use of expert teachers to improve education, The

The use of expert teachers to improve education is not a new concept. They have been used as mentors to student teachers, experimental subjects in supervision studies (Brandt, 1986) curriculum consultants, members of school design teams, and focal points of business and political pressures for educational improvement. What they have been too seldom used for is the determination of future needs for the profession, or education industry.

While surveys have been done on some specialty issues in education, such as the annual Phi Delta Kappa (Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1993) attitudinal study, the annual "Bracey Report," (Bracey, 1993) and the Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher (ASB Journal, Dec. 1992), the literature is devoid of studies using nationally recognized teachers of the year as experts for the purpose of predicting the areas of most needed change in the education industry by the turn of the century. Teachers of the year, individuals committed to excellence in education and recognized for their expertise, participated in this Delphi research project to determine priorities for change in education over the next ten years. Their opinions reflect opinions of teachers in elementary and secondary classrooms across America--those front-line individuals who are closest to the needs of education.

Purpose and Objectives

This research study, utilizing the Delphi technique, and undertaken to identify, categorize and prioritize those areas of schooling that are most in need of change in the next ten years. A secondary and integrated purpose was to establish the usage of identified expert teachers as the ones most able to answer questions related to education. The specific objectives were:

1. To determine which areas in education that will require change over the next ten years.

2. To determine the major change issues, identified by a panel of master teachers, in education over the next ten years.

3. To determine the priority areas for change in education over the next ten years.

Methodology

The Delphi technique, developed by the RAND Corporation in the early 1950s to predict future defense needs (Cope, 1981), was employed in this study to obtain opinions from teaching experts about areas in education that are most in need of change over the next ten years. Delphi has been implemented across discipline areas, and in education as early as 1971 (Cyphert and Gant, 1971), as a means of obtaining opinions from persons without physically bringing them together.

Weaver (1971) explains the benefits of the Delphi as a research technique:

Although Delphi was originally intended as a forecasting tool, its more promising educational application seems to be in the following areas: (1) a method for studying the process of thinking about the future, (b) a pedagogical tool or teaching tool which forces people to think about the future in a more complex way than they ordinarily would, and (c) a planning tool which members and constituencies of an organization can use. (p. 271)

By providing for the systematic solicitation and collection of opinions, the Delphi enables researchers to gain a consensus from a group of knowledgeable people about a particular topic without the time and expense involved in brining them together.

Teachers of the Year, identified by the Council of Chief State School Officers (State School Superintendents of Public Instruction), were asked to participate in a three-round Delphi process designed to determine the educational areas requiring the most change. Procedural steps areas requiring the most change. Procedural steps were as follows:

1. Round 1: Participants were asked to generate responses to the question, "What are the areas requiring the most change in education over the next ten years?" Round 1 questionnaire responses were categorized according to focus to generate the Round 2 instrument.

2. Round 2: Participants were asked to rate the categorized responses and rank the major change focus areas in the Round 2 instrument. Once returned, descriptive statistics for the group ratings were calculated: interquartile range (middle 50% of all scores), (b) median, and (c) mean.

3. Round 3: Participants were asked to rank the same change focus areas as they did in the Round 2 instrument, but this time descriptive information about how the group responded, as a whole, was provided. Participating teachers were asked to review each item, consider the group response and then re-rate the items taking the information into account.

The three-round Delphi process enabled participants to generate their own opinions about necessary change areas, prioritize suggested change areas generated by themselves and other master teachers, and then to finalize their views based upon consideration of the entire group's opinions. This process, engendering the dynamics of effective group interactions, enabled researchers to gain a consensus from expert participants in diverse geographical locations about needed changes in schooling for the twenty-first century.

Participants

Participants for this study were the 1992 State Teachers of the Year as identified by the Council of Chief State School Officers (State School Superintendents of Public Instruction). The original population invited to participate in this research endeavor consisted of a total of fifty-four teachers of the year (fifty state teachers of the year, Washington D.C., and three U.S. Territories--Puerto Rico, American Somoa, and Mariannas Island).

Twenty-three of the fifty-four teachers agreed to serve on the panel of experts and completed all three rounds of the study. Table 1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of the teachers who participated. (Table 1 omitted)

Approximately half of the participants were male and half female; an overwhelming 83% of the participants held a master's degree or higher. All of the teachers had a minimum of 11 years teaching experience with eleven teachers (48%) reporting over twenty years of teaching experience. A little over half (61%) of the respondents were currently teaching in secondary schools and the remaining teachers in elementary schools (39%) with student populations ranging from 20 to 2500 students.

Results of the Study

The Round 1 questionnaire asked participants to respond the question, "What are the areas requiring the most change in education in the next ten years." The twenty-three participants generated statements concerning changes that they considered necessary for schooling in the twenty-first century. Responses were reviewed by teacher educators, change needs/priorities identified and then categorized according to change focus. In all, 57 individual change statements were identified focusing on 11 major issues for change in education.

For Round 2, participants were asked to rate the 57 statements on a Likert scale as to the degree of need (1 = No Need; 2 = Low Need; 3 = Medium Need; 4 = High Need; 5 = Very High Need) for change each statement represents. Additionally, they were asked to rank the 11 major change focus areas to determine which categories of change are most important--which categories should be addressed before all others.

Table 2 illustrates the top five statements assigned the highest need ratings of the participants in Round 2. (Table 2 omitted) The statement regarded as requiring the most change as determined by participants in Round 2 was the need for increased parental involvement (m = 4.62) with increased support for teachers perceived as the next highest need statement (m = 4.43).

Table 3 illustrates the ranking order of the 11 major categories for change as assigned by the participants in Rounds 2 and 3. (Table 3 omitted) The number one change area indicated by Round 1 respondents was the professional development of teachers (preservice and inservice). Teacher experts ranked the need for change in curriculum and student expectations as the second most important category with parent involvement and school management tying for third place. Of the eleven categories, special populations was perceived as the one requiring the least change for meeting twenty-first century education needs.

Round 3 required that the participants again review the 11 major change categories; however, this time they were provided with information as to how the entire group ranked the categories. They were asked to re-rate those categories as to their importance based on consideration of the groups' opinions. Participants could keep their prior ranking or reassign a ranking. As is illustrated in Table 3, the final ranking of the 11 major categories for change remained the same as in Round 2 although the group means varied. A group consensus was met with teacher education/professional development perceived as the number one area requiring change over the next ten years.

Implications for Education

Through the utilization of the Delphi technique, this study determined the priority change areas, as perceived by Teachers of the Year, In education over the next ten years. The fact that expert teachers identified the preparation of teachers as the highest need should be considered a wake-up call to colleges of education and staff development officers in school districts. While the expert teachers have prospered (skill wise) in their profession, it is not clear that all teachers have the same self-improvement abilities. It is more likely that the mainstream teacher will need to be developed with greater skill and relevance, either through their college program, or in-house through their school district training or development program.

The other major implication that came to light through this study was the mid-range ranking to salary, facility, and other funding related concerns. Although the expert teacher perceives funding as a necessary change area, it is not their foremost concern. Some might contend that an expert teacher is able to achieve in spite of arguably low education funding and is able to overcome any special challenge this offers. It could also be argued that with the development of more teachers of "expert" caliber that funding need not be increased in order to obtain expert teaching for the children.

References

American School Board Journal, (1992). What hinders learning? Here's what teachers say. 179(12), 15.

Bracey, G.W. (1993). The third Bracey Report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 104-117.

Brandt, R.S. (1986). On the expert teacher. A conversation with David Berliner. Educational Leadership, 44(2), 4-9.

Cope, R.W. (1981). Education 1990: A delphi study of possible future problems or issues for public education in Missouri (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1981). Dissertation Abstract International, 43(06), 1761A.

Cyphert, F.R., & Gant (1971). The delphi technique: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan, 52(5), 272-273.

Elam, S.M., Rose, L.C., & Gallup, A.M. (1993). The 25th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 137-157.

Weaver, W.T. (1971). The delphi forecasting method. Phi Delta Kappan, 52(5), 267-272.

Copyright Project Innovation Fall 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved