Instruments. The reading teacher survey (Appendix B) consisted of two instruments: a
background questionnaire and the Reading Teacher Efficacy Instrument. On the first instrument, I asked questions related to the demographics of the participants and included questions related to the number of years spent teaching reading at the intermediate levels, the grade levels taught, the number of years at each grade level, and the Reading Teacher Survey that was based on the Reading Teaching Efficacy Instrument (RTEI; Szabo & Mokhtari, 2004).
Since the data from the Reading Teacher Survey were used to examine the beliefs of classroom teachers, and the Reading Teacher Survey was based on Reading Teaching Efficacy Instrument (Szabo and Mokhtari, 2004), analyses were completed on the RTEI to ensure that it was reliable. A reliability analysis (Stryker & Szabo, 2009) was done on each. It was found that for the RTSE subscale, the pretest alpha was .72 and the posttest alpha, .74. These results were high enough to consider the instrument reliable (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). A more detailed explanation of how Szabo and Mokhtari developed a valid and reliable measure in the Reading Teacher Efficacy Instrument can be found in Appendix C.
The Reading Teaching Efficacy Instrument was created to determine teacher candidates’ beliefs in their ability to teach reading effectively and their beliefs in their ability to positively impact students’ learning of reading. The purpose of the Reading Teacher Efficacy Instrument was to determine the reading teacher self-efficacy levels of thirty intermediate teachers and then to identify eight classroom teachers with high reading teacher self-efficacy levels. The instrument contained sixteen items and was
designed along a five-point Likert Scale with choices ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The RTEI was designed to measure two constructs: reading teacher self-efficacy, which examined teacher candidates' feelings about their ability to teach reading, and reading teacher outcome expectancy, which examined teachers’ beliefs in their ability to impact students’ reading development.
However, for the purposes of this study, my analysis focused on only one of the two factors: Reading Teacher Self-Efficacy (RTSE). On the Reading Teacher Survey, participants responded to questions like:
I continually look for better ways to teach reading.
Even if I try very hard, I will not teach reading as well as I will teach other subjects.
Based on feedback from a piloted version of the RTEI, some questions on the Reading Teacher Survey were modified to reflect the work of teachers specific to the intermediate level. For example, Question #7 in the original survey read as follows:
When a low-achieving child progresses in reading, it is usually due to extra support offered by the teacher.
For the purposes of this study, Question #7 was changed to:
When a low-achieving child progresses in reading at the intermediate level, it is usually due to extra support offered by the teacher.
Data Collection. When I arrived at each of the four schools, I was introduced to the staff.
In each case, the principal explained to his or her staff that I was a graduate student conducting research for my dissertation. In two schools, my presentation was the first item on the agenda. In the other two schools, my presentation was the last item on the
agenda. In each school, I began by introducing myself and explaining my role as a principal of an intermediate school. I shared that I was conducting research on reading instruction in intermediate schools in Maine, and I was there to recruit participants who were willing to participate in a 15-minute survey. I explained that I would leave surveys and self-addressed stamped envelopes at the school so surveys could be completed at a convenient time for each participant. All participants were asked to provide informed consent indicating that they understood the risks of participating in the study and that they were under no obligation to participate.
There was a limited time commitment in Phase 1 for teachers, and the survey was provided at staff meetings and not sent via the mail. Thirty intermediate teachers of a possible thirty-three teachers participated in the survey. As a result, there was a higher response rate, 94 percent, than is typically found when using a survey. The results remained confidential.
Analysis. The data from all teachers who completed the survey were analyzed. The first
part of the instrument, the background questionnaire, asked questions related to the demographics of the participants and included questions related to the number of years spent teaching reading at the intermediate levels, the grade levels taught, and the number of years of experience teaching at each grade level. I conducted an analysis of the descriptive statistics related to the respondents in order to summarize the data collected. For example, thirty teachers completed the survey (age: M = 31, SD = 7.29) with
experience ranging from five years of experience to 35 years of experience (experience: M = 8.4, SD = 7.05).
Since the focus of Phase 1 of the study was to identify high efficacy intermediate teachers, the scoring rubric (Appendix D) that accompanied the RTEI (Szabo &
Mokhtari, 2004) was used to study the data on the Reading Teacher Survey and
determine if participants had high beliefs (scores of 47-50), average beliefs (scores of 36- 46), or low beliefs (scores of 10-35) of their ability to teach reading effectively.