Dissertation Summary
The following are excerpted from The Instructional Perspectives of Community College Mathematics Faculty, a dissertation by Laurie K. McManus, successfully defended October 23, 2007:
Abstract
This study investigated the beliefs, feelings, and behaviors of full-time mathematics faculty at community colleges in a Midwestern state. The online questionnaire for this study included the modified Instructional Perspectives Inventory [IPI] (Henschke, 1989; Stanton, 2005). The subscales of the IPI are: (1) Teacher empathy with learners; (2) Teacher trust of learners; (3) Planning and delivery of instruction; (4) Accommodating learner uniqueness; (5) Teacher insensitivity toward learners; (6) Experience-based learning techniques; and, (7) Teacher-centered learning processes. Approximately 23.4% of invited participants responded to the survey, yielding a sample size of 34.
Statistical analyses included calculations of mean, standard deviation, and standard error for summative subscale scores and summative overall IPI scores. Using a rankings scale proposed by Stanton (2005) [“Low below average”, “below average”, “average”, “above average”, “high above average”], all groups for this study were found to be “average” or “below average” in the application of andragogical / adult education principles. Analyses of Variance (ANOVA’s) revealed statistically significant differences for subscales one, two, four, five, and for summative overall IPI scores. Using a reliability rating scale suggested by George and Mallery (as cited in Gliem & Gliem, 2003, p. 87), subscales one through six were interpreted as having “good” or “acceptable” internal consistency. Subscale seven was found to have “questionable” consistency for this population.
Recommendations for future research with the IPI include a consideration of the influence of gender, a calculation and interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient and the Spearman-Brown prophecy coefficient, and the inclusion of a qualitative research component.” (McManus, 2008, iii-iv)
Summary
Three research questions were considered by this study. The first research question:
“What are the instructional perspectives of community college mathematics faculty?” and the second research question: “Is the IPI a reliable measure for this population?” were addressed. The third research question for this study: “Does the IPI measure the dimensions it purports to measure?” cannot be addressed due to sample size.
To address the first research question for this study, “What are the instructional perspectives of community college mathematics faculty?”, the mean, standard deviation, and standard error were calculated for summative IPI scores. The findings were interpreted to mean that the population for this study is “average” or “below average” in the application of andragogical principles. This finding is supported by the research literature of adult education that argues that the application of andragogical principles is situational – andragogical and pedagogical approaches to learning are appropriate at different times and for different purposes (Brookfield, 1986; Carlson, 1980; Davenport, 1987; Holmes, 1980; Knowles, 1980; McKenzie, 1985; Merriam, 2001; Pratt, 1988; Rachel, 2002).
Parts a through h of the first research question for this study inquire, “What are the differences in instructional perspectives of mathematics faculty at the community college when the set of mathematics faculty at the community college is classified by (gender, self-identified ethnicity, age, level of education – highest degree attained, academic rank, teaching experience, duration of service as a full-time faculty member at a community college, whether or not members have completed graduate courses in adult education, respectively)?” Part (b) of this question related to self-identified ethnicity was not addressed due to lack of a representative sample and part (h) of this question related to adult education courses taken was not addressed due to a lack of response for this item on the questionnaire for this study. Group scores within the demographic categories of gender, age, highest degree attained, academic rank, teaching experience, and duration of service as a full-time faculty member at a community college were compared and Analyses of Variance (ANOVA’s) were conducted.
A comparison of the subscale scores for groups within demographic categories found that age, highest degree attained, and duration of service as a full-time faculty member at a community college seemed to influence subscale scores. These findings were interpreted to be consistent with Conti’s (1985b) description of some of the influences on teaching style.
Analyses of Variance (ANOVA’s) revealed statistically significant differences for subscales one (teacher empathy with learners), two (teacher trust of learners), four (accommodating learner uniqueness), five (teacher insensitivity toward learners), and for summative overall IPI scores. An interaction effect was found for groups within the demographic categories of highest degree attained and duration of service as a full-time faculty member at a community college. Statistically significant differences were found for groups within the category of gender on subscales one, two, four and summative IPI scores. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the nature of groups within the population of participants for this study. The findings of statistically significant differences (or not) for the questions of subscale one – teacher empathy with learners – were interpreted to mean that participants for this study share a common definition of being prepared to teach and that findings are consistent with Grubb’s (1999) description of community college faculty members’ “basic sympathy” (p. 38) for students. A note of caution is provided for statistically significant differences found for the demographic category of gender.
The findings of statistically significant differences (or not) for the questions of subscale two – teacher trust of learners – were interpreted to mean that the participants in this study share a common discourse in terms of students’ participation in mathematical practices and their development of intellectual autonomy.
The findings of statistically significant differences (or not) for the questions of subscale three - planning and delivery of instruction – were interpreted as being consistent with the notion of sociomathematical norms and the teacher’s role as a mediator of mathematical meanings.
The findings of statistically significant differences (or not) for the questions of subscale four - accommodating learner uniqueness – were interpreted to mean that the participants in this study share a common discourse in terms of students’ development of intellectual autonomy.
The findings of statistically significant differences (or not) for the questions of subscale five - teacher insensitivity toward learners - were interpreted to mean that the participants in this study share a common perception of their roles as mediators of mathematical meaning and as being consistent with Conti’s (1985b) description of influences on teaching style. The findings of statistically significant differences (or not) for the questions of subscale six - experience-based learning techniques – were interpreted to mean that participants for this study share a common discourse of teaching. It was noted that some questions describe teaching behaviors not common to the teaching of mathematics.
The finding of no statistically significant differences on the questions for subscale seven - teacher-centered learning process – were interpreted to mean that participants in this study share a common discourse regarding teaching behaviors.
A comparison of the results of this study with studies by Thomas (1995), Dawson (1997), Seward (1997), Drinkard (2003), Stanton (2005), and Stricker (2006) found both similar and dissimilar results. A caution is provided regarding interpretation of this finding due to the contrasting nature of the populations for these respective studies.
The second research question addressed by this study is, “Is the IPI a reliable measure for this population?” Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient and the Spearman-Brown prophecy coefficient were calculated for the seven subscales of the IPI. Findings were interpreted using a reliability rating scale suggested by George and Mallery (as cited in Gliem & Gliem, 2003, p. 87). Six of the seven subscales were interpreted as having “good” or “acceptable” internal consistency. Subscale seven – teacher-centered learning process - was found to have “questionable” consistency for this population. A contrast of these findings with studies by Thomas (1995) and Stanton (2005) leads to a recommendation that future studies with the IPI include a calculation and interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient and the Spearman-Brown prophecy coefficient.
A consideration of the influence of gender is suggested for future studies with the Instructional Perspectives Inventory (IPI). In addition, future studies with the IPI should include a calculation and interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient and the Spearman-Brown prophecy coefficient and be designed with a sample population sufficient for factor analysis. The calculation of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient and the Spearman-Brown prophecy coefficient paired with a factor analysis will greatly enhance the utility of the IPI by providing a measure of the internal consistency of the instrument. The inclusion of a qualitative research component such as interviews or observations in studies with the IPI and/or a research design that includes a measure of the effectiveness of teacher practices may provide further insights into the beliefs, feelings, and behaviors of adult educators.
This study may provide some insights into the discourse of community college mathematics faculty – their andragogical orientation and their teaching practices. As adult educators, they are expected to apply andragogical principles of practice as they facilitate learning. As mathematics educators, they are expected to guard the content of mathematics as they mediate mathematical meanings for their students. As community college faculty members, they are expected to provide effective learning experiences for a diverse set of learners. The Instructional Perspectives Inventory (IPI) provides an opportunity for community college mathematics faculty to reflect critically on their practice and the beliefs that inform their practice.” (McManus, 2007, 154-158)