Educational reform and school improvement are vital movements that are well underway, throughout the United States' public schools. These movements are rather ambiguous to many educators due to so many different agendas being considered important. It is difficult for educators to agree on specific reform changes. With ebbs and flows, and multiple opinions entangled in school reform, it is easy for the actual needs of students to be inadvertently overlooked, or misinterpreted. With the emphasis on the quantitative measuring of academic success, student perspectives are overlooked, if not entirely ignored. Goodlad points out that “looking at what students do doesn’t tell us all that they learn” (1984, p. 95). What they learn, and what we think they learn may not be one and the same. Seeking students’ perceptions does not mean surrendering the helm, but rather facilitating student achievement by making better pedagogical decisions based on a more relevant understanding of what students apprehend.

School administrators are blitzed with school improvement data, but need an accurate compendium to remind them of the educational benefits (for both the school and the students) from determining students’ perceptions about their educational experience. Fullan (1991) affirms that little attention has been given to student perspectives on school change. The input of teachers, according to Fullan, is critical to the success of the school reform movement (1994). To assume that all children are alike would be a very serious misconception (Wiles & Bondi, 1996). A recent middle school survey sought opinions regarding the importance of teachers having an “accurate perception of the family life of their students” (Daniel & Blount, 1992, p. 26), but was silent in regard to students’ perspectives on learning.

Before the reform movement of late, Buxton (1973) advocated the need to study and add more to our knowledge of adolescent attitudes and feelings. Sizer (1992) refers to the importance of student’s metacognition of learning, which among other things, includes one’s perceptions. Schunk (1995) makes a strong connection between metacognition, self-regulation, and student perceptions. Since metacognition involves knowing what you already know and what you do not know, knowing the perceptions of students’ is valuable and important information to assist the school and teacher in educating students. Costa (1984, p. 57) believes that metacognition “flowers at about age eleven,” around the time most students enter middle school. Piaget’s suggested that students move from the elementary concrete mode of thinking to abstract operational thought around this same age (Lloyd, 1985). According to Corey, a Glasser reality therapy proponent, one’s perception is “an inner ‘picture album’ which each of us possess of the external world to fit our internal and need-satisfying world” (1996). In order for teachers to become more effective in the classroom, it is important that they understand what students’ perceive of their educational experience, even if their perceptions of a specific activity or experience is not the same as what actually occurred. “Perceptions can assist teachers by showing how students think, which is useful for teaching” (Schunk, D. H., personal communication, May 6, 1997).

Schools can restructure, but the students are the true determiners for learning, which centers around their perceptions of power, control, autonomy and their relationships with teachers and other students (Glasser, 1986). Rogers (1969) came to this conclusion nearly thirty years ago regarding adult education. Schunk, a nationally recognized expert on motivation, maintains that students need to be taught to “operate independently” in order to “regulate themselves to achieve their desired goals” (Forbes, 1996). This, Schunk contends, is developed only as a student senses “some degree of control over one’s learning.” If a student is encouraged to share his or her perspective, there is a greater likelihood of the student feeling that degree of control needed to foster self-regulation. Research has strongly shown that students tend to do better in classes where they perceive a great deal of decision making (Goodlad, 1984). One middle level research team makes an ominous warning about not listening to middle grade students. “If there is a single great deficiency in middle level education,” George and colleagues proposed, “it is that we teachers become so preoccupied with our curricular agenda that we lose sight of our supposed beneficiaries, of who they are and what they believe and care about” (George, Stevenson, Thomason, & Beane, 1992, p. 29). Seeking perceptions, therefore, not only aids the teacher in becoming more effective but also benefits the student due to greater motivation for success. Schunk maintains that the assessment of students’ perceptions, would indeed, be not only helpful data for teacher effectiveness, but also in designing reform efforts (Schunk, D. H., personal communication, May 6, 1997).

With “student apathy,” considered by some, to be the greatest problem in education (Houtz, 1996; Maeroff, 1996; Bishop, 1989), seeking, and consequently, understanding student perceptions would appear to be a step forward in dealing with such indifference. One must consider any possible correlation between apathy and the up widespread and increasing problem of discipline in public schools, which is now stated to be the main reason for teachers leaving the profession (Langdon, 1996). Discipline problems from 1969 to 1978 reportedly continued to rise (Maeroff, 1982), and continue to do so today. Could some degree of student apathy be a result of not being heard? Of feeling that no one wants to listen? Glasser states that there are approximately five million students between the ages of six and sixteen who make little or no effort to succeed academically (1997). One of the most often repeated reasons for such behavior is, “no one listens to me” and “...they never try to find out what I want to do” (Glasser, 1997, p. 598).

There is little information on students’ perspectives about education. Researchers have inferred student perspectives, but they seldom seek them first hand (Kramer, 1992). This became a topic of interest after reading Kramer’s essay, entitled, “Young Adolescents’ Perception of School,” in Transforming Middle Level Education. Kramer points out that “...it is not the experience, but the interpretation of the experience that has the consequence,” making it important to determine one’s students’ perspectives from the educational experience provided (1992, p. 29). It seems that we, as educators, overlook one of the most valuable sources of pedagogical feedback, namely, our students’ perceptions. Why we overlook this resource is uncertain. Schunk believes it is a matter of “...the heavy focus on achievement...but failure to determine what contributes to that achievement” (Schunk, D. H., personal communication, May 6, 1997). It may have something to do with one’s conception of leadership. Barth (1995, p. 21) notes that “people who run things don’t like to be run,” and seeking student input may, in the judgment of some educational leaders, not be an acceptable practice for a leader. Seeking student input, some believe, only dilutes the educational standards. Wilson and Daviss (1994) show evidence to the contrary, that students having a voice in shaping their assignments and lessons actually performed better at the designated tasks. Goodlad made the same observation among secondary students (1984).

With education being scrutinized by government, business, industry, educators, and parents, and with the criteria for that evaluation becoming overwhelmingly quantitative, it appears that success rest on becoming as effective and as efficient at educating students as possible. Granted, there are many factors that the educator can not control, but we must seek to exercise those that are within our grasp. Students are not experimental subjects, but are human beings that are valuable resources that need to be tapped for information that allows us, as professionals, to evaluate our means, methods, and programs of reaching the goal of educating youth. Whether this is a top-down or bottom-up (Fullan, 1994) structural approach does not seem, in this researcher’s opinion, to be the issue, but whether we seek vital feedback from our subject whether we are indeed meeting our goals. To seek my students’ perceptions allow me the opportunity to evaluate them, evaluate myself, and data upon which I can determine what changes I may need to make in my methods, my approach, or even my philosophy of learning.

The purpose of this study is to discover middle grade students’ perspectives of: school and learning, relationships with teachers, and the educational experience they are presently encountering during this transitional period (Spear, 1992). This study will seek to provide a succinct guide for school administrators regarding the usefulness of data based on student perspectives, so that this important element of education not be neglected or forgotten in the venture to improve schools. Arowosafe and Irvin did a study in 1992 addressing student stress, safety, and other areas of student perceptions (1992). Midgley and Urden conducted a middle level study regarding young adolescents’ academic variable such as motivation and learning strategies. (1992). Middle level students’ perceptions, regarding teachers’ behavior, was studied by Stayrook, Corno, and Winne (1978). Little research, however, has been published addressing students’ perceptions regarding their learning experience in the classroom.

The purpose of this study is to consider how middle grade students would respond to fourteen open-ended, non-threatening questions about there learning experience in the early middle grades. Students’ comments were accepted as accurate indicators of what they perceived to be so regarding their present academic year. Since the questions were open-ended, students had to provide their own answers. Though a very heterogeneous group is sampled, many of the perceptions are expected to be shared among those surveyed. It is sustained that from this study critical data will provide insight into what middle school students perceive about their learning experience, both from a cognitive and affective point of reference. This data is expected to also be helpful in a practical and relevant way by aiding teachers in their approach to teaching middle grade students.
 
 

The theoretical framework of the proposed study is derived from theories of school change, such as those espoused by Fullan (1994, 1991), Sarason (1971), Sizer (1992), and Goodlad (1984). Their work provides a focus on the purpose of schools in relation to societal needs and explores the rationale for school improvement. Most school reform proponents believe that in order to have a successful reform, we must emphasize innovations (Fullan & Miles, 1992) and abandon the “sit and get” pedagogy (Barth, 1996).

The need for determining students’ perspective on education is grounded in the theories and works of Fullan (1994, 1991), Wilson (1994), Hargreaves (1992), Dunn (1988), Sizer (1992), and Glasser (1997, 1986). Combs (1982), over a decade ago, emphasized that affective education is vital, and in fact, cannot be achieved apart from addressing both the cognitive and the affective domain, for the affective domain is concerned for student attitudes, feelings, and emotions. The student’s motivation to learn new learning tasks is an affective characteristic (Bloom, 1983). Sizer, and the Coalition of Essential Schools movement, support the initiative that educational goals will vary as students themselves vary, and that learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent (1992). Teachers have a complex job, Hammond affirms, and one expertise that they cannot afford to be without is understanding how students think (1996). A generation ago, Buxon (1973) proposed “changing the system to fit its student members better.” The students’ perceptions, therefore, are vitally important in order to help the student-school fit (Eccles et al., 1993; Dunn, 1988) become more effective and efficient. These theories are related to the impact of current reform and emphasize the need to consider the importance, educationally and socially, of knowing what students perceive, as compared to what we, as educators hope they have perceived.

Students seldom make decisions about their own learning (Goodlad, 1984). The “touchstone of effective learning is that students are in charge of their own learning; essentially, they direct their own learning processes” (Barell). One research teams believes adolescents base much of their value on being responsible (Van Hoose & Strahan, 1988). Our goal as educators should be to develop students into “self-regulated” learners (Schunk, 1995) able to think and make intelligent decisions in order to manage change. “Student can learn to understand and articulate their mental processes, “ stated Costa (1984), “if teachers specifically encourage thinking about thinking.” Van Hoose and Strahan hold that we, as educators, are to steer adolescents through the transitions of parent control, to peer control, to the final goal of self-control (1988). Covey (1989) also recognizes the importance of self-directedness, which he calls “proactivity.” Barell notes that “learning in schools is traditionally dominated and controlled by adults.” Beane notes that even in the midst of educational reform, middle school educators are still have an “unsettled sense that while they had done a great deal by way of organizational work, there was still something missing” (1993). Even through Beane is considering the curriculum, appropriate curriculum begins with relevant, accurate, and up to date concepts...of which much could be learned from knowing what students perceive. He states that, “A curriculum developed apart from the teachers and young people who must live it is grossly undemocratic” (Beane, 1993). George, and colleagues, emphasize that the middle school “the teachers are the curriculum” (1992). Could it be that we just do not know how students perceive education, as we the educators, perceive it? Seeking students’ perceptions regarding their educational experiences may be a step in the right direction. It certainly is a step in a more effective and efficient direction.
 
 

The design for this study is descriptive and qualitative, using a questionnaire survey (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990; Gay, 1981). The focus is on the perceptions of middle grade adolescent students, namely, they perceive effective teaching and learning. The researcher played the role of participant observer by administering and collecting surveys from selected middle schools. This study examines 148 middle school students from grades six and seven, from three middle level schools of different socio-economic status and localities (suburban, rural, and rural/agrarian), as well as cultural background and community environment. The schools were purposely and carefully selected to provide maximum variation in sampling, regarding age, gender, socio-economic status, and locality. The study centers around one main research question, which is then clarified through the study of four sub-questions. These are as follows: How do middle grade students perceive effective teaching and learning?

1. What do middle school students like to learn?

2. Do middle school students believe they are learning what they like to learn?

3. How do middle school students perceive they learn best?

4. How do middle school students perceive teachers as being different in the middle school than in elementary school?

Due to the lack of an appropriate survey instrument, a survey was prepared (Gay, 1981) by the author in order to investigate the quality of students’ perceptions of their own educational experience (see Appendix A). Administration of the survey was also conducted by the researcher in all but one of the selected schools, the other being administered by the classroom teacher. Brief explanations were provided for students, when necessary, such as what it means by “the best way to learn.” The survey questions were qualitative in nature and offered the participant no cues or Liker scales. The purpose of the open-ended nature of the questions was to avoid encouraging the participant to answer as he or she thought the surveyor desired. The openness required the student to provide their own answer from their own perspective. This type of survey often provides more than one response, thus giving more descriptive information. In most cases the participant provided more than one answer, which clarifies where there are generally more responses to the same questions than number of subjects surveyed.

In the fall of 1996, within a three week period, 148 middle school students were surveyed from three different schools for the purpose of determining students’ perceptions of effective teaching and learning. Students were simply instructed that this was an opportunity to share their feelings and opinions about school. The students were told that this was an opportunity to express their own views and feelings and that they would not be penalized for their statements, but should give serious thought to their answers. There was no time limitation and students returned their surveys upon completion, usually within a span of fifteen to twenty minutes. Surveys were then tallied. Questions answered inappropriately (i.e., totally irrelevant to the question) were nullified. Responses were tallied with a coding sheet, with mutually identifiable themes being placed into tentative categories (Gay, 1981), providing a means of data analysis (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990).
 
 

After examining the successive collection of data, certain trends and variations on these trends began to emerge. As themes emerge and tentative categories (Gay, 1981) for display are formed, variations of perception developed. For example, when tallying the survey responses in regards to how one best learns, “study alone” was an obvious category based on the perceptions stated. On the other hand, several minor categories, such as who one studied with, began to appear related not to the person they studied with, but with a more general category that simply indicated that they preferred to study with another person. This led the a generalized group, which ended up including studying with friends, a parent, siblings, and tutors. The same experience occurred with responses where nearly twenty-two percent of the responses suggested some type of hands-on approach to learning. In questions where responses where more precise, such as “What do you like to learn?”, categories were more objective and only courses such as band and chorus were combined. The categorizing of student answers provided valuable information regarding the knowledge and construction of pre-adolescent/middle grade students’ perception of the learning process, and present-known pedagogical theory (Irvin, 1992; George et al., 1992). After codifying and tallying, four specific questions were chosen for closer inspection, with the fourth question providing insight into young adolescents’ perspective of the elementary/middle school transition. These perceptions may provide teachers with a more accurate and relative understanding of what students think they are experiencing in the educational process. They may assist students in thinking, interpretation, and understanding, as well as, provide teachers with more student-centered approaches that develop from knowing student perceptions.
 
 

Upon evaluating the questionnaire-surveys from the three schools, several trends began to develop concerning young adolescents’ perspectives on schooling. Thirty-two percent of middle grades students said they liked to learn science, and another forty percent mentioning mathematics or social studies as their favorite course. Nearly sixty-eight percent of middle graders believed they are learning what they like. Twenty-five percent of these young adolescents believe they learn best by listening to the teacher in class, whereas twenty-two percent of students mentioned they preferred active participation; performing, hands-on, field trips, games, and activities as a means of learning. Many students seemed to have no sense of metacognition, and the most often question from this sample was related to this question. Many students were unable to answer.

The most significant finding in this study appears to be an perceptual dichotomy regarding the transition from elementary to middle school (see Appendix B & C). When asked how teachers differ from the elementary to the middle school, forty-two percent believed that middle school teachers were more strict. Phrases such as teachers “do not baby you,” were not uncommon. The second most repeated remark by middle school students was that teachers “trust” students more in the middle school. It appears that a dichotomy exists in which young adolescents relish the freedom they are privileged with in the middle school, but may not understand the responsibility that accompanies this new-found freedom. They acknowledge the freedom, but then describe middle school teachers as strict. An often repeated word used to describe this freedom was “responsibility.” One school in the study had twenty-five percent respond that they felt the middle school teachers were kinder than those in the elementary school. In this same school forty-one percent also responded that middle school teachers were stricter. A surface examination of the data makes one wonder if there is a special teacher, teachers, or team, in this particular school grade level. This may also be characteristic of the dichotomous nature of adolescents.

Chapter 7: Implications for Further Study

There are several concepts that need to be investigated further. First, why did the dichotomous relationship between the perception of freedom and strictness exist? Further, why did one school have a significant number of responses describing teaches as “nice?” There needs to be a more in-depth look into how middle school students perceive teachers as “nice,” and, can “nice” teachers also be considered “strict?” What does “nice” mean to an adolescent? Are they referring to “caring,” or some other characteristic (Short, 1995)? Does this involve building rapport or becoming public relations teachers (Moore, 1995)? It is this researcher’s hypothesis that middle school students not only recognize and desire the freedom and feeling of being trusted, but that they may not see any connection between freedom and responsibility, thus the notion that teachers are strict, when compared to elementary teachers who are considered to have “babied” students. This is understandable since these pubescent (Lloyd, 1985) students are somewhere in their personality development between being a child and being an adult. Self-concepts are being nurtured, self-esteem is developing, and they consider themselves far more mature than back in elementary school. They are, after all, middle graders now! Their dichotomous nature, however, yearn for all the personal attention and “babying” that they perceived to have occurred during their elementary years. On the other hand, they seek and strongly desire the freedom that accompanies their promotion. This concept may relate to “environmental fit” proposed by other studies on adolescent education (Eccles, et al., Dunn, 1988)? Is this dichotomy between “babying” and being responsible, a local, regional, or national trend? Being responsible is one of the adolescents’ needs to feeling valuable (Van Hoose & Strahan, 1988). There is a need for more research to be done that solicits young adolescents’ perceptions on these aspects of education and learning. Even if the students’ perceptions are not what we believe to be “factual,” knowing and trying to understand these perceptions provides the teacher/administrator with tools in which to become more effective and more student-oriented than is presently practiced.

One must wonder what changes might occur if students’ perceptions were sought and analyzed. It may not only lead to a change in curriculum, but changes across the board in the areas of evaluation, achievement, and the teaching methods we deem effective. Is what middle grade students perceive as effective teaching and learning important? Further study into why students made the choices they did, regarding what they like to learn, could prove valuable information for administrators and teachers, especially since science and math scores on standardized achievement tests are under continuous scrutiny. Apparently, teachers are doing something students like, since a significant sixty-eight percent of those surveyed believed that they are learning what they like to learn. One forth of students have metacognitively come to believe they learn best by paying attention to the teacher during class time, while nearly another forth believe they learn best by active participation: performing, hands-on, field trips, games, and activities as a means of learning. This figure may be skewed due to the cognitive level of development of the students surveyed (Glover, Ronning, & Bruning, 1990). If students of this age are at various levels of cognitive maturity, such as proposed by Piaget, then some are still thinking concretely and others moving into the formal operational stage of abstract reasoning. There is a possibility that the survey responses may be a result of where the student is in relationship to his or her cognitive development. Though this may be the case, it does not interfere with the purpose of this study, which is to determine students’ perceptions regarding their learning experience in middle school.

The founding of the middle school concept is based on the ideology that middle grades should be a transitional period between the high school and the elementary, and therefore facilitating a smooth transition during the time when the adolescent is experiencing a transition from childhood to adulthood (Lounsbury, 1992). From this study, a majority of the middle school adolescents surveyed indicated a distinct difference from middle school teachers compared to their elementary school teachers. Additional research is needed to provide more data in order to understand what this perceived difference is. This may simply be an affirmation that the transitional stage is successfully taking place. As already mentioned, one major significant finding from analysis of the survey results, is the indication of adolescents seeking freedom, but not understanding the accompaniment of responsibility. Maybe the middle school would benefit from curriculum with a stronger emphasis on cause and effect, freedom and responsibility, and an accentuation placed on personal responsibility. Such changes, along with an understanding of student perceptions, will provide teachers and administrators with more effective and efficient tools to educate today’s adolescent.
 
 

2. Are you learning what you like to learn? ________________________________________________________________

3. How do you learn best? _________________________________________________________________

4. How are teachers different in the middle school than in the elementary school? _________________________________________________________________

5. How is the principal and the front office different in middle school than in the elementary school?  __________________________________________________________________

6. How does (or doesn’t) the middle school fit you as a person? __________________________________________________________________

7. When do you feel important in school? __________________________________________________________________

8. What makes you feel important in school? __________________________________________________________________

9. How do you feel about your teachers in middle school (in 6th grade & now)? __________________________________________________________________

10. What qualities do you believe makes a good teacher? __________________________________________________________________

11. What do you like about your teachers (please do not give the teachers’ names)? __________________________________________________________________

12. What characteristics do you believe makes up a kind teacher? __________________________________________________________________

13. Do you have homework? _________________ Is the amount fair? _______________________________ Does your homework help prepare you? _________________________ Why do you think this? ______________________

14. What could be changed in school to help you become a better person? _________________________________________________________________
 

Appendix C Graph of Middle Grade Questionnaire Results

(not yet available online; will be included at a later date)

References

Barth, R. S. (1996). Productive School renewal. New Leaders for Tomorrow’s Schools, Fall, Vol. 3. [On-Line]. Available: http//www.ncrel.org/cscd/newlead/lead31/ 31barth.htm.

__________. (1995). The leader as learner: Then and now. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Dec.

Barell, J. Critical Issues: Working toward student self-direction and personal efficacy as educational goals. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/ isues/students/learning/lr200.htm

Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school cirriculum: From rhetoric to reality. (2nd ed.) Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Bishop, J. H. (1989). Why the apathy in American high schools? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 599)

Bloom, B. S. (1983). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Buxton, C. E. (1973). Adolescents in school. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Combs, A. W. (1982). Affective education or none at all. Educational Leadership, April, 495-497.

Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. 5th ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.gallaudet.edu/ ~11mgourn/reality.html

Costa, A. L. (1984). Mediating the metacognitive. Educational Leadership, Nov., 57-62.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Daniel, L. G. & K. D. Blount. (1992). The middle school description survey: A quantitative instrument for measuring organizational culture in middle schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 16:1, 13-34.

Dunn, R. S. (1988). Ten steps to better middle schools. Teaching PreK-8, v. 18, 39-41. Eccles, J. S., C. Midgley, A. Wigfield, C. M. Buchanan, D. Reuman, C. Flanagan, & D. Mac Iver. (1993). Development during adolescence. American Psychologist, Feb., 90-101.

Fraenkel, J. R. & N. E. Wallen. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Forbes, B. (1996). Students can motivate their way to success, prof says. Purdue News, Oct. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/ 9610.Schunk.html

Fullan, M. G.(1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. System Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education, September. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/ SystReforms/fullan1.html

__________. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.

Fullan, M. G. & M. B. Miles (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, June. 745-750.

Gay, L. R. (1981). Educational research: Competencies for analysis & application. 2nd ed. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, April, 597-602.

__________. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper and Row.

George, P. S., C. Stevenson, J. Thomason, & J. Beane. (1992). The middle school--and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Glover, J. A., R. R. Ronning, & R. H. Bruning. (1990). Cognitive Psychology for Teachers. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hammond, L. D. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 78, No. 3, 193-200.

Hargreaves, D. (1972). Interpersonal relations in education. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Houtz, J. Teachers’ toughest test? Student apathy, they say. (1996, September 4). Seattle Times.

Irvin, J. L. (Eds.). (1992). Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lloyd, M. A. (1985). Adolsecence. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Kramer, L. R. (1992). Young adolescents’ perceptions of school. In J. L. Irvin (Eds.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 28-45). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Langdom, C. A. (1996). The third Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers’ attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, November, 244-250.

Lounsbury, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on the Middle School Movement. In J. L. Irvin (Eds.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 3-15).

Maeroff, G. I. (1996). Apathy and anonymity. Education Week, March 6. [On-Line]. Available://http:www.edweek

__________. (1982). Don’t blame the kids: The trouble with America’s public schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Midgley, C. & T. Urdan. The transition to middle level schools: Making it a good experience for all students. Middle School Journal, Nov. 1992, 5-14.

Moore, M. (1995). Winning ways: Teachers talk about building rapport with students. [On-Line]. Available: http://education.indiana.edu/cas/tt/v1i1/winning.html

Novick, R. (1996). Actual schools, possible practices: New directions in professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, August 27, v.4, 4. [On-Line]. Available: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n14.html

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Sarason, S. B. (1971). The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning include student perceptions. Educational Psychologist, v. 30, Fall, 213-216.

Short, K. (1995). Caring teachers. [On-Line]. Available: http://education. indiana.edu/cas/tt/ v1i1/caring.html.

Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s compromise: Redesigning American high schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Spear, R. C. (1992). The process of change: Developing effective middle school programs. In J. L. Irvin (Eds), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 102-138). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stayrook, N. G., L. Corno, & P. H. Winne. (1978). Path analyses relating student perceptions of teacher behavior to student achievement. Research in Teacher Education, March-April, 29:2, 51-56.

Strubbe, M. A. (1990). Are interdisciplinary units worthwhile? Ask students! Middle School Journal, Jan., 36-38.

Van, Hoose, J. & D. Strahan. (1988). Young adolescent development and school practices: Promoting harmony. Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association.

Wiles, J. & J. Bondi. (1996). Supervision: A guide to practice. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wilson, K. G. & B. Daviss. (1994). Redesigning Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
 
 

Citation: NeSmith, R. A. (1997). How middle grade students perceive effective teaching and learning.

Unpublished Specialist in Education thesis, Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia, USA.

Return to Home Page

BioScience_ed@yahoo.com

[Hit Counter]