Você está na página 1de 5

Robert Slavin's QAIT model is a revision of John Carroll's model of school learning.

In the QAIT model shown in the Slavin (1997) text, he eliminated those elements that
were not under the control of educators and kept or redefined elements those elements
that could be altered or modified by teachers. According to Slavin, all of the elements
must be present if classroom learning is to be effective.
1. Quality of instruction--Slavin defines quality of instruction as "The degree to
which information or skills are presented so that students can easily learn them"
(p. 310). He presents his own view of direct instruction and compares these to
models by Gagne and Gagne and Briggs; Rosenshine and Stevens; Madeline
Hunter; and Good and Grows (p. 287). The events of instruction presented by
Dr. Huitt also represents a direct instruction model.
2. Appropriate levels of instruction--Slavin defines appropriate levels of
instruction as "The degree to which the teacher makes sure that students are
ready to learn the lesson (that is, have the necessary skills and knowledge to
learn it) but have not already learned the lesson" (p. 310). Slavin has redefined
Carroll's variable ability to understand instruction which is a student
characteristic and made it a teacher classroom behavior.
3. Incentive--Slavin defines incentives as "The degree to which the teacher makes
sure that students are motivated to work on instructional tasks and to learn the
material being presented" (p. 310). He has redefined Carroll's
variable perseverance which is a student classroom behavior and again made it
a teacher classroom behavior.
4. Time--Slavin defines time as "The degree to which students are given enough
time to learn the material being taught" (p. 310). This is essentially equivalent
to John Carroll's variable Opportunity.
This version of Slavin's QAIT model can be contrasted with the Classroom
Processes section of Huitt's (1997) model of the teaching/learning process. The latter
is a slight adaptation of the Dimensions of Classroom Effectiveness developed by
Squires, Huitt, and Segars (1983). The major difference between Slavin's and Huitt's
classroom models is that Slavin has redefined the important variables in John Carroll's
model into Teacher Classroom Behavior variables. By doing this Slavin has
emphasized the importance of the classroom teacher in arranging the conditions that
will optimize student learning. However, he has simultaneously eliminated student
classroom behavior as an influence on teacher behavior.

Huitt's view of important classroom processes emphasizes the interaction between


teachers and students. In this model the subcategories of teacher behavior
(planning, management and instruction) are viewed as groupings of classroom
practice that affect student behavior, especially Academic Learning Time. However,
teacher behavior is, in turn, influenced by student classroom behavior (the most
important being content overlap, involvement and success) which produces the
transactional cycle that is the focus of the teaching/learning process. From this
perspective, both teachers and students are responsible for classroom learning.
Teachers are responsible for arranging conditions and students are responsible for
paying attention and striving for success.
It should be noted that Huitt has included planning (getting ready for classroom
activity) and management (getting control of the classroom) as specific categories of
variables that are only implicitly addressed in both the Carroll and Slavin models.
This allows the full range of teacher classroom behavior to be included and discussed
in the model.
A more complete version of Slavin's model is shown in the following diagram (Slavin,
1995).

Notice that in this version of the model, Slavin includes student characteristics as an
important part of the teaching/learning process. He also adopts the concept of
intermediate outcomes as advocated by Cruickshank (1985). However, he considers
student achievement as measured by standardized tests as the only measure of student
outcomes of schooling.
While Slavin's expanded QAIT model includes student characteristics and student
classroom behaviors, these are not shown to influence teacher classroom behavior. In
addition, Slavin still does not consider teacher inputs such as Teacher Efficacy as an
important category of variables to consider. He includes Content Overlap as a
component of Quality Instruction, but does not highlight it as a separate intermediary
outcome measure. In addition, he completely omits any reference to context variables
such as school characteristics or processes.

In summary, Slavin's (1995) expanded QAIT model is quite similar to Carroll's (1963)
model in that it considers how student characteristics, teacher behavior, and student
behavior impact school learning as measured by standardized achievement tests of
basic skills. There is nothing in these two models that are not included in Huitt's
(1997) model of the teaching/learning process. However, Huitt's model considers
measures of school learning beyond those of standardized tests of basic skills, teacher
characteristics such as teacher efficacy, and context factors such as school
characteristics and processes and home environment.
References:

Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64,


723-733.
Cruickshank, D. (1985, Winter). Profile of an effective teacher. Educational
Horizons, 90-92.
Huitt, W. (1997). A transactional model of the teaching/learning process.
Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.

Slavin, R. (1997). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.) [310313]. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. (1995, Winter). A model of effective instruction. The Educational


Forum, 59, 166-176.

Squires, D., Huitt, W., & Segars, J. Effective classrooms and schools: A
research-based perspective. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.