View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A National Profile of Teacher Education Faculty: The Construction of an Online Survey

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A National Profile of Teacher Education Faculty: The Construction of an Online Survey
Language: English
Authors: Graber, Kim C., Erwin, Heather, Woods, Amelia Mays, Rhoades, Jesse, Zhu, Weimo
Source: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2011 15(4):245-256.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2011
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Teacher Education, Physical Education, Profiles, Psychometrics, Physical Education Teachers, Teacher Educators, Mail Surveys, Teacher Characteristics, Preferences, Teacher Responsibility, Teacher Role, Predictor Variables, Item Analysis, Replication (Evaluation), Bayesian Statistics, Program Validation, Program Descriptions
Geographic Terms: United States
DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2011.594353
ISSN: 1091-367X
Abstract: Physical education teacher education faculty are responsible for educating the next generation of teachers. Despite their significant role, little is known about their characteristics, work preferences, or role responsibilities. The last comprehensive study undertaken to examine these variables was conducted approximately 25 years ago by Metzler and Freedman (1985). The purpose of the current investigation is to describe and validate an instrument for obtaining an updated comprehensive profile of physical education teacher education faculty in the United States. An online survey consisting of six sections was developed. To establish validity and confirm the psychometric quality of the instrument, test-retest was conducted with a subsample of 40 participants. In addition, Cronbach alpha analysis was conducted to provide support for the internal structure of the instrument. The survey accurately identifies and discriminates between the current characteristics and work responsibilities of today's teacher educators and facilitates comparison between teacher educators today to those who completed the survey nearly 25 years ago. (Contains 4 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 21
Entry Date: 2011
Accession Number: EJ948136
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFA08y_OPUbThRmqdozS30qAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDErDyy_2FxVlEUEZXAIBEICBmgcIoBOx5ZiRZF3y22fa9DdW5-orXsNMsSZSir_do5ACCpDkEqdu8oHTxi7R4Yg15IpK5DmsAGVJwGexNr4Gpd83NDrRPTDUdP98gG8Cm2igEgD_Y6iMTOkIdxv2lEWoTBVAO594EcJDExA59hUW3AJYHll_Ek0bFv42D6VkmzIf2fTv55pSngyMiJVGnJKVDsBhiD0MRDLuGQI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0066825767;7mm01oct.11;2019Mar26.12:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0066825767-1">A National Profile of Teacher Education Faculty: The Construction of an Online Survey. </title> <p>Physical education teacher education faculty are responsible for educating the next generation of teachers. Despite their significant role, little is known about their characteristics, work preferences, or role responsibilities. The last comprehensive study undertaken to examine these variables was conducted approximately 25 years ago by Metzler and Freedman (1985). The purpose of the current investigation is to describe and validate an instrument for obtaining an updated comprehensive profile of physical education teacher education faculty in the United States. An online survey consisting of six sections was developed. To establish validity and confirm the psychometric quality of the instrument, test–retest was conducted with a subsample of 40 participants. In addition, Cronbach alpha analysis was conducted to provide support for the internal structure of the instrument. The survey accurately identifies and discriminates between the current characteristics and work responsibilities of today's teacher educators and facilitates comparison between teacher educators today to those who completed the survey nearly 25 years ago.</p> <p>Keywords: higher education; physical education teacher education; Teacher educators</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>University teacher educators play a critical role in preparing K–12 teachers for the 21st century. As Darling-Hammond recognized, "We owe all children well-qualified teachers every single year they are in school" (2008, p. 733). Understanding the characteristics of the teacher education professorate can provide important insights for preparing teachers. Yet, problems in defining this population continue to exist, and only limited research addresses the professional roles and demographics of teacher educators.</p> <p>Related to personal characteristics, research shows that 70% of teacher educators in general education are married white males ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]) who average 50 years of age ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]) and have lower-middle class backgrounds ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]). These professionals have typically spent part of their career teaching on the K–12 level ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]). Thirty-six percent are employed at research universities ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]), and they spend more time on scholarship when compared to their colleagues at comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>With the exception of a handful of investigations (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]), there has been relatively little research devoted to understanding the characteristics and work responsibilities of physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty as a separate subset of teacher educators. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>] conducted the most significant and heavily cited investigation to date; however, that was nearly 25 years ago. At that time, 56% were females, 67% were tenured, the mean salary was $23,000, the average workweek was 50.3 hours, PETE faculty published 3.7 articles in their careers, and 18.1% carried coaching assignments. Since the Metzler and Freeman investigation, substantial changes have occurred in teacher education in higher education, such as increased emphasis on scholarship and the addition of national beginning teacher standards ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]). As a result, an updated investigation is timely and warranted. Specifically, there is a need to compare the personal characteristics and work responsibilities of today's PETEs with those from 1985. A better understanding of the characteristics and work responsibilities of PETEs can ultimately enhance the preparation of physical education teachers.</p> <p>The purpose of the current investigation was to modify and validate an instrument for obtaining a comprehensive profile of PETE faculty in the United States. The aim was to invite every teacher educator throughout the nation to complete an online survey designed to elicit information related to (a) personal characteristics, (b) education and experience, (c) actual and preferred work responsibilities, (d) professional involvement, (e) perceptions concerning the current climate of teacher education, and (f) departmental demographics. Characterized by four separate stages, the investigation entailed refining a previously existing survey and confirming content validity, defining a participant pool, pilot testing the survey for reliability, and requesting eligible participants to complete the survey. The objective of this manuscript is to describe the processes employed to ensure the psychometric quality of the instrument and the procedures for obtaining an inclusive sample of teacher educators. It represents one of the first validated online surveys to obtain a comprehensive sample of teacher educators.</p> <p>Survey questions were refined or, in some cases, developed with an eye toward situating the results within an appropriate grounding framework. Career and occupational socialization theories guided the inclusion and refinement of questions. The former emphasizes lifelong learning and professional growth throughout one's career, and the latter addresses the significance of the occupational community and role identification ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]). Specifically, questions initially asked in the [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>] survey were analyzed by the current investigators using these theories to determine if they were compatible for understanding such things as actual and preferred work responsibilities and professional involvement of teacher educators. Although many questions were purely demographic and not written for purposes of advancing any particular theory, other questions were included as a means of further understanding participants' work preferences in relation to actual performance requirements.</p> <p>In relation to developing a valid and reliable survey instrument, several procedures were followed. According to the <emph>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]), validity refers to the "appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of specific inferences made from test scores" (p. 9), or in this case, survey data. To establish validity of the survey, categories related to content and internal structure ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]), were used as sources of evidence. The internal structure validity was ascertained by asking experts in the field to assess the importance of survey items, including the question format and wording (see Stage I below). The validity evidence source of internal structure was employed to determine the "degree to which individual items fit the underlying constructs" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>], p. 1160). More specifically, uni-dimensional items should be highly correlated, while multi-dimensional should not. Therefore, the organization of content into survey sections and subscales was guided by these definitions.</p> <p>Reliability is "the degree to which test scores are free from errors of measurement" ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>], p. 19). In this study, the investigators employed two specific methods to confirm reliability: (a) test–retest strategy with calculation of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and (b) scale and subscale internal consistency with calculation of Cronbach alpha.</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-3">METHODS/ANALYSIS/RESULTS BY STAGE</hd> <p>Four primary stages guided the development of the survey and eventual online distribution to participants. Each stage is discussed separately.</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-4">Stage I: Survey Development and Content Validity Evidence</hd> <p>The purpose of Stage I was to confirm the degree to which the survey adequately sampled the characteristics and workplace features of the PETE population. Thus, the initial stage of the investigation addressed content validity evidence (internal structure is addressed later in the manuscript). A three-step process was enacted to confirm content validity. First, the research team made initial contact with Dr. Michael W. Metzler from Georgia State University to discuss the potential for replicating portions of the original survey that he developed in collaboration with Mark S. Freedman. The original survey, which lacked formal confirmation of validity or reliability, included 7 thematic sections with 34 questions. After receiving enthusiastic endorsement from Metzler, conversation centered on ways in which the survey could be improved and modes of analysis could exceed the scope of the previous investigation. Specifically, Metzler suggested revising the survey in ways that would allow role responsibility comparisons between and among teacher educators who were located in different types of universities as classified by Carnegie.</p> <p>Second, four university professors and one graduate student met approximately once per week for several hours over the period of a year to discuss what questions from the original survey were most relevant to present-day teacher education and what additional questions needed to be added. In some cases, questions were retained verbatim from [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]). In other cases, questions were rewritten to reflect societal and relevant changes in teacher education, revised to elicit a more comprehensive and clear response from participants, or simply eliminated. After 7 rounds of revision, 45 questions were developed, and 6 of the 7 original sections were retained. While only a few of the questions from the original Metzler and Freedman survey were utilized verbatim, many were either incorporated into new questions, revised, or broken into several sub-questions.</p> <p>Third, the survey was forwarded to six experts in the field who had written extensively on issues related to teacher education and who provided their consent to participate. This panel, compromised of professors employed at different Carnegie level institutions, was asked to complete the survey, provide recommendations for improvement, and comment on the degree to which the survey accurately measured what it was intended to measure. Five of the six replied with relatively minor suggestions for improvement, along with the recommendation to proceed. Despite two reminders, the sixth expert never responded.</p> <p>After addressing the comments of the expert panel, the revised survey was forwarded to Metzler and one member of the expert panel for follow-up confirmation. This second check resulted in only minor additional revisions. Subsequently, it was converted into a web-based format, in which responses from the survey would be immediately stored in a database. Multiple functionality tests were run by graduate students through the use of repeated entry of pseudo data. In order to facilitate an appropriate participant response rate, Human Kinetics Publishers agreed to provide a discount to all participants who completed the survey and ten $50 gift certificates to be used as an added incentive. In exchange, their logo was placed on the final page of the online survey.</p> <p>As a result of the methods enacted in Stage I, the research team determined that the instrument had adequate content validity evidence that could shed light on the roles and responsibilities of teacher educators. Further, the revised version of the survey could now tease out differences between and among faculty employed at different types of Carnegie level institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-5">Survey Description</hd> <p>The final survey consisted of 45 primary questions and 119 sub-questions, for a total of 164 total questions. For example, Question #11 was considered a primary numerical question that contained five sub-questions under the section of the survey addressing education and experience:</p> <p>Question #11. Total number of years within each rank at all institutions in which you have been employed (complete all that apply):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. _____ Instructor/Lecturer/Teaching Associate</item> <p></p> <item> b. _____ Assistant Professor</item> <p></p> <item> c. _____ Associate Professor</item> <p></p> <item> d. _____ Professor</item> <p></p> <item> e. _____ Other</item> </ulist> <p>In another example, Question #20 was considered a primary Likert-scale question that contained 16 sub-questions under the section of the survey addressing actual and preferred work responsibilities (see Table 1).</p> <p>TABLE 1 Survey Question #20</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Question #20. Using the following scale, indicate your work preferences from least preferred to most preferred (1 = least preferred; 6 = most preferred; NA = not applicable)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Administrative (e.g., department head, area coordinator)</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Advising/mentoring graduate students (not related to research)</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Advising mentoring undergraduate students (not related to research)</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Advising/mentoring graduate students on research projects</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Advising/mentoring undergraduate students on research projects</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Conducting research studies (data collection, data analysis, scholarly writing)</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>External consulting</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>NCATE or other accreditation</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Professional service (professional committees and offices held)</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Public or community service</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Reading professional articles/journals</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Student teaching supervision</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching graduate students</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching undergraduate students</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>University service</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr><tr><td>Writing research grants</td></tr><tr><td>□ 1</td><td>□ 2</td><td>□ 3</td><td>□ 4</td><td>□ 5</td><td>□ 6</td><td>□ NA</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Each of the six sections of the survey contained a variety of types of questions. These included (a) categorical—5 primary questions, (b) Likert scale—3 primary questions, (c) multiple-choice—11 primary questions (d) numerical—22 primary questions, (e) open ended—3 primary questions, and (f) ordinal—1 primary question.</p> <p>Categorical questions asked participants to make a choice about a particular category in which they belonged. For example,</p> <p>Question 32. Gender:</p> <p>□ Male</p> <p>□ Female</p> <p>Likert-scale questions (see Table 1) required participants to use a six-point scale to provide an opinion that ranged from least to most preferred or important. Multiple-choice questions asked participants to select the best possible response from several options. For example,</p> <p>Question #12. Tenure status:</p> <p>□ Tenured</p> <p>□ Non-tenured but on a tenure track</p> <p>□ Non-tenured and not on a tenure track</p> <p>Numerical questions requested that participants provide a response to a question by using a number (see Question #11 above). Open-ended questions asked participants to provide an open response. For example, "If you were on a national commission to reform physical education teacher preparation programs, which three changes would you argue for most strenuously?" These questions were qualitatively coded, and there was no attempt to validate them. Finally, the one ordinal question on the survey requested participants to provide a rank ordering:</p> <p>Question #26. Rank the forms of research (funded and unfunded) you <emph>engage in</emph> most frequently. 1 indicates greatest involvement. If you do not engage in research, skip this question.</p> <p>_____ Quantitative (e.g., quasi-experimental, correlational)</p> <p>_____ Qualitative (e.g., ethnography, naturalistic, feminist)</p> <p>_____ Mixed method (qantitative and qualitative combined)</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-6">Stage II: Establishing a Participant Pool</hd> <p>Well into Stage I, the investigators initiated Stage II by searching the two most recent editions of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]), along with the internet resource, <emph>UnivSource</emph> (<ulink href="http://www.univsource.com/ussc.htm">http://www.univsource.com/ussc.htm</ulink>), to obtain the name of every institution of higher education in the United States and its respective Carnegie classification. Subsequently, the five researchers and seven additional graduate/advanced undergraduate student volunteers were assigned to locate these institutions on the internet and determine if teacher certification in physical education was offered. Of the 3,941 public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit institutions listed in the 2000 edition of <emph>Carnegie</emph>, 655 were determined to offer certification.</p> <p>A database containing the names of each institution, as well as the names and contact information for all individuals determined to be teacher educators, was created during Stage II and was constantly updated throughout all phases of the investigation. In cases where it was difficult to determine job responsibility, the department head or secretary was contacted by phone or e-mail and asked to provide that information. Of the 655 institutions that offered teacher certification, the names and contact information for teacher educators from 599 institutions were obtained. Despite numerous attempts by telephone or e-mail contact, the investigators were unable to obtain the correct contact information for teacher educators from 56 schools. Thus, those institutions were not included in the study. In total, the names of 1,035 teacher educators from 599 institutions were included in the database.</p> <p>The institutions of PETE faculty included in the database were classified by using the 1994 <emph>Carnegie Classifications</emph>: Research I = 39 (6.5%), Research II = 23 (3.8%), Doctoral Universities I = 33 (5.5%), Doctoral Universities II = 28 (4.7%), Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I = 230 (38.5%), Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities II = 35 (5.8%), Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) College I = 29 (4.8%), Baccalaureate Colleges II = 172 (28.7%), Associate of Arts College = 6 (1.0%), and Specialized Institutions = 4 (.6%). As per Metzler's suggestion, the investigators elected to use the 1994 classifications because they were more discriminating in their criteria than the more current classifications.</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-7">Stage III: Pilot Testing for Reliability/Scale Internal Structure</hd> <p>The purpose of this stage was to examine test–retest reliability and the subscale internal structure of the survey. A stratified sample (<emph>n</emph> = 96) of teacher educators was randomly drawn from the constructed database and recruited to participate in a test–retest pilot study. Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics of the characteristics of this group, as well as those in the final sample.</p> <p>TABLE 2 Characteristics of Test–Retest Participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Participant Characteristics</td><td>Test–Retest Sample (n = 40)</td><td>Final Sample (n = 501)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Male = 17</td><td>Male = 185</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Female = 19</td><td>Female = 261</td></tr><tr><td /><td>No report = 4</td><td>No report = 55</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td><italic>M</italic> = 51.08 (<italic>SD</italic> = 7.5)</td><td><italic>M</italic> = 48.73 (<italic>SD</italic> = 9.89)</td></tr><tr><td>Years in higher ed</td><td><italic>M</italic> = 18.64 (<italic>SD</italic> = 9.48)</td><td><italic>M</italic> = 16.93 (<italic>SD</italic> = 10.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Research I</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 5 (12.5%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 51 (10.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Research II</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 2 (5.0%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 23 (4.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Doctoral Universities I</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 3 (7.5%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 38 (7.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Doctoral Universities II</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 2 (5.0%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 30 (6.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Master's I</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 16 (40.0%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 193 (38.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Master's II</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 3 (7.5%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 36 (7.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Baccalaureate I</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 3 (7.5%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 20 (4.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Baccalaureate II</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 5 (12.5%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 104 (20.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Associate of Arts College</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 0 (0.0%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 4 (0.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Specialized Institutions</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 1 (2.5%)</td><td><italic>N</italic> = 2 (0.4%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Participants were contacted via e-mail and provided with a password and url address to the online survey. At least 14 days after completing the first survey, participants were sent a follow-up e-mail with new access directions to the survey site and invited to complete the survey again. If the survey was not completed a second time, an additional request was forwarded. Forty teacher educators, representing a 42% response rate (17 male, 19 female, 4 no report), completed the survey twice. The data from these individuals were used to determine the test–retest reliability of the instrument.</p> <p>Due to the confidential nature of the study, one researcher was responsible for the maintenance of the database while another was responsible for recruitment. Alphanumeric identification numbers generated for each participant were periodically compared to the database to confirm functionality. Additionally, weekly test submissions were conducted, and participants were encouraged to report functionality issues to the researchers via e-mail. If a submission error did occur, the participant was encouraged to complete the survey a second time or was provided with an electronic text file of the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-8">Reliability</hd> <p>With regard to reliability, consistency across two test administrations was calculated by using reliability coefficients according to the nature of variables. Because different types of primary and sub-questions were housed within each section of the survey, all responses within an individual section were summed for test 1 and test 2, and different statistical procedures were used to determine consistency based upon the type of question asked. Survey sections were subsequently compared using ICCs. Results from categorical questions are displayed as percentage averages and scored using intra-reporter agreement. Numerical and ordinal questions were scored using Pearson product. Likert-scale and multiple-choice questions were analyzed using Spearman rho. Table 3 displays the results for the test–retest reliability of the six sections of the survey based on the pilot sample: (a) personal characteristics, (b) education and experience, (c) actual and preferred work responsibilities, (d) professional involvement, (e) perceptions concerning the current climate, and (f) departmental demographics.</p> <p>TABLE 3 Test–Retest Reliability of Survey Sections (N = 40)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Section</td><td>Percent</td><td>Reliability Coefficient</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Personal characteristics</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Age ¤</td><td char=".">89</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Gender ¤</td><td char=".">90</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Salary and ethnicity<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.72<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td>Education and experience</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Education and experience<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.82<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Years experience<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.91<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td>Actual and preferred work responsibilities</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Conducting research<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.79<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Writing grants<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.84<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Reading journals<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.94<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Advising students' research<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.75<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Teaching<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.76<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Student teaching supervision<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.70<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> University service<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.75<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Administrative duties<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.91<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> NCATE service<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.86<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> External consulting<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.86<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Work preference<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.61<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td>Professional involvement</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Indicated involvement<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.54<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td>Perceptions concerning the current climate</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Perception of PE<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.60<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Future growth and improvement<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.65<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td>Department demographics</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Contract (months of service)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.92<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Professional advancement<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3001" /></td><td /><td char=".">.68<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Size of department<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Size of program<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3002" /></td><td /><td char=".">.86<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN3003" /></td></tr><tr><td> Masters ¤</td><td char=".">83</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Doctorate ¤</td><td char=".">91</td><td /></tr><tr><td>¤<italic>Note:</italic> Intra-Reporter Agreement.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3001" /><sup><italic>a</italic></sup>Spearman rho.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3002" /><sup><italic>b</italic></sup>Pearson product.</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3003" />*<italic>p</italic> <.01.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0066825767-9">Subscale Internal Structure</hd> <p>According to [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>], the characteristics of a workplace contribute to one's professional identity, thus creating unique sub-cultures across higher education. For example, teacher educators employed at research institutions spend more time on scholarship than do their colleagues at comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]). Although sometimes slow to change, these subcultures are organic in nature, as expectations of employment and standards of practice evolve over time.</p> <p>Because of the potential relationship between workplace characteristics (requirements for professional advancement and climate) and personal preferences (work preferences, professional involvement, change), five subscales were created and the relationship between the subscales examined. This enabled the investigators to examine the viability of workplace theory. The subscale of <emph>work preferences</emph> contained 16 sub-questions and was housed in the section of the survey addressing actual and preferred work responsibilities. The subscale of <emph>professional advancement</emph> contained 16 sub-questions and was located in the section of the survey focusing on department demographics. The subscale of <emph>professional involvement</emph> contained six sub-questions and was housed in the section of the survey related to professional involvement. The subscales of <emph>current climate</emph> (3 sub-questions) and <emph>change</emph> (11 sub-questions) were located in the section of the survey addressing perceptions concerning the current climate.</p> <p>As seen in Table 4, the analysis of the intercorrelations among the subscales revealed moderate relationships. A moderately high correlation was noted between work preferences and professional advancement, thus meeting the expectation that there would be alignment between job performance requirements and an individual's work preference. Additionally, there were moderate correlations between the subscales of change and work preference, change and professional advancement, and change and current climate. The subscales of involvement and current climate displayed a weak relationship. These results indicate that the items in the instrument fit the underlying construct by measuring the homogeneity of uni-dimensional items while differentiating between multi-dimensional constructs.</p> <p>TABLE 4 Intercorrelations Among the Subscales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Subscale</td><td>Work Preferences</td><td>Professional Advancement</td><td>Involvement</td><td>Current Climate</td><td>Change</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercorrelations among the subscales for pilot testing (<italic>N</italic> = 40)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Work preferences (16 sub-questions)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Professional advancement (16 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.60<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Involvement (6 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.24</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Current climate (3 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.36</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Change (11 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.56<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.68<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.37</td><td char=".">.76<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">.82<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.88<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.39</td><td char=".">.71<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.87<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td></tr><tr><td>Intercorrelations among the subscales for complete sample (<italic>N</italic> = 501)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Work preferences (16 sub-questions)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Prof. advancement (16 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.73<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Involvement (6 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Current climate (3 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Change (11 sub-questions)</td><td char=".">.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">.87<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.86<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.49<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td><td char=".">.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="TFN4001" /></td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN4001" />*<italic>p</italic> <.01.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0066825767-10">Stage IV: Survey Completion by Eligible Participants</hd> <p>With the psychometric qualities of the instrument confirmed, the survey was determined to be appropriate and consequently released in three phases to the remaining eligible participants. Upon receipt of a participant's response, his/her data were stored in Microsoft Access and subsequently SPSS v17.0 for data reduction and analysis. If an individual was unable to submit the survey online, he/she was asked to complete the survey as an attachment to an e-mail. These data were entered into the final database by hand. If participants did not respond after three e-mail reminders, surveys were forwarded by U.S. mail to those individuals for whom a mailing address could be located. Overall, 501 teacher educators completed the survey, resulting in a 48.4% total response rate (see Table 2 for direct comparison of test–retest group with final sample).</p> <p>Descriptive statistics of each test item revealed normal variability. For instance, the mean age of the final sample of participants was 48.73 with a standard deviation of ±9.9. To further support the extent of internal consistency of the subscales, Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for each subscale (.81 work preference,.85 professional development,.53 involvement,.69 current climate, and.70 change). These findings suggest that the survey minimized variance, which may be attributed to item difference, conditions of administration, or other potential influential factors.</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-11">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>In this study, data were collected to examine the psychometric quality of the survey instrument. The validity evidence sources of content and internal structure support the intent of the survey, particularly that the survey items examined the characteristics (i.e., work preferences, professional involvement, and change) and responsibilities of PETE professionals (i.e., requirements for professional advancement and climate). Associations between and among these characteristics help to shape the identity of individuals embedded in an educational setting. More specifically, high correlations between work preferences and the requirements of employment were expected and attained ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]). Lower associations between unrelated subscales, such as professional involvement and work preference, reflected item and instrument discrimination.</p> <p>In relation to reliability, the test–retest ICCs and Cronbach alpha analyses provided evidence of moderate, but acceptable levels of internal consistency. The test–retest ICCs demonstrated consistency with values ranging from.54 to.94 (see Table 3 for additional values). Two factors may have contributed to the moderate reliability: (a) the large number of test items and (b) the diversity of question format. The large number of test items provided the researchers more opportunities to confirm the internal consistency of the instrument, while the diversity of the question format allowed the investigators to ask questions in different ways. In addition, calculations of the Cronbach alpha for final samples were at or above acceptable levels.</p> <p>Although the purpose of this manuscript was not to address career or occupational theories in great depth (that discussion is reserved for future publications), it is important to emphasize that these theories were used when refining existing or developing new survey questions. For example, one goal of the research team was to determine the degree to which teacher educators perceived that they met the role responsibilities required of them in their current place of employment. Career development theory supports the notion that individuals influence their workplace environments, and those environments, in turn, influence individuals ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]). By utilizing the theory, the investigators were able to word survey questions in a way that would tease out differences between and among individuals employed at different levels of Carnegie institutions.</p> <p>The investigators accomplished their objectives by demonstrating validity and reliability of the instrument. The survey accurately identifies and discriminates between the current characteristics and work responsibilities of today's teacher educators and facilitates comparison between teacher educators today to those who completed the survey nearly 25 years ago ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0066825767-12">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The authors acknowledge the following individuals who spent countless hours assisting in the different stages of survey construction, participant location, and data analysis: Kristin Bolton, Lauren Madawick, Erin Nordmeyer, Julia Valley, Montana Willamon, and Martha Woods. The authors also express particular gratitude to Dr. Michael W. Metzler for his guidance and assistance during all stages of the project and to Darla Castelli for her significant contributions related to development of the online survey and data analysis. In addition, special thanks is extended to the expert panel and many teacher educators who completed the survey. Finally, the authors acknowledge Human Kinetics Publishers who provided discounts and gift certificates as incentives for participants to complete the survey.</p> <ref id="AN0066825767-13"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). 1999. The standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC: AERA Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beckman, T. J., Cook, D. A. and Mandrekar, J. N.2005. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching?. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20: 1159–1164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1994. A classification of institutions of higher education, Princeton, NJ: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref25" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2000. A Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, Menlo Park, CA: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L.2008. A future worthy of teaching for America. Phi Delta Kappan, 89: 730–733. 736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ducharme, E. and Agne, R.1989. "Professors of education: Uneasy residents of academe". In The professors of teaching: An inquiry, Edited by: Wisniewski, R. and Ducharme, E.67–86. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ducharme, E. and Kluender, M.1990. The RATE study: The faculty. Journal of Teacher Education, 44: 45–49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Goc Karp, G. and Williamson, K.1993. PETE faculty at work: The reciprocal nature of relationships between organizational structures and identity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12: 413–423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Lawson, H. A.1991. Future research on physical education teacher education professors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10: 229–248.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menges, R. J. and Austin, A. E.2001. "Teaching in higher education". In Handbook of research on teaching, 4th, Edited by: Richardson, V.1122–1156. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messick, S.1993. "Validity". In Educational measurement, 3rd, Edited by: Linn, R. L.Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, M. W. and Freedman, M. S.1985. Here's looking at you, PETE: A profile of physical education teacher education faculty. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4: 123–133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 1995. National standards for beginning physical education teachers, Reston, VA: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 2003. National standards for beginning physical education teachers, 2nd, Reston, VA: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 2009. National standards and guidelines for physical education teacher education, 3rd, Reston, VA: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson, J. L. and Fouad, N.A.1999. Career theory and practice: Learning through case studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, W.2001. "Faculty of education in a period of systematic reform". In Faculty work in schools of education: Rethinking roles and rewards for the twenty-first century, Edited by: Tierney, W.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.1984. "Occupational communities; culture and control in organizations". In Research in organizational behavior, Edited by: Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L.287–365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf-Wendel, L., Baker, B. D., Twombly, S., Tollefson, N. and Mahlios, M.2004. Who's teaching the teachers? Evidence from the national survey of postsecondary faculty and the survey of earned doctorates. American Journal of Education, 112: 273–300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods, M. L., Phillips, D. A. and Carlisle, C.1997. Characteristics of physical education teacher educators. The Physical Educator, 54: 150–159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimpher, N. L. and Sherrill, J. A.1996. "Professors, teachers and leaders in schools, colleges and departments of education". In Handbook of research on teacher education, Edited by: Sikula, J., Buttery, T. J. and Guyton, E.279–305. New York: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By KimC. Graber; Heather Erwin; Amelia Mays Woods; Jesse Rhoades and Weimo Zhu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ948136
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A National Profile of Teacher Education Faculty: The Construction of an Online Survey
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Graber%2C+Kim+C%2E%22">Graber, Kim C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erwin%2C+Heather%22">Erwin, Heather</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Woods%2C+Amelia+Mays%22">Woods, Amelia Mays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rhoades%2C+Jesse%22">Rhoades, Jesse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhu%2C+Weimo%22">Zhu, Weimo</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+in+Physical+Education+and+Exercise+Science%22"><i>Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science</i></searchLink>. 2011 15(4):245-256.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Profiles%22">Profiles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Educators%22">Teacher Educators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mail+Surveys%22">Mail Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Responsibility%22">Teacher Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Item+Analysis%22">Item Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Replication+%28Evaluation%29%22">Replication (Evaluation)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bayesian+Statistics%22">Bayesian Statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Validation%22">Program Validation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Descriptions%22">Program Descriptions</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1091367X.2011.594353
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1091-367X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Physical education teacher education faculty are responsible for educating the next generation of teachers. Despite their significant role, little is known about their characteristics, work preferences, or role responsibilities. The last comprehensive study undertaken to examine these variables was conducted approximately 25 years ago by Metzler and Freedman (1985). The purpose of the current investigation is to describe and validate an instrument for obtaining an updated comprehensive profile of physical education teacher education faculty in the United States. An online survey consisting of six sections was developed. To establish validity and confirm the psychometric quality of the instrument, test-retest was conducted with a subsample of 40 participants. In addition, Cronbach alpha analysis was conducted to provide support for the internal structure of the instrument. The survey accurately identifies and discriminates between the current characteristics and work responsibilities of today's teacher educators and facilitates comparison between teacher educators today to those who completed the survey nearly 25 years ago. (Contains 4 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 21
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ948136
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ948136
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1091367X.2011.594353
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 245
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Profiles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Educators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mail Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Item Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Replication (Evaluation)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bayesian Statistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Validation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A National Profile of Teacher Education Faculty: The Construction of an Online Survey
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Graber, Kim C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erwin, Heather
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Woods, Amelia Mays
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rhoades, Jesse
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhu, Weimo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2011
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1091-367X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 15
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1