(Note: this page prints best in landscape format.)
One Year Follow-up Survey
In May 2006 WIDE surveyed 933 course participants from six-session 2005 courses
to learn how their teaching might have
changed in the year following participation.
As with last year's follow-up survey, we obtained very favorable findings, most of which held true
regardless of individual demographic characteristics. We also learned a bit about
conditions within schools and about which of these factors seemed most important in supporting or hindering
teachers' application of Teaching for Understanding.
Sample Characteristics. Our survey drew a response rate of 24% (224 of 933). This was fairly high
for this type of online survey, especially since no incentive was offered. In most respects
the sample was fairly representative of the enrollment for 2005. It contained a comparable fraction of
US vs. foreign educators and of teachers vs. those in other positions, and it contained a fairly representative mix
from different levels of experience, subject areas, and grade levels. The notable exception was that
the survey drew a higher proportion of learners who had gone on to take our Coach Development Course
(21% versus 8%). However, adjusting for this would only exert a slight effect on the results presented below.
Effect on Practice. For each of four questions about improvements in professional
practice, 91% to 97% of respondents
found that the course had led to some improvement. This improvement was most commonly seen as "significant"
and not infrequently as "dramatic." Responses to the broadest of these questions
are summarized in the chart below, broken down by region and years of teaching experience.
In their comments, educators frequently described an enhanced ability to rethink, reevaluate, or reflect on
their practice as a result of the program. They talked about thinking in new ways about
the structure of their lessons, students' learning processes, or even the nature of learning.
One person commented,
" [...] I believe that I have a clearer understanding of what I want my students to learn
and understand; as well as a better feel for how to assess it."
Many found that their learning helped them make practical improvements.
For example, "I'm bolder in experimentation in class, so I've made
lessons more interesting.
Teaching methods are more varied, including role-playing, script-writing, and individual and group
writing assignments."
Effect on Students. 97% of respondents indicated that their participation in the course had led
to improvements in their students' understanding. Again, most (69%) considered this improvement
either "significant" or "dramatic." 94% noted improvements in the quality of student work,
with, again, a majority reporting "significant" or "dramatic" changes.
Increased student engagement was a prevalent theme in participants' remarks. One teacher said simply,
"Students are more engaged during lessons." Another wrote,
"Classroom participation increased, students became more motivated and we all
enjoyed the classes more. Student projects reflected more student initiative, and increased growth
in understanding of concepts presented. I couldn't ask for more!!"
Participant comments tended to form a pattern whereby they saw greater student engagement
leading to more higher-order thinking, which in turn led to better quality work.
Lesson Design. 80% of respondents
characterized Teaching for Understanding as either "quite important"
or "extremely important" in their lesson design at this stage in their careers.
Information gleaned about teachers' lesson
plans showed a large and statistically significant1 shift towards constructivist classroom activities
since the start of the WIDE course (4-item scale, alpha = .8, d = .8, p < .0005).
Moreover, such an increase was not seen
in teachers' use of more traditional classroom activities (3-item scale, alpha = .8, d = .1,
p > .3). Details about these two types of activities and their pre-post change
are presented in the chart below.
Attitudes Toward Instructional Collaboration. A set of interrelated survey
questions (4-item scale, alpha = .9) showed that, on average,
attitudes toward collaboration with other educators became significantly more positive
in the period after the course (d = .4, p < .001). Two notable collaboration-related
survey items and their pre-post changes are displayed below.
Teaching Others About These Ideas. Past surveys conducted on a smaller scale had suggested that
many program participants went on to conduct workshops or trainings centering on WIDE World
course content. In this larger study, 42% of respondents had conducted such
workshops. Admittedly, many of these educators
were graduates of our Coach Development Course, but even among the others,
35% reported leading these types of trainings. (The percent was lower among teachers [31%] than among
other educators [75%]). All in all, this finding and those about collaboration presented above
speak to the benefits of WIDE courses for educators looking to build
a professional community, online or off-line, that supports the sharing of ideas.
This was another important theme in the comments submitted by these 224 participants.
One told us that "[My WIDE coursework] has helped me make suggestions to other teachers."
Another related that
"It has given me the opportunity to explore teaching for understanding deeply with my colleagues.
It allowed us to effectively plan some professional learning experiences for teachers within
their exploration of technology."
Demographic and Contextual Factors
We thoroughly examined the statistical outcomes
described above to see how well they held up for different types of participants
and for those in different types of school environments. For each outcome, we disaggregated
the data by at least the three variables of job role, grade level, and region (US or foreign).
For Effect on Practice and Effect on Students, we conducted additional analyses in which
we considered teaching experience; experience
as a mentor/coach; experience in group leadership; precourse attitudes toward
collaboration, computers, and online communication; and precourse inclination to use constructivist
or more traditional classroom methods. Disaggregation revealed no substantial differences in the results --
they were positive for all of these subgroups. We did find that several outcomes were slightly more favorable,
on average, for those with greater group leadership experience.
We also asked participants about nine aspects of their school environments that might have
supported or hindered their application of new ideas in lesson design. We then checked
to see whether the favorable results presented above differed according to such contextual factors.
These factors included
the role played by standardized tests; supports or barriers due to existing curriculum; supervisors'
and peers' knowledge of Teaching for Understanding; supervisors' involvement in one's work;
and peers' attitudes toward experimentation in lesson design.
Of these nine factors, we found only one or perhaps two that showed a substantial relationship to
the variables described above. There was a tendency for teachers to report TfU as slightly more important
in their lesson design if they felt that their colleagues either strongly encouraged
or strongly discouraged experimentation. (This showed up as a quadratic
relationship: R2 = .06, p = .001.)
But more importantly, the course's Effect on Practice was clearly tied up with
perceptions of supervisors' involvement in participants' work. The more favorably
participants felt about their supervisors' involvement, the greater on average
was the reported impact of the course (in a three-variable model,
partial r = .36, p < .0005).
-- August 6, 2006
1While, strictly speaking, inferential statistics are only applicable in the context of
random sampling,
we follow convention in reporting significance levels as convenient yardsticks even for nonrandom samples.
See Michael Oakes's (1986) Statistical inference: A commentary for social and behavioral sciences
(NY: Wiley).