Abstract

This quantitative study aimed at investigating the teachers' instructional behaviour on the basis of demographic variables at the secondary level. Okara and Sahiwal instructors from secondary schools took part in the research. Teachers were asked questions using a five-point scale. The data was analyzed using SPSS and the results indicated that there is no significant difference in the instructional behaviour of the students based on demographic variables i.e., gender, area, experience, age, and qualification. This data may be beneficial to teachers learning motivation and how to teach and may provide valuable assistance in secondary school classes.

Key Words

Instructional, Behaviour, Demographic Variables, Secondary Level, Education

Introduction

Different scholars have underlined the differences in classroom teaching styles. Teachers and mass media utilize instructional behaviour to convey and receive information to pupils, according to Gregorc (2009). Instructors learn classroom teaching methods through instructional conduct (Giallo and Little 2003).

The teacher's own potential must be considered. A teacher's personality and general traits can be characterized as a teaching style, according to Shieh (2005) Fritz (2002) has a similar perspective, arguing that a teacher can remain in office even if he utilizes a variety of teaching approaches and strategies. The instructional conduct of the teacher corresponds to the student's learning. Based on your own particular learning opportunities, this is what you should do. It is common for teachers to instruct students on how to study the most sophisticated and start learning motivation stocks that profit from their own learning. For certain students, the same learning motivation approach may not function well. So teachers should vary their instructional instructions to grab each student's attention (Stitt-Goheds, 2001). It refers to a teacher's teaching style and strategies for instructing or directing students. It impacts the cognitive, influence, and personality components of the teaching process, as well as the educational objective of basic education. A "style" is a manner of teaching pedagogy that is always evolving (Cook, 1991). It is defined by Reinsmith (1992) as the kind and quality of teacher-student interaction. There is a day linked with particular and individual instructor behaviours in classroom teaching that remain the same, even if the subject change. In the words of MacFadyen and Bailey (2002), learning is "how to assign actions, not what to transmit". To paraphrase Siedentop, (1991), teachers and students interact in these types of teaching and management settings that are included in the curriculum. Teaching style, according to Artvinli (2010), represents and ensures the implementation of very diversified teaching and learning process. As described by Grasha (1996), the teacher's educational style refers to a teacher's awareness of his or her own views, needs, and actions while dealing with pupils. It is a multi-dimensional pedagogy method, according to Grasha. It involves how teachers interact with students, how they present information to students, how they supervise class activities, and how they care for their students, as well as how they make students social in real life and how they care for them. When it comes to assimilating knowledge into memory and understanding, each student has his or her own learning style. Students' learning and trainers' instructional conduct may be divided into four categories: "memory and imagery," "logical reasoning,", "behaviour," and "seeing and hearing." In addition, some teachers focus on hard rules, while others use examples, while others stress memory and others cognitive comprehension (Kamuche, 2005). The level of preparation and cognitive capacity of each student determines the quantity and quality of learning that is accomplished. These instructions can be managed in the classroom, with the compatibility of unique learning motivation techniques, and their teacher's distinctive approach to instruction may be obtained. As many teachers as there are teaching techniques and teaching styles. In addition to the teacher-directed teaching techniques and information transmission, these teaching methods are distinguished by the teacher's attitude and inner passion, through which he transmitted instructions (Collins and O'Brien, 2003). Teachers' methods are contradictory, and it's more beneficial to build and foster social learning motivation abilities among pupils. "Four fundamental teaching approaches," according to Borgia, et al. (2004), can be used to determine whether or not a student is delivering instructions. Pedagogical teaching, relational teaching, explanation teaching, and lessons learnt are among the teaching approaches. In the minds of many educators, the preceding teaching method, which has been extensively studied by various writers and researchers, is not genuinely unique. There are a lot of relationships that a teacher who uses the "experience teaching approach" might establish.

Reading for selected books, acquiring vocabulary, guided reading, practising oral reading, writing and comprehending and knowledge of operations are only a few of the instructional approaches described in the literature (Paris & Stahl, 2004). On the personality side of the teacher's approach, Rickford (2005, p). Seen through the lens of her own experiences with students, she feels she is a vibrant, engaged mentor who is ready to help. pupils are willing to acquire things, but also in this sort of learning motivation, she believes. Enjoyment of the phenomena as a mentor is extremely successful; she depends on the same ancient conventional curriculum, teaching methods and prejudices when dealing with pupils; Students' anecdotal reporting techniques are important to Rickfords' study, and he takes them into consideration. Researchers discovered that trainers with the right abilities, motivations and self-determination apply suitable planning strategies in their curriculum and advice, motivating their pupils to achieve. Students may make a difference in other aspects since schools and instructors educate depending on the requirements of students' learning motivation, and teachers who support these traits tend to be more successful and effective than those who don't. Others feel students who are enrolled in such programs should take full advantage of their prospective learning motivation opportunities and continue to apply their information. While some educators think that the trainers' excitement does not impact the students' academic achievement, others disagree (Campbell, et al., 2004).

Teacher’s Instructional Behavior

Most researchers from 1967 through 1997, the

Teacher's Instructional Behavior is one of the major problems that teachers face in class (Jackson, 2005). Some researchers identify that classroom management is the second greatest problem in the class (Jackson, 2005). Teacher's Instructional Behavior usually teachers used some activities within a group to engage students and maintain discipline (Emmer & Stough, 2001). Researchers have increased the rate of behavioural problems among secondary class students during the lecture which can cause an effect on the teaching and learning process. The positive relationship between student and teacher is controlled in the classroom (Asiyai, 2011). 

Terzi (2001) stated that the opinion of the teachers on classroom management i.e. styles authoritarian, democratic or lazies fair. The study by Johansen, little and Akin-Little (2001) stated that poor classroom management is an important factor which is associated with the student's behaviour then it could follow the teaching of Instructional Behavior and skills that affect behaviour management in the classroom. According to Oyira (2006), the report of the students in the classroom participation is credited to the teacher's ability to control and manage the classroom. Oyria (2006) reported that the dimensions that measure the environment of the class as perceived by the students actually predict their attitude towards their academic response. The academic performance of the students involved by all the educational plans of the institution.

Teacher’s Instructional Behavior an essential for achieving goals and objectives in the well-being of students in the teaching and learning activities are centred (Ogunu, 2000). The Teacher's Instructional Behavior develop the students thinking and started questioning and exploring their ideas it is due to just enhance the learning environment. Managing  Instructional Behavior is used which is adopted by the teachers in the classroom to create a positive and healthy environment for students. Teacher's Instructional Behaviorin numerous research studies play an important role in academic performance. The reason for the assertion is that effective classroom management is to develop students' attention toward the effective teaching and learning process (Marzano, 2008).

Different teachers have different teaching styles depending upon their personality, vigour, leadership styles, teaching strategies, and the number of students in the classroom thus the classroom management process is different for different teachers. As stated by Umoren (2010), the concept of limiting the teachers' behaviour to those activities that only control students’ behaviour is not justified rather teacher's instructional behaviour includes all the activities and methods that they adopt to teach and control the classroom. It includes all sorts of behaviour that teachers adopt for creating an effective and cooperative learning environment.

A successful classroom environment includes eliminating bullying, student-student fighting, noise disturbance, calling names, lack of study habits, working effectively for special students, and separate activities for students with bad handwriting, and low reading skills (Morse, 2012). According to Nicholas, 2007 when classroom management is fully comprehensive and cooperating every material includes in the class from lecture delivery to classroom arrangement is very essential. The classroom includes well management, and orderly organisation and arranges everything in such a way in which students can cooperate in learning motivational tasks and activities. The setting of the classroom is such a narrow view to deal with discipline and control the class (Nicholas, 2007). 

Effective classroom management increases the involvement of the students and controls the behaviour of the students they show interest in and enhanced their academic tasks, develops their acting skills and improved their academic performance (Bassey 2012). Williams (2008) says that classroom management involves the relationship between teacher and student becoming collaborative and teaching and learning tasks take place, they work together and enhance their work abilities. According to Charlie (2006), controlling the discipline of the classroom causes the teaching approaching of the teacher to be authoritative. However, in classroom management, the activities to control discipline should not be long or take much part of the whole classroom process.

Pandey (2006) believes that classroom management is a skill that every teacher can easily adapt in this to share their ideas with their colleagues as if they possess some innate talent. The management of the classroom as it acquired like any other profession. In that skill to achieve proficiency, it must be practised. It requires specific skills like teamwork, lesson planning, specific objectives and a good classroom environment. It creates a good relationship between student and teacher, a great thinker, and creative (Abell 2011). 

Poor Teacher’s Instructional Behaviors are created disruptive behaviour of the students which can be affected the classroom environment such as noise making, bad behaviour, late coming, eating, talking to each other, calling nicknames verbally and physical treatment to their fellows (Ekere, 2006). This behaviour can affect their learning motivation process and their academic performance. Effiong (2007) suggested that teachers can deal with the students and create a learning environment through the activities so they can maintain discipline and focus on their tasks. If the teachers can able to reduce this behaviour in the classroom it would be increased academic performance, students' activeness and engagement in the classroom. 

According to Obot (2010), teachers oversee the classroom and involves the class to observe the students, involved the students in the classroom activities, asking a question to ensure the teaching methods in which student can pay attention to the lesson. Researcher Obot (2010) investigated the Teacher's Instructional Behaviour and it's important to explore the effective InstructionalBehaviorthat affects academic performance at the secondary class level. Teaching Instructional Behaviorthat teacher used group-based learning in class exercise, oral presentation, and work on projects, these methods selected in the class which most importantly used according to the topic or relevant to the lecture, the teacher provides facilities which are practically orientated, discussion orientated and instructional facilities are provided (Manurung 2012). Creative teachers utilize everything to create an effective learning environment and to motivate the student's creativity is the process of teaching and learning motivation in which the teacher can efforts to facilitate the learning and achieve the goals (Manurung, 2012).

To be sure, there's an abundance of literature on instructional behaviours, seeking research and theory, but there's still a lot of room for more investigation into how learners' academic success is influenced by their affiliation, influence, and influence (Gracia and Hughes, 2000). According to the literature study, investigators have distorted their own findings, specifically whether or not instructions - matching learning styles or incompatible styles - have a significant impact on learners' performance and academic achievement.... In the opinion of some studies, there is no correlation between a student's learning motivation style, their instructor's teaching style and their effectiveness as a learner (Dalley, 2009). While some have shown that the contact between instructor and student has a positive effect on the learner's performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to find out the Effects of teachers' instructional behaviour on students' learning, and motivation at the secondary school level.




Statement of the Problem

It is not possible to teach all kids using a certain teaching strategy. Teachers must employ a variety of teaching techniques to help pupils learn. Students' learning motivation requirements must be taken into account, as teaching methods and student learning motivation needs are linked to academic success. Scientists have looked at how students perceive instructional conduct and how it relates to their academic performance in the classroom. Students in higher education, however, are the subject of the majority of studies. Aside from that, this research hasn't studied the instructional conduct of teachers and its impact on student academic success. We looked at how a teacher's instructional style affected student learning motivation in the current study.

Significance of the Study

A secondary school teacher could benefit from the study's findings by knowing students adopt different methods and strategies to learn and teachers should apply those instructional techniques that are helpful in improving the learning process of students. Student learning motivation and teaching behaviour that help them become good learners may be known to these professionals. This will allow them to perceive their job from a new perspective and appreciate the necessity of reflecting on and modifying their instructional behaviour.

This study will be helpful for teachers to improve their teaching styles and behaviour and will improve students' motivation to learn. To improve students' performance, secondary school principals may benefit from the results of the study. I believe this study will add to the body of knowledge about teachers' teaching behaviour and academic achievement in secondary schools in Pakistan.




The Objective of the Study

1. Examine the difference in teachers' instructional behaviour on the basis of the demographic variables at the secondary level.




Research Question

1. What are the differences in teachers' instructional behaviour on the basis of the demographic variables at the secondary level?

Methodology

This section discusses the research's methodology strategy. This was a quantitative study that adopted a causal-comparative research design. 




Population and Sampling of the Study

Students in Okara and Sahiwal were the 

population of the current study. In this study, stratified random sampling was used in multiple stages. It was decided to start with a non-proportionate cluster stratified random sampling technique that included 40 schools (20 girls, 20 boys). A simple random sampling technique without replacement method was used in the second stage to select the students. 600 secondary school students (15 per school) were randomly selected using a simple random sampling technique. 80 teachers were selected through random sampling.




Data Collection

For data collection, the researcher interacted with teachers from different schools. Principals of the schools were asked to sign off on the project. An official letter promised the public that this study would not be detrimental in any manner, whether it is psychologically or physically. There will be no unauthorized use of the information collected through the questionnaire in this study, and it will be totally secret.




Data Analysis

The researcher used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the data using descriptive and inferential statistics. In the following table, you'll find a list of all of them.




Ethical Considerations

There was a sense of openness among the participants. Everyone wanted to do it, but nobody was forced to do it. All ethical issues linked to the study were taken into account. There was a face-to-face meeting with the researcher before data collection. As soon as they were persuaded, the data gathering process was initiated.

Results

Table 1. The difference in teachers' instructional styles regarding gender

Instructional Behavior	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Df	P(Sig.)
Cooperative Learning	Male	35	25.7143	5.61286	78	.274
	Female	45	26.0000	4.94515
Communication Study Skills	Male	35	24.2000	5.31812	78	.397
	Female	45	23.9556	5.01795
Technology aided instruction	Male	35	23.7429	3.86799	78	.413
	Female	45	22.9111	3.59180
Problem-based learning	Male	35	24.7429	3.49237	78	.978
	Female	45	23.7778	3.81319
Manipulative Models	Male	35	34.5429	4.73624	78	.717
	Female	45	32.9556	5.43957
Direct Instructions	Male	35	20.7714	3.94138	78	.718
	Female	45	20.5111	3.62204

 




The results of a t-test used to compare male and female instructors' mean scores in relation to different teaching styles may be seen in Table 1. To see which teaching methods were most effective, gender-based mean scores were used to evaluate teaching styles. The table proved that males and females have nearly identical mean scores in regard to their abilities in cooperation, communication, and the use of technology to teach. It also showed that there is no significant difference between the two groups' use of problem-based learning, manipulative models, and direct instruction. The mean ratings of both male and female teachers differ very little in terms of teaching methods.




 

Table 2. The difference in teachers' instructional style regarding Qualification

Teaching style	Qualification	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Df	P(Sig.)
Cooperative Learning	M.A. or M.Sc.	56	25.5088	5.20344	78	.715
	M.Phil. or PhD.	24	26.7684	5.24800
Communication Study Skills	M.A. or M.Sc.	56	23.9374	4.80314	78	.314
	M.Phil. or PhD.	24	24.3594	5.94241
Technology aided instruction	M.A. or M.Sc.	56	23.3845	3.86140	78	.418
	M.Phil. or PhD.	24	23.0737	3.39670
Problem-based learning	M.A. or M.Sc.	56	24.3943	3.75127	78	.738
	M.Phil. or PhD.	24	23.6738	3.52574
Manipulative Models	M.A. or M.Sc.	56	33.8183	5.27270	78	.647
	M.Phil. or PhD.	24	33.2393	5.01105
Direct Instructions	M.A. or M.Sc.	56	20.7738	3.91434	78	.335
	M.Phil. or PhD.	24	20.2384	3.33327

 




Teachers' mean ratings for different teaching methods were compared on the basis of qualification, with a t-test that demonstrates variance. In order to rank the teacher's qualifications, we took a mean score of the teaching methods used by the teachers and then compared the results. A summary of the findings was that no statistical differences exist between master's and doctorate level teachers when it comes to the four dimensions of cooperative learning, study skills, tech-assisted education, problem-based learning, manipulative models, and direct instruction.




 

 

Table 3. The difference in teachers' instructional styles regarding Age

Teaching style	Age	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Df	Sig.
Cooperative Learning	25- 30	32	25.8750	4.75700	2	.984
	31-35	17	26.0588	5.59543	77
	36-40 and above	31	25.7742	5.61373	79
	Total	80	25.8750	5.21530
Communication Study Skills	25- 30	32	23.0938	4.35786	2	.384
	31-35	17	24.5294	6.11471	77
	36-40 and above	31	24.8065	5.26890	79
	Total	80	24.0625	5.11969
Technology aided instruction	25- 30	32	23.8438	3.66421	2	.476
	31-35	17	22.5294	3.57277	77
	36-40 and above	31	23.0968	3.86743	79
	Total	80	23.2750	3.71441
Problem-based learning	25- 30	32	23.8438	3.92765	2	.767
	31-35	17	24.5882	3.92203	77
	36-40 and above	31	24.3548	3.37193	79
	Total	80	24.2000	3.68507
Manipulative Models	25- 30	32	33.3750	5.43436	2	.894
	31-35	17	34.1176	5.52135	77
	36-40 and above	31	33.6774	4.84690	79
	Total	80	33.6500	5.17320
Direct Instructions	25- 30	32	20.6875	3.85577	2	.888
	31-35	17	20.2353	3.30774	77
	36-40 and above	31	20.7742	3.94723	79
	Total	80	20.6250	3.74293

 




Table 3 demonstrates that ANOVA was employed to examine the age-based differences in teacher mean scores for instructional methods. There are instruments with six instructional styles. The data in the chart indicated that instructors over 36 years of age had no substantial advantage over those between 31 and 35 or 25 and 30 years of age in areas of class instruction that require technology, communication, and collaborative learning abilities.




 

Table 4. The difference in teachers' instructional styles regarding experience

Teaching style	Experience (years)	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Df	Sig.
Cooperative Learning	1 to 5	33	26.2828	5.06721	3	.949
	6 to 10	27	25.6397	5.47576	76
	11 or higher	20	25.5588	5.48929	79
	Total	80	25.8651	5.37839
Communication Study Skills	1 to 5	33	23.2222	5.69267	3	.449
	6 to 10	27	24.2222	4.21739	76
	11 or higher	20	25.3110	5.04629	79
	Total	80	24.0787	5.21273
Technology aided instruction	1 to 5	33	24.4546	3.26960	3	.032
	6 to 10	27	22.3344	3.38593	76
	11 or higher	20	22.2017	3.49604	79
	Total	80	23.2611	3.67939
Problem-based learning	1 to 5	33	24.0506	3.58643	3	.390
	6 to 10	27	23.7447	4.01928	76
	11 or higher	20	24.8899	3.29748	79
	Total	80	24.3000	3.57492
Manipulative Models	1 to 5	33	34.0606	4.04737	3	.896
	6 to 10	27	33.3405	6.04783	76
	11 or higher	20	33.2789	5.23849	79
	Total	80	33.6230	5.43839
Direct Instructions	1 to 5	33	20.1717	3.29383	3	.762
	6 to 10	27	20.9360	3.23930	76
	11 or higher	20	21.1111	3.10283	79
	Total	80	20.2728	3.49202

 




Based on experience in teaching, instructors' mean scores on various teaching methods were compared using the ANOVA test, as shown in Table 4. There are instruments with six instructional styles. The table showed no major differences in instructors' mean scores for teaching methods related to cooperating, communicating, learning skills, problem-based learning, manipulative models, and direct instruction among teachers with different age groups.

A significant difference in scores was found at the p < .05 level in the three groups (N = 3, 76) with p = .032 with regards to technology-aided training. Although the results showed that there was a difference in the mean scores across the groups, the actual difference was quite minor.

Conclusion

There is disagreement amongst educators as to whether or not a match exists between teaching and learning, and if such a link does exist, how it could affect student performance. We've seen tonnes of material, but it still doesn't look like this argument will ever conclude. Research has shown that there are a lot of studies about how teaching-learning impacts students' academic success (Felder, et al., 2002; Collinson, 2000). All of this research concluded that students' academic achievements had differing levels of impact due to the varied effects of their preferences for learning. The impact of the student's attitude on their study was also found to have an effect on the learning field. However, mismatching students' learning preferences with the educational environment might lower students' academic results. In addition, students are more likely to have a good opinion of their course and of their teachers if their teachers better match the method of learning the students like (Felder, 2005).

A great deal of effort has been put into studying the impact of learning on the students' performance in assignments. There are studies that say that having an instructor with the right teaching style for a student will help boost his or her academic success (Felder, et al., 2002). A substantial number of studies have backed up the claim that students benefit by matching their teachers' instructional practices, which in turn increases their motivation and success (Miller, 2001). Researchers like Felder and Spurlin (2005) have found that if students and teachers are not learning effectively together, a mismatch will arise between them, and the students can get frustrated, lose interest, perform poorly on tests, become depressed about their courses, content, and overall academic experience, and even drop out or transfer schools (Zahra Naimie et al., 2010). Others have concluded that grades in a class do not relate to a student's success in a course, given that this information may be seen in exam results or course marks. The pupil’s learning strategy has little influence on their academic achievement. The benefits of matching are in doubt, although most evidence shows that teaching-learning mismatch does not matter.

In summary, researchers concluded that although students tend to do better when their teaching-learning methods match their teacher's methods, they found no link between student academic performance and matching teaching-learning methods. This study investigated how learning and teaching impacted student success as shown in final examination marks.

Recommendations

The present research suffered from the limits of the work, but it offered important insight into 

both the procedural and the substantive concerns which need to be examined in future research. Researchers should find a better way to gather and categorize data, which will be completer and more consistent, maybe relying on research rather than inventories using the instructors as respondents. An investment of researcher time and money would be required to get a positive presence in the classroom, but it would provide a greater understanding of 

For this investigation, the focus was set on. It's possible that instructors behave differently while teaching different subjects, thus it's necessary to research the effects of this on students' learning and teachers' instructional behaviours. Studies like this can help educators know which instructional tools students have used in achieving their successes.

In this investigation, the researcher excluded outside factors. Research similar to this one should be done, and socioeconomic characteristics may be included. This will help to understand the other factors that play an important role in students' academic success.

Issues like teacher training, familiarity with a curriculum, and other problems that are typical in teaching might also benefit from focused efforts that analyze and remedy certain mistakes, errors, and flaws in teaching that have been overlooked.

It is recommended that the other researchers should conduct this study in the private sector as well. They should select those schools that produce better academic results so that the difference in the performance of schools on the basis of teaching style can be identified. 

References

• Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context of “Universal Design for Learning.” Learning Environments Research, 14(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2
• Artvinli, E. (2010). Teaching styles for geography teachers. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(33), 387- 408.
• Asiyai, R. (2011). Effective Classroom Management Techniques for Secondary Schools. African Research Review, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v5i1.64526
• Bassey, N. (2012). To cook a continent: destructive extraction and the climate crisis in Africa. Pambazuka Press.
• Borgia, L. G., Cheek, E. H., Launey, B. L., & Steward, F. A. (2004). Facilitative reading instruction; Preservice teachers' voice and perceptions. Reading improvement, 41(2), 129-142.
• Campbell, R. J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R. D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Effective teaching and values: Some implications for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 451-465.
• Charlie, M. U. (2006). Discipline and Management in the Classroom: Theory and practice. Kaduna: Joyce Graphic Printer and Publishers Company, Nigeria.
• Collins, J. W., & O’Brein, P. (2003). The greenwood dictionary of education Westport, CT; Greenwood press.
• Collinson, E. (2000). A Survey of Elementary Students’ Learning Style Preferences and Academic Success. Cotemporary Education, 7(4), 42-48.
• Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
• Dalley, J. (2009). Purpose and value in reflection. Connecting Reflective Learning, Teaching and Assessment, 18.
• Effiong, U. A. (2007). Dealing with Disruptive Behaviours in the Classroom. Calabar: HilcopPrinting Press, Nigeria.
• Ekere, O. S. (2006). Concept of Disruptive Behaviour Among Students in Public SecondarySchools. Uyo: Ekpeyong Publishers, Nigeria.
• Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2003). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. In Educational psychologist , 103-112. Routledge.
• Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International journal of engineering education, 21(1), 103-112.
• Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2002).Understanding student differences. Journal of engineering education, 94(11), 57-72.
• Fritz, M. (2002). Using learning styles inventories to promote active learning process. Journal of college reading and learning, 32(2), 183.
• Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: The relationship between preparedness, classroom experiences, and self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21-34.
• Gracia, F. C., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: an analysis of their inter-relationship: an influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663755
• Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: a practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San Barnardino, CA; Alliance Publishers.
• Gregore, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: their nature and effects. In student learning styles. Diagonising and prescribing programs. Reston, V A: National association of secondary school principals.
• Hartzler-Miller, C. (2001). Making sense of “best practice” in teaching history. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29(4),672-695.
• Jackson, P. A. (2005). Incoming international students and the library: a survey. Reference services review, 33(2), 197-209.
• Johansen, A., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2011). An Examination of New Zealand Teachers' Attributions and Perceptions of Behaviour, Classroom Management, and the Level of Formal Teacher Training Received in Behaviour Management. Kairaranga, 12(2), 3-12.
• Macfadyen, T. & Bailey, R., (2002). Teaching physical education: 11-18., London: Continuum.
• Manurung, K. (2012). Creative teachers and effective teaching strategies that motivates learners to learn. Indonesian Journal of science education, 2(1), 1-8.
• Marzano, R. (2008). Getting serious about school reform: Three critical commitments. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
• Morse, J. M. (2012). The implications of interview type and structure in mixed- method designs. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 193-204.
• Naimie, Z., Siraj, S., Ahmed, A. R., & Shagholi, R. (2010). Hypothesized Learners' Technology Preferences Based on Learning Style Dimensions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology- TOJET, 9(4), 83-93.
• Nicholas, A. (2007). Implementing a Note- Taking Training Program for Under- Achieving University Students: The Process and Problems Encountered.
• Ogunu, M. (2000). Introduction to Educational Management. Benin City: Mabogun Publishers.
• Oyira, E. (2006). Effects of Classroom Learning Environment of Secondary School Students Attitude towards Schooling. Journal of Research in Education, 5(4).
• Pandey, L. P. (2006). The Rudiments of Classroom Management. Lagos: Ikeli Printing Press, Nigeria.
• Paris, S.G., & Stahl, S.A. (2004). Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbrum Associates.
• Reinsmith, W. A. (1992). Archetypal forms in teaching: A continuum (Vol. 56). Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Rickford, J. R. (2005). Using the vernacular to teach the standard. Ebonics: The urban education debate, 2, 18-40.
• Shieh, L. J. (2005). A study of gifted students' learning style and preference on teaching style.(Unpublished masters’ thesis), Taipei Municipal University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
• Siedentop, D. (1998). What is sport education and how does it work?. Journal of physical education, recreation & dance, 69(4), 18- 20.
• Stitt-Gohdes, W. L. (2001). Business Education Students' Preferred Learning Styles and Their Teachers' Preferred Instructional Styles: Do They Match? Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 43(3), 137-151.
• Terzi, Ç. (2001). Ögretmenlerin Sınıf Yönetimi Anlayıslarına Ä°liskin Görüslerinin Belirlenmesi. Unpublished master’s thesis, AnadoluÃœniversitesi, Eskisehir.
• Umoren, I. P. (2010). The concept of Classroom Management in Modern Society. Uyo: MGONigerian publishers.
• Williams, K. C. (2008). Elementary classroom management: A student-centered approach to leading and learning. Sage Publications.