Advertisement

WHEN IS A SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT PERCEIVED AS SUPPORTIVE BY BEGINNING MATHEMATICS TEACHERS? EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AUTONOMY AND APPRAISAL ON TEACHING QUALITY

  • Sigrid BlömekeEmail author
  • Patricia Klein
Article

Abstract

This study examines the hypothesis that the more support beginning mathematics teachers perceive and the better they evaluate the management of their school, the higher their teaching quality is. Indicators of teaching quality were how the teachers, who were in their third year in the profession, regarded themselves able to cope with the challenges of mathematics instruction and generic tasks like classroom management and how satisfied they were with their job. Indicators of support were the level of appraisal and autonomy the teachers reported. School management indicators were the administrative leadership of the principal and the climate of trust as perceived by the teachers. Our results reveal that teacher support plays an important role in the quality of beginning mathematics teachers. All quality indicators improved significantly if beginning teachers reported more appraisal and autonomy. A climate of trust plays an important role for the extent of autonomy perceived. Administrative leadership was significantly related to the amount of appraisal the teachers reported. Our results provide important information on how to steer a school so that the quality of beginning mathematics teachers is maximized.

Key words

administrative leadership beginning teachers job satisfaction mathematics instruction school climate structural equation modelling teacher appraisal teacher autonomy trust in the principal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U. & Döhrmann, M. (2013). Assessing strengths and weaknesses of teacher knowledge in Asia, Eastern Europe and Western countries: Differential item functioning in TEDS-M. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9413-0.
  2. Blömeke, S. (2012). Content, professional preparation and teaching methods: How diverse is teacher education across countries? Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 684–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., Kaiser, G. & Döhrmann, M. (2012). Family background, entry selectivity and opportunities to learn: What matters in primary teacher education? An international comparison of fifteen countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U. & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity of future primary teachers’ mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G. & Lehmann, R. (Eds.). (2010). TEDS-M 2008—Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender Mathematiklehrkräfte für die Sekundarstufe I im internationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  6. Bogler, R. (2002). Two profiles of schoolteachers: A discriminant analysis of job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 665–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, Funktionen und unterrichtliches Handeln des Lehrers. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule, vol. 3 (pp. 177–212). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  9. Brophy, J. (1999). Teaching. Brussels: International Academy of Education. Retrieved 7 May 2009 from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/EducationalPracticesSeriesPdf/prac01e.pdf.
  10. Cohan, D. K. & Spillane, J. P. (1991). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 642–645.Google Scholar
  13. Fan, X., Thompson, B. & Wang, L. (1999). The effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on SEM fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feiman-Nemser, S. & Parker, M. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gimbert, B. G. & Fultz, D. (2009). Effective principal leadership for beginning teachers’ development. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  16. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Helmke, A., Hosenfeld, I. & Schrader, F.-W. (2002). Unterricht, Mathematikleistung und Lernmotivation. In A. Helmke & R. S. Jäger (Eds.), Das Projekt MARKUS: Mathematik-Gesamterhebung Rheinland-Pfalz: Kompetenzen, Unterrichtsmerkmale, Schulkontext (pp. 413–480). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
  18. Hoy, W. K. & Kupersmith, W. J. (1985). The meaning and measure of faculty trust. Educational and Psychological Research, 5(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  19. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J. & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26, 38–45.Google Scholar
  20. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organisation of schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  22. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A. & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. KMK (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) (Ed.). (2003). Schüler, Klassen, Lehrer und Absolventen der Schulen 1993 bis 2002 (=Statistische Veröffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz; Dokumentation Nr. 171). Bonn, Germany: KMK.Google Scholar
  24. Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Lipowsky, F., Thußbas, C., Klieme, E., Reusser, K. & Pauli, C. (2003). Professionelles Lehrerwissen, selbstberichtete Unterrichtspraxis, selbstbezogene Kognitionen und wahrgenommene Schulumwelt—Ergebnisse einer kulturvergleichenden Studie deutscher und Schweizer Mathematiklehrkräfte. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31, 206–237.Google Scholar
  26. Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma, X. & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLaughlin, M., Talbert, J. E. & Phelan, P. K. (1990). 1990 CRC report to field sites (report no. R90-4). Stanford, CA: Center for the Research on Context of Secondary School Teaching.Google Scholar
  29. Müller, S., Pietsch, P. & Bos, W. (Eds.). (2011). Schulinspektion in Deutschland: Eine Zwischenbilanz aus empirischer Sicht. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  30. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  31. OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments. First results from TALIS—Teaching and Learning International Survey. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  32. OECD (2010). TALIS 2008: Technical report. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single versus multiple-item measures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paine, L., Pimm, D., Britton, E., Raizen, S. & Wilson, S. (2003). Rethinking induction: Examples from around the world. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Keeping good teachers (pp. 67–80). Washington, DC: ASCD.Google Scholar
  35. Perie, M. & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  36. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S. & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensional, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
  38. Schaarschmidt, U. & Fischer, A. W. (2001). Bewältigungsmuster im Beruf. Persönlichkeitsunterschiede in der Auseinandersetzung mit der Arbeitsbelastung. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  39. Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Moosbrugger, H. (2002). Beurteilung der Modellgüte von Strukturgleichungsmodellen (=Arbeiten aus dem Institut für Psychologie, Heft 4/2002). Frankfurt/M.: J.W. von Goethe-Universität.Google Scholar
  40. Shen, J., Leslie, J. M., Spybrook, J. K. & Ma, X. (2012). Are principal background and school processes related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using schools and staffing survey 2003–04. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 200–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swanson, J. L. & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Career theory and practice: Learning through case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Tarter, C. J., Sabo, D. & Hoy, W. (1995). Middle school climate, faculty trust, and effectiveness: A path analysis. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29, 41–49.Google Scholar
  43. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R. & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  44. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Rodriguez, M., Bankov, K., Reckase, M., et al (2012). The Mathematics Teacher Education and Development Study (TEDS-M). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics: First findings. Amsterdam: IEA.Google Scholar
  45. Taylor, D. & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as predictors of job satisfaction and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toh, K.-A., Ho, B.-T., Riley, J. P. & Hoh, Y.-K. (2006). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNESCO (1997). International standard classification of education. Retrieved 11 February 2010 from http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm.
  49. Valentine, J., Clark, D., Hackmann, D. & Petzko, V. (2004). Leadership for highly successful middle level schools: Volume II: A national study of leadership in middle level schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.Google Scholar
  50. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D. & Walberg, H. J. (1993). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74–79.Google Scholar
  52. Watt, H. M. G. & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18, 408–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–66). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations