Elementary School Teachers' Self-Perceived Instructional Competence: A New Questionnaire
←
→
Transcripción del contenido de la página
Si su navegador no muestra la página correctamente, lea el contenido de la página a continuación
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78 ISSN: 1136-1034 eISSN: 2254-4372
www.ehu.es/revista-psicodidactica © UPV/EHU
DOI: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.5622
Elementary School Teachers’ Self-Perceived
Instructional Competence: A New Questionnaire
Juan A. Valdivieso, Miguel A. Carbonero, and Luis J. Martín-Antón
Universidad de Valladolid
Abstract
A conceptual proposal for the teaching style of elementary teachers was established. It is made up of a
set of holistic and integrated dimensions with an introspective and extrinsic nature. These dimensions
are used as the basis to elaborate the Elementary Teacher’s Instructional Self-perceived Competence
Evaluation Scale (ET-IACES). It can be used as an assessment instrument with valid, accurate, and
reliable psychometric properties, suitable for measuring elementary teachers’ strategic competence
profile. The ECAD-EP is rated on a Likert-type scale and comprises 58 items arranged in a three-
dimensional factor structure as follows: (a) Socio-emotional, comprising the variables: co-existence,
mediation, group dynamization, emotional bonding, adaptive communication, communicative
sensitivity, empathy, and self-efficacy; (b) Communicative-relational, consisting of the variables:
assertiveness, affective leadership, executive leadership, problem solving, nonverbal communication,
and paraverbal communication; (c) Instructional, which contains the variables: adapting to new
situations, instructional control, and planning.
Keywords: Teaching styles, assessment of teaching, self-perceived teaching competence, instructio-
nal variables, teacher rating scale.
Resumen
Se establece una propuesta conceptual del estilo de enseñanza del profesorado de EP constituida por un
conjunto de dimensiones holísticas e integradoras, de naturaleza introyectiva y proyectiva, que sirven
de base para la elaborar la Escala de Evaluación de la Competencia Autopercibida del Docente de Edu-
cación Primaria (ECAD-EP), escala que puede ser empleada como un instrumento de evaluación con
propiedades psicométricas válidas y fiables, idónea para poder cuantificar el perfil competencial del
profesorado estratégico de EP. La ECAD-EP presenta un formato tipo Likert constituida por 58 ítems y
dispuesta en una estructura factorial tridimensional del orden siguiente: (a) Socioemocional, compuesto
por las variables: convivencia, mediación, dinamización grupal, implicación afectiva, adaptación comu-
nicativa, sensibilidad comunicativa, empatía y autoeficacia; (b) Comunicativo-relacional, constituido
por las variables: asertividad, liderazgo afectivo, liderazgo ejecutivo, resolución de conflictos, comuni-
cación no verbal y comunicación paraverbal; (c) Instruccional, que contiene las variables: adaptación a
nuevas situaciones, control instruccional y planificación.
Palabras clave: Estilos de enseñanza, evaluación de la enseñanza, competencia docente autoperci-
bida, variables instruccionales, escala de evaluación docente.
Correspondence: Miguel Ángel Carbonero. Departamento de Psicología. Universidad de Valladolid.
Facultad de Educación y Trabajo Social. Campus Miguel Delibes. Paseo de Belén, 1. 47011. Vallado-
lid. Tel. +34983423435. Email: carboner@psi.uva.es48 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
Introduction tives; (b) The Teaching Style Inven-
tory of Leung, Lue, and Lee (2003),
Among the research approaches who differentiated four conceptions
in Psychology of Instruction, con- of action and teaching intervention:
structivism is currently one of the assertive, suggestive, collaborative,
most important (Coll, 2001; Murillo, and facilitation; (c) The Teacher Be-
2006; Pavié, 2011; Pritchard, 2007). lief Inventory of Nottis, Feuerstein,
From this approach, teaching tasks Murray, and Adams (2000), who at-
are radically changing, because stu- tempted to measure the degree to
dents now adopt an active role, they which the teachers’ initial training
are committed to and interested in the process reveals a theoretical or a
construction of meanings, and they practical orientation towards educa-
work with their peers in the social tional problems and, thereby, the ef-
construction of knowledge (Eceiza, fectiveness of the teaching staff’s
Arrieta, & Goñi, 2008). In contrast, training programs; (d) The Adapted
the teachers are more dedicated—in Principles of Adult Learning Styles
their role of mediators—to providing (APALS) of Liu, Qiao, and Liu
opportunities and a favorable learning (2004), which has seven variables:
environment. According to Fenster- student-focused activities, personali-
macher and Richardson (2005), this zation and individualization of the
means that teachers must reconvert teaching processes, references and al-
to constructivism. In this sense, un- lusions to students’ close experience,
til the 1970s, the research tendencies valuing the students’ needs, crea-
in Psychology of Instruction were tion of a positive classroom climate,
aimed chiefly at the cognitive activi- teaching staff’s participation and in-
ties underlying teachers’ actions, such volvement in the process of teaching-
as: verbalization, thinking out loud, learning, and flexibility for personal
stimulation of recall (Schön, 1983); development; and (e) The Question-
and more specifically, they focused naire about Orientation to Learning
on the study and analysis of thoughts to Teach of Oosterheert, Vermunt,
(Shavelson & Stern, 1989), concep- and Denessen (2002), which refers
tions, and beliefs (Liston & Zeich- to the operational description of ori-
ner, 1991), as well as on multidimen- entations towards teaching, without
sional competences, which include directly addressing psychological-in-
direct actions, knowledge and reflec- structional variables.
tion on instructional processes. In contrast, other teaching as-
Many instruments have been de- sessment instruments only at-
signed to assess teaching: (a) The tempted to operationalize the teach-
Teaching Perspectives Inventory of ing staff’s thinking style (CORD,
Pratt and Collins (2001), who devel- 2005; Fan & Ye, 2007), or some
oped a five-dimensional assessment professional variables (Brennan,
of teaching orientations and perspec- Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Hernán-
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 49
dez-Prudencio & Sarramona, 2002; teacher-focused model that quanti-
Padrón, 1994; Roberts & Henson, tatively rates teachers’ preferences,
2001; Zhang, 2011), or only the in- tendencies, dispositions, and behav-
teraction processes of teaching- ioral patterns, and even the abili-
learning (Barca, Peralbo, Brenlla, & ties and skills that differentiate one
Seijas, 2006; De la Fuente & Mar- teacher from another, in the form of a
tínez, 2004; Midgley et al., 2000; technical descriptor (Hervás, 2003).
Park & Lee, 2006). In this article, we present a con-
The teacher’s defining personal ceptual design of the explanatory
and psychoinstructional variables framework of teaching competences
have barely been systematized. Few that, integratively and multidimen-
models have operationalized vari- sionally, will define the operational
ables and processes of the teacher’s profile of an efficacious teaching
individual actions into measurable style in Elementary Education (EE).
cognitive, affective, social, interac- We also present the process of con-
tive, conversational variables. We struction and validation of a scale
refer to defining teaching styles con- for its assessment (ECAD-EP).
sisting of certain psychopedagogical
behaviors, of relatively unitary con- Conceptual design of a model
tent, that are characterized by typical of teaching competences
and complex instructional practices
(Escuderos, 1981), and are typically We establish the differentiation
organized to express the multifac- between two types of competence
eted educational reality (Hervás, dimensions (dichotomic category):
2003). These styles are systematized one that refers directly to the curricu-
as a particular pattern of needs, be- lar sphere of the teacher’s scientific-
liefs, and behaviors displayed by the didactic training (ANECA, 2005),
teacher in the classroom. and one that refers to the teacher’s
Most of the teaching assess- qualities and defining characteris-
ment models analyze teaching sys- tics (personal, psychodemographic,
tems and environments (Bertalanffy, technical-instrumental, and interac-
1981), whereas others analyze tar- tive aspects) (Marín, 1979; Torres,
get behaviors, depending on the pro- 1994). A series of intervening vari-
grams and assessment standards ables that define the direction and
(Bellack & Hersen, 1993), or else nature of the teaching-learning proc-
they were designed as a function of esses (Martín-Antón, Carbonero, &
decision-making processes (Stuffle- Román, 2012) also share the com-
beam, 2003), qualitative or compre- ponents of these groups of compe-
hensive descriptions (Scriven, 1996), tences. These types of variables are
critiques (Elliot, 1994), or case stud- analyzed and assessed from the psy-
ies (Stake, 1988). But none of them chometric viewpoint to elaborate an
operationally describes an analytical ideal instrument that allows us to
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7850 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
determine qualitatively and quanti- aspects and focus mainly on the stu-
tatively an appropriate profile of the dents’ activity. Hence, since initi-
efficacious teacher. ating the conceptual design of the
The variables studied herein may ECAD-EP, we included the teach-
modulate the teaching-learning proc- ing variables inherent to the teacher
ess and are made up of an integrated as an agent, taking into account the
set of cognitive, affective, and social dual nature of their dynamic activ-
behaviors (Martínez, 1999). Teaching- ity: a more individual or introjective
learning processes are influenced by one (insight) and a more social or
the synergies of these variables, which projective one (acting out). These
are dynamic forces of change that are are expressed in the following as-
expressed in repertories of motivat- pects: self-efficacy, metacognition,
ing teaching skills (Carbonero, Ro- planning, decision-making, com-
mán, Martín-Antón, & Reoyo, 2009). munication (verbal, nonverbal, and
They are a model to discriminate dif- paraverbal), affective bonds, assert-
ferent teaching styles that actually oc- iveness, empathy, leadership, co-ex-
cur in the teaching praxis; hence, their istence, problem solving or media-
relevance. Teaching styles act like a tion (in the task, in behaviors, and
specific characterizing variable within in interpersonal relations), and ad-
the teaching process, which makes aptation to new situations.
them an interesting aspect to study.
The style teaching adopted by any
teacher somehow conditions the di- Method
verse teaching elements, because it
interferes with or alters their relation- Participants
ships. Efficacious teachers will there-
fore very probably master diverse For the construction and valida-
teaching styles and, after having pre- tion of the Scale-guide, we used a
viously analyzed the situation, will sample of N = 17 University teachers
know how to apply them. They should (PhDs in Psychology and Pedagogy)
also know how to combine them ade- for the Experts’ Judgment and a sam-
quately, and to transform them to cre- ple of N = 60 of EE teacher-tutors.
ate new ones (Hervás, 2003). For the construction and vali-
The review reveals the pres- dation of the ECAD-EP, we used
ence of diverse variables or criteria the same panel of experts as in the
on which are based the proposals former process of the Scale-guide,
of teaching style classification, al- and for the pilot tests, we used a
though such classifications emerge sample of N = 49 teacher-tutors of
from diverse settings, with differ- EE with similar characteristics as the
ent populations and historical loca- sample of the first administration.
tions (De León, 2005), and most of For the factor analysis, the
the criteria refer to learning-related sample employed was N = 305 EE
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 51
teacher-tutors. We used random — Very experienced teachers (more
cluster sampling of the respective than 30 years): 15.90%.
geographical areas of the Autono-
Although we tried to balance
mous Communities.
the distribution of the groups by
The participant teachers were
years of teaching experience, the
classified into five categories with
preferable control was impossible
regard to their amount of teaching
because the test was administered
experience:
randomly in the school centers.
— «Initiate» teachers (< 5 years ex-
perience teaching): 26.70%. Procedure
— Teachers with average experi-
ence (between 5 and 10 years): This study uses a quantitative,
22.40%. empirical-analytical approach with
— Teachers with medium-high a non-experimental, psychometric,
experience (between 11 and cross-sectional design. The process
20 years): 13.9%. of construction and validation of the
— Experienced teachers (between ECAD-EP is described below in de-
21 and 30 years): 21.20%. tail:
Figure 1. Representation of the process of construction and validation of the ECAD-EP.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7852 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
First phase: elaboration of the expert judgment. The theoretical
Scale-guide contrast consisted of the pre-exper-
imental elaboration of a second as-
The following aspects were car- sessment scale, redefining the the-
ried out in this phase: (1) Review oretical corpus and the operational
of the literature on techniques or as- structure of the variables. From the
sessment instruments of teaching statistical orientation of the Scale-
styles in EE; (2) Determination of the guide, we extended the number of
type assessment instrument to use; items (reaching a total of 366 items)
(3) Drafting of the items (a total pool to conduct more statistical filters
of 137 items), edition the Scale-guide and optimize the empirical refine-
and specification of the application ment criteria. We also increased the
norms; (4) Quantitative refinement number of teaching competence di-
of the items of the Scale-guide based mensions in order to elaborate an
on the judgment of a group of experts integral personal-professional pro-
(using discriminant analysis accord- posal that included cognitive, emo-
ing to percentages of frequencies, tional, social, and behavioral skills,
means, and Cronbach’s alpha of the based on the results of a new bib-
set of items) and pilot administration liographic review and on as the ex-
to a sample of EE teachers (analysis perts’ observations and comments
of internal consistency with Cron- (of the elaboration of the Scale-
bach’s alpha and discriminant valid- guide), as shown in the Figure 2.
ity (using the nonparametric Mann- Three more dimensions (Meta-
Whitney-Wilcoxon U-test). cognition, Planning, and Decision-
The items were classified accord- making) were added to the Self-ef-
ing to their conceptual, procedural, ficacy dimension of the Scale-guide
and attitudinal nature, as some em- (which refers to the introjective
phasize intentions (i. e., “I do what I nature of teaching competence).
can so the students will improve their The dimensions Verbal Communi-
verbal communication”), others un- cation, Nonverbal Communication,
derline teaching actions (i. e., “I stand and Paraverbal Communication,
at different spots in the classroom which had been analyzed independ-
to maintain the students’ attention”), ently, were now grouped into a sin-
and still others stress attitude or pref- gle factor (projective group factor).
erence (i. e., “I like the students to Likewise, Affective Bonds and Em-
reason before they respond”). pathy now formed the dimension
Affect. Lastly, the dimension So-
Second phase: Construction cial Skills was subdivided into four
of the ECAD-EP subdimensions: Problem Solving,
Assertiveness, Leadership, and Co-
This phase had two moments: existence. A new dimension (Ad-
theoretical contrast and a second aptation to new Situations), which
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 53
Figure 2. Multidimensional structure of the ECAD-EP and its relation with the Scale-guide.
is more social and projective, was M ≥ 7.00, we selected those with
also added. at least a conjoint frequency of the
In view of the theoretical mod- 70%, in construct and in content va-
els consulted, a second judgment lidity (fa ∩ fb ≥ 70%).
was subsequently performed by Thirdly, we did a readjustment
the experts, to calculate construct or rebalance of item-dimensions:
and content validity and to ver- After refining the items through the
ify the formal structure and con- experts’ judgment, we methodologi-
ceptual meaning of the proposed cally readjusted the dimensions to
items. The items that met the fol- formally adapt the content of the
lowing criteria were eliminated: selected variables and to provide a
M < 5.50, 5.50 ≤ M ≤ 6.60 and balanced structure to the scale. The
6.60 < M ≤ 7.00. Also, validity was scale was refined by rebalancing the
calculated from the experts’ scores number of items based on the selec-
grouped into «high» (from 7 to tion of items within a range of 20-
10), “medium” (4 to 6), and «low» 30% frequency percentage of the
(1 to 3), so the items with a fre- highest scores of construct and con-
quency percentage lower than 70% tent validity concurrently. The self-
were eliminated. Of the items with analysis of the power and amplitude
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7854 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
of each variable by the group of ex- Test-retest reliability was calcu-
perts was also considered (in the lated with the correlation coefficient
section of observations). of the all the scale items (internal
We note that the itemetric bal- consistency) using two procedures:
ance carried out does not decrease Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and
the statistical selection criterion, be- Guttmann’s split-half coefficient.
cause the values that approach the And finaly, the determination
established statistical criterion of of the psychometric structure: This
construct and content validity were phase included first-order factor
selected (±66.70% - ±100.00%). At analysis (from a pilot administration
least 20% of the initially constructed to establish the dimensional struc-
items that were considered valid by ture) and second-order factor analy-
the experts were selected, except sis (using the items of the previous
for the variable Co-existence. In this factor analysis), empirically defin-
case, following experts’ observa- ing the structure of the dimensions
tions and the bibliographic review of of the scale and determining its hi-
teaching styles in EE, we increased erarchical organization. The data for
the number of items to 12, which the factor analysis were collected
represents 57.14% of the total initial from the third pilot administration,
number, approximately one half. which included a broad and repre-
The fourth step was the analy- sentative sample of the collective of
sis of reliability: After the refine- EE teachers from Spain.
ment or analytical-statistical screen-
ing of the Scale, we determined its Statistical analyses
internal consistency, and a second
pilot administration was conducted This study is a quantitative, em-
with teachers to verify its test-retest pirical-analytical approach and uses
reliability. The items of the scale a non-experimental, psychometric,
established for the pilot adminis- cross-sectional design. Random-
tration were randomly distributed, convenience sampling was used,
avoiding grouping items by dimen- because the group of experts and
sions, thereby eliminating possible the sample of teachers in the pilot
biases and self-fulfilling expectan- administration completed the rat-
cies of the interviewees. The scale ing scales in their free time. Various
was handed out to a convenience statistical analyses were performed
sample of participants, who rated with the SPSS 18.0 package:
their responses on a 5-point Likert-
type scale. 1. Construct and content valid-
The administration was organ- ity by means of descriptive and
ized at two times: at the beginning discriminant analyses (from the
(September 2009) and the end (June means and percentages of fre-
2010) of the 2009-2010 school year. quencies) of all the dimensions
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 55
of the scale. A panel of experts of experts was conducted in three
carried out the corresponding phases: (1) After calculating the
statistical study to refine the percentage of frequencies (f ≥ 70%,
items of each dimension, on the f ≥ 80%, f ≥ 90%), the number of
basis of a selection criterion of items was reduced from 137 to 107;
means (M > 6.60) and percent- (2) Based on the mean scores, items
ages of frequencies (f ≥ 70%). with M ≤ 5.50 were eliminated, and
In addition, discriminant valid- then items with 5.50 ≤ M ≤ 6.60,
ity (Mann Whitney-Wilcoxon’s resulting in 106 items; and (3) As
U, p < .05, p < .01, p < .001) a result of calculating the item-to-
and reliability (α ≥ .684) of the tal reliability index (by means of
Scale-guide were analyzed. Cronbach’s alpha index), the final
2. Internal consistency (reliabil- scale had 92 items. With the data
ity): test-retest method, calculat- obtained from the pilot administra-
ing Cronbach’s alpha index and tion, another analytical-statistical
Guttmann’s split-half coefficient. screening was conducted: (1) After
3. Determination of the psychomet- calculating the reliability index of
ric structure, using the principal each item with the total (with Cron-
components extraction method bach’s alpha index), the scale com-
(PCA with Kaiser’s varimax ro- prised 82 items; and (2) After ap-
tation) to determine the factor plying Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon’s
structure of the scale, perform- nonparametric U-test, the final scale
ing first- and second-order factor had a total of 66 items distributed in
analyses after verifying their ad- 10 competence variables.
equacy with the KMO and Bar- After the process of refinement,
tlett’s sphericity tests. Items were there was evidence that ECAD-EP,
selected from the loading index which will be used as a “Scale-
(≥.445) on a single factor. guide,” met the valid statistical and
theoretical-formal criteria regard-
ing its construct and the discrimi-
Results nation of items within each dimen-
sion.
Processes of item refinement and Next, we will describe in de-
selection tail the process of construction and
validation followed for the Scale-
An analytical-statistical screen- guide and for the ECAD-EP (see
ing from the ratings of the group Figures 3 and 4):
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7856 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
Figure 3. Representation of the process of construction and validation of the Scale-guide.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 57
Figure 4. Representation of the process of construction and validation of the ECAD-EP.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7858 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
Reliability Analysis
The measures of test-retest reliability of the dimensions are presented in
Table 1:
Table 1
Measures of Test-Retest Reliability of the ECAD-EP Dimensions
Test Retest
Dimensions Cronbach’s Guttmann’s Cronbach’s Guttmann’s
N N
α split-half α split-half
Self-efficacy 49 .775 .871 49 .696 .783
Planning 49 .748 .766 49 .724 .723
Decision-making 49 .789 .672 49 .557 .329
Problem solving 49 .785 .700 49 .838 .730
Assertiveness 49 .770 .733 49 .601 .573
Leadership 49 .600 .689 49 .683 .637
Co-existence 49 .825 .853 49 .790 .822
Adaptation to new situations 49 .796 .802 49 .766 .839
Specifically, in the dimensions Communication and Affect, which have
subdimensions, the reliability measures are:
Table 2
Measures of Test-Retest Reliability of the Subdimensions of ECAD-EP
Test Retest
Subdimensions Cronbach’s Guttmann’s Cronbach’s Guttmann’s
N N
α split-half α split-half
Verbal Communication 49 .632 .749 49 .664 .854
Nonverbal Communication 49 .829 .771 49 .767 .640
Paraverbal Communication 49 .719 .557 49 .371 .406
Affective bonds 49 .812 .787 49 .766 .803
Empathy 49 .739 .741 49 .727 .692
As seen in Tables 1 and 2, the ences among the test-retest scores,
dimensions of the scale achieve which means that the content of the
a high internal consistency coef- ECAD-EP has sufficient internal
ficient, with no significant differ- consistency.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 59
First-order factor analysis Varimax rotation with Kaiser’s nor-
malization, converging in 22 itera-
Before conducting the first-or- tions.
der factor analysis (FA1), Kaiser- Tables 3 and 4 show the re-
Meyer-Olkin’s sample adequacy sults of the loadings of all the items
measurement (KMO) and Bartlett’s grouped by principal components as
degree of sphericity were calculated a function of their communalities.
(KMO = .936 and B = .000). The relation of all of the items with
The first-order factor analysis the theoretical teaching dimension
was conducted using the principal established in the initial structure of
components extraction method and the ECAD-EP is also represented.
Table 3
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 1, 2, and 3
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3
As 79 .750* ANS 50 .356* DM 81 .363*
Co 87 .708* Me 36 .765* Me 92 .718*
Co 78 .699* Co 30 .754* Co 91 .688*
ANS 62 .567* Me 67 .671* DM 90 .668*
Co 70 .500* Me 49 .630* DM 60 .501*
DM 81 .434* Co 72 .531* Me 77 .395*
NVC 44 .414* VC 73 .450* Se 37 .321*
As 71 .413* L 63 .448* Se 58 .301*
Co 64 .484* L 29 .406* PVC 84 .317*
Co 17 .398* DM 45 .384*
VC 89 .308* Em 31 .382*
ANS 50 .388* As 10 .346*
AB 25 .445* DM 26 .303*
AB 46 .365* VC 53 .338*
Co 72 .435* Se 86 .303*
L 29 .356* Se 13 .397*
Me 77 .387* ANS 27 .303*
As 18 .301*
AB 69 .345*
Em 61 .331*
Co 83 .352*
AB 15 .333*
* Items with a high or unique factor loading in one factor.
Note: As = Assertiveness, Co = Co-existence, ANS = Adaptation to new Situations, DM = Decision
Making, NVC = Nonverbal Communication, VC = Verbal communication, AB = Affect: Affective
Bonds, L = Leadership, Me = Problem solving: Mediation, Em = Affect: Empathy, Se = Self-efficacy,
PVC = Paraverbal Communication.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7860 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
Table 3 shows that Factor 1 Factor 7 groups 6.52% of all the
groups 23.9% of all the items of items of the scale, of which50% only
the scale, of which 27.27% only load on this factor, with a weight of
load on this factor, with a weight of ≥.624. Factor 8 groups 8.69% of
≥.445. Factor 2 groups 18.48% of all the items of the scale, of which
all the items of the scale, of which 62.50% only load on one factor, with
35.29% only load on this factor, a weight of ≥.445. Factor 9 groups
with a weight of ≥.448. And Factor 3 7.61% of all the items of the Scale,
groups 9.78% of all the items of the of which 28.57% only load on this
scale, with 44.44% only loading on factor, with a weight of ≥.601.
this factor, with a weight of ≥.501. Factor 10 groups 9.78% of all
Factor 4 groups 10.87% of all the items of the scale, of which
the items of the scale, of which20% 22.22% only load on this factor,
only load on this factor, with a with a weight of ≥.591. Factor 11
weight of ≥.466. Factor 5 groups groups 8.69% of all the items of the
8.69% of all the items of the Scale, scale, of which 37.5% only load on
of which 50% only load on this fac- this factor, with a weight of ≥.446.
tor, with a weight of ≥.525. Factor 6 Factor 12 groups 7.61% of all the
groups 7.61% of all the items of the items of the scale, of which 28.57%
scale, of which 85.71% only load on only load on this factor, with a
this factor, with a weight of ≥.452. weight of ≥.502.
Table 4
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 4, 5, and 6
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 4 Dimension 5 Dimension 6
NVC 44 .307* VC 24 .333* Se 04 .681*
AB 46 .300* Pl 68 .363* VC 02 .637*
VC 33 .681* Pl 05 .779* L 08 .559*
VC 24 .595* Pl 74 .681* Em 03 .543*
Se 37 .487* Pl 23 .670* Me 07 .452*
Se 47 .466* Pl 35 .525* Se 58 .375*
Pl 68 .459* DM 26 .302* Se 80 .485*
As 32 .439* Pl 12 .384*
VC 39 .346*
AB 34 .346*
* Items with a high or unique factor loading on one factor.
Note: NVC = Nonverbal Communication, AB = Affect: Affective Bonds, VC = Verbal communication,
Se = Self-efficacy, Pl = Planning, As = Assertiveness, DM = Decision Making, L = Leadership, Em =
Affect: Empathy, Me = Problem solving: Mediation.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 61
Table 5
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 7, 8, and 9
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 7 Dimension 8 Dimension 9
NVC 14 .701* Co 17 .336* VC 89 .339*
NVC 48 .648* L 08 .409* Em 31 .330*
NVC 55 .624* Co 20 .537* Me 77 .348*
Em 54 .454* DM 21 .528* Em 11 .713*
PVC 85 .339* As 18 .517* Me 16 .601*
PVC 82 .323* Em 19 .446* AB 22 .467*
NVC 06 .445* As 10 .358*
ANS 52 .361*
* Items with a high or unique factor loading on one factor.
Note: NVC = Nonverbal Communication, Em = Affect: Empathy, PVC = Paraverbal Communication,
Co = Co-existence, L = Leadership, DM = Decision Making, As = Assertiveness, ANS = Adaptation to
new Situations, VC = Verbal communication, Me = Problem solving: Mediation, AB = Affect: Affec-
tive Bonds.
Table 6
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 10, 11, and 12
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 10 Dimension 11 Dimension 12
Co 70 .301* DM 45 .353* AB 46 .325*
As 71 .311* VC 39 .337* VC 02 .313*
Em 31 .380* Em 54 .446* Se 58 .332*
Se 58 .311* AB 22 .339* L 40 .664*
AB 57 .643* PVC 84 .563* Se 86 .502*
AB 69 .591* L 43 .497* ANS 41 .353*
AB 34 .395* Em 61 .443* PVC 85 .379*
DM 26 .352* Co 53 .388*
Em 61 .352*
* Items with a high or unique factor loading on one factor.
Note: Co = Co-existence, As = Assertiveness, Em = Affect: Empathy, Se = Self-efficacy, AB = Affect:
Affective Bonds, DM = Decision Making, VC = Verbal communication, PVC = Paraverbal Communi-
cation, L = Leadership, ANS = Adaptation to new Situations.
Factor 13 groups 4.35% of all weight of ≥.692. Factor 14 groups
the items of the scale, of which50% 5.43% of all the items of the scale,
only load on this factor, with a of which 60% only load on this fac-
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7862 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
Table 7
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 13, 14, and 15
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 13 Dimension 14 Dimension 15
NVC 66 .714* L 29 .348* VC 89 .349*
As 65 .692* Pl 12 .630* Co 88 .650*
Co 83 .371* Pl 01 .592* PVC 76 .609*
PVC 82 .333* Se 13 .377*
ANS 28 .492*
* Items with a high or unique factor loading on one factor.
Note: NVC = Nonverbal Communication, As = Assertiveness, Co = Co-existence, PVC = Paraverbal
Communication, L = Leadership, Pl = Planning, Se = Self-efficacy, ANS = Adaptation to new Situa-
tions, VC = Verbal communication, PVC = Paraverbal Communication.
Table 8
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 16, 17, and 18
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 16 Dimension 17 Dimension 18
ANS 52 .311* DM 81 .304* VC 39 .309
ANS 09 .692* As 32 .313* PVC 38 .287
ANS 27 .539* L 51 .706* NVC 59 .302
PVC 82 .297
* Items with a high or unique factor loading on one factor.
Note: ANS = Adaptation to new Situations, DM = Decision Making, As = Assertiveness, L = Leader-
ship, VC = Verbal communication, PVC = Paraverbal Communication, NVC = Nonverbal Communi-
cation.
tor, with a weight of ≥.492. Fac- all the items of the scale, of which
tor 15 groups 3.26% of all the items 33.33% only load on this factor, with
of the scale, of which 66.66% only a weight of ≥.706. However, the sup-
load on this factor, with a weight of posed Factor 18, which groups 4.35%
≥.609. of all the items of scale, was elimi-
Factor 16 groups 3.26% of all the nated because it did not present items
items of the scale, of which 66.66% with a unique loading on this factor
only load on this factor, with a weight and the items that did load on it had a
of ≥.539. Factor 17 groups 3.26% of low weight (≤.309).
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 63
Table 9
Matrix of Rotated FA1 Components: Factors 19, 20, and 21
Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor Theoretical Factor
Item Item Item
Dimension 19 Dimension 20 Dimension 21
Se 58 .315 PVC 75 .255 NVC 44 –.306
AB 15 .254 PVC 82 .344 As 71 .318
Em 42 .290 ANS 41 .322
* Items with a high or unique factor loading on one factor.
Note: Se = Self-efficacy, AB = Affect: Affective Bonds, PVC = Paraverbal Communication, Em = Af-
fect: Empathy, NVC = Nonverbal Communication, As = Assertiveness, ANS = Adaptation to new Situ-
ations.
Table 10 and they did not only load on these
Percentage of the Items in each one of the factors; in fact, one of them corre-
Matrix Factors lated negatively with the factor.
From this analysis and the
Factor % ECAD-EP
% with loading grouping of the principal compo-
level ≥.445 nents, we obtained a factor structure
1 23.91 27.27 with 17 factors:
2 18.48 35.29 Thus, the ECAD-EP is made up
3 09.78 44.44 of a total of 58 items with 17 factors:
4 10.87 20.00 Co-existence (F1), Group Dynami-
5 08.69 50.00 zation (F2), Problem solving (F3),
6 07.61 85.71 Communicative Adaptation (F 4),
7 06.52 50.00 Planning (F 5), Self-efficacy (F 6),
8 08.69 62.50
Nonverbal Communication (F 7),
9 07.61 28.57
10 09.78 22.22 Mediation (F 8), Affective Bond-
11 08.69 25.00 ing (F9), Empathy (F10), Executive
12 07.61 28.57 Leadership (F11), Affective Leader-
13 04.35 50.00 ship (F12), Assertiveness (F13), In-
14 05.43 60.00 structional Control (F14), Adaptation
15 03.26 66.66 to new Situations (F15), Paraverbal
16 04.35 50.00 Communication (F16), and Commu-
17 03.26 66.66 nicative Sensitivity (F17).
Second-order factor analysis
The supposed Factors 19, 20,
and 21 were eliminated because their As in the first-order factor anal-
loadings on the items were ≤ .344 ysis, sample adequacy was cal-
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78Table 11 64
Correlation Matrix of the Theoretical Dimensions of the ECAD-EP after FA2
CO GD PS BA PL SE NVC ME AB Emp EL AL AS IC ANS PVC CS
CO 1 .620 .538 .637 .417 .567 .407 .612 .442 .600 .450 .361 .377 .361 .366 .479 .519
GD .620 1 .585 .522 .468 .523 .498 .576 .358 .495 .470 .465 .357 .399 .443 .463 .450
PS .538 .585 1 .515 .343 .452 .433 .555 .410 .450 .511 .407 .484 .360 .433 .486 .469
CA .637 .522 .515 1 .457 .606 .353 .584 .396 .427 .388 .387 .338 .412 .343 .484 .421
Pl .417 .468 .343 .457 1 .355 .268 .386 .293 .296 .270 .255 .192 .491 .311 .325 .275
Se .567 .523 .452 .606 .355 1 .424 .575 .426 .372 .355 .433 .346 .387 .409 .469 .419
NVC .407 .498 .433 .353 .268 .424 1 .472 .279 .296 .380 .426 .433 .355 .323 .479 .349
Me .612 .576 .555 .584 .386 .575 .472 1 .495 .468 .502 .445 .370 .428 .477 .508 .442
AB .442 .358 .410 .396 .293 .426 .279 .495 1 .474 .379 .244 .294 .325 .374 .376 .219
Em .600 .495 .450 .427 .296 .372 .296 .468 .474 1 .353 .327 .278 .305 .289 .423 .343
EL .450 .470 .511 .388 .270 .355 .380 .502 .379 .353 1 .349 .328 .316 .334 .326 .358
AL .361 .465 .407 .387 .255 .433 .426 .445 .244 .327 .349 1 .302 .306 .318 .375 .369
As .377 .357 .484 .338 .192 .346 .433 .370 .294 .278 .328 .302 1 .237 .251 .344 .243
IC .361 .399 .360 .412 .491 .387 .355 .428 .325 .305 .316 .306 .237 1 .388 .353 .181
ANS .366 .443 .433 .343 .311 .409 .323 .477 .374 .289 .334 .318 .251 .388 1 .350 .244
PVC .479 .463 .486 .484 .325 .469 .479 .508 .376 .423 .326 .375 .344 .353 .350 1 .379
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78
CS .519 .450 .469 .421 .275 .419 .349 .442 .219 .343 .358 .369 .243 .181 .244 .379 1
Note: CO = Co-existence, GD = Group Dynamization, PS = Problem solving, CA = Communicative Adaptation, Pl= Planning, Se = Self-efficacy,
NVC=Nonverbal Communication, Me = Mediation, AB = Affective Bonding, Em = Empathy, EL = Executive Leadership, AL = Affective Leadership,
As = Assertiveness, IC = Instructional Control, ANS = Adaptation to new Situations, PVC = Paraverbal Communication, CS = Communicative Sensitiv-
ity.
JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓNELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 65
culated with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Thus, we determined the fac-
(KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity de- tor space that defines the underlying
gree to confirm the suitability of structure of the ECAD-EP, using
second-order factor analysis. The the principal components extraction
data obtained (KMO = .941 and method. The first three dimensions
B = .000) ratify that factor analysis grouped the greatest percentage of
is adequate. Table 11 shows the re- variance (the extraction and the ro-
sults of the loadings of all the items tation sums of the squared loadings
grouped by principal components as had an accumulated percentage of
a function of their communalities. 56.307).
The degree of convergence among Using orthogonal rotation, we
the dimensions was also calculated. obtained a matrix that approximates
After calculating the matrix of the simplest factor structure solu-
rotated components, which are pre- tion, retaining the most distinct and
sented globally, Kaiser’s varimax ro- extreme loadings, obtaining a trans-
tation method was applied converging formation matrix with three compo-
in 6 iterations, obtaining the following nents.
matrix of rotated components: The data of the matrix in Table
12 shows that the three factors have
high loadings (≥.458), especially
Table 12 the dimensions of Factor 1 (≥.512)
Matrix of Rotated Components of the FA2 and Factor 3 (≥.554).
In view of the data obtained in
Component the transformation matrix of the FA2
Variable
1 2 3 components, which have signifi-
cantly high correlations with each
Co-existence .783
Empathy .743
other (Component 1-1: .672; Com-
Communicative Adaptation .629 ponent 2-2: .801; Component 3-3:
Communicative Sensitivity .618 .559), we concluded that the factors
Mediation .563 of ECAD-EP are moderately inde-
Affective Bonding .544 pendent.
Group Dynamization .523
Self-efficacy .512
Hence, the structure of ECAD-
Nonverbal Communication .760 EP has three factors, as shown in
Assertiveness .691 Figure 5:
Executive Leadership .614
a) Socio-emotional factor (S-E):
Problem Solving .554
made up of variables related to
Paraverbal Communication .462
control and the applicability of
Affective Leadership .458
interpersonal skills and intrap-
Instructional Control .803
ersonal balance skills, which in-
Planning .710
crease the quality of the interac-
Adaptation to new Situations .554
tive teaching process.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7866 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
Figure 5. Representation of the dimensions of each factor of the ECAD-EP after the FA2.
b) Communicative relational fac- skills and the development of
tor (C-R): made up of variables meta-teaching actions. This is
directly related to the manage- related to processes of manage-
ment of interaction and commu- ment and direction of teaching
nicative dynamization, involv- to achieve psychopedagogical
ing cognitive, metacognitive, adaptation of the students’ pro-
psycholinguistic, sociocultural, file and the specificities of the
and psychopedagogical skills curricular goals.
and abilities, which mediate the
teaching-learning processes. Thus, the ECAD-EP is organ-
c) Instructional factor (I): made of ized around three competence di-
variables intrinsically related mensions or factors and comprises
to the promotion of formative 58 items, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13
Numeric Distribution of the Variables in the Factors and Number of Items in each Factor
Variables of F1 N Variables of F2 N Variables of F3 N
Co-existence 7 Nonverbal communication 3 Instructional Control 3
Empathy 2 Assertiveness 2 Planning 4
Communicative adaptation 3 Executive leadership 2 Adaptation to new situations 2
Communicative sensitivity 2 Problem Solving 4
Mediation 5 Paraverbal communication 2
Affective bonding 2 Affective leadership 2
Group dynamization 7
Self-efficacy 6
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 67
The three factors that form the fining teachers’ teaching styles as a
final edition of the ECAD-EP also link to students’ learning styles. The
have significantly high reliability, teaching-learning correlation was
calculated with Cronbach’s α: for the acknowledgement of the teach-
Factor A (Socio-emotional) Cron- ers’ mediating role, granting maxi-
bach’s α = .852; for Factor B (Com- mum importance to the interactive
municative-relational), Cronbach’s processes. In this sense, many au-
α = .788; and for Factor C (Instruc- thors have made experimental con-
tional) Cronbach’s α = .721. tributions, making teaching more
The final version of the ECAD- scientifically valid (Aitkin, Ben-
EP can be seen in the last annex. net, & Hesketh, 1981; Baumgart,
1977; Campbell & Campbell, 1978;
Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Eble, 1981;
Discussion Fischer & Fischer, 1979; Tuckman,
Steber, & Hyman, 1979; Turner,
The assessment of the teach- 1979; Vernon & Entwistle 1982;
ing praxis strongly emerges with the Wilson, 1986; Wragg & Bennett,
main goal of improving the qual- 1976; Yule & Bennett, 1978). How-
ity of educational institutions and ever, most of these advances were
the professional development of the subsequently blocked in favor of
teaching staff as the directing sub- experimentation and innovation in
ject of the teaching-learning proc- the organizational sphere and in the
ess, in addition to meeting the legis- area of instructional design. Instead
lative demands of each epoch. There of focusing on the subjects’ proc-
have been more written articles than esses, the studies focused on techno-
empirical research, because many logical and situational elements and
of the theoretical approaches are not factors of the teaching process. Few
applicable to real work. In the past models have attempted to opera-
20 years, the assessment of teach- tionalize the variables and processes
ers and the definitions of the rating concerning the teachers’ individual
criteria to determine teaching com- actions (cognitive, affective, social,
petences and efficacy have been one interactive, conversational...), and
of the most vanguard areas of re- when this has been done, a preva-
search in Educational Psychology. lence of works based on the hy-
Our teaching assessment proposal pothetical existence of a series of
falls within this framework, seek- characteristics that define a good
ing the operational definition of the teacher have emerged, which the as-
variables that make up the teaching sessment instruments should take
praxis globally and completely. into account; it is therefore better to
In the decades of the 1970s refer to teaching styles. The scarcity
and 1980s, Instructional Psychol- of measurement instruments of the
ogy progressed notably when de- defining psychoinstructional vari-
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7868 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
ables of the EE teaching staff has 2011). Most research of this topic
also been verified. has either focused on external opin-
If we could scientifically study ions and appraisals (perceptions of
the way each teacher resolves a spe- judges, students, etc.) or on implicit
cific educational situation effec- theories (Marrero, 1993; Pozo &
tively, we could elaborate an Ed- Scheuer, 1999). There is some con-
ucational Psychology that would cern about the design and develop-
improve educational praxis. This ment of procedures and techniques
requires the application of an in- for the assessment of teaching, as
ductive methodology to observe valid measures of learning how to
the teaching-learning processes mi- teach and in order to improve teach-
croscopically. The analysis of these ers’ training programs and thereby
processes should be carried out in to gain instructional efficacy, as re-
specific situations, because broad ported in the works of Cohen-Vogel
and nonspecific or ambiguous situa- and Smith (2007), Mohan, Lunde-
tions do not admit this type of anal- berg, and Reffitt (2008), Pecheone
ysis. We propose to make the teach- and Chung (2006, Performance As-
ing situation the unit of analysis of sessment for California Teachers-
the teaching-learning process. PACT), Ridley, Hurwitz, Hackett,
The proposal of a descriptive and Miller (2005), Tam et al. (Tam,
and methodological conceptual Pak, Hui, Kwan, & Goh, 2010) or
framework that defines teaching Van Zandt (1998, Professional De-
styles comprises of a mixture of var- velopment School-PDS). However,
iables expressed by capacities (con- it is currently difficult to agree on
ceptual, factual, and values), which an explicit and complete model to
make up three modular areas (or be assessed. Researchers have at-
dimensions) holistically (system) tempted to overcome this drawback
and interrelatedly. These justify dif- with diverse models and the use of
ferent teaching styles in teachers, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
defined by Beltrán et al. (Beltrán, methodologies, as well as instru-
Moraleda, Alcañiz, Calleja, & San- ments with diverse characteristics
tiuste, 1990) as behavioral patterns (Elizalde & Reyes, 2008).
that the teacher follows when per- In research of Psychology of In-
forming externally visible teaching. struction, the analysis of the cog-
Nevertheless, as seen throughout the nitive activities underlying the
investigation, it is difficult to agree teaching staff’s actions, such as ver-
on which traits or specific qualities balization thinking aloud, stimulat-
the EE teachers should possess. ing recall (Schön, 1983), has given
Therefore, the need to clarify way to the study and assessment of
the validity of emerging teaching thoughts (Shavelson & Stern, 1989),
competences is intrinsically linked conceptions and beliefs (Liston &
to their assessment (Collins & Pratt, Zeichner, 1991; Zeichner, 1993), di-
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 69
rect actions, knowledge, and reflec- necessary for the teacher, especially
tion on the instructional processes. the EE teacher. We have verified
Self-assessment of teaching com- that both the technical-professional
petence has thus become an ideal and personal characteristics are im-
means to develop the assessment portant, and emphasized the action
of teaching performance, which in- of the moderator variables, which
cludes a broad competence model provide the clues to select and train
comprising instructional, emotional, teachers appropriately in the dimen-
relational, and motivating variables sions that contribute the most to
(Pena, Rey, & Extremera, 2012; achieving excellence in teaching
Rey & Extremera, 2011). According to Snider and Roehl
The ECAD-EP is thus a valid (2007), EE teaching staff focuses
and reliable method to assess teach- on the development of instructional
ing patterns and profiles in EE, praxis based on constructivism, un-
characterized by its tripartite struc- derlining the importance of teach-
ture, which includes teachers’ tech- ing style rather than content, and
nical-instructional, socio-emotional, they support a teaching based on
and communicative-relational as- strategies and eclectic methods and
pects, thereby configuring a pro- interaction with a reduced class.
posal of holistic assessment of com- Teaching experience and teachers’
petence. preparation and continued training
The explicit rating of teachers’ are also valued. In general, a teacher
self-perception of their own teach- who generates positive expectations
ing processes allows them not only in the students achieves better re-
to self-rate themselves but also to sults that a teacher who gives in
infer their models, expectations, and when faced with students’ difficul-
attitudes about these teaching proc- ties, because developing such ex-
esses. Having employed a broad pectations generates an efficacious
sample of active EE teachers in the instructional environment (Rosen-
national territory makes the ECAD- feld & Rosenfeld, 2008).
EP a situational report of what these Lastly, a study of Serrano and
teachers consider, think and value in Pons (2008) concludes that all the
the current Spanish educational sys- classifications of the teaching-learn-
tem. This represents an up-to-date ing processes share three aspects:
conception of teaching competences they fulfill a social and socializ-
in agreement with the implementa- ing function (Madariaga & Goñi,
tion of the new study plans for the 2009); they have an affective com-
Degree of Teacher, according to the ponent (attribution of meaning) and
European Space for Higher Educa- a cognitive component (construc-
tion (ESHE). tion of meaning); and they are me-
The ECAD-EP also allows us diated processes. Teachers who are
to found a tripartite training that is well prepared to teach the facts of
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-7870 JUAN A. VALDIVIESO, MIGUEL A. CARBONERO, AND LUIS J. MARTÍN-ANTÓN
their academic subjects are forced is why it is necessary to adopt a
to take responsibility for a group of broad perspective that allows the
students who often pose challenges use of a large series of abilities and
that have nothing to do with the les- skills to address the new problems
sons taught. Little by little, teachers, presented by the teaching activity
especially EE teachers, discover that and the dynamics of co-existence in
their good academic preparation is classrooms and schools (Álvarez-
insufficient, because other behavior García, Rodríguez, González-Cas-
problems, attitudes, and relations tro, Núñez, & Álvarez, 2010). It is
overwhelm their plans. Social, af- considered increasingly important
fective, and emotional problems are to pay attention to the psychologi-
mixed up in the centers and class- cal aspects that mediate and modu-
rooms, and teachers are not always late the teaching-learning processes,
sufficiently prepared to face and dynamizing entities that lend value
solve them. It is often not even pos- and human meaning to the instruc-
sible to detect them clearly, which tive activities.
References
Aitkin, M., Bennett, S. N., & Hesketh, ción a los estilos de enseñanza de
J. (1981). Teaching styles and pupil los profesores de Educación Secun-
progress. A re-analysis. British Jour- daria Obligatoria. La Escala CAEE
nal of Educational Psychology, 51, como instrumento de evaluación
170-186. [An approach to the teaching styles
Álvarez-García, D., Rodríguez, C., Gon- of Compulsory Secondary Educa-
zález-Castro, P., Núñez, J. C., & Ál- tion teachers. The ACBC scale as
varez, L. (2010). La formación de los an assessment instrument]. Revista
futuros docentes frente a la violencia Galego-Portuguesa de Psicoloxía e
escolar [Training future teachers to Educación, 13, 353-362.
face school violence]. Revista de Psi- Baumgart, N. L. (1977). Designing re-
codidáctica, 15(1), 35-56. search on teaching styles. Educa-
ANECA (2005). La adecuación de las tional Studies, 3(2), 117-127. doi:
titulaciones de maestro al EEES 10.1080/0305569770030203.
[The adequacy of teacher titles to the Bellack, A., & Hersen, M. (1993). Hand-
ESHE]. Retrieved at http://centro. book of behavior therapy in the psy-
us.es/fccee/eees/informe_final_texto. chiatric setting. Nueva York: Plenum
pdf. Press. [Spanish translation: Manual
Barca, A., Peralbo, M., Brenlla, J. C., & práctico de evaluación de conducta.
Seijas, S. (2006). Una aproxima- Bilbao: DDB, 1993].
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ SELF-PERCEIVED INSTRUCTIONAL... 71
Beltrán, J., Moraleda, M. G., Alcañiz, Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2011). The
E. G., Calleja, F., & Santiuste, V. Teaching Perspectives Inventory at
(1990). Psicología de la educación 10 Years and 100.000 respondents:
[Psychology of education]. Madrid: Reliability and validity of a teacher
Eudema. self-report inventory. Adult Educa-
Bertalanffy, L. (1981). Teoría general de tion Quarterly, 61(4), 358-375. doi:
los sistemas. Madrid: Fondo de Cul- 10.1177/0741713610392763.
tura Económica. CORD (2005). Teaching Styles Inventory
Brennan, K., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. (TSI). Waco.
(1998). Self-report measurements De la Fuente, J., & Martínez, J. M.
of adult attachment: An integra- (2004). Escalas para la evaluación
tive overview. In J. A. Simpson & interactiva del proceso de enseñanza-
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment the- aprendizaje. EIEEA. Manual técnico
ory and close relationships (pp. 46- y de aplicación [Scales to assess the
76). New York: Guilford Press. interactive process of teaching-learn-
Campbell, E. M., & Campbell, W. J. ing. EIEEA. Technical and adminis-
(1978). Comparative study of teach- tration manual]. Madrid: EOS.
ing styles in state secondary schools De León, I. J. (2005). Los estilos de en-
of New Zealand and Queensland. señanza pedagógicos: una propuesta
Australian Journal of Education, de criterios para su determinación
22(1), 1-12. [Pedagogical teaching styles: A pro-
Carbonero, M. A., Román, J. M., Mar- posal of criteria for their determina-
tín-Antón, L. J., & Reoyo, N. (2009). tion]. Revista de Investigación, 57,
Effect of the Motivational Teaching 69-97.
Skills Program in the secondary edu- Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1979). Learning
cation teaching staff. Revista de Psi- styles, teaching styles: Should they…
codidáctica, 14(2), 229-244. can they… be matched? Educational
Cohen-Vogel, L., & Smith, T. M. Leadership, 36(4), 238-244.
(2007). Qualifications and as- Eble, K. (1981). Improving teaching
signments of alternatively cer- styles. Communication Education,
tified teachers: Testing core as- 30(4), 438-439.
sumptions. American Educational Eceiza, M., Arrieta, M., & Goñi, A.
Research Journal, 44(3), 732-753. (2008). Social skills and contexts of
doi: 10.3102/0002831207306752. social behavior, Revista de Psico-
Coll, C. (2001). Constructivismo y didáctica, 13(1), 11-26.
Educación: La concepción construc- Elizalde, L., & Reyes, R. (2008). Ele-
tivista de la enseñanza y del apren- mentos clave para la evaluación del
dizaje [Constructivism and educa- desempeño de los docents [Key ele-
tion: The constructivist conception ments for the assessment of teachers’
of teaching and learning]. In C. Coll, performance]. Revista Electrónica
J. Palacios & A. Marchesi (Comps.), de Investigación Educativa, Número
Desarrollo psicológico y educación, especial. Retrieved at http://redie.
Vol. II: Psicología de la educación uabc.mx/NumEsp1/contenido-
[Psychological development and ed- elizaldereyes.html
ucation, Vol. II: Educational psychol- Elliot, J. (1994). Research on teachers’
ogy] (pp. 157-188). Madrid: Alianza. knowledge and action research. Edu-
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2013, 18(1), 47-78También puede leer
