Towards Creating a Feedback Loop: Assessing Perceptions of Teacher Preparedness and Beliefs About Student Learning Amongst Math Teachers, University Faculty, and School District Administrators
We employed multiple methodologies for this study, both quantitative and qualitative,
but the research questions (above) remained the central focus of each methodology:
Methodology I: Analysis of Existing Data
Existing data for
this project includes assessment documents, previous survey results, and other forms of
data collected previously within the departments preparing pre-service teacher
candidates. In addition, existing data includes lesson plans from math and science
educators (in school district settings), as well as assessment, evaluation, and program
documents. The research team for this study includes a research methodologist as
well as specialists in the areas of mathematics, biology, and secondary education.
This collective background provides the necessary expertise to interpret and analyze data
from across the disciplines and institutions in order to frame the backdrop for the
remaining methodologies detailed below.
Methodology II:
Surveys
In our previous work, a survey of math and science teacher graduates was
conducted. Through the analysis of those data, it became clear to the research team
that information from other groups, specifically university faculty and school district
administrators, would be needed in order to continue to address the research objectives
noted above. Two identically worded versions of the in-service teacher surveys were
produced for our previous study, one for math teachers and one for science teachers, with
the use of "science" or "math" language being the only difference between the two
instruments. An additional instrument was created for the school administrators,
again containing as many common core questions as possible to allow for comparison of key
data from all sources.
It is important to note that the instruments used in
our current work, and those we expect to use in any future work, are based on instruments
that have been refined and tested in other studies (see for instance Blank, 2002; Harwood,
Hansen, and Lotter, 2006; Love and Kruger, 2005; Woolley, Benjamin, and Woolley,
2004). This not only enhances the reliability of our findings, it provides another
context for analysis that is useful for increasing the generalizability of our
findings. What is unique about our work, however, is that we are using the
instruments in ways they have not been used before (for instance by surveying school
administrators with instruments initially designed for in-service teachers).
Methodology III: Focus Groups
Focus groups are an important
research tool for interpreting survey data and data gathered during the observations as
this methodology allows respondents to elaborate on issues in more detail and within a
clearly defined context. Focus groups also provide researchers the opportunity to
clarify issues that arise during the initial data analysis of survey results and to probe
issues that need more explanation than a survey can provide. Potential participants
were identified during the survey process and selected respondents were invited to
participate in focus groups based on their responses to certain questions or specific
characteristics, as determined during the course of analysis.
The focus
group protocol was developed by the research team and was administered to specific groups
of respondents in the study (in-service teachers, university faculty, and school
administrators). Focus groups were video and audio recorded, transcribed and
analyzed using qualitative analysis techniques.
Methodology IV:
Feedback Teams
The final methodology for this study involved the creation of
feedback teams, comprised of participants from the previous methodologies. After the
focus groups met and the data from all of the methodologies was analyzed, the research
team assembled feedback teams comprised of university faculty, science and math teacher
graduates, and school administrators. The research team served as participant
observers on the feedback teams as well. The feedback teams were asked to respond to
the recommendations of the research team (based on the prior data analysis) and make
suggestions for implementation of a feedback loop (or edits to the recommendations).
The feedback teams were asked to think about what mechanism would be needed to create a
feedback loop in a more formalized way so that the work that this study has begun can
carry on in future years.
