Page 101 - Balancing between the present and the past
P. 101
focuses on how many items are necessary to achieve reliability, could provide these insights (Brennan, 2001). We also used videotaped lessons. Although videotaped lessons have many benefits and are widely used for constructing and validating observation instruments (e.g., Yoder & Symons, 2010), they differ from “live” classroom observations. Future research should include live observations to assess possible differences in the instrument’s reliability for live vs. videotaped sessions. Live video classroom observations (e.g., Liang, 2015) could also be an interesting method to examine possible differences in reliability.
To further assess the instrument’s construct validity, intervention studies with a quasi-experimental design and pre- and post-tests to further test the framework’s 4 efficiency for promoting historical contextualization are needed. The use of other
methods to assess teacher factors, such as student questionnaires and teachers’ self-
reports on historical contextualization, could also provide important insights into
the instrument’s construct validity (e.g., Kyriakides, 2008; Muijs, 2006). Additionally,
Rasch modeling could provide information on the instrument’s reliability, which
items history teachers find more difficult to perform and which items they consider
easier to perform (e.g., Fischer & Molenaar, 1995; Maulana, Helms-Lorenz, & Van de
Grift, 2014; Van de Grift, Helms-Lorenz, & Maulana, 2014).
In conclusion, Ball and Forzani (2009) noted that current teacher education programs are often centered on teachers’ beliefs and knowledge and argued that teacher education programs should mainly focus on the task and activities of teaching. They concluded that far more research is needed to gain insight into the tasks and activities of teaching across different subjects. We hope that our instrument can contribute to further insights into teachers’ subject-specific activities for the teaching and learning of historical contextualization. Our instrument is not designed to assess history teachers; rather, it should function as a tool used to improve history instruction. Marriott (2001) noted that “Teachers seldom have a clear idea about their strengths and weaknesses. This is often because they have not been systematically observed and constructively debriefed” (p. 6). History teachers could observe each other using the instrument, discuss their lessons and findings, and collaboratively design new lessons with the instrument as framework, which might result in a giant step forward in the teaching and learning of history.
Testing an observation instrument
99