The instruments used in this study are: a questionnaire, three Q-sample themes, and questions for a follow up interview. The purpose of these instruments is to measure teachers’ beliefs concerning management behavior, classroom practices, beliefs about children, and also teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in two areas: instructional self-efficacy and disciplinary self-efficacy.
The interview guide was designed to capture teachers’ views on issues in the study that they wished to emphasize; or if there were issues that were not covered well enough; their thoughts about the methods; and to give room for any other comments they might have.
3.3.1 Translation
The instruments that were chosen for this study had been used in similar studies in the US (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2006). Since the present study was to be conducted in Norway, it was necessary to translate the instruments used and also the information given concerning procedures.
The English versions of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, all the Q-sort exercises, three answer sheets (see Appendix II, III, and IV), orientations (Appendix V, VI, and VII), and descriptions (Appendix VIII and IX), were
translated into Norwegian. The Norwegian version was then translated back into English, by a different person well acquainted with both languages and the field of teaching in both countries. This was then compared to the original version. A few discrepancies were noted and discussed to ensure the notion behind the English version to be present in the Norwegian translation. Some words cannot be directly translated because of nuances in the different languages and have to be rewritten to get the intended meaning across. Some examples follow. In English the term ‘student’ is used in both preschool and school age. In Norway the term children is used before they begin school, but children ‘become’ students when they enter school settings. In Norway we do not yet have a specific word for ‘efficacy’ and have to write the meaning of the word in a longer sentence. Teacher Self- Efficacy Scale was titled in Norwegian ‘Skala for vurdering av egen jobbutøvelse’. The English version of title and subtitles were used as well in the Norwegian version. ‘Classroom practice’ is relevant in the English version but not used specifically in Norwegian. The essence here was to grasp the meaning and intention in the term, which is wider than just ‘teaching practice’.
Demographic items were chosen from questionnaires used in surveys conducted by the Center for Behavioral Research at the University of Stavanger, Norway. These were compared to the ones used in the studies mentioned above.
3.3.2 Demographic Questions and Self-Efficacy Scale
The demographic items contain questions concerning age, gender, level of education, workplace, experience etc. to obtain background information about the participants in the study. Examples are “Where do you work now?” with category options as daycare and school. “How long have you worked in daycare?”, “How long have you worked in school?”, and “How long have you worked at your current workplace?”, all with space to write in the number of years and/or months. The question concerning age had six categories, and to report on level of education participants had 10 options where respondents could put a mark on one or more of the options. Participants were also asked if they were willing to be interviewed.
The set of general demographic items were joined with the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale in one questionnaire. This scale is a 10 item questionnaire adapted from Bandura (1993) and used in the NCEDL Kindergarten Transition Project. A similar version was also used in the NICHD-ECCRN (2002) study and in a study by Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004). The 10 items represent two components of personal self-efficacy: (1) instructional self-efficacy (seven items); and (2) disciplinary self-efficacy (three items).
Table 7 – Overview of the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale and alpha levels
Teacher Self-efficacy Scale a
Instructional efficacy .85
1) How much can you do to get through to the most difficult children/students?
2) How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from the home?
3) How much can you do to keep children/students on task on difficult assignments?
4) How much can you do to increase children/students’ memory of what they have been taught in previous lessons?
5) How much can you do to motivate children/students who show low interest in schoolwork?
6) How much can you do to get children/students to work together?
7) How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on children/students’ learning?
Disciplinary self-efficacy .84
8) How much can you do to get children to follow group/classroom rules?
9) How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the group/classroom?
10) How much can you do to prevent problem behavior on the school grounds?
As stated in the questionnaire, the major intention of the survey was to “help gain a better understanding of the kind of things that create difficulties for
teachers in their school activities”. The items in the questionnaire are scored by using a nine point Likert scale from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). In this present study Cronbach alphas for each component were .85, and .84, respectively.
3.3.3 Teacher Belief Q-sort (TBQ)
Both Richardson (1996) and Calderhead (1996) describe different methods in assessing teachers beliefs and varying aspects of beliefs that have undergone research. Quantitative studies, interviews, and case studies have been used to pursue the challenging task of studying beliefs. In this study quantitative methods are used to examine teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, while Q-methodology is used to investigate beliefs about behavior management, group/classroom practices and beliefs about children. The Teacher Belief Q-sort was applied and will be described in the following text.
In Q-methodology the “sample” is not the participants in the study, but the statements or items the participants are to “operate” with. From a universe of statements, a sample is drawn. McKeown and Thomas (1988) have recommended a series of steps for developing a new Q-sample such as collecting statements, choosing items and establishing the conditions of instruction. According to Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006) these steps were followed in developing the Teacher Belief Q-sort (TBQ). The TBQ used in the present study is now available on-line at www.socialdevelopmentlab.org.
For a more thorough account of the TBQ see the mentioned website and article by Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006).
As mentioned earlier in this thesis, beliefs have been looked upon as a lens or window on teachers’ thinking, decision-making, their practice and sometimes also their effectiveness (Bandura, 1993; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006, p. 143) pointed to seven elements that constituted their definition of teachers’ beliefs and influenced the development of the TBQ, and follow here:
“…(1) are based on judgement, evaluation, and values and do not require evidence to back them up, (2) guide their thinking, meaning-making, decision-meaning-making, and behavior in classroom, (3) may be
unconscious such that the holder of beliefs is unaware of the ways in which they inform behavior, (4) cross between their personal and professional lives, reflecting both personal and cultural sources of knowledge, (5) become more personalized and richer as classroom experience grows, (6) may impede efforts to change classroom practice, and (7) are value-laden and can guide thinking and action (Borg, 2001; Evans, 1996; Kagan, 1992;Lortie, 2002; Nespor, 1987;
Pajares, 1992; Richardson,1996; Romanowski, 1998)” (p. 143).
Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006, p. 143) referring to Clark and Peterson (1986), cautioned that beliefs do not automatically translate into concrete practices in the classroom but can be a framework that organize meaning and inform practices. Although not explicitly trying to link beliefs to classroom behavior, they suggested that teachers’ beliefs are measurable and vary among groups of teachers who differ in terms of training and teaching experiences.
The researchers behind TBQ collected statements from sources external to the study itself. One hundred and twenty statements about teaching were gathered from literature on classroom practices as well as from existing scales where they pointed to sources such as: Brookover (1974), La Paro and Pianta (2000), Smith (1993), Solomon, Watson, Delucchi, Schaps, and Battistich (1988), and Wright (1980), and Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk (1990), see Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006) for more details. They also reported on efforts to balance the statements to represent wide-ranging and opposing viewpoints in addition to choosing statements that did not reflect terminology specific to particular curricular or behavioral management approaches (p. 151).
The authors who developed the TBQ described several ways of testing the Q-sort statements. First four research assistants and four teachers were asked to group the cards into coherent categories and identify statements that did not fit the category. During three separate conversations the authors and respondents discussed the set and agreement was reached upon three categories of priorities to be the focus of their investigation: ”priorities in discipline and behavior management, teaching practices, and beliefs about students” (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2006, p. 151). Their next step was to winnow the statements between 45 and 25 down to 20 statement cards to each Q-sample theme. This was done by twelve pilot teachers who were asked to choose 20 statement
cards pertinent to the general teaching experience of their colleagues and themselves, but also to identify statements they thought were confusing in wording or meaning. Through conversations between researchers and pilot teachers confusing statements were adjusted and the number of statements was reduced to twenty in each of the three Q-sample themes.
The authors’ next goal was to choose the conditions of instruction and decided to establish simple requests for agreement or disagreement using five “anchor cards” for each Q-sample theme. Using Q-sample 1 (Q1) as an example it ranged from “Least characteristic of my approach or beliefs about discipline and behavior management” to “Most characteristic of my approach or beliefs about discipline and behavior management” with intermediate points represented also (p. 152). In the present study “answer sheets” (Appendix II, III, IV) were used instead of anchor cards.
The TBQ consists of three Q-sort exercises (Q-samples) to assess teachers’
priorities among their beliefs: Q-sample 1 focuses on teachers’ priorities about discipline and behavior management, Q-sample 2 examines priorities concerning group/classroom practices, and Q-sample 3 assesses teachers’
beliefs about children. Each Q sort exercise consists of 20 statements, and the participants were to sort the statements in a forced distribution into five groups with four cards in each group and ranking them in general from least to most characteristic of their beliefs. With a forced distribution the participants’ priorities would become clear.
In the Rimm-Kaufman et al.(2006) study with the development of the TBQ, the researchers used Q-technique and traditional quantitative methods, popularly known as R-methodology.
In this present study using TBQ and Q-technique, Q-methodology as described previously, was applied as guiding principles in analyzing the data.
3.3.4 Interview guide
In Q-methodology post interviews are quite common. The goal here is to allow the respondents to elaborate more on his or her points of view concerning the Q sorting. Through this follow up procedure these six teachers
could clarify their responses and it would be helpful in gaining a better understanding. Interviewing all was not possible in this study with so many participants. Among the many respondents agreeing to be interviewed, six people were chosen as described under the section titled Subgroups. The interview guide is presented below.
English version:
Based on the questions and statements in this study:
Are there important issues concerning the adult role, beliefs/understanding of children, group/classroom practices, and behavior management you wish to emphasize?
Are there issues that have not been referred to well enough in this study?
Do you have any thoughts about the methods that are used?
Is there anything else you wish to comment on?
Follow up questions concerned the relationship between process and results.
Each interview was done individually and tape-recorded with the interviewees’ permission. The duration was from 45 to 60 minutes. Two interviews were carried out in daycare centers, and two were done at schools.
One interview took place in a vacant community meeting room, close to where the interviewee attended a course. These five localities were all relatively peaceful areas. The sixth interview was done at an internet-café, complying with the interviewee’s wishes. An important goal was to conduct the interviews at places that were convenient for them and where they felt relaxed and comfortable. All interviews were transcribed and checked with the recorded version. A few discrepancies were discovered and corrected.
NVivo 7.0 (QSR International, 2007) was applied to examine the interview data.