How Do College Mathematics Instructors and High School Teachers Recognize Professional Obligations of Mathematics Teaching When Making Instructional Decisions?

• In Event: The Role of the Professional Obligations for Mathematics Teaching in Mathematics Teacher Education

Abstract

Purpose. We present our findings on how teachers’ recognition of professional obligation differs depending on the institutional environments in which they work.

Methods. To investigate the difference, we compared two groups of instructors – 471 high school mathematics teachers and 239 college mathematics instructors, both of which were recruited nationally – in the extent to which they recognize professional obligations when evaluating the appropriateness of certain instructional actions teachers could do in classrooms.

Data Sources. Using the four professional obligations conceptualized by Herbst and Chazan (2012), we ask questions, such as, “Are college instructors more or less likely than high school teachers to agree with instructional decisions that (1) are justified by the need to attend to disciplinary considerations?” (disciplinary obligation); (2) are justified by the need to attend to the individual needs of students?” (individual obligation); (3) are justified by the need to attend to social expectations in schooling?” (interpersonal obligation); and (4) are justified by the need to attend to expectations of institutions such as the department or the school?” (institutional obligation).

Data Analysis. To operationalize these questions, we use four scenario-based instruments, one for each obligation. Each instrument consists of multiple items, each of which presents a scenario where a teacher deviates from his or her plan for a reason related to the obligation under consideration. After viewing each scenario, participants rate to what extent they agree with a statement that indicates the teacher should not have deviated from the plan. The responses were recorded on a 6-point Likert scale. 

Using the collected data, we estimated the degree of teachers’ agreement on departing from the plan in terms of a single scale for each of the obligations at stake. A series of multiple-group item factor analysis was conducted to ensure the comparability of the latent factor means and variances for each obligation between high school teachers and college instructors.

Findings. The comparison analyses suggested that college instructors recognized the institutional obligation more than high school teachers, whereas they recognize the obligation towards individual students to a lesser degree than high school teachers. One explanation could be that college instructors have higher expectations on college students’ ability in managing their own emotional issues than high school students. Other findings are also interpreted based on the differences between the contexts of high school and college mathematics instructions.

Significance. The findings of this study should make an important contribution to the understanding of the professional position of mathematics teachers according to the institutions they belong to. While mathematics instruction at different education levels have some common characteristics, our data shows that there are differences across levels. This understanding contributes to explain instructional actions as more than an expression of individual resources: Indeed, the institutional position of instructors come along with obligations that also account for the variability in teachers’ decisions. These findings can also help us better understand how the environment impacts teacher decision-making.

Authors

• Inah Ko, University of Michigan

• Patricio G. Herbst, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Mollee Schultz, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor