A  survey to measure perceived agency of teachers

Michael M. Hull; Haruko Uematsu

doi:10.51724/ijpce.v12i3.82

Authors

Michael M. Hull University of Vienna https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1551-9553
Haruko Uematsu Tokyo Gakugei University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v12i3.82

Keywords:

agency, Rasch model, teacher attitude, teacher training

Abstract

Dissemination of reformed curriculum requires teachers to feel that they have the freedom to actually implement the curriculum. Whereas greater learning gains are found with active learning, this generally requires more time than rote lecturing. National standards which call for wide content coverage make such approaches prohibitive. This and other pressures may lead teachers to feel that they have little control over what and how they teach. Here, we assess a survey we designed to measure a “teacher's perceived agency“, which we define as “a feeling of being in control over what is taught and of how it is taught.”

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(010101), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika., 43, 561–573.

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With Science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the Book: What Is—or Might Be—the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006

Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., … Wu, N. (2009, January 30). Physics: Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, Vol. 323, pp. 586–587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167740

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). ’We Be Burnin’! Agency, Identity, and Science Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2009). Critical physics agency: further unraveling the intersections of subject matter knowledge, learning, and taking action. Cult Stud of Sci Educ, 4, 387–392.

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325

Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental Measurements in the Human Sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yales, M. S. (2013). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer Science & Business Media.

Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003

Davydov, V. V., Slobodchikov, V. I., & Tsukerman, G. A. (2003). The Elementary School Student as an Agent of Learning Activity. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 41(5), 63–76.

Debarger, A. H., Penuel, W. R., Moorthy, S., Beauvineau, Y., Kennedy, C. A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2017). Investigating Purposeful Science Curriculum Adaptation as a Strategy to Improve Teaching and Learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21249

Edwards, A., & D’arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), 147–155.

Enghag, M., & Niedderer, H. (2008). Two Dimensions of Student Ownership of Learning During Small-Group Work in Physics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9075-x

Engle, R. A., & Faux, R. B. (2006). Towards Productive Disciplinary Engagement of Prospective Teachers in Educational Psychology: Comparing Two Methods of Case-based Instruction. Teaching Educational Psychology, 1(2).

Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x026001005

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

Harlow, D. B. (2009). Structures and improvisation for inquiry-based science instruction: A teacher’s adaptation of a model of magnetism activity. Science Education, 142. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20348

Harlow, D. B. (2010). Uncovering the Hidden Decisions that Shape Curricula. AIP Conference Proceedings, 21–24.

Hull, M. (2013). Do students have cultural scripts? Results from the first implementation of open source tutorials in Japan. Retrieved from https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/14364

Hull, M., & Uematsu, H. (2018). Development of preservice teachers‘ sense of agency. GIREP-MPTL.

Hull, M., Vormayr, K., & Uematsu, H. (2019). Validation of a survey to measure pre-service teachers’ sense of agency. GIREP.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Retrieved from https://books.google.at/books?hl=de&lr=&id=CAVIOrW3vYAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&ots=OCqAyqXFIi&sig=ej03O-oTDJPFvjBtSs0LqwdtFNM

Likert, R. A. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.

Linacre, J. M. (2012a). A User’s Guide to W I N S T E P S® M I N I S T E P Rasch-Model Computer Programs Program Manual 3.74.0.

Linacre, J. M. (2012b). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program. Retrieved from Winsteps.com

Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X11000023

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrica, 47, 149–174.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2001). The effects of topic choice in project-based instruction on undergraduate physical science students’ interest, ownership, and motivation (University of Texas at Austin). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marina_Milner-Bolotin/publication/35219406_The_effects_of_topic_choice_in_project-based_instruction_on_undergraduate_physical_science_students’_interest_ownership_and_motivation/links/5769c34608ae2d7145ba86c0.pdf

Olitsky, S. (2006). Structure, agency, and the development of students’ identities as learners. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9033-x

Perceived Choice and Awareness of Self Scale (PCASS). (2019). Retrieved September 28, 2018, from http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/pcass/

Peters, G.-J., & Peters, G.-J. Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity Why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. European Health Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h47fv

Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18847

Robertson, A. D. (2018). Supporting the development of curricular knowledge among novice physics instructors. American Journal of Physics, 86(4), 305–315.

SAS, S. (n.d.). PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS. Retrieved from https://support.sas.com/publishing/pubcat/chaps/55129.pdf

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002012

Schrittesser, I. (2013). From Novice to Professional: Teachers for the 21st century and how they learn their job. Learning to Be a Teacher in a Changing World. University of Barcelona.

Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for Teacher Agency in Curricular Co-Design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541

Sewell, W. H. (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967

Smith, J. A. (2013). Structure, Agency, Complexity Theory and Interdisciplinary Research in Education Studies. Policy Futures in Education, 11(5), 564–574. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.5.564

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Tosa, S. (2011). Comparing US and Japanese Inquiry-Based Science Practices in Middle Schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(1), 29–46.

Turpen, C., Olmstead, A. R., & Jardine, H. (2016). A case of physics faculty engaging in pedagogical sense-making. Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference. Sacramento, CA.

Wei, B., & Chen, N. (2019). Agency at work: two beginning science teachers’ stories in a context of curriculum reform in China. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1600205

Wilson, M. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Retrieved from https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2010-0-35526-4&isbn=9781135618056&format=googlePreviewPdf

Wright, B. (1991). Scores, Reliabilities and Assumptions. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 5(3), 157–158. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt53a.htm

Yerdelen-Damar, S., Boz, Y., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Mediated Effects of Technology Competencies and Experiences on Relations among Attitudes Towards Technology Use, Technology Ownership, and Self Efficacy about Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. J Sci Educ Technol, 26, 394–405.