Administrators' Eye View of the Instructional Quality of Secondary School Science and Mathematics

335

Administrators? Eye View of theInstructional Quality of SecondarySchool Science and MathematicsPeter KloostermanSchool of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana 47405

Harold HartySchool of EducationFort Valley State CollegeFort Valley, Georgia 31030

C. Jeff WoodsSchool of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana 47405

(< . . . there appears to be a need for improved qualityof construction from many of those individuals who arecertified and continue to teach as teachers untilretirement.^

A number of recent reports have cast doubt on the amount of mathematicsand science students are learning in secondary schools (Carpenter, Lindquist,Matthews, and Silver, 1983; Gallagher and Yager, 1981; Romberg, 1984;Yager, 1982). While there is constant notoriety about the need to attractmore individuals into teaching, there appear to be sufficient numbers ofcertified teachers in science and mathematics in certain parts of the country.In the State of Indiana, for example, 99% of all high school math teachersand 96% of all high school science teachers are certified (Kloosterman andHarty, 1986). Thus, the issue of the quality of instruction certified teachersare providing appears to be more critical than the issue of supply of certifiedteachers. Even in states where there is a shortage of certified teachers, thereappears to be a need for improved quality of instruction from many of thoseindividuals who are certified and intend to continue as teachers untilretirement. As few data on teacher quality exist, it is necessary to study thequestion of quality to determine if quality is a major issue, and to determinewhat aspects of instruction are in greatest need of improvement.

School Science and MathematicsVolume 88 (4) April 1988

336 Administrator’s Eye View

In the assessment of instructional quality, two types of inadequatelyprepared teachers often come to mind (Butzow and Quereshi, 1978). The firsttype may be a nice person but know very little about the subject beingtaught. The second type may know the subject but do a very poor job ofcommunicating that knowledge (Turner, 1986). It was the purpose of thisstudy to determine administrators’ perceptions of the quality of science andmathematics instruction with a focus on (a) content knowledge and (b)communication skills as potential problem areas facing today’s secondaryschool science and mathematics teachers (Good, Grouws, and Ebmeier, 1983;Horak and Lunetta, 1979).

^In most cases, the respondent was the high schoolprincipal or, in the case of very small school districts,the superintendent of schools.^

Design and Methodology

To respond to questions about the quality of instruction in secondary schoolscience and mathematics, twenty school systems in a mideastern state wereselected for study. Because 80% of the school districts in this state have lessthan 1,000 students in grades 9 through 12, a stratified random samplingtechnique was employed to insure that several large districts were included inthe sample. One of the original twenty administrators asked to participatewas unable to provide the information requested; therefore, an additionalschool district was chosen to maintain a sample size of twenty. Of the schooldistricts surveyed, seven were rural with less than 500 students in grades 9-12,six were rural with 500 to 1000 students in grades 9-12, and seven had morethan 1000 students in grades 9-12. Of the schools in the largest size category,two were in rural consolidated areas, two were in suburban areas, and threewere in urban areas.Data collection was implemented by way of telephone interviews (Bodgan

& Biklen, 1982; Murphy, 1980; Patton, 1980) with administrative personnelfamiliar with the secondary school science and mathematics faculty in eachschool system. In most cases, the respondent was the high school principalor, in the case of very small school districts, the superintendent of schools.Turner (1986) surveyed teachers on who they felt should evaluate them andfound that 83% said their principal would be a good evaluator of theirperformance. This finding made the high school principal a reasonable choicefor questions about teacher quality in science and mathematics.


Administrator’s Eye Vie^w 337

The telephone survey instrument was developed to gather data with respectto five basic questions. The first question asked the respondent to place hisor her science and mathematics teachers into one of three categories based ontheir knowledge of science and mathematics content. The categories were: (1)those who knew the subject area very well (majored or had a strong minor init), (2) those who knew the subject area adequately (knowledge weak orsomewhat out of date), and (3) those who really didn’t know the subject areavery well or sometimes provided incorrect information to students. Thesecond question asked for suggestions of ways teachers could improve theirsubject area knowledge. The third question was analogous to the first exceptthat it asked about communication skills rather than content knowledge.Specifically, respondents were asked to place their science and mathematicsteachers into one of the categories of: (1) those who teach effectively andwho motivate high achievement on the part of most students, (2) those whoteach adequately and acceptably, and (3) those who do not communicatewell. The fourth question asked about the best ways to improve teachers’communication skills. The last question involved a hypothetical situation inwhich the administrator could replace as many of his or her science andmathematics teachers as desired with well qualified individuals. Althoughtenure of current teachers and lack of supply of new teachers make thissituation impossible, it was felt that such a question would be a goodindicator of overall satisfaction with teacher quality in secondary schoolscience and mathematics areas.When the telephone survey instrument was completed by project staff, it

was presented to a panel of experts for suggestions and content validation.The panel included science and mathematics education professors anddoctoral students, public school teachers and administrators, and Stateofficials in science and mathematics. Individuals on the panel offeredsuggestions for minor revision of the instrument but concurred that it was avalid survey for assessing teacher quality as viewed by school administrators.

Results and Reflections

Results and interpretations concerning teachers’ content-knowledge back-ground in their mathematics or science subject areas, their ability toeffectively communicate their knowledge, and their perceptions on replace-ment of math and science teachers are outlined below. Note that there wereno significant differences in administrator ratings by school size on any ofthe questions posed and thus results were pooled for all schools.

Content-Knowledge Background

The interviewees were asked to place their high school science andmathematics teachers into one of three categories: (1) those who knew thesubject area very well, (2) those who knew the subject area adequately, and(3) those who really didn’t know the subject area very well or sometimesprovided incorrect information. Thirty percent (30%) of the administrators


338Administrator’s Eye View

indicated that 100% of their teachers in both subject areas fell into the first(highest) category. TABLE 1 summarizes the data on this question. Note thatnumbers in the upper portion of TABLE 1 indicate frequency of response byadministrators. Eleven of the 20 (55%) felt that 100% of their math teacherspossessed strong content knowledge backgrounds while eight of the 20administrators (40%) surveyed felt that 100% of their high school scienceteachers possessed strong content-knowledge backgrounds. In general, while

TABLE 1Administrators’ Perceptions of the Knowledge in Subject

Areas, Communication Skills, and Replacement of SecondarySchool Science and Mathematics Teachers

Frequencies

Percentof

Teachers

10080-9960-7940-5920-391-19

Number of CasesWhere Content Know-

ledge Was Ratedthe Highest

Number of CasesWhere Communicat-

ion Skills WasRated the Highest

Number of Cases Where

Content Knowledgeand Communication

Skills Had the

Same Rating

ReplaceNone1-20

21-4041-60

61-80

Math

Knowledge CommunicationSkills

5i S

^ § w s1 i § 1 i 1CD <!’; fc c73 -< ON

11 0 0 300

500 310

1 0 0 10 0 0

330 340020 161052 064

13

1

6

6

5522

Science

Knowledge Communication WilcoxonSkills Z

�� scorev w

MS &t 3C V i C 0" t-

2 -S 1 2 ^ §

^ < o2 35 < &

800400700410310610020250241452050041

Math

3.17

11 p < 0.01

Science

2.78

1 p < 0.01

8

564

50


Administrator’s Eye View 339

administrators were not completely satisfied with the content-knowledgebackgrounds of their mathematics and science teachers, these results indicatethat most were at least generally pleased with the content-knowledgebackgrounds of their teachers in these subjects.

<(. . . teachers need to read professional journals andpublications as a means of updating knowledge."

Administrators were asked to make suggestions about ways in which theirteachers could increase their subject area knowledge. Three general categoriesof responses emerged. The first method commonly cited for improvingsubject area expertise was inservice programs. Some administrators suggestedthese programs as an effective way to enhance teachers’ knowledge of thesubject matter. Others felt that this strategy might be effective if it is plannedas an ongoing program but that it is usually ineffective if done as a one-timeworkshop, and then not followed-up with additional consultation in the nearfuture. A few of the respondents indicated that their teachers react negativelyto inservice programs because participation is usually required. One respon-dent suggested motivating teachers by making inservice programs financiallyrewarding.A second suggestion for improving teachers’ knowledge of subject areas

was to encourage them to take course work at a college or university. Manyteachers do this only until they acquire a master’s degree, as there is oftenlittle financial incentive in terms of salary increments for taking coursesbeyond a master’s degree. Some respondents felt that teachers should returnto colleges or universities more often for continual updating of theirknowledge. One administrator suggested that the emphasis in the universitytraining of professionals is geared too much toward content and that work onthe understanding of human interactions was more important.

Participation in professional organizations and attendance at nationalmeetings were suggested as a third important method of professionaldevelopment for teachers. Such activities allow teachers to keep active andupdated with the developments in their fields. One respondent mentioned thatteachers need to read professional journals and publications as a means ofupdating knowledge. Some respondents also suggested visitation of otherteachers or schools for observation, and the development of independentresearch or field work as ways of increasing teachers’ content knowledge.

Communication Skills

The interviewees were asked to assess the communication skills of theirscience and mathematics teachers by placing them into one of three



categories: (1) those who teach effectively and who motivate high achieve-ment on the part of most students, (2) those who teach adequately andacceptably, and (3) those who do not communicate well. As shown inTABLE 1, eight of the 20 administrators (40%) felt 80% to 100% of theirhigh school science teachers were strong communicators. Six of 20 of theadministrators (30%) placed 80% or more of their math teachers in thecategory of strong communicators. Only a few administrators rated any oftheir teachers in science and mathematics as poor communicators (TABLE 1).Thus, in terms of ability to communicate knowledge, most administratorswere moderately positive about their teachers. There were, however, someinstances where teachers were evaluated as inadequate on this dimension.The respondents were then asked for suggestions of ways to improve their

teachers’ communication skills. Although inservice programs were mentionedonce again, the administrators had mixed feelings about their effectiveness.As before, some suggested that the teachers be financially rewarded for theirparticipation in inservice programs, and others mentioned teachers’ resistanceto the mandatory nature of many such programs. Respondents again stressedthat inservice programs must be ongoing in order to be effective. Variousmethods of evaluation of teacher effectiveness were also suggested as possiblemethods of improving teachers’ communications skills. These included peerevaluation, administrative evaluation, and regular self-evaluation and moni-toring. The most common suggestion posed by the respondents was to exposethe teachers to effective teaching by model teachers. Administrators suggestedthat the teachers visit other programs, interact with other professionals,observe master teachers, and participate in teacher exchanges.Another suggestion made by a number of school system administrators was

to encourage teachers to enroll in university courses. Some respondentsbelieved that this would keep the teachers updated in terms of new teachingmethods and skills, although a few respondents were adamantly opposed tothis as they felt most university courses were too abstract and removed fromthe classroom to be of value to the practicing teacher. A further importantsuggestion was to improve the undergraduate preparation of prospectiveteachers. To improve the preservice preparation the following suggestionswere made: (1) require longer periods of student teaching, (2) teachcommunication skills, (3) create an awareness of different learning styles thatcan be present in a classroom, (4) increase study of child development, and(5) increase emphasis on psychology and group dynamics.

Content-Knowledge Background vs. Communication Skills

As administrator perceptions of the content knowledge background of theirteachers appeared more positive than their perceptions of the communicationskills of their teachers, a Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks test wasperformed. The test was given to determine whether there were significantdifferences in the number of high ratings for the content knowledge concernas opposed to the number of high ratings for the communication skills


Administrator’s Eye Viev^ 341

concern. The number of cases where content knowledge was rated highestwas defined by comparing the percentage of teachers assessed as havingstrong content-knowledge backgrounds to the number of teachers rated ashaving strong communication skills. As can be seen in Table 1, there werethirteen cases where administrators rated the content-knowledge backgroundof their mathematics teachers higher than the communication skills of thoseteachers, but only one case where the reverse was true. Similarly, there wereeleven cases where content-knowledge background of science teachers wasrated higher than communications skills, and only one case where communi-cations skills were rated higher. Both of these findings were statisticallysignificant indicating that administrators felt that their science and mathteachers are in greater need of help with their communication skills than theyare in need of increased content knowledge (for science, z = 2.78, p < 0.01;for mathematics, z = 3.17, p < 0.01).

^Only 2 administrators felt negatively enough to wantto replace more than 60% of their teachers.^

Replacement of Teachers

As a final indicator of administrators’ judgment of teacher quality, ahypothetical question was posed to the interviewees. The question involvedthe number of science and mathematics teachers the administrator wouldreplace if he or she could replace any of his or her current faculty with well-qualified teachers. When offered this hypothetical possibility, most adminis-trators indicated moderate satisfaction with their science and mathematicsteachers. Fifty-five percent (11 of 20) said that they would replace fewer than20% of their science and mathematics teachers (Table 1). Administrators in 5of the 20 school systems surveyed reported that they would replace between21% and 40% of their math teachers, and 5 would replace between 41% and60% of their science teachers (Table 1). Only 2 administrators felt negativelyenough to want to replace more than 60% of their teachers. Both of theseindividuals would choose to replace this large percentage of their mathematicsteachers only.

Implications and Further Discussion

In general, data collected from administrators indicate moderate satisfactionwith the quality of instruction offered by their science and mathematicsfaculties. Only two administrators out of the twenty interviewed put any of



their math teachers in the "poor content-knowledge background" category,and only one put any science teachers in that category. Communication skillswere more of a problem as five administrators rated some of their mathteachers as "poor" communicators and three rated some of their scienceteachers as "poor" communicators. The differences between the frequency ofhigh ratings on communication skills and high ratings on content-knowledgebackground were statistically significant. Taken as a whole, these resultsreflect that school administrators feel their science and mathematics teachershave adequate content backgrounds but many have room for improvement intheir ability to teach that content to high school students. The obviousimplication of this is that inservice programs should focus more oncommunication skills and teaching methods than they should on an upgradingof content knowledge.The data on the hypothetical replacement question were the least positive

about teacher quality of any collected for this study. Fifteen of twentyadministrators would replace some of their science teachers and 14 of 20would replace some of their mathematics teachers. These findings arecomparable to those of Turner (1986) who found that 67% of the teacherssurveyed knew teachers who deserved to be replaced. For better or for worse,replacing tenured teachers is not an easy task. Although administratorsinterviewed were told not to worry about constraints on replacement such asbudget, teacher supply, or tenure, these are very real constraints which makereplacement of ineffective teachers unrealistic in many if not most cases.Making ineffective teachers more effective is not easy, but is the only feasiblemethod of improving overall instruction at the present time. Inserviceinstruction, particularly on communication of knowledge rather than on thecontent itself, is needed to improve the overall quality of instruction inscience and mathematics.

In closing, the reader should be reminded that administrators are usuallynot content experts in science and mathematics. While Turner (1986) notedthat teachers prefer to be evaluated by a principal rather than a curriculumsupervisor, it is entirely possible that content experts would have had lessfavorable ratings of teacher quality than did administrators. This claim ismade on the assumption that administrators must view teacher quality basedon ability of the teacher to discipline students and to teach a subject in whichthe administrator has a limited background. Content experts would expectgood teachers to efficiently manage classroom time but would also knowwhen content was being presented in an inefficient or even inaccuratemanner. Unfortunately, getting content experts to observe and evaluateteacher quality would be a very expensive endeavor, and thus, potentially lessvalid but more easily gathered data such as administrator ratings will have tosuffice. In short, quality of instruction is an issue that needs to be consideredin the teaching of math and science. Many certified teachers have an excellent


Administrator’s Eye View 343

content-knowledge background and good communication skills. Unfortu-nately, many others do not.

References

Bogdan, R. C., and S. K. Biklen, (1982). Qualitative research in education. Boston-Allyn & Bacon.

Butzow, J. W., and Z. Quereshi, (1978). Science teachers’ competencies: A practicalapproach. Science Education, 62(\), 59-66.

Carpenter, T. P., M. M. Lindquist, W. Matthews, and E. A. Silver (1983). Results ofthe third NAEP mathematics assessment: Secondary school. Mathematics Teacher76, 652-659.

Gallagher, J. J., and R. E. Yager, (1981). Science educator’s perceptions of problemsfacing science education: a report of five surveys. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 18, 505-514.

Good, T. L., D. A. Grows, and H. Ebmeier (1983). Active mathematics teaching. NewYork: Longman.

Horak, W., and V. Lunetta (1979). Science teacher types: A study of beliefs about theimportance of specific teaching behaviors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,16, 269-274.

Kloosterman, P., and H. Harty (1986). Need sensing, assessing, and validation forscience, mathematics, computer, and foreign language education in the State ofIndiana: Final report. Bloomington: Indiana University, Department of Curriculumand Instruction. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272 391).

Murphy, J. T. (1980. Getting the facts: A fieldwork guide for evaluations and policyanalysts. Santa Monica, California: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, California: SagePublications.

Romberg, T. A. (1984). School mathematics: Options for the 1990’s, chairman’s reportof a conference. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Turner, R. R. (1986). Teachers speak out about their education. Learning, 75(2), 58-67.Yager, R. E. (1982). Is science a bunch of boring facts? Science Teacher, 49{4}\ 4{-42.

^ # ff

HIGH-ENERGY STREAMS

Among Pioneer 10’s many scientific discoveries were the streams of high-ener-gy particles that sweep around the solar system with the sun’s 25-day rotation,the stellar plasma "bubble" blown by the sun through interplanetary space; andthe highly energetic electrons blasted out of Jupiter’s magnetosphere that per-vade the environment of the inner solar system.


Documents

Administrators' Eye View of the Instructional Quality of Secondary School Science and Mathematics