Measuring One Aspect of Teachers’ Affective States: Development of the Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Discontentment Scale

Abstract

The aim of this research is to describe the development of the Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Discontentment Scale, an instrument that measures the discontentment that arises in teachers as they recognize a mismatch between their own pedagogical beliefs and goals and their actual classroom practices. From a conceptual change perspective, we explore the meaning of pedagogical discontentment and discuss its role in shaping teachers’ receptivity to messages of reform. We present an instrument that can be used to measure teachers’ pedagogical discontentment, an instrument that will allow science educators to better describe the affective states of teachers as they enter professional development experiences. The items for the initial instrument were derived from a series of interviews with practicing teachers; from these interviews, a group of 42 items were designed around a group of five subscales. The final instrument, revised after two rounds of field testing, includes 21 multiple‐choice items clustered around six subscales (subscales derived from interviews with science teachers). The processes used to develop the items and to refine instrument are discussed. Uses for this instrument to inform professional development experiences are explored as well as implications.

Essential Aspects of Science Teacher Professional Development

“…(1) teachers' sense of their ability to teach science in general-that is, their general science teaching selfefficacy through the use of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI; Riggs & Enochs, 1990); (2) teachers' perceptions of their inquiry teaching abilities-namely, their science inquiry teaching self-efficacy through the Teaching Science as Inquiry Instrument (TSI; Smolleck et al, 2006); (3) teachers' fundamental beliefs about science teaching and learning-through the use of the Teacher Belief Inventory (TBI; Luft & Roehrig, 2007); and (4) teachers' state of dissatisfaction with their current teaching practices-specifically, their pedagogical discontentment through the Science Teachers' Pedagogical Discontentment Scale (Southerland et al, 2012).…”

Construct Validity and Reliability Measures of Scores from the Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Discontentment (STPD) Scale

“…Having only one component, namely "Science teachers' pedagogical discontentment (STPD)" indicates that the teachers in Saudi Arabia perceive their pedagogical discontentment as one-dimensional mismatch with their pedagogical goals and teaching practice. In the original instrument (Southerland et al, 2012), there were six distinct dimensions in the measure. The potential reason for one-dimensional result could be that Arabic science teachers might have less experience in professional development towards alternative Hu and Bentler (1999) 557 teaching methods such as inquiry-based science education as opposed to their American counterparts.…”

“…The quantification of the construct pedagogical discontentment was achieved via means of developing the STPD instrument by a group of researchers (Southerland et al, 2012). For the development and evaluation of the instrument, the researchers worked with practicing science teachers from all over the U.S.…”

“…While ensuring the construct validity, the researchers recruited 171 teachers from 12 states around the U.S. Similar to the initial sample, the teachers in the second sample represented a variety of teaching and personal characteristics in terms of gender, grades taught, age and teaching experience (Southerland et al, 2012). Based on the data collected, the construct validity of the scale was evaluated via factor analysis.…”

“…Specifically, there were two research questions to address. First, what structure underlies responses to the measure-that is, does the (Arabic) structure correspond to that observed by Southerland et al (2012) (in the US context)? Second, are scores on the STPD scale as a whole and as per each factor category reliable well enough to be used for future research?…”