Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 09 November 2014, At: 14:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20
Are beginning teachers ready for thejob? The development and validationof an instrument to measure the basicskills of beginning secondary teachersElke Struyf a , Stefanie Adriaensens b & Karen Meynen aa Institute for Education and Information Sciences , University ofAntwerp , Venusstraat 35, Antwerp 2000, Belgiumb Institute for Education and Information Sciences , University ofAntwerp , Gratiekapelstraat 10, Antwerp 2000, BelgiumPublished online: 08 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Elke Struyf , Stefanie Adriaensens & Karen Meynen (2011) Are beginningteachers ready for the job? The development and validation of an instrument to measure the basicskills of beginning secondary teachers, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36:4, 429-449,DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2011.581748
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.581748
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationVol. 36, No. 4, July 2011, 429–449
ISSN 0260-2938 print/ISSN 1469-297X online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02602938.2011.581748http://www.informaworld.com
Are beginning teachers ready for the job? The development and validation of an instrument to measure the basic skills of beginning secondary teachers
Elke Struyfa*, Stefanie Adriaensensb and Karen Meynena
aInstitute for Education and Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, Antwerp 2000, Belgium; bInstitute for Education and Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Gratiekapelstraat 10, Antwerp 2000, BelgiumTaylor and FrancisCAEH_A_581748.sgm10.1080/02602938.2011.581748Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education0260-2938 (print)/1469-297X (online)Article2011Taylor & Francis3640000002011Prof. [email protected]
Society has become more complex in recent decades, and this has increased thedemands placed on the educational system and the teaching profession. This studyfocuses on the development and validation of an instrument that measures thebasic skills of beginning teachers. The instrument was developed according toscientific knowledge on teacher skills and their legal context as described by theFlemish government. Teacher competencies are measured along three aspects:behaviour, capability and beliefs. Construct validation took place in two rounds,using data obtained from a survey of beginning secondary teachers that wasconducted in September 2008 and June 2009. Exploratory factor analyses withoblique rotation resulted in 12 reliable scales, containing a total of 60 items. Theinstrument can be used in teacher-training institutes to explore the basic skills ofgraduating students. It can also be used in schools to initiate a process of reflectionamongst beginning teachers and to adapt the induction programme to the needs ofeach beginning teacher.
Keywords: teacher professionalisation; beginning teachers; teacher competences;construct validity; factor analysis
Introduction
Researchers, policy-makers and teacher educators all recognise that the process ofbecoming a teacher should involve lifelong learning (Tichenor and Tichenor 2004;Wong, Britton, and Ganser 2005). The educational system is confronted with increas-ing and constantly changing requirements which affect the day-to-day work of teach-ers in the classroom. Becoming a teacher is thus a permanent learning process, asuccession of formal and informal learning experiences (Clement and Staessens1993). In accordance with Clement and Vandenberghe (2000), the professional devel-opment of teachers is actually related to helping teachers gain more control of theirown behaviour. It improves their ability to respond to changing circumstances and tojustify their professional behaviour.
The development of teacher professionalism does not end when students completetheir teacher-training programmes; it continues after graduation. Teacher trainingobviously does impart a number of key competences or basic skills. The trainingcourses should ensure that each graduate has at least the minimum competences
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
430 E. Struyf et al.
necessary to enter the teaching profession. Thereafter, induction programmes inschools and additional training (in-school and external) help both experienced andbeginning teachers to achieve full competency (Feiman-Nemser 2001; Morberg andEisenschmidt 2009).
This view on the professional development of teachers justifies a distinctionbetween expectations that apply to newly trained or beginning teachers and thosethat apply to more experienced teachers. A level of professionalism appropriate toan experienced teacher cannot be expected at the beginning of a teaching career(Schepens, Aelterman, and van Keer 2007). In Flanders (Belgium), there is a legaldistinction between the basic skills required of beginning teachers and thoserequired of more experienced teachers. The list of basic skills specifies a clear set ofknowledge, skills and attitudes that graduates of teacher-training programmes shouldpossess in order to function properly as a beginning teacher (Ministry of the FlemishCommunity, Department of Education 2007). Similar to the vocational profile of anexperienced teacher, the list of basic skills provides a clear and current descriptionof what the government expects of a teacher; the skills are derived from policyobjectives and the needs of society.
To date, there are no validated instruments to measure the basic skills of beginningteachers. The aim of this research is to develop and validate such an instrument. Theinstrument is based on contemporary scientific knowledge on teacher competences,and it draws upon the Flemish government’s description of teacher competences.
Theoretical framework
The basic skills of beginning teachers in Flanders
In 1998, the Flemish government ordered the development of a vocational profile anda list of basic skills to serve as quality standards for teacher-training programmes. Theseprofiles were updated in 2007 (Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department ofEducation 2007). The competences included in the vocational profile and the relatedbasic skills are categorised into 10 functional roles that teachers perform. These rolesare grouped into three clusters of responsibilities (Ministry of the Flemish Community,Department of Education 2007).
The first cluster includes the responsibilities of teachers with regard to theirstudents. Five roles can be distinguished in this cluster: (1) source of support forprocesses of learning and development, (2) educator, (3) content expert, (4) organiser,and (5) innovator and researcher. The second cluster comprises the responsibilities ofteachers with regard to the school and the educational community. The teacher’s roleswithin this cluster are as follows: (6) partner of parents or guardians, (7) member ofthe school team, (8) partner of external entities, and (9) member of the educationalcommunity. The final cluster involves the responsibility of teachers with regard tosociety. This responsibility is included within the following role: (10) member ofsociety.
The vocational profile and the basic skills that are derived from it assume acomprehensive and extended professional orientation to teaching: a teacher’s task isnot limited to activities in the classroom; it also incorporates responsibilities withregard to the school and society in general. Cooperation and a strong commitment tointerdisciplinary and extracurricular activities in the school are considered importantaspects of teaching. Classroom activities should also be adapted to school policy and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 431
related to new educational insights and recent developments in society (Jongmanset al. 1998).
Measuring competencies
Each role in the list of basic skills is described in detail using a series of competences(‘the teacher can …’). For each competence, the underlying knowledge base (i.e. whatthe teacher has to know in order to achieve this competence) is also explicitlymentioned. In addition to the 10 roles, eight important teaching attitudes are distin-guished: decision-making ability, relational orientation, critical attitude, desire tolearn, organisational ability, sense of cooperation, accountability and flexibility. Afterprofound study of the detailed list of skills, knowledge elements and attitudes, weconcluded that they were not suitable for inclusion in a questionnaire in their currentform. The list was too detailed, and the artificial unravelling of the teacher’s tasks hadled to overlaps between the different roles in some cases. In addition, the relativelygeneral and often theoretical formulation of the basic skills and the attitudes madethem less suitable for inclusion in a questionnaire. Selection and a more specific oper-ationalisation appeared necessary. To find ideas for performing this task, we consultedliterature on the concerns (e.g. Watzke 2007), self-efficacy (e.g. Skaalvik and Skaal-vik 2007) and well-being (e.g. Veenman 1984) of teachers, as well as literature onreasons for leaving the teaching profession (e.g. Kersaint et al. 2007). Each of theselines of scientific research indicates a limited set of key skills that beginning teachersneed to master in order to manage themselves in educational settings, to feel qualifiedas teachers and to stay motivated. This yielded a classification comprising 10 relevantareas of interest: lesson preparation, lesson implementation, differentiation, evaluationof students, the teacher as an educator, classroom management, the teacher as amember of the school team, the teacher as a member of society, use of communica-tion/language and professional development. Specific items were formulated for eachof these areas of interest.
After identifying this limited set of areas, we determined the form in which theitems should be presented to teachers, with the goal of attaining a thorough assessmentof their competence in each area of interest. According to Miller (1990), who studiedthe competences of medical students and how to evaluate them, a competence hasbeen mastered when the practitioner applies it in daily practice. In order to reach thislevel of performance, individuals must attain a set of knowledge and skills that willallow them to use this knowledge. Corresponding to Miller, the competence model ofKorthagen (2004) also considers a person’s behaviour in daily life as the highestexpression of a competence. Various elements underlying an individual’s behaviourbecome apparent, much like the layers of an onion. The behaviour of individuals ispartly determined by their skills, which are subsequently influenced by their beliefs.People’s beliefs are then determined by their identity. Individual involvement is at thecentre of the competence model. Korthagen (2004) defines involvement as thepersonal mission that individuals pursue in their lives or their work. Finally, people’sbehaviour is affected by the context or environment in which they function. Withregard to teacher competences, a specific school or classroom context influenceswhether or not a teacher’s behaviour is considered competent. Using the findings ofMiller (1990) and Korthagen (2004) regarding the assessment of competences, wedecided to have beginning teachers score items along three aspects: behaviour, capa-bility and beliefs.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
432 E. Struyf et al.
Methodology
Construction of the research instrument
The questionnaire was developed into two stages. For each area of interest, 6–12 itemswere formulated. The first version of the questionnaire was discussed in three separatefocus groups, one with beginning teachers (n = 7), one with tutors (n = 7) and one withlecturers (n = 3). The importance of the 10 areas of interest was examined, as well as theclarity and relevance of the specific items and the coverage of the items in each area ofinterest. All of the focus-group participants considered the 10 areas of interest importantand sufficiently broad; 21 items were updated, six were added and four were removed.This produced a questionnaire consisting of 76 items. Each item was examined accord-ing to three aspects: behaviour [coded as (a)] refers to the actual performance of the itemin daily practice – we consider behaviour as the highest expression of a competence;capability [coded as (b)] refers to the manner in which individuals consider themselvescapable of carrying out the competence; and beliefs [coded as (c)] refer to the degree towhich individuals consider the competence important. These three different aspects areassessed using a Likert scale consisting of five response categories (see Table 1).
Data collection and respondents
The instrument was distributed electronically to beginning teachers in regular second-ary schools in Flanders. The coordinating directors of the 54 school communities (eachof which includes multiple secondary schools) in Flanders were asked to participatein this study. After accepting the invitation, each school was asked to transmit a list ofits beginning teachers. Beginning teachers were defined as individuals in their firstyear of teaching. This yielded a list of 815 teachers from 50 school communities. InSeptember 2008, an email was sent to the beginning teachers, asking them to completethe questionnaire electronically. The questionnaire was ultimately completed by 559teachers, representing an average of 11 (SD = 8.91) teachers from each school commu-nity (response rate for teachers: 69%, response rate for school communities: 100%).At the end of the same school year (June 2009), the beginning teachers were onceagain asked to complete a slightly revised instrument. This questionnaire wascompleted by 208 teachers, representing an average number of approximately 5 (SD= 3.69) teachers from each school community (response rate for teachers: 26%,response rate for school communities: 88%).
The dataset was screened before the analyses were started. Only data from teacherswho indicated that they were in their first year of professional teaching were retained.
Table 1. Sample items and the response categories used.
Varying objectives according to differences between students:I do this: Almost never ����� Almost always � n/a (a)I feel capable: Not at all ����� Very much (b)I belief this is: Not important ����� Very important (c)
Choosing an appropriate working method for each subject:I do this: Almost never ����� Almost always � n/a (a)I feel capable: Not at all ����� Very much (b)I belief this is: Not important ����� Very important (c)
Note: n/a, not applicable.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 433
In September 2008, 108 participants indicated that they had been teaching for morethan one year (e.g. in another school); these responses were deleted from the dataset.Of the 451 remaining respondents, 66% were women, and the average age was 26years and 1 month (SD = 6.71). In June 2009, 48 participants indicated that they werenot beginning teachers. As with the previous sample, 66% of the 160 remainingrespondents were women. The average age of respondents in the second sample was27 years and 5 months (SD = 7.44).
Research design and analyses
The construct validity of the questionnaire was tested in two rounds. The firstconstruct validation was conducted on the data collected in September 2008 (samplesize: n = 451). Given the size and complexity of the instrument (76 items, eachassessed according to the three aspects), we decided to divide the questionnaire intotwo groups of items and to validate the instrument successively for each aspect (i.e.behaviour, capability and beliefs). Based on the aforementioned literature on narrowand extended professional orientations of teachers, we grouped the 49 items referringto teaching and educational practice in the classroom during the first factor analysis.A second factor analysis was conducted on the remaining 27 items, which refer tointerdisciplinary and reflective practice. Because dependency was assumed betweenthe different areas, oblique rotation was used. The exploratory factor analyses wereconducted on the dataset for the aspect behaviour.
The selection of the number of factors was based both on the ‘Eigenvalue-greater-than-1’ method (the Kaiser–Guttman rule) and on the interpretability and integrationof the scales within the theoretical framework (Bandalos and Boehm-Kaufman 2009).The retained items within a factor had to meet the following criteria: (1) factor loadingequal to or higher than |.30|, and (2) meaningful content corresponding to the factor.Finally, the number of items in each factor was taken into account. As a rule, a factorshould contain at least four items in order to reflect the complexity of the latentconstruct sufficiently and to become a scale. The item loadings for the aspects capa-bility and beliefs in the corresponding factors (in accordance with the aspect behav-iour) were subsequently investigated. To achieve adequate parallelism in thequestionnaire, the retained items had to load sufficiently (≥ |.30|) on the relevant factorfor the three aspects (behaviour, capability and beliefs).
Finally, the reliability of the questionnaire was considered by analysing Cronbach’salpha scores of the constructed scales. We considered reliability coefficients approach-ing .70 as sufficiently reliable (Schmitt 1996). In this stage, items could still be removedif doing so would increase the reliability of the scale.
The second construct validation (using factor analysis with oblique rotation) wasconducted on the data collected in June 2009 (sample size: n = 160). Because the firstvalidation had led to a few adjustments in the questionnaire (see ‘Results’ section), thesecond validation was carried out to determine whether these changes increased thereliability and the usefulness of the scales. In the second round, we conducted a confir-matory factor analysis, taking the results of the first factor analysis into account.
Results
In this section, we describe the successive factor analyses that were carried out inorder to gain insight into the construct validity of the questionnaire. We always start
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
434 E. Struyf et al.
with the analysis of the data regarding the behaviour aspect and conclude with theresults for the aspects capability and beliefs.
First construct validation (September 2008)
Items regarding teaching and educational practice
Prior to the factor analyses, we executed the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure ofSampling Adequacy test and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity for the aspects behaviour(bh), capability (c) and beliefs (bl). These two tests verified whether the items werestrongly enough related to conduct a factor analysis. The closer the KMO valuesapproach a value of 1, the more variance the items have in common. In our data, theKMO values exceeded the minimum value of .60 for each aspect (KMObh = .92,KMOc = .92, KMObl = .86). The Bartlett test outcomes also indicated sufficientcommon ground in the manifest variables and for each aspect (χ2
bh (1176) = 7560.91,p < .000; χ2
c (1176) = 6925.09, p < .000; χ2bl (1176) = 4805.31, p < .000). Based on
these findings, we determined that factor analysis was permitted (Tabachnick andFidell 2001).
A six-factor structure emerged as a result of the factor analysis with oblique rota-tion on the 49 items regarding teaching activities in the classroom with regard to thebehaviour aspect. Each of these six factors contained at least four items with loadingsof |.30| or higher. In terms of content, the six factors are well interpretable. The firstfactor is ‘Care for each student’ (six items). The items describe the extent to whichteachers attend to the welfare of their students, consider the cognitive potential and thepersonality of each student and invest in positive relationships with their students. Thesecond factor (six items) is ‘Involvement and flexibility’. The items within this factorrepresent the extent to which teachers pay attention to motivating students by carefullydetermining the content and working format of the lessons. The items also describethe extent to which teachers handle their lesson preparations in a flexible manner (e.g.by creating possibilities for students to provide input). The third factor, ‘Differentia-tion’ (five items), describes the extent to which teachers differentiate in the classroomin terms of content and pace, thereby managing to challenge all students. The fourthfactor, ‘Incorporating current events and diversity’ (eight items), describes the extentto which teachers consider the interests and needs of their students when selectingcontent and teaching materials. The items also address the extent to which teachersinclude current events in their lessons. The fifth factor, ‘Classroom discipline’ (fiveitems), describes the extent to which teachers manage to keep the classroom undercontrol and are capable of intervening in situations involving disruptive behaviour.The items also describe the extent to which teachers teach their students values (e.g.responsibility and respect). The sixth and final factor is ‘Evaluation’ (six items). Theitems within this factor describe the extent to which teachers pay attention to evalua-tion, observe/track the progress of their students and provide them with feedback.
Taken together, the six underlying factors describe 44.87% of the total variance.Table 2 shows the eigenvalue (EV) and the percentage of declared variance (R2) ofeach factor for the behaviour aspect, along with a sample item for each factor.
We subsequently examined whether the retained items of the six factors alsoloaded significantly on the other two aspects (capability and beliefs), thus guarantee-ing full parallelism in the questionnaire. Based on these analyses, we concluded thatwith one exception, the various items loaded at |.30| or higher on the relevant factor,for the aspect capability as well as for the aspect beliefs. One item did not load high
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 435
enough (.27) on the factor ‘Involvement and flexibility’ for the aspect beliefs, and itwas therefore removed. Table 3 shows the final number of items for each scale andprovides an overview of the minimum and maximum loadings of the items for thethree aspects. It also shows the results of the reliability analyses. We concluded thateach scale is sufficiently reliable, and this applies to all three aspects.
Items regarding interdisciplinary and reflective practice
For these items as well, the preliminary analyses showed that the minimum conditionswere met to justify the use of factor analysis (KMObh = 82, KMOc = 90, KMObl = 89;χ2
bh (351) = 3878.31, p < .000; χ2c (351) = 4134.57, p < .000; χ2
bl (351) = 3803.31,p < .000).
The results of the factor analysis with oblique rotation on the items regarding inter-disciplinary and reflective practice for the aspect behaviour initially produced aneight-factor structure. We nonetheless decided to preserve a six-factor structure, as
Table 2. The results of the EFA conducted on the items regarding teaching and educationalpractice according to the behaviour aspect, with a sample item for each factor (first validation).
Factor Sample item EV R2
Care for each student Taking the personality of each student into account
12.43 25.37
Involvement and flexibility
Allowing students to provide input during lessons
2.50 5.10
Differentiation Considering differences in tempo between the students
2.12 4.33
Incorporating current events and diversity
Incorporating current events into my lessons
1.79 3.65
Classroom discipline Addressing disruptive behaviour from students
1.61 3.28
Evaluation Varying my methods of evaluation
1.54 3.14
Note: EV, eigenvalue; R2, percentage of declared variance.
Table 3. The final number of items, the minimum (Min) and maximum loadings (Max) of theitems and the reliability coefficients (α) of the scales regarding teaching and educationalpractice (first validation).
Behaviour Capability Beliefs
Scale Items Min Max α Min Max α Min Max α
Care for each student 6 .34 .62 .81 .61 .77 .84 .59 .64 .78Involvement and flexibility 5 .35 .54 .74 .41 .74 .74 .38 .65 .67Differentiation 5 .39 .71 .79 .53 .80 .82 .51 .76 .80Incorporating current events
and diversity8 .32 .60 .72 .40 .66 .72 .30 .61 .68
Classroom discipline 5 .43 .68 .76 .61 .90 .88 .45 .74 .71Evaluation 6 −.43 −.57 .72 .53 .65 .76 .43 .55 .66
Note: For an overview of the factor loadings of the retained items, see Appendix 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
436 E. Struyf et al.
one factor contained only two items and the content of another factor (three items) wasdifficult to interpret.
The first factor, ‘Awareness and accountability’, contains three items whichdescribe the extent to which teachers act as members of the educational community.In other words, it describes the extent to which a teacher has developed a responsibleteaching style by considering social issues and current events. The second factor,‘Reflection on teaching’ (three items), defines the extent to which teachers reflect ontheir own teaching. The third factor, ‘Member of the school team’ (four items),addresses the extent to which teachers cooperate and confer with their colleagues andcontribute to the group spirit within the teaching staff. The fourth factor, ‘Reflectionwith others’ (three items), describes the extent to which teachers reflect on their teach-ing practice with others (e.g. colleagues). The fifth factor, ‘Communication withparents’ (three items), describes the way in which teachers communicate with parentsand the extent to which they provide information about the children in a comprehen-sible manner. The sixth and final factor defines the extent to which teachers are opento ‘Innovation’ (e.g. by staying informed on innovations and incorporating them intothe lessons).
Table 4 shows the different scales, along with a sample item for each scale. It alsoprovides an overview of the eigenvalue (EV) and the percentage of declared variance(R2) of each scale within the first sample. We conclude that the six factors together(on the behaviour aspect) explain 53.31% of the total item variance.
Table 5 shows the minimum and maximum loadings of the items on the factors forthe three aspects separately. The results for the aspects capability and beliefs wereobtained by conducting separate factor analyses with one declared factor for eachgroup of items matching the different retained factors for the aspect behaviour. Basedon these analyses, we concluded that all of the retained items loaded of |.30| or higheron the relevant factors, for both the aspects capability and beliefs.
The results of the reliability analyses (also presented in Table 5) show that all ofthe scales are sufficiently reliable, with the exception of the ‘Awareness and account-ability’ scale. In addition, we decided to remove an item from the ‘Innovation’ scale,as doing so significantly increased the reliability of the scale on the aspect behaviour
Table 4. The results of the EFA conducted on the items regarding interdisciplinary andreflective practice according to the behaviour aspect, with a sample item for each factor (firstvalidation).
Factor Sample item EV R2
Awareness and accountability
Forming an opinion on current social issues and developments
5.89 21.83
Reflection on teaching Knowing after a lesson why some things worked and why others went less smoothly
2.69 9.95
Member of the school team Asking my colleagues for advice 2.06 7.63Reflection with others Reflecting with others on my actions in the
classroom1.47 5.46
Communication with parents
Providing parents with coherent information about their children
1.17 4.32
Innovation Experimenting with new insights in my teaching
1.11 4.12
Note: EV, eigenvalue; R2, percentage of declared variance.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 437
(+.05), and it had a positive influence on Cronbach’s alpha scores of the other twoaspects (αbh (3 items) = .67, αc (3 items) = .75, αbl (3 items) = .78).
To provide an adequate reflection of the complexity of the underlying concepts,we attempted to generate scales consisting of at least four items. We therefore decidedto formulate new items for the scales ‘Awareness and accountability’ (two items),‘Reflection on teaching’ (two items), ‘Reflection with others’ (two items), ‘Commu-nication with parents’ (one item) and ‘Innovation’ (two items). We also refined thewording of two items for the ‘Awareness and accountability’ scale. For example, theitem, ‘Forming an opinion on educational topics in discussion with colleagues’ wasrevised to read, ‘Forming an opinion on current educational issues’. These additionsand adjustments were intended to increase the cohesion between the items within thesame scale.
The second version of the instrument consisted of 63 items; 35 items refer to teach-ing and educational practice (six scales), and 28 items (also six scales) describe inter-disciplinary and reflective practice. The modifications that were made in theformulation of the items and the addition of nine new items regarding multidisci-plinary and reflective practice required an additional validation.
Second construct validation (June 2009)
The second construct validation was limited to the validation of the items regardinginterdisciplinary and reflective practice. The adjusted instrument was presented to thebeginning teachers at the end of the 2008–2009 school year.
Items regarding interdisciplinary and reflective practice
The preliminary analyses for this set of items also show that the minimum conditionsare met to justify the use of factor analysis (KMObh = 80, KMOc = 86, KMObl = 87;χ2
bh (378) = 2234.83, p < .000; χ2c (378) = 2410.71, p < .000; χ2
bl (378) = 2616.39,p < .000).
The first validation provided insight into the underlying six-factor structure of theitems regarding interdisciplinary and reflective practice. We therefore decided toconduct confirmatory factor analysis with oblique rotation. As shown in Table 6, allsix of the factors have an intrinsic value greater than 1, together explaining 64.02% of
Table 5. The final number of items, the minimum (Min) and maximum loadings (Max) of theitems and the reliability coefficients (α) of the scales regarding interdisciplinary and reflectivepractice (first validation).
Behaviour Capability Beliefs
Scale Items Min Max α Min Max α Min Max α
Awareness and accountability 3 .46 .57 .63 .59 .81 .74 .50 .75 .64Reflection on teaching 3 .68 .96 .84 .79 .91 .87 .72 .94 .86Member of the school team 4 −.50 −.75 .73 .68 .78 .84 .66 .75 .79Reflection with others 3 .39 .69 .67 .58 .76 .73 .56 .77 .73Communication with parents 3 .61 .92 .83 .64 .90 .81 .67 .87 .81Innovation 2 −.40 −.73 .72 .55 .82 .78 .61 .84 .80
Note: For an overview of the factor loadings of the retained items, see Appendix 2.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
438 E. Struyf et al.
the total variance in the data. At the item level, we noticed that one item had a loadinglower than |.30| on the factor ‘Innovation’. This item was removed, producing a four-item scale. In addition, one item of the scale ‘Reflection with others’ and one item ofthe scale ‘Communication with parents’ had loadings of |.30| or higher on otherfactors. These two items were removed as well.
Table 7 shows the minimum and maximum loadings of the items of the factors forthe aspects behaviour, capability and beliefs. Based on these results, we conclude thatall of the items load at or above |.30| on the relevant factors, and this applies to theaspect capability as well to the aspect beliefs.
We subsequently calculated the reliability coefficients of the six scales for each ofthe three aspects (Table 7). With regard to the scales ‘Reflection on teaching’, ‘Reflec-tion with others’ and ‘Innovation’, the already strong internal consistency was evenhigher in the second factor analysis, and this applied to all three aspects. Moreover,the addition of extra items to each scale provided a better reflection of the complexityof the constructs. For the scale ‘Awareness and accountability’, the reformulation andthe additional items increased the alpha coefficients in comparison with the first vali-dation, and this applied to all three aspects. Finally, the results of the internal consis-tency analysis of the scales ‘Member of the school team’ and ‘Communication withparents’ confirm the results of the first validation. For the last scale, however, onlythree items were retained.
Table 6. The results of the factor analysis conducted on the items regarding interdisciplinaryand reflective practice according to the behaviour aspect (second validation).
Factor EV R2
Reflection on teaching 6.77 24.19Communication with parents 3.53 12.59Reflection with others 2.69 9.59Awareness and accountability 1.83 6.52Innovation 1.69 6.02Member of the school team 1.43 5.10
Note: EV, eigenvalue, R2, percentage of declared variance.
Table 7. The final number of items, the minimum (Min) and maximum loadings (Max) of theitems and the reliability coefficients (α) of the scales regarding the interdisciplinary andreflective practice (second validation).
Behaviour Capability Beliefs
Scale Items Min Max α Min Max α Min Max α
Reflection on teaching 5 .68 .87 .86 .71 .86 .88 .68 .89 .90Communication with parents 3 .53 .90 .82 .76 .95 .81 .63 .94 .82Reflection with others 4 .54 .88 .82 .66 .84 .85 .62 .85 .82Awareness and accountability 5 .45 .75 .74 .56 .75 .78 .43 .75 .71Innovation 4 −.53 −.79 .81 .65 .80 .79 .76 .85 .86Member of the school team 4 .45 .73 .80 .65 .73 .83 .65 .77 .80
Note: For an overview of the factor loadings of the retained items, see Appendix 3.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 439
Conclusion and discussion
In recent decades, society has become more complex, and this has increased thedemands placed on education and the teaching profession. In 1998, the Flemishgovernment ordered the development of a vocational profile and a list of basic skillsto serve as quality standards for teacher-training programmes. These profiles wereupdated in 2007 (Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department of Education2007). To date, there are no validated instruments to measure the basic skills of begin-ning teachers.
Based on a study of beginning secondary teachers, we constructed a reliable andconstruct-valid instrument to assess the basic skills of beginning teachers according tothree aspects: behaviour, capability and beliefs. The BeTeBaS instrument (BEginningTEachers’ BAsic Skills) consists of 60 items, divided into 12 reliable scales that referto teaching and educational practice and to interdisciplinary and reflective practice(see Appendix 4). The reliability coefficients of the 12 scales approached or exceededthe value α = 70 (Schmitt 1996), and this applies to the aspects behaviour, capabilityand beliefs. In order to provide an adequate reflection of the complexity of the latentconstruct, all but one of the scales contain a minimum of four items.
The first six scales measure aspects related to teaching and educational practice inthe classroom. The first scale, ‘Care for each student’ (six items), describes the extentto which teachers attend to the welfare of their students. This scale is consistent withthe role of ‘the teacher as educator’ (Ministry of the Flemish Community, Departmentof Education 2007). Teachers must develop the ability to create a positive classroomclimate. The scale ‘Involvement and flexibility’ (five items) represents the ability ofteachers to motivate their students by using active and flexible teaching methods. Thisbasic skill corresponds to the role of ‘the teacher as organiser’, which represents theability of teachers to create smooth and efficient lessons in a stimulating learning envi-ronment. The ‘Differentiation’ scale (five items) describes the extent to which teachersdifferentiate in terms of content and pace, thus managing to challenge all of theirstudents. The ability to differentiate is mentioned in the role of ‘supporting the learningand development processes’. The scale ‘Incorporating current events and diversity’(eight items) is closely related to the fourth scale. It describes the extent to whichteachers take student diversity into account. The role of ‘supporting processes of learn-ing and development’ also includes the ability to handle student diversity. Schools canbe seen as miniature societies that reflect the larger society, which is increasinglyconfronted with diversity in terms of ethnicity culture and religion, as well as socialand economic status. One aspect of the scale ‘Incorporating current events and diver-sity’ can also be found in the role of ‘the teacher as an educator’: teachers should incor-porate actual social developments into their lessons. The ‘Classroom discipline’ scale(five items) describes the ability of teachers to manage their classrooms and controldisruptive behaviour, as described in the role of ‘the teacher as organiser’. The sixthand final scale, ‘Evaluation’ (six items) measures the ability of teachers to evaluatestudents, monitor student progress and provide feedback. This scale is closely relatedto the role of ‘supporting processes of learning and development’.
The six scales related to the teaching and educational practice of beginning teach-ers correspond to the concerns of student teachers and beginning teachers with regardto the socio-emotional growth of students, dealing with the problems and needs ofindividual students, motivating students, managing the classroom and evaluatingstudents’ class work (Reeves and Kazelskis 1985; Veenman 1984; Watzke 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
440 E. Struyf et al.
The following six scales describe the interdisciplinary and reflective practice ofbeginning teachers. The scale ‘Reflection on teaching’ (five items) and the scale‘Reflection with others’ (four items) are related to the ‘critical attitude’ of teachers(Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department of Education 2007). Louis, Kruse,and Bryk (1995) refer to such consideration and examination of educational practicein dialogue with other teachers as ‘the reflective dialogue’. The importance of thiscompetence is reflected in the concerns of student teachers and beginning teacherswith regard to their ability to evaluate their own professional development (Reevesand Kazelskis 1985; Watzke 2007). Meetings with parents form another majorconcern for beginning teachers (Veenman 1984). This competence is measured withthe scale ‘Communication with parents’ (three items). This scale is related to the roleof ‘the teacher as partner of the parents/caretakers’, which emphasises the importanceof discretion in dealing with student information, providing advice and taking thesocial background of parents into account. The ‘Awareness and responsibility’ scale(five items) measures the extent to which beginning teachers develop a responsibleeducational style, while taking social issues and current events into account. Thisscale relates to the role of ‘the teacher as member of the education community’. The‘Innovation’ scale (four items) is strongly linked to the role of ‘the teacher as innova-tor and researcher’. The final scale in the BeTeBaS questionnaire is ‘Member of theschool team’ (four items), which measures cooperation between colleagues and theextent to which beginning teachers contribute to the group spirit within the teachingstaff. This variable is included in the role of ‘the teacher as member of the schoolteam’.
The division of the scales into the ‘teaching and educational practice’ cluster andthe ‘interdisciplinary and reflective practice’ cluster is consistent with the findings ofHuberman (1989, 1993). This author suggests that the first stage in a teacher’s careeris characterised by two dominant experiences: discovering and surviving. In additionto discovering the pleasure of teaching and finally being able to practice their occupa-tion, teachers also have the feeling of surviving within the multiplicity and complexityof tasks and expectations related to the teaching profession. Beginning teachers facechallenges in the classroom, and as members of the school, they must learn to coop-erate with colleagues, school management, administrators and parents. They must findtheir place within a culture that has its own traditions, customs, sensitivities, views andsubgroups.
The validation of the BeTeBaS questionnaire (Dutch version) was limited toconstruct validation. Construct validation took place in two rounds, using dataobtained with a survey of 451 (in September 2008) and 160 (in June 2009) beginningsecondary teachers. We attribute the lower response rate in the second round to thetiming of the survey. The considerable time and effort required to complete the exten-sive questionnaire (60 items, each of which had to be scored according to three differ-ent aspects) was compounded by the many tasks that are associated with the busyperiod at the end of the school year. In addition, the BeTeBaS questionnaire was usedin a broader study investigating relationships between the attainment of basic skillsand the induction programme for beginning teachers. The second presentation of thequestionnaire constituted the final measurement within this extensive research, inwhich dropout was increased for each measurement.
The BeTeBaS questionnaire is a self-evaluation instrument with which beginningteachers assess their own basic skills. Self-evaluation fits within the current views onlearning and teaching where the learner takes an active role in his learning process and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 441
self-directed learning is stimulated (Segers, Dochy, and Cascallar 2003). Researchshows that respondents develop a greater responsibility towards their own learningwhen using self-evaluation instruments (Boud 1995). However, it is conceivable thatthe results are affected by overestimation, underestimation or social desirability bias.We attempted to minimise social desirability bias by giving respondents the opportu-nity to assess three aspects of their competences: behaviour, capability and beliefs.Respondents were therefore invited to provide a balanced picture: whether they actu-ally apply a given behaviour into practice, the extent to which they feel competent todo so and the extent to which they find it important. Measuring these three aspects inone questionnaire makes the instrument one of its kind. To our knowledge, no instru-ment exists where these aspects are measured simultaneously for the same set ofitems.
The instrument can be used in several ways. It can initiate a reflection process inorder to stimulate the beginning teacher’s further professional development. Becom-ing an expert implies the progressive accumulation of a set of knowledge and skillsthat are developed through experience (Dall’Alba and Sandberg 2006). Schools canuse the instrument to shape their induction programmes, adapting it to the needs ofeach beginning teacher. Also, schools can use the instrument to develop the compe-tences of the entire teaching staff. The competence profile the instrument generates foreach teacher can be used to identify specific teachers’ competences. These can in turnbe embedded in professionalisation activities. In an ongoing study, the authors of thispaper explore the differences between male and female beginning teachers on thescale ‘Reflection on teaching’ and ‘Reflection with others’, and examine to whatextent schools can stimulate these competences in the first year of their professionalcareer. Teacher-training institutes can use the instrument to explore the evolution andattainment of basic skills by graduating students. Graduating students themselves canuse the information in order to choose elective courses in their teacher-trainingprogramme. We advise users to supplement the results obtained with the BeTeBaSquestionnaire with findings from observations in classrooms in order to compensatefor the limitations of a self-evaluation instrument.
Because the instrument aims to provide a tool for initiating and supporting profes-sional development and growth, we do not recommend its use as a tool for summaryevaluation. Although the basic skills are applicable to all educational levels (e.g.primary and secondary), future research must be conducted to determine whether theinstrument is also adequate for beginning primary teachers. Because we assume thatnovice and experienced teachers’ competences differ based on the stage in theircareers, research with the contrasting-groups method (Newble, Hoare, and Baxter1982) can verify to what extent the BeTeBaS questionnaire features these differencesin competences.
Notes on contributorsElke Struyf is an educational scientist and senior lecturer at the Institute for Education andInformation Sciences, University of Antwerp. Her research focuses on teaching, classroommanagement and student guidance, teacher education and the professional development ofteachers.
Stefanie Adriaensens is a member of the research group REPRO (Research in Education andProfessional Development), University of Antwerp. Her current research focuses on care andeducational guidance of students.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
442 E. Struyf et al.
Karen Meynen is a staff member of quality assurance in education at the Institute for Educationand Information Sciences, University of Antwerp. She is a member of the research groupREPRO (Research in Education and Professional Development). Her research focuses on theprofessional development of teachers.
ReferencesBandalos, D.L., and M.R. Boehm-Kaufman. 2009. Four common misconceptions in explor-
atory factor analysis. In Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends, ed. C.E.Lance and R.J. Vandenberg, 61–87. New York: Routledge.
Boud, D. 1995. Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.Clement, M., and K. Staessens. 1993. The professional development of primary school teach-
ers and the tension between autonomy and collegiality. In School culture, school improve-ment and teacher development, ed. F.K. Kieviet and R. Vandenberghe, 129–52. Leiden:DSWO Press, Leiden University.
Clement, M., and R. Vandenberghe. 2000. Teachers’ professional development: A solitary orcollegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education 16, no. 1: 81–101.
Dall’Alba, G., and J. Sandberg. 2006. Unveiling professional development: A critical reviewof stage models. Review of Educational Research 76, no. 3: 383–412.
Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthenand sustain teaching. Teachers College Record 103, no. 6: 1013–55.
Huberman, M. 1989. The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record 4,no. 2: 331–48.
Huberman, M. 1993. The lives of teachers. London: Cassell.Jongmans, C.T., H.J.A. Biemans, P.J.C. Sleegers, and F.P.C.M. De Jong. 1998. Teachers’
professional orientation and their concerns. Teacher Development 2, no. 3: 465–79.Kersaint, G., J. Lewis, R. Potter, and G. Meisels. 2007. Why teachers leave: Factors that influ-
ence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, no. 6: 775–94.Korthagen, F.A.J. 2004. In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic
approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, no. 1: 77–97.Louis, K.S., S.D. Kruse, and A.S. Bryk. 1995. Professionalism and community: What is it and
why is it important in urban schools? In Professionalism and community: Perspectives onreforming urban schools, ed. K.S. Louis, S. Kruse and Associates, 4–26. Long Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
Miller, G. 1990. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/-performance. AcademicMedicine 65, no. 9: 63–7.
Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department of Education 2007. Beroepsprofiel en basis-competenties van de leraren: Decretale tekst en memorie van toelichting [Vocationalprofile and basic competences of teachers: Text of the decree and memorandum of expla-nation]. Brussels: Department of Information and Documentation.
Morberg, A., and E. Eisenschmidt. 2009. Second-phase induction for teacher educators: Chal-lenges and possibilities. In Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teachereducators, ed. A. Swennen and M. van der Klink, 103–13. Heidelberg: Springer.
Newble, D.I., J. Hoare, and A. Baxter. 1982. Patient management problems: Issues of validity.Medical Education 16, no. 3: 137–42.
Reeves, C.K., and R. Kazelskis. 1985. Concerns of preservice and inservice teachers. Journalof Educational Research 78, no. 5: 267–71.
Schepens, A., A. Aelterman, and H. van Keer. 2007. Studying learning processes of studentteachers with stimulated recall interviews through changes in interactive cognitions.Teaching and Teacher Education 23, no. 4: 457–72.
Schmitt, N. 1996. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment 8, no. 4: 350–3.Segers, M., F. Dochy, and E. Cascallar. 2003. Optimising new models of assessment: In
search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Skaalvik, E.M., and S. Skaalvik. 2007. Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal ofEducational Psychology 99, no. 3: 611–25.
Tabachnick, B.G., and L.S. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 443
Tichenor, M., and J. Tichenor. 2004. Understanding teachers’ perspectives on professional-ism. Professional Educator 27, nos. 1–2: 89–95.
Veenman, S. 1984. Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of EducationalResearch 54, no. 2: 143–78.
Watzke, J.L. 2007. Longitudinal research on beginning teacher development: Complexity as achallenge to concerns-based stage theory. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, no. 2:106–22.
Wong, H.K., E. Britton, and T. Ganser. 2005. What the world can teach us about new teacherinduction. Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 5: 379–84.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
444 E. Struyf et al.
Appendix 1. Factor loadings of retained items (≥≥≥≥ |.30|) regarding teaching and educational practice according to the behaviour aspect (first validation)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
(17) Taking the personality of each student into account .46(18) Recognising the strengths and weaknesses of my
students.34
(32) Stimulating positive interaction amongst the students in the classroom
.51
(34) Considering the best interests of each student .53(35) Building a positive relationship with my students .59(36) Coping with the students’ feelings .62(6) Varying my working methods .39 .33(7) Choosing an appropriate working method for each
subject.35
(11) Allowing students to provide input during lessons .54(15) Motivating the students during my lessons .38(43) Being flexible with my lesson plan if I realise that
it is not feasible.40
(20) Varying objectives according to differences between the students
.61
(21) Taking the differences between the students into account when applying the material
.65
(22) Giving different assignments based on the strengths and weaknesses of the students
.71
(23) Considering differences in tempo between the students
.49
(24) Ensuring that each student is positively challenged to learn
.39
(3) Formulating concrete goals in my lesson plans .37(4) Coordinating the learning content with the interests
and realities of my students.50
(5) Incorporating current events into my lessons .60(8) Using multiple sources when preparing my lessons .37(16) Using the appropriate educational materials in my
lessons.32
(19) Considering the social–cultural background of my students in my lessons
.32
(39) Making diversity in the class and in society a topic of discussion
.39
(64) Expanding the vocabulary of my students .33(40) Addressing disruptive behaviour from students .68(41) Stifling potential disruptions .64(45) Showing that I am in control during my lessons .49(33) Responding to inappropriate outbursts from
students.67
(38) Imparting such values as responsibility and respect to the students
.36 .43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 445
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
(25) Using assignments, tasks and tests to determine whether the goals have been achieved for all students
−.57
(26) Measuring various levels of mastery during assessments
−.45
(27) Formulating tasks, assignments and test questions clearly
−.53
(28) Varying my methods of evaluation −.43(29) Explaining the performance of the students −.49(30) Providing meaningful feedback for each student
after an assessment−.45
Percentage of declared variance 25.37 5.10 4.33 3.65 3.28 3.14
Appendix 1. (Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
446 E. Struyf et al.
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
(52) Considering the neighbourhood surrounding the school in my role as a teacher
.54
(53) Forming an opinion on educational topics in discussion with colleagues
.57
(54) Justifying my actions as a teacher in conversations with others (e.g. colleagues and parents)
.49
(66) Knowing after a lesson what worked and what went less smoothly
.81
(67) Knowing after a lesson why some things worked and why others went less smoothly
.96
(68) Using my reflections to know how I can improve my performance as a teacher
.68
(46) Collaborating with other teachers −.75(47) Contributing to the team spirit prevailing amongst
colleagues−.50
(49) Asking my colleagues for advice −.64(50) Discussing classroom matters with other teachers −.59(65) Reflecting on my contacts with students .39(75) Reflecting with others on my actions in the
classroom.69
(76) Considering feedback from others regarding my actions
.62
(58) Adapting communications to the diversity of parents (e.g. different languages and levels of education)
.61
(59) Holding various types of conversations with parents (e.g. bad-news conversations, parent–teacher correspondence, etc.)
.92
(60) Providing parents with coherent information about their children (e.g. learning progress, attitudes, etc.)
.85
(72) Choosing focused in-service training to improve my competence in teaching
−.40
(73) Experimenting with new insights in my teaching −.55(74) Staying informed about innovative educational
ideas−.73
Percentage of declared variance 21.83 9.95 7.63 5.46 4.32 4.12
Appendix 2. Factor loadings of retained items (≥≥≥≥ |.30|) regarding interdisciplinary and reflective practice according to the behaviour aspect (first validation)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 447
Appendix 3. Factor loadings of retained items (≥≥≥≥ |.30|) regarding interdisciplinary and reflective practice according to the behaviour aspect (second validation)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
(50) Knowing after a lesson what worked and what went less smoothly
.70
(51) Knowing after a lesson why some things worked and why others went less smoothly
.74
(52) Using my reflections to know how I can improve my performance as a teacher
.87
(53) Asking myself critical questions after a lesson regarding what could have gone better
.84
(54) Taking time after a lesson to contemplate how it went
.68
(46) Holding various types of conversations with parents (e.g. bad-news conversations, parent–teacher correspondence, etc.)
.90
(47) Providing parents with coherent information about their children (e.g. learning progress, attitudes, etc.)
.89
(48) Being accessible to parents .53(56) Reflecting with others on my actions in the
classroom.72
(57) Considering feedback from others regarding my actions
.88
(58) Exchanging experiences with colleagues .68(59) Discussing problems that I have experienced in the
classroom with colleagues.54
(40) Considering the neighbourhood surrounding the school in my role as a teacher
.50
(41) Forming an opinion on current educational issues .75(42) Justifying my actions as a teacher to others (e.g.
colleagues and parents).50
(43) Forming an opinion on current social issues and developments
.45
(44) Consciously developing my own style of teaching .72(60) Experimenting with new insights in my teaching −.69(61) Staying informed about innovative educational
ideas−.66
(62) Actively seeking innovations that could improve my teaching
−.79
(63) Assessing the extent to which innovations I have tried in my lessons are worth repeating
−.53
(36) Collaborating with other teachers .54(37) Contributing to the team spirit prevailing amongst
colleagues.73
(38) Asking my colleagues for advice .37 .45(39) Discussing classroom matters with other teachers .40 .45Percentage of declared variance 24.19 12.59 9.59 6.52 6.02 5.10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
448 E. Struyf et al.
Appendix 4. BeTeBaS questionnaire (BEginning TEachers’ BAsic Skills) (translation of the Dutch version)
Scale 1: Care for each student (six items) 1 Taking the personality of each student into account2 Recognising the strengths and weaknesses of my students3 Stimulating positive interaction amongst the students in the classroom4 Considering the best interests of each student5 Building a positive relationship with my students6 Coping with the students’ feelings
Scale 2: Involvement and flexibility (five items) 7 Varying my working methods8 Choosing an appropriate working method for each subject9 Allowing students to provide input during lessons10 Motivating the students during my lessons11 Being flexible with my lesson plan if I realise that it is not feasible
Scale 3: Differentiation (five items) 12 Varying objectives according to differences between the students13 Taking the differences between the students into account when applying the material14 Giving different assignments based on the strengths and weaknesses of the students15 Considering differences in tempo between the students16 Ensuring that each student is positively challenged to learn
Scale 4: Incorporating current events and diversity (eight items) 17 Formulating concrete goals in my lesson plans18 Coordinating the learning content with the interests and realities of my students19 Incorporating current events into my lessons20 Using multiple sources when preparing my lessons21 Using the appropriate educational materials in my lessons22 Considering the social–cultural background of my students in my lessons23 Making diversity in the class and in society a topic of discussion24 Expanding the vocabulary of my students
Scale 5: Classroom discipline (five items) 25 Addressing disruptive behaviour from students26 Stifling potential disruptions27 Showing that I am in control during my lessons28 Responding to inappropriate outbursts from students29 Imparting such values as responsibility and respect to the students
Scale 6: Evaluation (six items) 30 Using assignments, tasks and tests to determine whether the goals have been achieved for
all students31 Measuring various levels of mastery during assessments32 Formulating tasks, assignments and test questions clearly33 Varying my methods of evaluation34 Explaining the performance of the students35 Providing meaningful feedback for each student after an assessment
Scale 7: Reflection on teaching (five items) 36 Knowing after a lesson what worked and what went less smoothly37 Knowing after a lesson why some things worked and why others went less smoothly38 Using my reflections to know how I can improve my performance as a teacher
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 449
39 Asking myself critical questions after a lesson regarding what could have gone better40 Taking time after a lesson to contemplate how it went
Scale 8: Communication with parents (three items) 41 Holding various types of conversations with parents (e.g. bad-news conversations, parent–
teacher correspondence, etc.)42 Providing parents with coherent information about their children (e.g. learning progress,
attitudes, etc.)43 Being accessible to parents
Scale 9: Reflection with others (four items) 44 Reflecting with others on my actions in the classroom45 Considering feedback from others regarding my actions46 Exchanging experiences with colleagues47 Discussing problems that I have experienced in the classroom with colleagues
Scale 10: Awareness and accountability (five items) 48 Considering the neighbourhood surrounding the school in my role as a teacher49 Forming an opinion on current educational issues50 Justifying my actions as a teacher to others (e.g. colleagues and parents)51 Forming an opinion on current social issues and developments52 Consciously developing my own style of teaching
Scale 11: Innovation (four items) 53 Experimenting with new insights in my teaching54 Staying informed about innovative educational ideas55 Actively seeking innovations that could improve my teaching56 Assessing the extent to which innovations I have tried in my lessons are worth repeating
Scale 12: Member of the school team (four items) 57 Collaborating with other teachers58 Contributing to the team spirit prevailing amongst colleagues59 Asking my colleagues for advice60 Discussing classroom matters with other teachers
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
14 0
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
