the analysis of objectives described so far very closely approaches

delineation of practical teaching activities, a crucial element still remains to
dealt with. The analysis of objectives indicates to us what the learner should
capable of at the end of instruction but it does not tell us how to help him to
there. In order to establish the means by which the objectives may be achieved
necessary to consider them in the light of principles relating to human learning, to
identify the necessary teacher activities. For guidance here, I adopt the approa
mentioned earlier that attempts to provide a systematic framework for analysi
teaching task (Stones & Morris, 1972). The task is to help the learners achieve
objectives. The analysis seeks to identify the necessary concepts, rules a
principles involved in the teaching, to decide on specific exemplars of the conce
to ascertain the type of learning involved, to decide the methods of presenting
information, to decide the nature of the students' responses, the method by wh
the teacher will provide feedback and the means to be employed for evaluating
learning. This method of analysis does not prescribe to an individual teacher t
means he must employ to teach any particular lesson. Within the guidelines,
makes his own decisions according to his own cast of mind, the fertility of
imagination and other personal characteristics. At the same time the method
employed will not be entirely idiosyncratic. Since I believe that we have som
useful knowledge about parameters of human learning I would hope a studen
teacher would make use of that knowledge when deciding on the categories in
course of task analysis.
An interesting feature about this approach is that the tutor of the student teach
may use the same techniques for analysing his own teaching and its evaluation.
will be working with objectives and task analyses related to such things as t
teaching of concepts or motor skills and his analyses could be useful in the
evaluation of the student's teaching performance. With some modification the tutor
could develop schedules for assessing student teaching on this basis since an
important element in the task analysis is the evaluatory aspect of one's teaching
and if his teaching has been successful he will see evidence for it in his student's
successful teaching! Another feature of the approach is that the tutor and the
student teacher will be operating with common pedagogies. The tutor's own

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

teaching relates to the theoretical principles he is discussing with his students as do

the activities of the student teacher when he works with pupils. Thus instead of the
attributes held to be characteristic of good teaching being arcane mysteries as they
seem to be in some institutions (Stones & Morris, 1972a) they will be explicit in the
theoretical content of the course and exemplified by the tutor's own activities.
The intriguing outcome of the tutor's applying this type of approach to his own
teaching is a specification of what he would like his students to do in the classroom
as a result of his own teaching. His evaluation of his own teaching could well be a
check list of what the student does when he is teaching. This check list will be the
psychopedagogical equivalent of rating schedules used in connexion with skill
training or the assessment of teaching. Such check lists can, in fact, most usefully
be employed in the evaluation of teaching performance. An exemplification of this
might be helpful.
I will concentrate on what I have suggested earlier as being particularly
important, the teaching of concepts. Starting from the overall objectives, that a
teacher should be able to appraise a particular teaching task and decide whether it
involved concept learning and if it did to plan, execute and evaluate such a
teaching task, the subordinate constituent objectives are derived. Among these
would be such things as deciding on the requisite capabilities needed by the
learners before embarking on the task, deciding on the range and sequencing of
exemplars necessary for satisfactory learning of the concept, specifying the modes
of presenting and teaching the material, deciding on the way language should be
used by teacher and pupils to best enhance concept learning and how best to
evaluate pupils' learning at the end of instruction. These activities are instances of
type A skills in the planning stage of teaching. Carrying them out in the classroom
exemplifies type A skills in the interactive stage of teaching. Both types of activity
have their equivalent type B and type C skills. Type B would demand the ability to
identify and evaluate such things as different modes of presentation of exemplars in
concept teaching, and type C skills would demand that the student know about
different methods of presenting exemplars for satisfactory concept learning.
These are the tutor's objectives; what he hopes his students will be able to do at
the end of the course. In his teaching of these ideas he will, himself, be following
the same general line. He will thus, for example, be presenting a variety of
examples, hopefully satisfactorily sequenced, of the teaching of concepts. But since
he, himself, is teaching a concept, he needs to follow a similar procedure. The
concept he is trying to teach is how to teach concepts. He, therefore, needs to
present a variety of examples of concept teaching. To do this, he would be likely to
take exemplars of concept teaching from rather different fields in order to get
across the general idea. To illustrate. He might take an example from the teaching
of number and another from the teaching of biology. He is focusing particularly on
the assessment, by the teacher, of the children's grasp of the concepts he has been
trying to teach. In the former the teacher is trying to teach the concept of base. The
tutor explains to the students that the teacher in his example had been teaching the
pupils and has given them practice in operating using different bases. When he
wishes to test the children's grasp of base he could check that they were capable of
arithmetical operations using different bases. As a second example the tutor might
suggest that the teacher had been teaching the concept mammal. To assess the
learning here he could present a variety of new exemplars of the concept for the
pupils to identify as mammals or not-mammals. The test of the tutor's competence

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

in teaching the concept of how to teach concepts would, of course, be the ability of
the students to apply the method in teaching new concepts to their pupils. Tutor
and student will be operating within the same pedagogical framework.
The upshot of activity of this kind is a set of shared understandings by tutor and
students about what type of activities are likely to be conducive to concept learning.
They are likely to approximate to the tutor's own grasp of the theoretical notions
about concept learning and this grasp is itself likely to be a reflection of the current
state of our understanding of the psychology of concept learning. There is also a
pretty good chance that other tutors will have similar notions if they are nurtured
in the same theoretical environment so that it does become possible to envisage
some commonality of approach to the teaching of concept teaching and its

FIG. 1. Schedule for the Teaching of Concepts (STOC)

This schedule sets out in brief the key aspects of teaching activity to ensure satisfactory learning of
concepts. It provides a check list for a student teacher and/or a supervisor to evaluate this aspect of
teaching. Teaching performance should be rated in some way, for example as weak, satisfactory or good.
The student will then have an idea of those aspects of his teaching that need improvement and those
areas where is is competent.

A PREACTIVE

1 Make a task analysis of the teaching objectives to identify the key

subordinate concepts, specific examples, methods of presentation, pupils
evaluation.
2 Ascertain pupils' prior knowledge. If this is not possible plan for diagnosis at the interactive stage.

B INTERACTIVE

3 Explain terms to be used in labelling concepts and attributes.

4 Provide initially a series of simplified exemplars with few attributes to f
the criterial attributes.
5 Increase the salience of the criterial attributes to enable pupils to discrim
criterial and non-criterial attributes.
6 Provide a series of exemplars sequenced to provide a complete range o
economically as possible.
7 Provide non-exemplars in counterposition to exemplars to enhance d
criterial and non-criterial attributes.
8 Provide new exemplars and non-exemplars and ask the pupils to identify the exemplars. Provide
feedback for each discrimination.
9 Encourage the pupils to use their own language in explaining the nature of the concepts.
10 Provide suitable cueing throughout to ensure pupils gradually become independent in their ability
to identify novel exemplars of the concepts.

C EVALUATIVE (This process is naturally much the same procedure as would be applied in
diagnosing prior level of ability).

11 Present novel exemplars of the concepts for the pupils to identify and/or discriminate from non-
exemplars.

Item 11 on this schedule is the acid test of the understanding of concepts. It would be perfectly
reasonable and possibly desirable to ask a learner to give a definition or explain a concept. The thing to
watch here, of course, is the non-conceptual response that has been learned by heart. Skilful questioning
could take care of this but the ability to identify novel exemplars would be the only guarantee that the
words the learner was using were based on a real grasp of the concept and not mere verbalisings.

10

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

assessment. Such community of interests will naturally be fostered by discussion

and debate and I would suggest that consensus is more likely with the kind of focus
I have suggested and the method of proceeding outlined above than methods
adopting unexplicated ideas about 'good teaching'.

Evaluations

The schedules for evaluating teaching that I referred to earlier, grew out of the
analyses of various objectives discussed above. Compromise was necessary betwee
the fine detail related to the more specific teacher activities and the need for
relatively brief documents with practical utility. However, in many cases individual
items on the general schedules could form the basis for more specific skill appraisal.
In practice, performance on the main scales would be diagnostic. Problems in
specific areas could be subject to scrutiny and remediation using more specific sk
appraisal schedules. The four main scales are presented in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Eac

FIG. 2. Schedule for the Teaching of Psychomotor Skills (STOPS)

This schedule sets out in brief the key aspects of teaching activity to ensure satisfactory learning
psychomotor skills. It provides a check list for a student teacher and/or his supervisor to evaluate this
aspect of teaching. Teaching performance should be rated in some way, for example as weak
satisfactory or good. The student will then have an idea of those aspects of his teaching that nee
improvement and those areas where he is competent.

A PREACTIVE

I Make a task analysis of teaching objectives to identify the key subordin

methods of presentation, the nature of pupil activities, the provision of fe
performance and the arrangements for monitored practice.
2 Ascertain the pupils' existing levels of competence. Pupils lacking the pr
to perform the subordinate skills should not be admitted to the main pro
should be given remedial teaching to bring them up to scratch.

B INTERACTIVE

3 Establish a preliminary idea of the task by explaining and demonstratin

4 Identify for the learner the subordinate skills and show their relationship
5 Involve the learner in describing the activity himself, possibly by guiding
the activity and in the use of subordinate skills.
6 Prompt and guide the learner in carrying out the subdivisions of the ta
7 Prompt and guide the learner in making a smooth transition from one d
next. Use counterpositioning in areas of difficulty.
8 Fade the prompts and guidance gradually to ensure the learner assumes r
prompting.
9 Provide feedback at all stages and for all responses if possible.
10 Arrange for practice to ensure that the learner consolidates his new skill.
11 Monitor the practice from time to time but gradually fade the monitoring.
12 Arrange for practice to take place in varying circumstances.

C EVALUATIVE

13 Assess the level of success of the learner's performance against th

stage.
14 Encourage the learner to assess his own practice against the criteria established in the interactive
stage, particularly 3, 4 and 5.

11

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

FIG. 3. Schedule for Teacher's Use of Reinforcement (STUR)

This schedule sets out in brief the key aspects of a teacher's use of reinforcement to enhance learning
and motivation and create a positive classroom environment. It provides a check list for a student
teacher and/or a supervisor to evaluate this aspect of teaching. Teaching performance should be rated in
some way, for example as weak, satisfactory or good. The student will then have an idea of those aspects
of his teaching that need improvement and those areas where he is competent.

A PREACTIVE

I Make task analysis of the teaching objectives to arrange a learning gradien

ensure that pupils achieve high levels of success.
2 Plan for feedback to follow pupil's activities at a very high level. This wou
use of methods other than the teacher's own actions or words.

B INTERA CTIVE

3 In all new learning reinforce every correct response at first. When learning is establis
random variable schedule. (Basically this boils down to taking care to reinforce eac
beginning and remembering to reinforce from time to time later.)
4 Arrange to reinforce by methods other than the teacher himself: e.g. peer approval
success, satisfaction of curiosity. (This could well be a consequence of good plann
(2).)
5 Involve the whole group in reinforcement by encouraging cooperative work.
6 Provide for vicarious reinforcement by including a whole group in encouragement of effort and
correct (or near correct) attempts.
7 Reinforce management activities every time in the first stages of learning the routines and reward
occasionally when the routines are learned.
8 Recognise punishers and ideally avoid them altogether. Never punish for mistakes in learning:
instead examine your teaching.
9 Ignore undesirable behaviour consistently where feasible and engage other pupils in activities to
deflect their attention from misbehaving pupils.
10 Reinforce any positive behaviour on the part of pupils acting generally negatively.
11 Ensure that feedback planned in item 2 is reinforcing.

C EVALUATIVE (Much more rarely done than in content teaching)

12 Attempt to assess pupils' enthusiasm for the activities involved in the teaching. (Difficult, but
careful observation of class activities, involvement in the work, and extent to which the pupils
maintain an interest outside the class are possible indications.)

considers three divisions of a lesson, the planning or the preactive division, the
actual teaching element, and the evaluative aspect. All activities represent type A
skills in the classification described above.
A potential source of controversy in this schedule is the type of approach to
concept teaching to be favoured. It is possible that supporters of discovery learnin
will believe the schedule is oriented too much towards reception learning, that it
smacks too much of a deductive approach. I do not wish to argue the pros and con
of the two approaches here. However, I would suggest that unless the teacher is
going to disclaim all responsibility for structuring the pupils' learning environment,
the items on the schedule are amenable to both approaches, deductive or inductive
There is one further point about this schedule. It is clearly concerned essentially
with conjunctive concepts characterised by class inclusion. However there seems t
be ground for considering conjunctive and disjunctive concepts as if they are not
qualitatively different but as lying along a dimension of complexity defined by

12

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

FIG. 4. Schedule for the Teaching and Evaluation of Problem Solving (STEPS)

A PREA CTIVE

1 Analyse the task to clarify the nature of the problem to be solved.

2 Ascertain that the pupils have the necessary prerequisite capabilities.

B INTERACTIVE

3 Encourage pupils to range widely in their approaches to solving the proble

4 Remind pupils of properties of the elements of the problem that might be
5 Encourage the pupils to make an analysis of the problem.
6 Prompt the pupils judiciously without solving the problem for them.
7 Provide for feedback at key points.
8 Encourage an independent approach to problem solving by explainin
problems.

C EVALUATION

9 Present pupils with new problems of the same general type.

In addition to item 9 a teacher might present different types of problems

general approach to problem solving. The object of scrutiny would then
problems were solved but whether the activities likely to enhance proble
would be useless attempting this, however, without having carried out steps

increasing heterogeneity of rules for class membership (Ar

complicated combinations of abstractions relational concept
principles and rules (Gagne, 1977) are amenable to teaching
methods but are particularly dependent upon language in g
definitions.
As indicated above, the schedule for the teaching of psyc
intended specifically as a blue print for teachers of motor skil
but is seen as applicable to any teaching of motor skills in
skills such as handwriting. It is possible that some spec
additional categories, but in the main the view is taken that
suitable. It is clear that many of the categories relate to those
of course, those in the preactive phase.
I have no doubt that the schedule on reinforcement will be the most controversial
of all. On the face of it it bristles with ideological assumptions that will be
anathema to some readers. There is no short answer to their objections. I do
believe, however, that much criticism of empirical psychology which underlies
many of the items, is misdirected. The arch-demon Skinner is much reviled but
little read by some of his detractors. But it seems to me inescapable that the
phenomena underlying the categories in the schedule refer to very real influences in
the way people learn and in the way group behaviour develops (McLeish, 1976). I
readily admit, however, that some of the value statements such as 'undesirable'
(item 9) 'positive' (item 10) are ideologically loaded. But at least they are explicit
and therefore open to challenge. Of course any critic averring that the theory is
wrong will not worry about such items since the activity they refer to will be
ineffective anyway.
The schedule for the teaching and evaluation of problem solving (Fig. 4) focuses

13

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

on the teaching of heuristic approaches and aims to help the learner to become
independent of the teacher as quickly as possible.
Readers of a Bloomian cast of mind will be wondering what happened to the
affective schedule. It is my view that affective responses can be taught using the
approach exemplified in the schedules described. Affect is concerned with emotions
and attitudes but despite the label, affective responses have heavy cognitive
loadings. They involve concept learning. The way concepts are taught will influence
affective learning. For example: an illustration of the highest level of affective
responding in the taxonomy of educational objectives volume 2 has an objective:
'Changes his opinion on controversial issues when an examination of the evidence
and the arguments calls for revision of opinions previously held'. Such an objective
calls for a high level of thinking in analysing arguments in addition to the
willingness to change views in the face of evidence. Teaching to achieve this
objective must involve the teacher in considerable discussion of an intellectual kind
combined with the teacher's own evaluative appraisal of the desirability of having
an open mind. Any attempt to teach affective responses without concept teaching
would be a form of simple conditioning.
Clearly the schedules have much in common. Clearly it is impossible and
certainly undesirable to attempt to separate the teacher activities described by them
into different pedagogical compartments. In fact, in the original specification of
objectives (Stones & Anderson, 1972) the affective and motor domains were
separated from the cognitive for purposes of analysis as was the area dealing with
individual differences. However, these analyses served to identify more clearly the
links between the various areas of study considered to be important. Thus the
analysis of the effects of affective variables on school learning provides the basis for
the schedule relating to reinforcement in the classroom as it impinges on the learning
of concepts. The method of task analysis adopted serves to make the links clearer
and paves the way for the production of relatively simple schedules. Further
simplication is possible because of the way in which the different elements interact.
This is useful to aid a tutor in the classroom, who could well have difficulty in
juggling with four different schedules. In an attempt to cope with this problem an
attempt has been made, therefore, to produce a simpler scale incorporating the key
aspects of the four. This schedule is set out in Fig. 5.
The categories and the language describing them have been simplified in an
attempt to increase the utility of the instrument in classroom conditions. There is a
hidden category that could be expressed as 'Establish an atmosphere of mutual
trust and respect in the classroom'. Apart from the extremely high inference
involved in this item that makes it difficult to assess, it seems reasonable to assume
that if the items on the schedule are followed then the hidden category would stand
a good chance of being complied with.
Whenever there is a particular focus that would be best dealt with by one of the
more specific schedules, then, of course, this may be employed. Should it be
considered that closer detail of a student's performance is needed, recourse could be
had to still more specific schedules. These would be of the nature of those related to
specific skill training currently used in microteaching. Unlike microteaching
schedules, however, these would be clearly related to a body of skills and general
concepts in the field of pupil learning and to each other by their common
derivation. This is not to say that schedules in current use do not rely on principles
of human learning but that in this paper the relationships are explicated by the

14

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

FIG. 5. Schedule for Evaluating Teaching (SET)

This schedule may be used by supervisors and student teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses in
student practical teaching. Its main focus is on pupils' learning. It only attempts to cover practical
teaching. Matters relating to professional attitude etc. are not dealt with.
Not all items will apply to all lessons but when appropriate the student and/or supervisor should rate
the performance in some way for example as weak, satisfactory or good. The student will then have an
idea of those aspects of his teaching that need improvement and those areas where he is competent.

A PREPARA TION

1 State the aims of the lesson in terms of pupils' learning.

2 Analyse the lesson aim to establish the key constituent elements.
3 Identify key characteristics of concepts and skills to be learned.
4 Check pupils' present level of competence in the subject to be taught.
5 Decide how to provide a learning gradient to ensure a high level of pupil success.
6 Decide on type of pupil activities, nature of feedback to be provided, nature of pr
evaluation.

B TEACHING

7 Explain nature of new learning to be taught at beginning of lesson.

8 Provide examples that cover the whole range of key characteristics of the c
9 Sequence examples so as to teach concepts economically and effectively.
10 Contrast examples with non-examples to clarify concepts.
11 Introduce new examples to extend the understanding of concepts.
12 Help pupils a lot in early phases of learning and gradually withdraw h
demonstrate learning unaided.
13 Encourage pupils in a variety of ways to give them good experience of
enthusiasm.
14 Encourage pupils to explain the new concepts by questions, cues, suggestion
15 Enhance pupil motivation by providing for a high level of successful learnin
16 Provide feedback about pupils' activity at each stage of their learning.
17 In teaching motor skills, arrange monitored practice in a variety of situations
18 In teaching motor skills, ensure smooth transition between sub-skills.
19 Encourage an independent, analytical and open minded approach to proble

C EVALUATION

19 Check pupils' ability to apply learning in new situations (transfer).

20 Attempt to assess pupils' enthusiasm for subject being taught.
21 Compare success of pupils with the aims set for the lesson.

system of generation of objectives and thence by the task analyse

teaching schedules. With this approach, I suggest, one would
such commonly used analyses of skills as varying the stimu
questions, and so on are thought worthy of inclusion in the prog
of student teachers. It would also help us to see more clearly
between such schedules.
It is difficult to discern the common features of some skills currently used in
microteaching. One thinks, for example, of set induction and higher order
questioning. They may both be highly desirable skills to possess, but why? What
the rationale for employing them? And how do they relate to each other
Hierarchically? Or are they congruent? And if so, are all skills of equal importance?
We are unlikely to find answers to such questions by ad hoc methods of production.
It is true, of course, that many of the schedules and the guides for their use ar

15

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edgar Stones

much related to psychological theory, but the relationship is usually unilateral with
little, if any, reference to other skills.
The approach to the generation and analysis of objectives and the subsequent
production of guides for the evaluation of teaching, helps one to create a taxonomy
of skills. The analysis of the task of concept teaching would lead one to include
items of the type of 8 and 9 in the schedule in Fig. 1. The nature of the teacher's
questioning is a contributory element in the way he uses language to enhance
concept formation. Higher order questioning could thus be seen as directly
subordinate to those items and any schedule related to the topic would be a second
order schedule related hierarchically to the first order concept teaching schedule.
The skill of set induction, on the other hand, does not relate directly to concept
learning. It relates indirectly since without it learning would be less economical.
But it is an attention getting device relying on principles from the psychology of
attention and ideas related to arousal. Its function is to enable a teacher to bring
into play other skills that will help him achieve his teaching objectives. A good case
could be made for this skill as a second order skill on the reinforcement schedule in
Fig. 3, with particular reference to item 4. In order for curiosity to be satisfied, it
has first to be aroused and this could be done in the pre-active phase when methods
of presentation are being planned. These are referred to in the concept teaching
schedule which underlines the fact that cognitive and affective are inseparable and
also helps us to guard against gimmicky openings unconnected with the substance
of the teaching that could well be completely counterproductive to the aim of the
lesson while still arousing the pupils. The two skills in question may thus be seen as
second order skills but belonging to different pedagogical domains.
The use of the various schedules may be envisaged as being of a reciprocatory
nature. The more specific schedules related to skill training would be introduced
relatively early in a course of teacher preparation linking theoretical considerations
of specific aspects of learning to their implementation in practice. This may not
necessarily involve the student in actually practising the skill himself in the first
instance. His introduction to practice might well be through the exercise of type B
skills, perhaps through the use of protocol material. From there he could move into
the practice of specific skills himself using the same specific schedules (type A
skills). In time, of course, he brings the various subordinate schedules together in
type B skill, analysis, and eventually in type A skill, practice. In all types of activity
he would move from small scale teaching episodes to full scale teaching. The
reciprocatory aspect of the use of the schedules lies in their use as diagnostic
instruments. At any stage when the more general instrument is used and indicates
that a student is having difficulty with a specific aspect of the schedule, he refers
back to the more specific instrument described above for remedial action.
One of the more important aspects of the schedules, to my mind, is the evaluative
section. Since the categories are worked out according to the principles of
assessment discussed in the course, and assuming the schedules are discussed and
the evaluatory element made quite explicit, it becomes possible for the student to
assume a good deal of responsibility for his own learning. He can attempt to
evaluate his own teaching by the post hoc application to the lesson he has just
taught, or he can record his lesson in some way or other and then evaluate his
teaching. Using this recorded material he can scrutinise his performance at leisure
and as many times as seems profitable. He could, indeed, observe his performance
several times using different schedules one after the other.

16

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

The role of the supervisor is, of course, crucial in the whole enterprise.
Particularly obtuse supervisors could negate the whole rationale by using schedules
to evaluate student teaching without ever having introduced students to them and
without ever having married the theoretical notions to the practical activity.
Naturally the schedules should only be used after considerable study and perhaps
by teaching individuals in the first instance and moving through small groups to
full classes as I have already suggested. But before any teaching there should be
discussion and negotiation between supervisor and student to iron out questions
such as minimum standards of competence expected in various aspects of the
teaching. After the lesson, comments on the elements in the schedules provide
feedback to students to guide future action.
The implications for training in practical teaching if this approach is adopted are
significant. A student teacher well versed in the underlying theory, familiar with the
schedules and competent at assessing pupils' learning as set out in the evaluation
phase of the schedules, is virtually self propelled. The crucial thing in all his
practice is, in fact, the evaluative phase. If he can demonstrate convincingly that he
has succeeded in all aspects of this section of the schedule he has proved himself.
He is thus much less dependent on a supervisor.
I am well aware that the present state of the work described here is far from a
complete and rounded system. However, work with preliminary versions of the
present schedules has suggested their utility in various fields of school learning.
Work is now continuing to explore further their applicability in other fields. In this
exploratory activity teachers in the act of testing the instruments are themselves
acting as research workers validating hypotheses from psychology. It seems to me
that this kind of activity holds promise of breaking down the barriers between
theorist and practitioner as well as between theory and practice.

Conclusions

There is no claim in the approach described to complete comprehensiveness or

definitiveness. The outcome of the analysis and the way in which the elements
interrelate when they are finally worked out depends on the assumptions one
operates with. As in other spheres of enquiry, the 'garbage in garbage out'
phenomenon operates. Naturally I think that my brand of garbage is superior to
most but I do not suggest that all should embrace it. It may well be that
philosophers and sociologists of education, for example, feel aggrieved at what they
perceive as lacunae in my suggestions. The former should clearly have some
comments to make on the desirability of the initial statement of objectives, the
latter will no doubt wish to comment on the categories in the interactive phase of
the schedules. I welcome any interest they may show. For my part I have taken the
view that children's learning should be the main focus of concern when looking at
teaching. From there I have made a personal choice of key areas of study from the
psychology of learning and incorporated some of them in the schedules displayed.
But whatever the merits of the fields of study taken to be important and crucially
related to practical teaching, they are not exclusive. And as I suggested earlier the
model is readily amenable to changes in the fields of study picked for central focus.
The method of operating would serve even if they were changed completely and, as
I have suggested, there is some evidence that this, in fact, is the case. The important
thing, however, seems to be that the explication of objectives with the subsequent

17

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Edgar Stones

task analysis sufficiently clarifies the intentions and practice of the teacher to form
the basis for negotiation about those intentions and practices that are not otherwise
perceptible. For those negotiations to be informed and for the student teacher to
make his self evaluation with insight he needs to know about methods of assessing
pupil learning and to have some expertise in assessing pupils' attitudes. And this, of
course, takes us back to the beginning. For a student to be able to practise
effectively, he needs to have some theory.

Correspondence: Professor Edgar Stones, School & Institute of Education, Univer-

sity of Liverpool, 19-23 Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 3BX.

REFERENCES

ARCHER, E.J. (1965) The Psychological Nature of Concepts, in H. J. Klausmeier &

Analyses of Concept Learning (London, Academic Press).
DESFORGES, C. & MCNAMARA, D. (1977) One man's heuristic is another man's bli
comments on applying social science to educational practice, British Journal of Teacher
pp. 27-39.
DUNKIN, M.J. & BIDDLE, B.J. (1974) The Study of Teaching (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
GAGNE, R.M. (1977) The Conditions of Learning (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
MCLEISH, J. (1976) Learning in groups: facilitation and inhibition processes, Bulletin of the British
Psychological Society, 29, pp. 7-15.
MCNAMARA, D. & DESFORGES, C. (1978) The social sciences, teacher education and the objectification
of craft knowledge, British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, pp. 17-36.
MASCIA, L. (1976) Curriculum Development in Polymer Technology: towards a clarification of needs
and integration of educational objectives. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Aston University.
NORRIS, R. (1975) An examination of schedules of criteria related to teacher competence, British Journal
of Teacher Education, 1, pp. 87-95.
SHAVELSON, R. & DEMPSEY, M. (1976) Generalizability of teacher behaviour, Review of Educational
Research, 46, No. 4.
SMITH, B.O. et al. (1969) Teachers for the Real World (American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education).
STONES, E. (1972) (in collaboration with D. Anderson) Educational Objectives and the Teaching of
Educational Psychology (London, Methuen).
STONES, E. & MORRIS, S. (1972a) The assessment of practical teaching, Educational Research, 14, pp.
110-119.
STONES, E. & MORRIS, S. (1972b) Teaching Practice: problems and perspectives (London, Methuen).
STONES, E. (1975a) Black light on exams, British Journal of Teacher Education, 1, pp. 299-303.
STONES, E. (1975b) How Long is a Piece of String? (Problems of Evaluating Teaching Practice), in How
Long is a Piece of String? Research into the Evaluation of Teaching Practice (Guildford, Society for
Research into Higher Education).
YOCKNEY, J. (1976) A pass/fail decision? Evaluating the assessment of teaching practice, Evaluation
Newsletter, 2, pp. 7-11 (Committee for Research into Teacher Education).

NOTE

[1] A comparison of any contemporary guide to teacher assessment with this century old ex
give the reader an idea of the rate of progress in this field.

18

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching

Teacher assessment form 1897

Name: Miss Grace Griffith Date: November 18th 1897

Subject: Battle of Waterloo Class or
Standard: Standard II

MATTER
Whether (a) Accurate?
(b) Suitable to Class?
(c) Interesting?
(d) Sufficient?
(e) Well arranged?

METHOD OF LESSON
Whether suitable (a) To subject?
(b) To Class?

LANGUAGE
Whether (a) Suitable to Class?
(b) Grammatical?
(c) Pronunciation?

TEACHER'S MANNER Very bright and energetic

QUESTIONS
Whether (a) Sufficient?
(b) Well distributed?
(c) Well worded?
(d) Encouraging thought?
(e) Elliptical?
(f) Recapitulation thorough?

ILLUSTRATIONS
Words?

Pictures?

Objects?
Blackboard?

BLACKBOARD
Whether well used for (a) Illustrations?
(b) Summary?

CLASS
Discipline?
Interest?

Intelligence?

GENERAL SUMMARY

19

This content downloaded from 77.49.137.90 on Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:13:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms