MOTIVATIONAL TECHNIQUES USED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BASED ON GENDER

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-III).07      10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-III).07      Published : Sep 2021
Authored by : Nazir Haider Shah , MuhammadNaqeeb ul KhalilShaheen , Sobia Yaseen

07 Pages : 62-70

References

  • Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge.
  • Carayannis, E. G., Evans, D., & Hanson, M. (2003). A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. London: Our Underachieving Colleges.
  • Chingos, M. M. (2013). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the instructional model on students' learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2), 17-19
  • Corbett, K. (2001). More life: Centrality and marginality in human development. Psychoanalytic dialogues, 11(3), 313-335.
  • Cornish, E. (2004). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 38, 685-705.
  • Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers' professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423-443.
  • Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment. International journal of technology and design education, 13(3), 255-272.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Study of emerging Technology and their Impact on Teaching- Learning Process: Islamabad: AIOU
  • Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students' behavior in CALL. Journal of Computer-assisted language learning, 20(5), 409-442.
  • Freeman, D. (2001). Second language teacher education. The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages, 72- 79.
  • Gordon, T., & Burch, N. (2003). Teacher effectiveness training: The program proven to help teachers bring out the best in students of all ages. Three Rivers Press (CA).
  • Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2014). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum. The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281.
  • Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American educational research journal, 42(2), 371-406.
  • Lemov, D. (2010). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Washington DC: Routledge.
  • Nemer, K. M. (2002). Understudied education: Toward building a homeschooling research agenda. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
  • Newell, A. (2014). Growing up: Digital: How the technique changes work, education, and the ways students learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 12(3), 16-22
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self- determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
  • Schwab, J. J. (2001). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
  • Sillitoe, A. (2010). The loneliness of the long- distance runner Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus- group study. Worldwide magazine of science teaching, 22(4), 441-455.
  • Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476.
  • Tamir, P. (2000). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 4(2), 99-110.
  • Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91.

Cite this article

    APA : Shah, N. H., Shaheen, M. N. u. K., & Yaseen, S. (2021). Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender. Global Educational Studies Review, VI(III), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-III).07
    CHICAGO : Shah, Nazir Haider, Muhammad Naqeeb ul Khalil Shaheen, and Sobia Yaseen. 2021. "Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender." Global Educational Studies Review, VI (III): 62-70 doi: 10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-III).07
    HARVARD : SHAH, N. H., SHAHEEN, M. N. U. K. & YASEEN, S. 2021. Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender. Global Educational Studies Review, VI, 62-70.
    MHRA : Shah, Nazir Haider, Muhammad Naqeeb ul Khalil Shaheen, and Sobia Yaseen. 2021. "Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender." Global Educational Studies Review, VI: 62-70
    MLA : Shah, Nazir Haider, Muhammad Naqeeb ul Khalil Shaheen, and Sobia Yaseen. "Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender." Global Educational Studies Review, VI.III (2021): 62-70 Print.
    OXFORD : Shah, Nazir Haider, Shaheen, Muhammad Naqeeb ul Khalil, and Yaseen, Sobia (2021), "Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender", Global Educational Studies Review, VI (III), 62-70
    TURABIAN : Shah, Nazir Haider, Muhammad Naqeeb ul Khalil Shaheen, and Sobia Yaseen. "Motivational Techniques Used by Elementary School Teachers: A Comparative Analysis based on Gender." Global Educational Studies Review VI, no. III (2021): 62-70. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2021(VI-III).07