Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

Determinants of Professionalism in Teachers

Introduction:

Teaching is a very respectful profession in our Country and why not! Teachers shape the future
of our youth. They create Doctors, Engineers, Businessman, and many other. Teachers prepare
the young to work for the betterment of the country. It is not wrong if I say that teachers are the
pillars of the nation. The ability of professionals is guided by teachers. Our religion also
emphasizes on giving respect to teachers. These days, however, some teachers have corrupted
this respectful profession. We are conducting a research on how to find those determinants which
can influence professionalism in teachers. Many researches have been conducted on this topic
around the world but there remain some factors undefined. This research will find these factors
and will try to answer these questions. The research basically tries to find out the determinants of
professionalism in teachers in Pakistani context. The research focuses on how and to what extent
professionalism is affected by specific factors in teachers. We have taken teacher
professionalism as dependent variable and the independent variables are high expectation,
homework, time and management, assessment, student and planning.

Research Question:

What are the determinants of professionalism in teachers and how these determinants affect
professionalism?

Purpose of the study:

This research is of academic nature and its sole purpose is to find out variables that influence
teacher professionalism. There are many researches which define these factors and many have
taken advantage from these researches but there remains a gap which needs to be filled. This
research will fill that gap and will provide better insight of the factors which influence
professionalism in teachers. The research shows how and to what extent these factors affect
professionalism in teachers. The research has following main objectives:

 It shows how different factors affect professionalism in teachers.


 It shows why these factors affect professionalism in teachers.
 It shows to what extent these factors affect professionalism in teachers.
These objectives give us our desired results and also give proper information about professors
and their professionalism. This will give us ground on how to improve professionalism in
teachers. The research also sets a ground for future researches on the similar topic.

Significance of the study:

This research is very beneficial for Govt. of Pakistan to improve the teaching standards in the
country. This research gives solid suggestions on how to improve professionalism in teachers.
The improved professionalism will not only raise the teaching standards but will also make the
students better. The research also sets a benchmark for students who want to research on similar
topics. This research paper will give primary data for their research.

Hypothesis Formulation:
H1: High Expectations from teachers make us think that teachers are not professional

H2: Giving more homework and less class work shows low professionalism in teachers.

H3: Time and management are associated with the professionalism of teachers

H4: Assessment has an impact of professionalism of teachers

H5: Student management and discipline have a strong impact on professionalism of teachers

H6: Planning management is associated with low or high professionalism of teachers

Literature review
According to Colnerud and Granstrom (2002), there are four characteristics that most
professionalism researchers attribute to the academic higher-status professions. The first
characteristic is systematic theory, which means that the profession is conducted from a view of
a common scientific knowledge base. The professional has acquired a professional language
containing concepts and most of all scientific theories and conceptions of the content and
practice of the profession. The second characteristic is authority, i.e., the members of the
profession have acquired a public and formal legitimatisation (e.g., doctors and psychologists).
The third characteristic is professionalautonomy, which refers to the professionals’ right and
responsibility to decide by themselves which tools and methods they will use in their practice.
For example, a school principal cannot make the decision regarding which test a school
psychologist should use in a particular case. The fourth characteristic is self-governed
professionalethics, i.e., the professional group has developed ethical guidelines or principles
regarding the professional practice .Colnerud and Granstro¨m (2002) conclude that the group of
teachers is yet not an academic higher-status profession in a strict sense, but rather semi-
professional. According to Colnerud and Granstro¨m (2002), both metalanguage and everyday
language are required if a professional will do a good job. According to Macdonald (1977), there
are two fundamental value questions that curriculum writers and educators have to deal with: (a)
what is the meaning of human life? (b) and how shall we live together? Values education is
about an introduction into values and morality, to give young people knowledge of this domain
about relating to other people, together with the ability to apply the values and rules intelligently,
and to have the settled disposition to do so (Aspin, 2000). According to Taylor (1994) ‘‘values
education, in its various forms, encourages reflection on choices, exploration of opportunities
and commitment to responsibilities, and for the individual in society, to develop values
preferences and an orientation to guide attitudes and behavior’’The ultimate aims became the
realisation of the political ideas of democracy, equality, and justice (Ka¨rrby, 1978; Orlenius,
2001; Svingby, 1994). According to their current official curriculum policy document
(Skolverket,1998), primary schools in Sweden today have the task of forming, mediating, and
firmly establishing democratic values and norms in their students. Values are expressed in the
way teachers organise and manage classroom activity, in the way teachers present, value, and
choose educational content, in what teachers choose to permit or encourage in the classroom, in
their teacher style, disciplinary procedures, attitudes, treatment of and relations to the students,
and in how they relate to school rules, etc. (e.g., Buzzelli& Johnston, 2001;
Gudmundsdottir,1990; Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993). According to Halstead (1996), the
values expressed in school are not fully explored or articulated, at least partly because these
values are deeply embedded in school and in teachers’ taken-for-granted world view, and
because teachers have to make so many day-to-day decisions in the classroom without any
further reflection. Very little research has been conducted in order to examine values education
in the view of the teachers (for exceptions, see Powney et al., 1995; Stephenson, Ling, Burman,
& Cooper,1998). the teachers actually appear to lack professional knowledge in a strict sense in
this field, i.e. a common formal ethical language as well as knowledge based on educational and
behavioural scientific theories and research (cf., Colnerud&Granstro¨m, 2002). One aspect of
values education, according to some of the teachers, is that they act as role models (cf.,
Klaassen,2002). It has more or less been a taken-for-granted-pattern of habits or an implicit
structure in the everyday life, and can, as I wrote earlier, be described in terms of a hidden
curriculum, i.e., a ‘‘set of implicit messages relating to knowledge, values, norms of behaviour
and attitudes that learners experience in and through educational processes’’ (Skelton, 1997, p.
188).many people are thinking that if "everybodyboil water and coach basketball, then they kind
of feel the same way about teaching"(Wallis, 1994, p. 63)."Teachers are not professionals in the
conventional sense of the term" (Prate &Rury, 1991).Pratte and Rury (1991) defined teaching as
"a craft profession, built on a conscience of craft, rather than a more conventional ideal of
professionalism." the possibility of transmitting themastery of intellectual or material instruments
to achieve a given results" (Pratte& Rury,1991) at the job site. "an art embodying particular
skills with a certain degree oflinguistic and logical skill" (Pratte&Rury, 1991). Pratte and Rury
(1991) defined professionalism as “an ideal to which individualsand occupational groups aspire,
in order to distinguish themselves from other workers.” “professional teachers” with expertise,
autonomy, and commitment for students’ learning (Ambrosie& Haley, 1988). Teacher
professionalism became “a theme in search of specific policy initiatives and a social meaning
appropriate to teaching circumstances” (Burbules&Densmore, 1991, p. 54). (Darling-Hammond,
1989), the followings were also recommended by various proponents for teacher
professionalization:
1. setting the national or state standards for professional teachers (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Schrof,
1996);Teacher Professionalism 8
2. teacher empowerment at school decision making: “shared governance” of
schools (Ambrosie& Haley, 1988); and
3. higher teacher compensation and establishment of career ladder in teaching.
Most problems in these school environments are associated with centralized state control and
bureaucratic school structures (Burbules&Densmore, 1991b). Schools should abolish the factory
model of education management which treats teachers as workers and which assumes that
students area passive uniform cogs in a production process” (AFT, 1986, quoted in Ambrosie&
Haley, 1988). Ambrosie and Haley (1988), teacher participation in decision making and school
management improved teacher satisfaction, but not so strong correlation was found between
participation in decision making and organizational effectiveness. Control of the work place and
recognition of the accumulated embodied knowledge of teachers is what teachers should strive
for, not some vague and illusory status associated with the expert professions (Pratte&Rury,
1991). arecentstudy shows that sixty percent of the nation’s current secondary school
mathematics teachers did not major in and are not certified to teach mathematics (Wise, 1991).
To gain professionals with the expertise to do their work, the candidates should be well prepared
during their pre-service programs and the standards for entry into the teaching should be required
by the school system (Ambrosie&Haley, 1991). The concept of identifying effective teaching
behaviors for the purpose of teacher evaluation and professional development is not new
(Witcher, et al, 1999). The literature abounds with articles and lists that characterize effective
teaching behaviors, attitudes, and practices (Brophy, 1979; Good, et al, 1994; Cotton, 1995; Gall,
1984; Costa, et al, 1985). There seems to be agreement in the literature that effective teaching is
an extremely complex process. Madeline Hunter (1979) observed that, “Teaching has been
described as a constant stream of decisions.” Estimates have been made that teachers make as
many as 1,300-3,000 decisions per day (Costa, et al, 1985; Danielson, 1996). Given such
complexity it is understandable that instruments designed to measure the effectiveness of
teaching have varied considerably. The effects of the quality of teaching on student achievement
have been well documented (Bloom, 1984; Black &Wiliam, 1998; Martinez & Martinez, 1999,
Schmoker, 2006). Put simply, “The teaching effectiveness research has shown that positive
teacher behaviors produce positive student outcomes” (Martinez & Martinez, 1999). Such
conclusions beg the question: which teaching behaviors are more likely to produce positive
results? Good and Brophy (1994) described effective teachers as teachers who: 1) make
maximum use of instructional time, 2) present material in a way to meet students’ needs, 3)
monitor programs and progress, 4) plan opportunities for students to apply learning, 5) reteach
when needed, 6) maintain high, but realistic goals. In her synthesis of effective school practices,
Kathleen Cotton (1995) listed six domains under the heading, classroom characteristics and
practices: 1) planning and learning goals, 2) classroom management and organization, 3)
instruction, 4) teacherstudent interaction, 5) equity, 6) assessment. The most significant change
in the educational reform movement in recent years, arguably has been the shift to standards-
based education. As states have now adopted standards for student achievement, and aligned
state assessments to such standards, it makes sense that standards for the practice of teaching
would be a parallel development. In 1987 the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) was established for the purposed of strengthening the teaching profession.
The NBPTS, in their work, What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do, identify five core
propositions that form the foundation of skills knowledge, dispositions and beliefs of effective
teachers. The five core propositions are: 1) teachers are committed to students and learning, 2)
teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students, 3) teachers are
responsible for managing and monitoring student learning, 4) teachers think systematically about
their practice and learn from experience, and 5) teachers are members of learning communities.
They make the point that, “this enumeration suggests that the broad base for expertise in teaching
but conceals the complexities, uncertainties and dilemmas of the work. The formal knowledge
teachers rely on accumulates steadily” (NBPTS, 2002).Perhaps the most research-based
contribution to teaching effectiveness instruments has been Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for
Teaching. An outgrowth of Educational Testing Service’s PRAXIS work, Danielson’s
framework is divided into 22 components which are grouped into four domains of teaching
responsibility: 1) planning and preparation, 2) classroom environment, 3) instruction, and 4)
professional responsibilities. The components describe a distinct aspect of each domain. Each
component then has two to five elements that further describe it, and rubric items have been
developed to measure the elements. The research base for this work came from three sources:
the practice of experienced teachers, the theory and data of experienced educational researchers,
and the requirements developed by state teacher licensing authorities. The framework’s
accompanying assessment has been analyzed by expert panels and field tested (Danielson, 1996).
With the recent focus on standards in education has come the development of state wide high
stakes assessments. Such testing has received a disproportionate amount of attention, at the
expense of attention for classroom based assessment (Black &Wiliam; 1998,; Stiggins, et al,
2004). Classroom based assessment has been a strong theme in the research on effective
teaching practice (Black &Wiliam, 1998; Bloom, 1984; Cotton, 1995; McTighe, et al, 2005;
NBPTS, 2002 ; Wiggins, et al, 2006). Effective use of classroom assessments, by teachers, not
only measures learning, but promotes and enhances it (McTighe, et al, 2005; Stiggins, et al,
2004). Black and Wiliam (1998) argue that formative assessment is, “at the heart of effective
teaching.” Another prevalent trend in education, relevant to the examination of teacher
effectiveness, is the professional learning community (PLC). Perhaps overused as a term in
educational circles, PLCs usually connote a collegial group of educators involved in some
formalized learning. Such learning communities do not always make a difference for student
achievement. As Supovitz discovered

in a 2002 study:

The results suggest that although these types of organizational reforms may succeed in
improving the culture within which teachers teach, they alone are unlikely to improve instruction
and student learning. The communities that develop are often not communities engaged in
instructional improvement (Supovitz, 2002). It is clearly not enough for teachers just to
collaborate; there needs to be a focus on instructional practice and an intentional structure for
observation and dialogue. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) also emphasize the importance of focus
for a PLC: For a school to be a model learning organization, all faculty members should be
professional learners: They should engage in deep, broad study of the learning they are charged
to cause. What works? What doesn’t? Where is student learning most successful, and why?
Effectively tackling these questions is what the “professional” in “professional practice” means.
Danielson (1996) also extolled the virtues of focused learning in peer coaching relationships:
When teachers use the same framework, they improve communication because they’re using the
same set of concepts and terms to describe phenomena. In addition, by using the framework,
they can be sure that the areas chosen for improvement are truly those most in need of work.
Using a research-based set of standard teaching practices, as a basis for observation and
discussion, will add a concrete, results-based focus to discourse in professional learning
communities (Danielson, 1996; Spitz, 2001). In addition, such standards can be used to gather
data on teaching effectiveness; for an\ individual and/or for a group. Such data can guide
personal professional growth as well as the professional development of a staff or group of
teachers. There is no shortage of teacher observation tools available to the professional. Many
tools focus on instruction for a specific population (e.g, The Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol, 1999). Some place a heavy emphasis on student behaviors and outcomes (Baker, et al,
2005; OSPI, 2006). Several were designed to be generic, and provide assessment for all grade
levels and content areas. The value in such tools lies not in the tools themselves, nor in the data
they yield, but in how the tools are used and how the data is used to impact change. In addition,
if the tool or instrument is cumbersome or lacks utility, its use will be minimal. The research of
effective teaching assessment is consistent on the point that observation is just one mode of
assessing effectiveness.The fact that there is an emphasis in the literature on planning and
preparation, is indicative that much of what makes a teacher effective may not be directly
observed during a lesson (Shulman, 2004). Many researchers recommend a multimodal
approach to assessing teacher effectiveness, e.g. observations, interviews, portfolios. The intent
of this study is to focus primarily on those practices that are evidenced in the classroom. The
results of the study reflect both teacher behaviors and student behaviors and outcome

1)High expectation:
Teacher expectations Inferences that teachers make about the present and future behavior or
academic achievementof students (Brophy& Good, 1974).Student outcomes that occur because
of the actions teachers take, in response to
their own expectations (Good, 1987).High expectation students: Students who are high
achievers and are expected to perform well (Brophy, 1983).Low expectation students: Students
who are low achievers and are not expected to perform well (Brophy, 1983).It is important for
teachers to have expectations about students, since these enable teachers to set realistic academic
goals and to provide individualized instruction (Patriarca&Kragt, 1986). According to
Arganbright (1983), teachersform expectations of students' abilities through previously acquired
information and through encounters in the classroom.Patriarca and Kragt (1986) assessed the
accuracy of teachers' expectations of students' achievement, using the Stanford Diagnostic
Mathematics Test with ninth grade general math students.Braun, Neilsen, and Dykstra (1975)
found that the lower expectation students may not be given as many opportunities to answer
higher level questions as are high expectation students. the low expectation
students are criticized more and given less detailed feedback than are high expectation students
(Brattensani, Weinstern, &Marshall, 1984; Brophy& Good, 1970; Cooper, 1979; Cooper & Tom,
1984; Good, 1981).According to Slavin and Madden(1989), factors that contribute to a student's
being identifiedas at-risk include low achievement, grade retention, behavior problems, poor
attendance, low socioeconomic status, and
attendance at schools with a large number of poor students.Teachers typically have lower
expectations for students from lower class backgrounds (Blumenfeld, Hamilton,
Bossert,Wessels, &Meece, 1983). Some researchers believe that theroots of at-risk behavior
begin in the elementary grades and are manifested in low achievement patterns, a
highabsenteeism rate, and low self-esteem (Donnelly, 1987).Teacher expectationsdo affect how
much and how well students learn (Cooper &Tom, 1984; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
2)Homework:
there is increasing disagreement about the value of homework and how much homework to
assign (Center for Public Education, 2007b; Brewster &Fager, 2000; Ratnesar,1999).Homework
has been defined simply as “tasks assigned to students by school teachers that are meant to be
carried out during non-school hours” (Cooper, 1989). Fulfilling school or district mandates, such
as requirements for a specified amount of daily or weekly homework (Cooper et al., 2006;
Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001). Proponents of homework believe it can benefit students when
used appropriately. The most obvious benefit is that it will improve students’ understanding of
the material covered (Cooper et al., 2006; McPherson, 2005; Brewster &Fager, 2000).
Homework provides few, if any, academic benefits to students who don’t possess the skills
needed to complete the assignment. Conversely, students who have already mastered the skills
derive little or no benefit from completing the assignment (Kohn, 2006a; Moorman & Haller,
2006a). Homework overload can cause students to lose interest in the academic material and
become physically and emotionally fatigued (Skaggs, 2007; Cooper et al., 2006; Moorman &
Haller, 2006). Excessive homework often creates tension between parents and their children
because it takes away from family time (Clemmitt, 2007; Moorman & Haller, 2006a; Checkley,
2003; McEntire, 2001). Overall, only 29 percent of parents said homework was a major source of
stress and disagreement in their family, although White parents were more likely to say
homework was a source of stress than Black and Hispanic parents (MetLife, 2007). ; 21 percent
of students believed they had “too much homework;” and 7 percent said they had “too little
homework” (Johnson et al., 2006). Black students were more likely than White or Hispanic
students to agree that homework was very important (MetLife, 2007).Homework surveys have
found that anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of students report having no homework at all
(Clemmitt, 2007; Brown Center on Education Policy, 2003; Hofferth& Sandberg, 2000). Skinner
(2004) noted that “while some parents and families may have serious homework problems, these
appear to be private problems, hardly in need of national or even local solutions.” Clemmitt
(2007) noted that it is difficult to make international homework comparisons because cultures
have different ideas about what they consider homework. Eighty-two percent of U.S. teachers
reported grading homework, compared to 14 percent of teachers in Japan and 6 percent of
teachers in Germany (Moorman & Haller, 2006b). Eighty-two percent of U.S. teachers reported
grading homework, compared to 14 percent of teachers in Japan and 6 percent of teachers in
Germany (Moorman & Haller, 2006b).Most researchers recommend that teachers take a middle
ground and assign a moderate amount of homework (Clemmitt, 2007;Cooper et al., 2006;
Cooper, 2001; Milbourne&Haury, 1999). Those in favor of formal districtwide homework
policies recommend that they clearly specify what kind of homework is most effective; how
much homework is appropriate at each grade level; who will be responsible for deciding how
much homework to assign; how the scheduling of homework will be coordinated among
different teachers; and parents’ responsibilities regarding homework (Skaggs, 2007; Cooper,
2001; Eddy, 1984).Some educators have cautioned that when districts set up homework policies
in advance, they are admitting homework is not dictated by the lesson or by students’ needs, but
by a predetermined schedule (Moorman & Haller, 2006c; Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory, 2005; Thomas, 1992Some studies have also concluded that homework is related to
higher class grades and scores on teacher-made tests, but not to performance on standardized
achievement tests (Krashen, 2005; Cooper et al., 1998; )
3)Assesment
As Black and Wiliam state about the confusing language surrounding formative assessment,
“There is nointernationally agreed upon termhere” (Black, 1998).Even the youngest of students
can be given a developmentally appropriateexplanation of what evidence they and their
teacherswilluse to judge the progress they are making. Thiscommunicationofpurposehelps
students take part in assessing their own work, which is a key feature of using assessment to
improvelearning(Harlen, 2007b).Steinresearches classroom environments that develop students’
capacities to “do mathematics,” to engage actively in high-level mathematical thinking and
reasoning (Henningsen,1997).This showed that teachers in the same subject team can change
techniques such as classroom questioning, but there is a marked difference in whether teachers
present and understand this in the spirit or letter of assessment for learning (AfL) (see Marshall
and Drummond, 2006).Even with the large number of courses teaching research methods, there
is limited published research into research methods pedagogy andassessment(see Wagner et al.,

2011)
.4)Time and management:
Although evidence in the literature and in practice (e.g. learning development provision )
endorses interventions aimed at enhancing students’ management of resources, time and study
environment, it has been reported (Vrugt and Oort, 2008) that there is very little data available
regarding the relationship between achieving goals and resource management strategies.Student
Learning Development Services activities include engagement of the student in the learning
process, including goal setting, planning, time management and reflection on outcomes, which
are core principles within self-regulated learning models (e.g. Pintrich, 2004).There are a number
of examples from research that advocate interventions to help students to improve the use of
behavioural self-regulation strategies, such as time management, restructuring the study
environment in order to enhance academic achievement (e.g. Tuckman et al., 2004; McMillan,
2010; Flynn et al., 2012). self-regulated learners and high achievers engage in time management
activities (e.g. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1986). Pintrich (2004) identified four
assumptions underpinning most models of self-regulated learning; 1) that the process is dynamic;
2) the process involves goal setting and active engagement on the part of the learner; 3) the
learner can monitor, control and regulate some aspects of behaviour, cognition and motivation
and the external environment; 4) self-regulation activities can mediate between personal and
context specific attributes to impact on actual performance and achievement. self-regulated
learning involves behaviour or self-management strategies including time-management, support-
seeking and managing the study environment (Pintrich, 2004). time management, restructuring
the study environment in order to enhance academic achievement (e.g. Tuckman et al., 2004;
McMillan, 2010; Flynn et al., 2012).
5) Students Management/ Discipline:

Perhaps the only topic of school discipline that produces a consensus in the United States is that
students are increasingly out of control (Brookover, 1992).A study by Gottfredson (1989) in
Charleston, South Carolina concluded that in six middle schools, students lost 7,932 instructional
days--or 44 years--to in-school and out-of-school suspensions in a single academic year.School
violence and ineffective disciplinary practices have become perennial problems in public schools
(Devine, 1996).Studies indicate that nationwide as many as 8% of boys routinely carry guns to
school and in 1997, 20% of high school students had carried a gun to school (Mercy
&Rosenberg, 1998).federal government proposed to spend $566 million on safe and drug-free
schools during the 1999 fiscal year alone (Federal Assistance Monitor, 1998. Even well-known
authorities on student discipline such as William Glasser (1969) and Lee Canter (1984) have
proposed plans that were successful in some schools, yet failed in others. Many researchers have
documented ineffective discipline practices back to the beginning of United States schooling
during early colonialism (Empey& Stafford, 1991; Greenberg, 1999; Regoli& Hewitt,
1997).Wong and Wong (1998) suggested that the three most important studentbehaviors that
must be taught in the first days of school are: discipline, procedures, and routines. He noted,
“The effective teacher invests time in teaching discipline and procedures, knowing that this will
be repaid multifold in the effective use of class time.Small children tend to regard all punishment
as unfair and undeserved, whereas older students generally regard punishment for misbehavior as
fair and acceptable, if the punishment is equitable and fits the problem (Cotton, 1990). It is
understandable that teachers and administrators are wary of suggestions about how to address the
school discipline problem (Bennis, 1990). Schools have been asked to pick up the slack
regarding drug education, sex education, and now violence education, often with little or no
concomitant increase in support (Lee, Pulzino, &Perrone, 1998).The plethora of curricula
designed around conflict resolution and peace education in the schools started in the early
1990s.It is a common viewpoint among educators that one of the first procedures that the teacher
can use for a sound discipline plan is to establish the guidelines needed in the classroom for
acceptable behavior. It is of inestimable relevance to let the students know at the beginning of
school how the classroom will be managed (Lee et al., 1998).

6)Planning:

planning, Calderhead (1996) described six features ofactual teacher planning process: 1)
Planning occurs differently for different time spans (Clark &Yinger, 1987; Shavelson& Stern,
1981) and units of content (Clark and Peterson, 1986); 2) Planning is mostly informal (Clark and
Peterson, 1986; Clark &Yinger, 1987); 3) Planning is creative and does not follow a linear
process as often presented in teacher preparation courses (Clark &Yinger, 1987;
Shavelson&Stern, 1981); 4) Planning is based on knowledge of subject matter, classroom
activities, children, teaching, school conventions, etc. (Clark &Yinger, 1987; Shavelson& Stern,
1981); 5)Planning allows for flexibility; and 6) Planning occurs within a practical and
ideological context.Clark and Yinger (1987) described planning as a way of shaping the broad
outline of what is likely to occur, and as a useful tool for managing transitions from one activity
to another. Once teaching begins, however, the plan takes a backseat to interactive thinking.
cognition is involved in doing, whereas metacognition is involved inchoosing and planning what
to do and monitoring what is being done” (Garofalo& Lester, 1985, p. 164).

Theoretical framework:

High expectation

Homework

Teacher
Professionalism
Time and
Management

Assessment

Student
management &
discipline

Planning
Independent Variable:

Homework, Time and Management, Assessment, Student management/discipline, planning and


high expectation are the independent variables.

Dependent Variable:

Teacher professionalism is the dependent variable.

Sample Selection:

We have taken a sample of 30 students of University Of Education Mltan Campus to collect


data about the topic. The data collected is reliable and authentic and serves its purpose.

Procedure:

A self-administered survey was done for the collection of data. The purpose of the study and the
importance of the study were explained to the Teachers and Students. We gave out 50
questionnaires to the students but only 30 came out reliable and authentic. So, the data of these
100 students were analyzed.

Analysis:

The SPSS 19.0 was used for analyzing the data. The descriptive technique was used for analysis.
The data was entered into the SPSS software and frequency table technique was applied to it to
get the result.

Result and Discussion:


When we analyzed the data we find some interesting results, these results are given below:
Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 1 states that High Expectations from teachers make us think that teachers are not
professional. The hypothesis is thoroughly tested with survey questionnaires filled out by
different business employees and customers. About 90% of the respondents agree that the
students are not hardworking but their expectation from teacher is very high. Only 10%
respondents either disagreed with the above statement or are not sure about what they want.

High Expectations from teachers make us think that teachers are not professional

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 75 75.0 75.0 75.0
Agree 15 15.0 15.0 90.0
Not sure 5 5.0 5.0 95.0
Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 97.0
Strongly Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

This is a table which shows the analyzed data of our respondents. We took survey from 100
students out of which 75% people strongly agreed to our statement and 15% people somewhat
agreed to the statement. Therefore, the total percentage of respondents agreed becomes 90%.
Around only 5% respondents are not sure about this hypothesis; 3% respondents strongly
disagreed to our statement and 2% of the respondents are those who somehow disagreed. These
results clearly show that High Expectations from teachers make us think that either positive or
negative.

Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 2 states that giving more assignments and less class work shows low professionalism
in teachers. the is really hardworking and professional they do work in class and give them
proper time and deliver lectures in class but if there are lacking of professionalism they will
giving the students more assignments.
Giving more assignments and less class work shows low professionalism in
teachers

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 65 65.0 65.0 65.0
Agree 15 15.0 15.0 80.0
Not sure 10 10.0 10.0 90.0
Disagree 7 7.0 7.0 97.0
Strongly Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The table shows results of our collected data for this hypothesis. It’s shown that 65% of the
respondents strongly agree with our statement and 15% respondents somehow agree to our
statement. Interestingly, only 10% of the people are not sure about this. Around 7% of the
respondents disagreed with the statement and 3% strongly disagree with our statement.

Hypothesis 3:

Hypothesis 3 states that Time and management are associated with the professionalism of
teachers. Time managements is very important factor that make the teacher professional.
Processional teacher always manage the time. If the teachers manage the time perfectly then its
mean he/she is a professional teacher.

Time and management are associated with the professionalism of teachers


Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 80 80.0 80.0 80.0
Agree 10 10.0 10.0 90.0
Not sure 3 3.0 3.0 93.0
Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 98.0
Strongly Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The above given table shows the results for this hypothesis. Around 80% respondents strongly
agreed with the statement and 10% somewhat agreed with the statement. Around 3% respondents
are not sure about this statement and 5% disagreed with the statement. Only 2% respondents
strongly opposed our hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4:

Hypothesis 4 states that Assessment has an impact of professionalism of teachers. Assessment is


very important factor that influence the teacher professionalism. When the teacher are
professional they can easily asses the students which students are hard working and which are
lazy students.

Assessment has an impact of professionalism of teachers.

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 65 65.0 65.0 65.0
Agree 15 15.0 15.0 80.0
Not sure 10 10.0 10.0 90.0
Disagree 7 7.0 7.0 97.0
Strongly Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The table shows results of our collected data for this hypothesis. It’s shown that 65% of the
respondents strongly agree with our statement and 15% respondents somehow agree to our
statement. Interestingly, only 10% of the people are not sure about this. Around 7% of the
respondents disagreed with the statement and 3% strongly disagree with our statement.

Hypothesis 5:

Hypothesis 5 states that Student management and discipline have a strong impact on
professionalism of teachers. Student management is very strongly effect the teacher
professionalism .if the teacher easily manage the student then there are discipline otherwise there
are no discipline.

Student management and discipline have a strong impact on professionalism of


teachers.

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 75 75.0 75.0 75.0
Agree 15 15.0 15.0 90.0
Not sure 5 5.0 5.0 95.0
Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 97.0
Strongly Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

This is a table which shows the analyzed data of our respondents. We took survey from 100
people out of which 75% people strongly agreed to our statement and 15% people somewhat
agreed to the statement. Therefore, the total percentage of respondents agreed becomes 90%.
Around only 5% respondents are not sure about this hypothesis; 3% respondents strongly
disagreed to our statement and 2% of the respondents are those who somehow disagreed.
Hypothesis 6:

Hypothesis 6 states that planning management is associated with low or high professionalism of
teachers. Planning is very important when you start or even think to do any thing . a successful
person is always a good planner so that if a teacher is a good planner he must be a professional
teacher and always plans their tasks with time .

Planning management is associated with low or high professionalism of teachers.

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 80 80.0 80.0 80.0
Agree 10 10.0 10.0 90.0
Not sure 3 3.0 3.0 93.0
Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 98.0
Strongly Disagree 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The above given table shows the results for this hypothesis. Around 80% respondents strongly
agreed with the statement and 10% somewhat agreed with the statement. Around 3% respondents
are not sure about this statement and 5% disagreed with the statement. Only 2% respondents
strongly opposed our hypothesis.

Conclusion:
The results are in accordance with our expectations and support our hypothesis. The research
was successfully implemented and that’s why it achieved the goals and objectives for which it
was being pursued. From the above results we concluded the following:
1. High Expectations from teachers make us think that teachers are not professional.– it can
both positively and negatively influence the teacher professionalism. The positive
thinking will make the teacher become more professional.
2. Giving more assignments and less class work shows low professionalism in teachers
because it can influence the teacher professionalism. The effective teachers ensure that
homework is integrated with class work, is tailored to individual needs and is regularly
and constructively marked.
3. Time and management are associated with the professionalism of teachers because
Effective teachers create the time to review lesson objectives and learning outcomes at
the end of each lesson.
4. Assessment has an impact of professionalism of teachers because The effective teachers
look for gains in learning, gaps in knowledge and areas of misunderstanding through their
day-to-day work with students. Also, effective teachers encourage students to judge the
success of their own work and to set themselves targets for improvement. They also offer
critical and supportive feedback to students.
5. Student management and discipline have a strong impact on professionalism of teachers.
Because Effective teachers have a clear strategy for student management. Student feel
safe and secure. This student management strategy is a means to an end: allowing
maximum time for student to be focused on task, and thus maximizing the learning
opportunity. Effective teachers establish and communicate clear boundaries for pupil
behavior.
6. Planning management is associated with low or high professionalism of teachers because
Effective teachers are good at Planning, setting a clear framework and objectives for each
lesson. The effective teacher is very systematic in the preparation for, and execution of
each lesson.

References:
 Abram, P., Scarloss, B., Holthuis N., Cohen, E., Lotan R., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). The
use of evaluation criteria to improve academ- ic discussion in cooperative groups. Asia
Journal of Education, 22, 16–27.
 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Ameri-
cans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1989.
 Bos, M. C. (1937). Experimental study of productive collaboration. Acta Psychologica, 3,
315–426.
 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
 Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-
based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.
 Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Produc- ing equal-status interaction in the hetero-
geneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120.
 Ayers, W. (1990). Rethinking the profession of teaching: A progressive option. Action in
Teacher Education, 12 (1), 1-5.
 Burbules, N. C., & Densmore, K. (1991a). The limits of making teaching a profession.
Educational Policy, 5 (1), 44-63.
 Burbules, N. C., & Densmore, K. (1991b). The persistence of professionalism: Breaking
up is hard to do. Educational Policy, 5 (2), 150-157.
 Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers
College Record, 91 (1), 59-79.
 Delattre, E. J. (1993). Human nature and the nature of teaching. Journal of Education,
175 (3), 31-41.
 Firestone, W. A., & Bader, B. D. (1991). Professionalism or bureaucracy? Redesigning
teaching. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 13 (1), 67-86.
 Parker, F., & Parker, B. J. (1995). A historical perspective on school reform. The
Educational Reform, 59 , 278-287.
 Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday & Co.
 Portman, P. A. (1993). Barriers to change in teacher education. Action in Teacher
Education, 15 (1), 14-19.
 Pratte, R., & Rury, J. L. (1991). Teachers, professionalism, and craft. Teachers College
Record, 93 (1), 59-72.
 Toch, T. (Feb. 26, 1996). Why teachers don’t teach. U.S. News & World Report, 62-70.
 Wallis, C. (Oct. 31, 1994). A class of their own. TIME, 53-63
 Wise, A. E. (1991). We need more than a redesign. Educational Leadership, 49 (3), 7.
Questioner

1. High expectations:

1. How much do you agree to the statement that teachers encourage high standards of •
effort? • accuracy? • presentation?
Strongly agree agreed not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Do you agree that teacher use differentiation appropriately to challenge all students in
the class?
Strongly agree agreed not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers vary motivational strategies for different individuals?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

4. Teachers provide opportunities for students to take responsibility for their own
learning?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

5. Teachers draw on student experiences or ideas relevant to the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Planning:

1. How much do you agree to the statement that teachers communicate a clear plan and
objectives for the lesson at the start of the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Teachers have the necessary materials and resources ready for the class?
Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers link lesson objectives to the National Curriculum?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

4. Teachers review what students have learned at the end of the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

5. Do you agree that teachers involve all students in the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

6. Teachers use a variety of activities/learning methods?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

7. Teachers apply teaching methods appropriate to the National Curriculum objectives?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

8. Teachers use a variety of questioning techniques to probe students’ knowledge and


understanding?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

9. Teachers encourage students to use a variety of problem- solving techniques?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

10. Teachers give clear instructions and explanations?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree


11. Does practical activity have a clear purpose in improving students’ understanding or
achievement?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

12. Teachers listen and respond to students?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Student management / discipline:

1. Teachers keep the students on task throughout the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Teachers correct bad behavior immediately?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers praise good achievement and effort?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

4. How much do you agree to the statement that teachers treat different children fairly?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

5. Teachers manage non-students (support teachers/staff) well?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

4. Time and resource management:


1. How much do you agree to the statement that teachers structure the lesson to use the
time available well?
Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Do you agree that lesson last for the planned time?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Appropriate learning resources used to enhance students’ opportunities?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

4. Teachers use an appropriate pace?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

5. Do you agree teachers allocate his/her time fairly amongst students?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

5. Assessment:

1. How much do you agree to the statement that teachers focus on • understanding and
meaning? factual memory? skills mastery? Applications in real-life settings?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Teachers use tests, competitions, etc. to assess understanding?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers recognize misconceptions and clear them up?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

4.Teachers encourage students to do better next time?


Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

6. Homework:

1. Homework set either to consolidate or extend the coverage of the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

2. Homework which had been set previously followed up in the lesson?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers explain what learning objectives students will gain from homework?

Strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree