Young Article Review

8/14/2019 Young Article Review

1/12

Young, Reiser, & Dick Article Review 1

RUNNING HEAD: Young, Reiser, & Dick Article Review

Do Superior Teachers Employ Systematic Instructional Planning Procedures? A Descriptive

Study by Young, Reiser, & Dick: An Article Review

J. Autumn Barker

September 1, 2009

EDU 515


2/12


Summary

Written by Young, Reiser, and Dick, the article Do Superior Teachers Employ Systematic

Instructional Planning Procedures? A Descriptive Study (1998), explains the study the authors

did to determine if teachers were using systematic planning procedures. This multicase designed

research study used surveys and face-to-face interviews to determine if teachers who were

labeled superior were using systematic planning procedures.

One of the most important and necessary tasks a teacher does is instructional planning.

These plans determine much of what happens in the classroom in the form of activities, work,

teaching styles, and objectives. Many of the pre-teacher programs at universities give students

an introduction of an instructional planning procedure. One of the most used in pre-teacher

preparation is the objectives-first model or rational planning model created by Ralph Tyler in

1949. The Tyler model requires the teacher to define the objectives they plan to teach first, then

determine the instructional activities that reinforce those objectives. This is followed by carrying

out the planned activities in an appropriate sequence and then evaluating the students based on

their understanding of the objectives. Another model was created by Reiser and Dick in 1994,

which defines four key principles to essential planning. The planning process must begin with

clearly defined general goals and very explicit objectives that the students will be expected to

achieve. After objectives have been stated, teachers should then plan the activities that will help

students reach and attain the objectives stated. Assesment instruments should then be created to

measure student achievement. Once assessments have been graded, instruction should be revised

to help ensure that students grasped the concepts of the objectives. The pre-service teachers that

are taught such a way of planning are usually quick to grasp the concept and are excited to


3/12


employ the process. However, when it becomes time to use the process in their student teaching

and into their own classroom, they are less enthusiastic and fail to use the taught procedures.

Many teachers once in their own classrooms do not use the systematic approach to

instructional planning. It would seem that their planning is more based on the instructional

activities they plan to use. However, if a systematic planning approach was mandated, many

more teachers would use them, but even at this point, would be much more flexible in their use

than taught.

The authors of this study wondered if the best teachers are those who employ

systematic planning. A small research study backed this research question up and led the authors

to plan a study of their own. Their purpose was to determine the planning styles of superior

elementary and secondary teachers. The superiority of the teachers was determined by the

participants having to be finalists for the county Teacher of the Year award. In their study,

Young, Reiser, and Dick wished to answer the questions of what type of planning did the

superior teachers do and how these methods are similar or different to the style of systematic

planning models.

To conduct this study, nine superior teachers of a specific single school district were

study subjects. The teachers were from the southeastern part of the United States and served a

metropolitan area with both urban and suburban areas. In the district, there are 22 elementary

schools, 7 middle schools, and 4 high schools. The teachers chosen for use in the study were

finalists for the countys Teacher of the Year award from between 1990 and 1996. The finalists

for the countys Teacher of the Year award is determined from the teachers who won Teacher of

the Year at their representative school. The schools Teacher of the Year winner is selected by

their peers using criteria such as knowledge of subject taught, leadership within the school,


4/12


ability to use materials and resources effectively, superior ability to help improve the school, and

their ability to inspire the students. Once nominations are in, the faculty and administration vote

for the three teachers they feel most meet the qualifications. Each school winner is then required

to submit a written nomination packet with several discussions of professional activities,

professional background, greatest accomplishments, and recommendation letters. A panel then

decides who should be awarded the countys Teacher of the Year.

In this study, 35 teachers who had been finalists for the Teacher of the Year award were

contacted through a letter requesting their participation. The researchers received 20 responses,

but 6 were ineligible to participate as they were no longer serving as regular classroom teachers.

The 14 that were left were sent a survey that only 9 returned. This determined the sample size of

9 for this study.

The first phase of this study was with the use of a written survey. It was a self-reporting

information gathering tool to retrieve information about planning decisions and the factors that

influence those decisions at the yearly, unit, weekly, and daily level. The questions were open

ended. Once the surveys had been completed, a database development program was used to

enter the data into a database, then coded and organized. When it came time to code the

information, a grounded approach was used. This meant that the development and assignment of

codes happened simultaneously as an output of data examination.

The second phase in the data collecting for this study was to interview each of the nine

teachers face to face. Each teacher was asked 12 open ended questions, 4 to determine if the

authors could confirm, disconfirm, or clarify on data obtained from the survey. Each of these

questions asked the teacher to describe the planning decisions they made through out the year

and the factors that influenced those decisions. The questions were purposefully broad and


5/12


unstructured as not to lead or influence the teachers responses. The next 7 questions asked

about planning practices through college courses, in-service trainings, school requirements, time,

and resources. The final question allowed the teacher to then discuss planning in their own

words and to identify the most important aspects. This data was then analyzed and coded using

the same coding procedures created from the survey data. Results and conclusions were made

once the coded data from the superior teachers was compared to documented systematic

planning models.

The authors found some very interesting data and their conclusions are also informative.

They found that the teachers in their study did not employ systematic planning practices. Many

teachers did not express much concern about clearly identifying the objectives they were trying

to teach and when discussing the way they planned, many did not mention objectives at all. If it

was mentioned, it was not as if these objectives needed to be put in writing, like the systematic

planning model calls for. The planning models also say that planning decisions should be made

with the objectives in mind. The teachers of this study rarely suggested that they considered the

objectives when they were making instructional decisions. When describing their planning

activities, the teachers failed to mention the design of objective based tests, which is a huge part

of the planning models. The teachers also mentioned many reasons that their instructional plans

could change from day to day, but they rarely mentioned those factors in systematic planning

models. Time factors and student performance were the two that changed instructional plans

most often.

The researchers did include in their conclusion that there was very little research

supporting the teacher use of systematic planning principles. The authors believe that employing

such principles result in greater learning based on research and experience. They could only cite


6/12


two conflicting reports of earlier research that said that objective based systematic planning led

to better learning and the other that said that those in a classroom that did not use systematic

planning learned just as much as the classroom that did use systematic planning. They also

mention that these superior teachers were chosen by their peers, not by the way they plan their

instructional activities and not by the academic achievement of their students.

Young, Reiser, and Dick believe that it is still important to tell pre-service teachers about

systematic instructional planning. However, this should be qualified with a statement that says

many teachers do not employ these methods and teachers who do not are still considered

superior teachers. They believe that by teaching the pre-service teachers about the methods, the

teachers can then develop a planning style that is well-suited to their personalities and the

environment which they will be teaching in.

Main Point

Young, Reiser, and Dick wrote this article to present their research on whether teachers

who were labeled superior by their peers and school districts were employing systematic

instructional planning procedures. The authors discussed the fact that many of the pre-service

teacher training programs introduce their students to systematic instructional planning that focus

on clearly identified objectives in order to plan for the instructional activities and assessments.

The authors found a research study based on two teachers who were ranked by parents and

administrators to be the best teachers in their school and they had been trained and currently used

systematic instructional planning in their classrooms. The purpose of this article and study was

to observe the planning procedures of a group of superior elementary and secondary teachers,

labeled superior because they had been finalists for the countys Teacher of the Year award.


7/12


Using questionnaires and surveys to determine the teachers planning techniques, the data was to

be compared to the models of systematic instructional planning.

Main Arguments

The main point of this article was to present research on the superior teachers and

whether they employed systematic instructional planning. It would seem that Young, Reiser, and

Dick were proponents of systematic instructional planning. Two of the authors even developed a

seven step planning process that modernized the use of Tylers rational planning model.

However, other than just presenting this research and background information, the main

argument seemed lost in the paper. Many pre-service teacher programs teach the systematic

instructional planning methods, but when teachers get to their own classrooms, they employ

other methods. While it would seem that not many teachers use this method, the authors cite

three studies that say some teachers do use systematic instructional planning. In an article by

Sardo-Brown (1990), the author examined the planning procedures of 33 teachers in a district

that required systematic instructional planning. She found that a majority of teachers used it, but

more flexible than prescribed, and among the 33, she also found some that used totally

alternative methods. It was a study by Reiser and Mory (1991) that must have supported the idea

behind this study. In a case study of two teachers, many of the parents and administrators felt

these teachers were among the best in the school. These two teachers had been taught and

currently used systematic instructional planning methods in their classrooms.

Discussion of Conclusion

Young, Reiser, and Dick concluded that the teachers that participated in their study did

not use systematic planning practices. These teachers seemed not to express much concern about


8/12


clearly defining the objectives of the instructional time and when planning activities for their

classes, many did not even mention objectives. If they were to mention objectives at all, there

was no necessity of putting it in writing, because it was in their head. This is in direct contrast to

systematic planning models who call for clearly written out objectives. The teachers in their

study also did not specify that objectives were behind the choices of instructional decisions,

again, unlike the systematic instructional methods. Systematic instructional methods also stress

the importance of student assessments and making sure they are objective based. The teachers in

this study failed to mention objectives as they spoke of creating tests. The teachers were also

asked what types of situations could cause adjustments to be made in their instructional plans.

Valid reasons like time constraints and student performance were common answers, but the

systematic instructional methods adjustments based on student performance on specific

objectives was not mentioned.

The authors went on to conclude that regardless of the fact that these teachers involved in

the study were using systematic planning procedures, they had been chosen as superior by their

peers. These superior teachers were selected on criteria that did not include planning their

lessons using systematic planning procedures. This selection also did not take into account the

performance of their students as compared to their planning procedures.

Young, Reiser, and Dick believe that all pre-service teachers should be told that all

teachers do not use systematic instructional planning methods and to be considered a superior

teacher, you do not have to employ such methods. However, they believe that it is important that

the pre-service teachers be exposed to these methods because it shows the interaction between

objectives, assessments, materials, and activities. This would also provide a foundation for


9/12


developing a teaching style that they could personalize to their personality and teaching

environment.

Two Problems

While it was an interesting article to read, there were a few problems with Young, Reiser,

and Dicks study and subsequent article. The first issue that seemed obvious was problems with

the study itself. For a paper that was suppose to be scientific in nature, there were not many

participants in the study group from which to draw conclusions from. The participants were

asked very open ended questions to prevent leading the participant into discussing systematic

instructional planning, but this only resulted in general answers which may or may not have been

what the researchers were looking for. The study also used coding for the responses from the

survey and interview. This seems subjective and if the person doing the coding was switched at

any point, could lead to responses being coded very differently.

Another interesting piece of this article is that the research used to support and explain

why this study was done or that systematic instructional planning was helpful for students was

either contradictory or unsupportive of the authors arguments. This made this paper hard to read

and understand because the authors would be supporting a statement, but then turn to another

research article and state the exact opposite.

Suggested Fixes

While it is understandable that some of the problems within the study were not of their

own doing, doing scientific studies to draw major conclusions from cannot only have nine

participants. If the authors could have followed up with the ten participants that did not respond

to wanting to be a part of the study, they may have had a few more participants that had forgotten


10/12


about the study or return information necessary to show their interest. Using open ended

questions prevents participants from being lead to answer what the researchers wanted them to

answer. However, it may have been possible to include another survey, perhaps with a Likert

scale with some of the systematic instructional planning methods included to see if perhaps the

teachers were not thinking that is what the researcher had actually wanted as an answer or would

perhaps jog their memory as to how they do their planning systematically, but in their heads

rather than on paper. As for the coding responses, standardizing this process with the same

person and then having one of the authors come behind and recode the information could prevent

answers from being coded incorrectly.

Though there is not much research about systematic instructional planning, perhaps this

paper could have been held while more research was done. The contradictory research is

confusing and makes the paper seem unprofessional. Including research that does not support

ones hypothesis is important, but doing it in a way that does not undermine ones arguments is

very important.

Potential Effects of Fixes

If this study were to have more participants, there is a greater chance that it could be

applicable to a larger group in society. The more participants, the greater and wider the answers

to the questions asked could provide more insight into the planning procedures most teachers

use. Including a survey with a Likert scale after the interview may also help with teachers

responses. Perhaps the way a question is worded on the second survey would be easier

understood than in an interview. It would also show if there were in fact some internal

systematic planning procedures being done, but not shared during the interview. Again, with

more data comes more answers. Having a more standardized method for coding answers and


11/12


using two or more people to code and confer on how things should be coded would prevent

answers from being placed in the wrong category. This too could strengthen the argument the

authors have.

Including more research in this article would help the reader. There would be less

confusion and undermining of the authors own work. This would help professionalize the paper

and again make the results seem less like they were the opposite of what some found and

supportive of what other researchers found. It would strengthen the arguments and provide

stronger proof for the reader as well.

Article Publication

Publication of a revised edition of this paper could be beneficial to teachers and

administrators in schools all over the country. This paper currently shows that superior teachers

do not have to employ systematic instructional planning methods to be voted superior teachers

by peers and administration. Many areas that require instructional planning could see this and

believe that it is not worth the extra time it takes to make sure everything is written down.

Teachers could use this as arguments against having to continue to do systematic instructional

planning, but rather using a more personalized version of planning for their classrooms. When

reading this paper, it is clear that the teachers who are superior are doing great things and

achieving amazing accomplishments and are great leaders but what they arent doing is clearly

writing out their objectives because the objectives are already in my head. I know exactly what

Im trying to do and what I want the kids to do and what I want them to learn.


12/12


References

Young, A., Reiser, R., & Dick, W (1998). "Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional

planning procedures? A descriptive study,"Educational Technology, Research and

Development, 46:2, 65.

Young Article Review

Documents

Transcript of Young Article Review