10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Navigating Change: Exploring the Interplay between Teachers' Perceived Challenges in Curriculum Reform and Self-Efficacy
Elmedina Nikoçeviq-Kurti, Fjolla Kacaniku, Blerim Saqipi, Jete Aliu
Faculty of Education, University of Prishtina, Kosovo
Presenting Author: Nikoçeviq-Kurti, Elmedina;
Kacaniku, Fjolla
Curriculum reforms are demanding in terms of implementation since they require changes in many aspects that might challenge the existing beliefs and subjective realities deeply embedded in an individual and organizational context (Fullan, 2015; Tikkanen et al., 2020).
Teachers are the foremost implementers of curriculum reform and their direct engagement with and enactment of the curriculum significantly shapes the outcomes of reform. According to Fullan (2015), curriculum implementation is the vehicle through which desired objectives are achieved, and for the new curriculum to yield results, it must be effectively translated into classroom practices. Furthermore, Fullan (2015) emphasizes that for the successful implementation of educational reform, a minimum of three dimensions of change should be addressed: materials, teaching approaches, and beliefs. Teachers' experiences with curriculum implementation can affect their efficacy beliefs during the implementation stage (Agormedah et al., 2022; Bennet, 2007). On the other side, the teachers' perceived self-efficacy can influence the way teachers will interact with the new curriculum (Barni, Danioni & Benevene, 2019; Gouëdard et al., 2020; Putwain & Embse, 2019). These studies emphasize the need for a holistic approach to understanding and supporting teachers during educational reforms. Teachers often make critical decisions regarding change early in the implementation process, potentially relying on limited information. Given that teachers can have notable concerns about curriculum reforms, failure to address these concerns could potentially influence how the change is implemented, thereby impacting the self-efficacy of teachers. According to Gordon et al. (2023), the successful execution of educational reforms significantly relies on the teacher's self-efficacy. Bandura's self-efficacy theory (1977), highlights that self-efficacy is crucial for teachers and has a direct impact on the quality of education. Teachers with high self-efficacy contribute positively to the educational environment, fostering resilience, adaptability, and a commitment to continuous improvement.
Aim of the study
This study investigates the intricate relationship between teachers' perceived challenges in the implementation of curriculum reform and their self-efficacy in teaching. Centered on uncovering the intricate dynamics of variables, the research seeks to identify specific challenges posed by curriculum reform and understand the connection of these challenges with teachers' beliefs and demographic factors such as gender, educational background, and teaching experience. Furthermore, this study investigates teachers' perspectives on the most effective approaches for enhancing motivation and fostering commitment to the new curriculum, as well as for promoting their self-efficacy beliefs.
Research questions that guide this study are:
- To what extent do teachers perceive the success of implementing the new curriculum in their school context?
- Is there a statistically significant relationship between teacher self-efficacy and the perception of teachers regarding the implementation of curriculum reforms?
- To what extent do individual characteristics, such as gender, teaching experience and educational background, mediate the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and their perception regarding the implementation of curriculum reforms?
- What insights can teachers provide regarding the strategies and practices they find most effective in enhancing motivation, cultivating commitment to the new curriculum, and fostering their own self-efficacy beliefs?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study employs a mixed-methods approach, blending quantitative surveys, to quantify the nature and extent of challenges faced by teachers during curriculum reform, with qualitative methods such as interviews to capture the depth of their self-efficacy experiences influenced by the implementation of the new curriculum reforms. As outlined by Rossman and Wilson (1985, 1994), adopting a multi-method approach in policy research offers promise for comprehending the intricate phenomena of the social world. This involves viewing the world from various perspectives and employing diverse methodologies that are more adept at addressing the diverse stakeholders involved in policy issues, as opposed to relying on a single method or approach to research. The quantitative phase involves the distribution of a standardized questionnaire to a random sample of primary and lower secondary teachers in public and private schools in Kosovo (n=400), assessing challenges across various dimensions and measuring the connection with self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, interviews were conducted with 20 selected primary and lower secondary teachers to explore their experiences and gather their insights on the successful implementation of curriculum reform, as well as the development of their self-efficacy. Teachers were recruited from diverse schools across Kosovo using a purposive sampling technique that adhered to the criteria of variation sampling (Patton, 2002). The intent was to encompass a comprehensive range of perspectives within the research study.
The survey instrument encompasses the following constructs: personal and professional background, teachers' perceptions of curriculum implementation and their perceived level of self-efficacy. The self-efficacy questionnaire (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) adapted for the context of curriculum reforms will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the curricula. This questionnaire is tested and piloted to ensure it is a valid and reliable tool for use in this context. The gathered data will be subjected to statistical analysis, including inferential and correlation analyses.
Themes and patterns extracted from the qualitative data provide depth and context to the statistical insights garnered from the quantitative analysis. The data underwent analysis through thematic analysis, utilizing an inductive coding approach. Themes were derived from the initial coding process to address the research questions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe outcomes of this research offer a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted dynamics shaping teachers' responses to curriculum reform and its consequential impact on their self-efficacy beliefs. Additionally, the investigation aims to uncover teachers' perspectives on effective approaches for motivation, commitment, and self-efficacy in the context of the new curriculum. By identifying specific challenges and exploring their connections with demographic factors and self-efficacy beliefs, the research aims to provide valuable insights for policymakers, administrators, and initiatives focused on professional development. Furthermore, the examination of teachers' perspectives on effective approaches for curriculum implementation expected to inform strategies that can enhance their self-efficacy beliefs, ultimately contributing to the successful implementation of curriculum reforms in the educational landscape. This study has the potential to offer insights that extend beyond a specific local context, contributing to a broader international dialogue on curriculum reform challenges, teachers' self-efficacy, and effective strategies for motivating and fostering commitment among teachers worldwide.
ReferencesAgormedah, E. K., Ankomah, F., Frimpong, J. B., Quansah, F., Srem-Sai, M., Hagan J. E. Jr., and Schack, T. (2022). Investigating teachers' experience and self-efficacy beliefs across gender in implementing the new standards-based curriculum in Ghana. Frontiers in Education, 7:932447. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.932447
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
Barni, D., Danioni, F., and Benevene, P. (2019). Teachers’ Self-Efficacy: The Role of Personal Values and Motivations for Teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1645. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01645
Bennett, D. Sh. (2007). Teacher Efficacy in the Implementation of New Curriculum Supported by Professional Development. Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 946. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/946
Fullan, M. (2015). The New Meaning of Educational Change, Fifth Edition, Teachers College Press, https://books.google.fr/books?id=YxGTCwAAQBAJ.
Gordon, D., Blundell, C., Mills, R. Bourke, T. (2023). Teacher self-efficacy and reform: a systematic literature review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 50, 801–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00526-3
Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: a literature review to support effective implementation, OECD Working Paper No. 239. https://one.oecd.org/document/EDU/WKP(2020)27/En/pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.
Putwain, D. W., & von der Embse, N. P. (2019). Teacher self-efficacy moderates the relations between imposed pressure from imposed curriculum changes and teacher stress. Educational Psychology, 39 (1), 51-64. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1500681
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and Words: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-Scale Evaluation Study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8500900505
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being "shamelessly eclectic.” Quality and Quantity, 28, 315-327.
Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. & Soini, T. (2020). Lessons learnt from a large-scale curriculum reform: The strategies to enhance development work and reduce reform-related stress. Journal of Educational Change, 21, 543–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09363-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Teaching out-of-field in English: Understanding the Past, Analyzing the Present, & Hope for the Future
Minda Lopez, Jim Van Overschelde, Jane Saunders
Texas State University, United States of America
Presenting Author: Lopez, Minda;
Van Overschelde, Jim
When teachers teach classes for which they are not licensed, they are teaching out of field (OOF) (du Plessis, 2015; Ingersoll, 1999; 2019). Out of field teaching is not a characteristic of the teacher but a description of the misalignment of a teacher’s qualifications and the subject they teach. It should be noted that out-of-field teaching is not due to a lack of academic degree or training on the part of teachers but instead represents a mismatch between teachers’ fields of training and their teaching assignments.
When students take classes from teachers OOF, they show less academic growth and are less successful (Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2010; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). This is an equity issue because the likelihood of being taught by a teacher OOF is higher for students of color and Emergent Bilinguals as well as those located in urban and rural schools (Beswick, Fraser, & Crowley, 2016; Nixon et al, 2017). In addition, teachers teaching OOF have been shown to have lower satisfaction rates and higher attrition rates (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010). There is growing concern about the negative effects of teachers teaching OOF across all subject areas and most parts of the globe (Hobbs & Porsch, 2022). In the USA, teaching OOF has been a challenge for decades, but rates have increased dramatically since the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) became law in 2015 (Author, 2020). While one goal of ESSA was to provide increased local control by providing more flexibility on teacher qualifications, the result has been more teachers teaching outside of their areas of expertise.
This phenomenon of teaching OOF is not new and impacts a wide range of students and subjects. Ingersoll found that one-fifth of all students in English, grades 7-12, were taught by a teacher who did not have at least a minor in English or English-related field (Ingersoll, 1998). While many think Math and Science are the fields primarily impacted by teachers who teach OOF, more English classes in Texas, USA, are taught by teachers assigned OOF than any other subject (Author, 2020). In addition, most prior studies have been limited because they used only one type of data (quant or qual), they used national assessment data that were not linked directly to the curriculum teachers were teaching, or they used state assessment data with small samples.
In this study, we overcame some of these limitations by using a mixed methods approach where step one utilized quantitative statewide English language arts (ELA) assessment data that were linked directly to the English curricula that teachers were required to teach to identify successful teachers assigned OOF in secondary English. Once these successful English teachers were identified, step two included qualitative methods where teachers were interviewed, and their pedagogical approaches analyzed in order to find more details contributing to their students’ success. In this study we seek to answer the question, “What factors contribute to secondary ELA teachers’ success when assigned to teach at least one course OOF?”
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis mixed methods study takes place in Texas, USA, an ideal location for conducting research on teaching OOF because of several factors. The state education agency has collected rich data on large numbers of student, teacher, and schools since 1991 and these data are contained in a State Longitudinal Data System called the Education Research Center (ERC). Not only does Texas collect and store millions of data points regarding education, the state also has the second largest student enrollment in public education in the USA and is demographically diverse, making this context a rich and unique site for this kind of research.
For this study, we expand on prior work and examine the characteristics of successful teachers who are teaching secondary English OOF. We identified the teachers through quantitative means, identifying teachers whose secondary students showed higher than predicted academic growth in ELA on the state’s secondary English assessments. We used three level hierarchical linear modeling and school fixed-effects ordinary least squares models to identify teachers who had students who showed greater increased in English achievement than was predicted based on their student demographic, teacher, and school characteristics. Growth was calculated by subtracting the student’s actual English assessment score from the student's predicted English scores. These student-level growth scores were then averaged at the teacher-level, and the highest performing teachers teaching secondary English OOF were selected. The sample included the 10 teachers with the top growth score averages and their associated schools were identified. We contacted the principals of these schools and arranged to interview the principal and the secondary English teachers. With the principal, we sought to identify any school-level, systematic approaches to supporting teachers teaching secondary English OOF (e.g., professional learning, classroom supports). With the teachers, we sought to identify their perception of teaching secondary English OOF, their perceptions of school-level support, and their sense of teaching self-efficacy. We also observed their pedagogical approaches during classroom observations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults show teaching OOF was associated with 17.4% of a standard deviation (SD) lower achievement in English Language Arts in Grade 9 compared to teachers who were prepared and licensed to teach secondary English. These results indicate that students who were taught OOF experience less growth and achievement in English. There are substantial differences across school and student level characteristics. The negative effect of teaching OOF on student growth is twice that of student poverty. In other words, eliminating poverty in Texas would improve student learning by only half the rate of ensuring all teachers were teaching within their fields of expertise.
We are processing the qualitative data and will provide details during the presentation. In general, two groups exist. First and least informative, was the group of principals who provided no systematic supports for their teachers, thus were unable to account for the positive outcomes beyond assuming the results were due solely to an individual teacher. Second, and actionable, were the schools that had implemented systematic supports and training for their teachers and discuss how professional learning opportunities were tailored to teachers teaching secondary English OOF. Examples of these systematic supports and the teachers’ perceptions of these supports will be provided.
With increased teacher shortages and pressures to churn out more teachers, the OOF rates are likely to increase. The results of our study strongly indicate that teaching OOF is not a viable option for providing a high quality, equitable education to students. Given that Author (2020) showed Black students, male students, students in special education, from low-income families, and multilinguals are significantly more likely to be taught by a teacher OOF than their peers, all else being equal, the current findings may result in less equitable educational opportunities for students across the USA.
ReferencesAuthor, 2020
Author, 2022
Beswick, K., Fraser, S., & Crowley, S. (2016). '“No wonder out-of-field teachers struggle!”: Unpacking the thinking of expert teachers, Australian Mathematics Teacher, vol. 72, p. 16 – 20.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655–681.
Du Plessis, A. (2015). Effective education: Conceptualising the meaning of out-of-field teaching practices for teachers, teacher quality and school leaders. International Journal of Educational Research. 72, 89-102. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.005
Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). The Price of Misassignment: The Role of Teaching Assignments in Teach For America Teachers’ Exit From Low-Income Schools and the Teaching Profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 299–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40732422
Hobbs, L. & Porsch, R. (Eds). (2022). Out-of-field teaching across teaching disciplines
and contexts. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9328-1
Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773–776.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American Secondary Schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2019). Measuring out-of-field teaching. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of ‘teaching out-of-field’: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 21–52). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_2
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
Nixon, R. S., Luft, J. A., & Ross, R. J. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of out-of-field teaching in the first five years. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21402
|
