Teacher and School Characteristics: Their Relationship to the Inservice Needs of Teachers

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1987, 7, Teacher and School Characteristics: Their Relationship to the Inservice Needs of Teachers Bernard Oliver Syracuse University Once teachers enter the world of teaching, their opportunities to find continuing education become diffuse and often problematic. Despite the significance placed on continuing education by school districts, inservice and staff development activities are largely understudied in the research comrnunity. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to investigate teachers' inservice preferences and the relationship of these preferences to selected teacher and school characteristics. A 25-item questionnaire was administered to 85 secondary physical education teachers to assess their preferences for inservice education activities. Multiple regression and factor analysis revealed that selected teacher and school characteristics accounted for significant proportions of the variance as measured by the Insewice Needs Inventory. Continuing education and the development of teachers has received considerable attention over the last few years. This increased attention has rapidly expanded the existing knowledge base on effective inservice education and staff development practices (Gall, 1983; Harris, 1980; Joyce, Brown, & Peck, 1981; Joyce & McKibbin, 1985). Unfortunately, many writers in this area have concluded that staff development and inservice activities have not been effective in changing schools or schooling practices (Gall, 1983; Howey, 1980; Nicholson, Parker, & Waterman, 1976). One frequently cited weakness of inservice education programs is that they fail to take into account the needs, requirements, and preferences of the teachers involved (Arends, Hersh, & Turner, 1978; Fullan, 1982; Mai, 1980; Schiffer, 1978). Fullan (1982) suggests that the attractiveness of an inservice education activity is often based on the available incentives and on the activity's importance to the school's organizational priorities. The significant research on school change and educational innovation further suggests that the initial, and perhaps most important, step in planning any staff development or curriculum implementation project is being responsive to the clients' needs (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975; Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Miller & Wolf, 1978). This line of enquiry further posits that successful school change and innovation are based on the assurnp- Request reprints from Bernard Oliver, Department of Health and Physical Education, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

2 INSERVICE NEEDS OF TEACHERS 39 tion that the process of educational change is a highly personal experience best facilitated through using the client-centered diagnostic model found in the helping professions literature (Emrick & Peterson, 1978; Fuller, 1969; Griffin, 1982; Hall & Loucks, 1978). The fact that teachers are assuming a greater leadership role in their professional development schemes is an additional support for considering the needs of teachers in planning teacher development programs (Dillon- Peterson, 1981). One main function of inservice activities is to serve teachers' individual needs (Lanier & Little, 1986). Implicit in this notion is the necessity for some type of needs assessment instrument to make sure that teachers' inservice preferences will not be overlooked as continuing education opportunities are developed. In a survey of 800 New England teachers, Seldin (1979) found that they preferred inservice activities located within the boundaries of the school district and a workshop format lasting only 1 day. In terms of content, teachers selected inservice activities in gifted and talented education, curriculum evaluation, school law, diagnostic-prescriptive teaching, and alternative educational programs. In related studies, Perlman, Stein, & Kay, (1980) and Yarger and Brannigan (1979) found teachers' preferences for inservice education to be based on delivery style, location, quality of faculty involved, and tuition costs. In general these studies neglect to explore the influence of more salient teacher and school characteristics on teachers' inservice preferences. Research conducted by Bany and Carbino (1981), and McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) suggests that the characteristics of teachers and schools serve to mediate teachers' preferences for format, delivery, location, and content of staff development activities. Although these researchers found relationships between teacher and school characteristics and inservice format, specific inservice content was not mentioned in their study (e.g., mainstreaming, discipline, instructing minority students). To date few studies have systematically investigated the inservice needs of teachers and the relationship of these needs to teacher and school characteristics. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to assess the inservice needs of a select group of teachers and to explore relations between teacher and school characteristics and teacher preference for inservice education activities. Subjects Method Participants in the present study were 85 secondary physical education teachers (41 women and 44 men) employed in small school districts in California and Texas. Most of the teachers in this study had additional coaching responsibilities (71 %) and "inside" teaching responsibilities (47%; e.g., a math, science, or history class). Most of the teachers in this study had taught for more than 3 years (82%) and approximately 35% had masters' degrees (see Table 1). Procedures The teachers in this study were contacted by letter soliciting their participation. Subjects were asked to complete a 25-item Likert-type questionnaire and return it to the investigator by a specified date. Of the 120 questionnaires mailed out, 85 were completed and returned for an approximate return rate of 7 1 %. The items on the questionnaire were derived from literature on inservice education

3 40 OLIVER Frequency and Percentages Data of Teachers' Characteristics Characteristics Frequency Percentage Degree Years taught Coaching Number of sports coached Classroom teaching BS MA MA Yes No Yes No and from my involvement in inservice education programs over a number of years. A reliability coefficient of.92 was computed for the questionnaire used in this study. Analysis of the questionnaire proceeded in three stages. First, descriptive statistics and frequencies were computed to capture an overall picture of the data. Second, factor analysis was used to aid in interpreting the relationship between response patterns and the questionnaire items. Finally, multiple regression procedures were applied to see if selected teacher and school factors significantly contributed to the variance of the newly computed factor scores. Results Table 2 illustrates the rank ordering by percentages of those inservice activities that teachers preferred. Teachers preferred inservice activities in a variety of areas. The teachers in this sample agreed or strongly agreed that they needed additional inservice training in motivating students (88%), instructional strategies for coed activities (87%), learning new strategiesltechniques for teaching physical education (84%), learning new activities to add to the curriculum (81%), curriculum irnprovement/implementation strategies (80%), developing and us-

4 INSERVICE NEEDS OF TEACHERS Table 2 Rank Order of Questionnaire Items by Percentages Rank % Questionnaire item Techniques for motivating students in P.E. Instructional strategies for coed activities Learning new strategiesltechniques for teaching P.E. Learnina new activities to add to the curriculum - Curriculum improvement, implementation, & evaluation Developinglusing media in physical education Coaching te~hni~ueslstrategies Using P.E. activities to develop self-concept Supervising student teachers, volunteers, or aides Diagnosticlprescriptive instructional strategies for mainstreamed students Use of scientific principles in P.E. Administering feedback and reinforcement Team teaching strategies Developing skills in self-evaluation to improve teaching Planning individualized instruction programs Improving my activity skills so I can teach better Involving parents in the schooling process Developing observational skills for use in diagnosing skill errors Developing and using students' evaluation instruments for improving my teaching Discipline procedures for adolescents Using teaching models in P.E. Acquiring instructional skills that can be used in teaching minority stu-. - dents Acquiring knowledge about ability grouping Identifying exit competencies for high school graduates Developing skills for use in colleague evaluation ing media in physical education (76%), learning new coaching strategies and techniques (75%), and in using physical education to enhance self-concept (74%). Overall, 50% of the teachers in this study expressed a need for inservice training in all of the areas measured by the questionnaire with the exception of ability grouping, colleague evaluation, identifying exit competencies for students, and acquiring additional instructional skills for teaching minority students. Significant correlations were found between selected teacher and school characteristics and teachers' preferences for certain activities. Teacher characteristics of age and years of teaching experience illustrated several significant relationships with inservice preferences. Contrary to the work of Fullan (1982), school characteristics of size, ethnic make-up, and varied teaching responsibilities did not illustrate significant relationships to teacher preferences for inservice activities. The significance of these relationships will be explored below in the discussion of multiple regression.

5 42 OLIVER Factor analysis of the 25 questionnaire items was conducted (see Table 3). Four factors were extracted from the analysis that aided in the interpretation of questionnaire responses. Factor 1 (student-centered) incorporates questionnaire items that are seemingly student-centered and characteristic of teachers' orchestration of classroom events that focus on the student. Instructional improvement, Factor 2, clearly represents teachers' need for "how-to" information. The variables in this cluster emphasize instructional activities geared to enhance the teacher's ability to deliver content. The third factor, motivation, incorporates those items that underlie teachers' need for motivating strategies. Behavior, Factor 4, includes those items that focus on management and strategies for discipline. Overall, the factor constructs incorporate those items that cluster around a central theme. These factor constructs present a clear picture of how teachers' inservice preferences can be categorized. To further examine the relationship between teacher/school characteristics and preference for inservice activities, a multiple regression analysis was employed using the factor constructs with teacherlschool characteristics as independent variables. The significant F ratios and the variables entered into the equation are shown in Table 4. Table 3 Factor Analysis of Questionnaire Items Factor name Variables Weight (3) Diagnosing (4) Strategies (11) Feedback (12) Minority (17) Activity (21) Student evaluation Instructional improvementb (6) Self-evaluation.58 (7) Collegial evaluation.65 (8) Individual instruction.61 (9) Media.59 (10) Ability grouping.61 (18) Scientific principles.45 (22) Parents.45 (15) Models (16) Curriculum (20) Coed (25) Motivation (1) Discipline (2) Mainstreamed (13) Competencies aeigenvalue = 9.59, variance accounted for = 67%. beigenvalue = 1.54, variance accounted for = 11 %. 'eigenvalue = 1.lo, variance accounted for = 8%. deigenvalue =.86, variance accounted for = 6%.

6 INSERVICE NEEDS OF TEACHERS Table 4 Regression Analyses of School and Teacher Variables on Inservice Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Variables Student-centered Instructional improvement Motivation Behavior Age Sex Degree Years taught School size Coach Sport # Classroom teaching 010 White 010 Mexican 010 Negro Explained For Factor 1 (student-centered) a number of teacher/school characteristics surfaced as significant contributors to the variance in this equation. For Factors 2 and 3 (instructional improvement and motivation, respectively), none of the teacher/school characteristics surfaced as statistically significant contributors to the percent of explained variance. However, for Factor 4 (behavior), school characteristics of size, percent of white students, and percent of Hispanic students were statistically significant contributors to the percent of explained variance. Discussion The profile of descriptive statistics indicated that teachers had definite preferences for inservice activities. These preferences indicated a need for techniques for motivating students, instructional strategies for coed activity, learning new teaching strategies, learning new curriculum activities, curriculum improvement/evalplation, using media, coaching techniqueslstrategies, enhancing selfconcept through physical education, supervision techniques, and for diagnostic and prescriptive instructional strategies. The high percentage of teachers expressing a need for inservice activities as measured by this questionnaire lends support to the notion of Hall and Loucks (1978) that teachers' concerns should be the basis for developing inservice education. The National Education Association further encourages the development of inservice programs based on the needs and preferences of teachers. Although significant correlations were obtained for certain teacher and school characteristics, the number and magnitude of the relationships were so

7 44 OLIVER small that the strength of the relationship was inhibited. The lack of significant relationships between organizational characteristics and inservice activity in this study is somewhat contrary to the results of research by Fullan (1982). However, including a more comprehensive set of organizational characteristics in future studies (i.e., leadership style, ability levels of students, the major focus of the school-be it academic-or vocational) would enhance the understanding of teacher and school characteristics that mediate teachers' continuing educational development. The strength of these mediating factors has been found to be salient in classroom research (Doyle, 1978). The earlier research conducted by Yarger and Brannigan (1979) and Bany and Carbino (1981) on the importance of format, location, release time, and so on, to inservice needs of teachers further explicates the role of the teacher and school in establishing effective inservice education programs. These findings, coupled with the trends in the present study, provide further evidence for establishing inservice activities based on teachers' needs. The strong relationship between selected teacher and school characteristics and inservice factors provides convincing evidence that teachers desire further training in those areas designed to enhance instruction. I believe these are salient findings in the present study and I hope that future research will allow further exploration of the context of schooling and its relationship to teachers' continuing educational needs. In general, the results of this study indicate that selected teacherlschool characteristics interact with the inservice preferences of teachers. The complexities of inherent in-school organizational and other mediating factors make the strength of these findings tenuous at best. However, this study's value ultimately lies in providing developers of inservice training programs with a reliable and strong conceptual tool to measure teachers' preferences for inservice training. It is expected that this line of research will greatly expand the knowledge base of research on the continuing development -and education of teachers. References Arends, R., Hersh, R., & Turner, J. (1978). Inservice education and the six o'clock news. Theory Into Practice, 17, Bany, B., & Carbino, W.C. (1981). Preferred inservice activities among teachers of elementary school education. Jounal of Educational Research, 27, Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change (Vol. 6). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Dillon-Peterson, B. (Ed.). (1981). Staffdevelopment/organizational development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Doyle, W. (1978). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5, pp ). Itasca, IL: Peacock. Emrick, J.A., & Peterson, S.M. (1978). A synthesis ofjindings across$ve recent studies in edu~~onal change. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Fullan, M. (1982). Z7ze meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Review of cumculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47,

8 INSERVICE NEEDS OF TEACHERS 45 Fuller, F.F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educatioml Research Journal, 6, Gall, M.D. (1983). Using staff development to improve the schools. Research and Development Perspectives, 6, 1-6. Griffin, G. (1982). Staff development. Paper presented at the conference of the National Institute of Education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Hall, G.E., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record, 80, Harris, B.M. (1980). Improving staffpelfonnance through inservice education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Howey, K. (1980). The concept of school-focused insewice. In K. Howey, R. Berts, & D. Comgan (Eds.), School-focused inservice: Descriptions and discussions. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Joyce, B., Brown, C.C., &Peck, L. (1981). Flexibility in teaching. New York: Longman. Joyce, B., & McKibbin, B. (1985). Stafldevelopment. New York: Longman. Lanier, J.E., & Little, J.W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp ). New York: Macrnillan. Mai, R.P. (1980). The advisory approach as a form of professional growth. In K. Howey, R. Berts, & D. Corrigan (Eds.), School-jocused inservice: Descriptions and discussions. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. McLaughlin, M.W., & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 80, Miller, L., & Wolf, T.E. (1978). Staff development for school change: Theory and practice. Teachers College Record, 80, Nicholson, J.B., Parker, D., & Waterman, F. (1966). The literature on inservice education (Report #3). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching. Perlman, J., Stein, S., & Kay, P.M. (1980). Factors affecting teachers ' acceptance of and participation in inservice programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Schiffer, J. (1978). A framework for staff development. Teachers College Record, 80, Seldin, C.A. (1979). Taking insewice education off of the back burner. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 266. Yarger, G.P., & Brannigan, M.B. (1979). A survey of teachers' perceptions of university courses. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University. Acknowledgments A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers associated with the American Educational Research Association.