Scaife, 2012). Provision is also made for pupils to receive constructive feedback and for the discovering of learning needs which is critical for helping teachers to pupils’ improve their teaching (Varol and Farran, 2006). Conclusion The classroom environment as well as teaching are components of LCI and hence attention must be paid to both in order to make a determination as to whether LCI is being implemented. My observations indicated that all of the participants, in varying degrees, used a combination of both traditional and constructivist methods of teaching. Jean (School A) and Cherry and Lisa (School B) used more constructivist approaches while Lamonte (School A) used more traditional methods. It also appears that the teachers who hold strong beliefs about LCI used more elements of it in their lessons while teachers whose beliefs are not as strong used fewer features. Based on the lessons I observed, there were instances when the teachers showed consistency between what they reported during the initial interviews and what they actually practised in their classrooms. At other times however there were variations between their espoused views and their actual teaching. This was evident in that there were many opportunities in which a learner centred approach could have been employed, but it was not. Wen (2011) summed it up as that there seems to be discrepancies between teachers’ beliefs, what they actually do in their classrooms and what they report they do. It may be likely that they may be aware of discrepancies in self-reports between what “not they believe and what they since beliefs and observed behaviours do” “self-reported tend to be less 2011, p.948- 949). congruent” (Wen A post-observation interview was conducted with the participating teachers after their classroom observations. (Appendix K) An analysis of the interviews will now be provided. The complete transcriptions of the interviews are also provided. (Appendix L)
Scaife, 2012). Provision is also made for pupils to receive constructive feedback and for the discovering of pupils’ learning needs which is critical for helping teachers to improve their teaching (Varol and Farran, 2006). Conclusion The classroom environment as well as teaching are components of LCI and hence attention must be paid to both in order to make a determination as to whether LCI is being implemented. My observations indicated that all of the participants, in varying degrees, used a combination of both traditional and constructivist methods of teaching. Jean (School A) and Cherry and Lisa (School B) used more constructivist approaches while Lamonte (School A) used more traditional methods. It also appears that the teachers who hold strong beliefs about LCI used more elements of it in their lessons while teachers whose beliefs are not as strong used fewer features. Based on the lessons I observed, there were instances when the teachers showed consistency between what they reported during the initial interviews and what they actually practised in their classrooms. At other times however there were variations between their espoused views and their actual teaching. This was evident in that there were many opportunities in which a learner centred approach could have been employed, but it was not. Wen (2011) summed it up as that there seems to be discrepancies between teachers’ beliefs, what they actually do in their classrooms and what they report they do. It may be likely that they may “not be aware of discrepancies in self-reports between what they believe and what they do” since “self-reported beliefs and observed behaviours tend to be less congruent” (Wen 2011, p.948- 949). A post-observation interview was conducted with the participating teachers after their classroom observations. (Appendix K) An analysis of the interviews will now be provided. The complete transcriptions of the interviews are also provided. (Appendix L)
FINAL%20DISSERTATION%20-%20MARCH%202017.docx