The career paths of STEM teachers in high need schools

1. The career paths of STEM teachers in high need schools Allison L. Kirchhoff Frances Lawrenz Anica Bowe March 21, 2010 NARST Conference

2. Background • Teacher quality affects student achievement (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 1999; National Research Council, 2000; Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain, 2005) • Local differences in teacher quality exist • Under-qualified teachers are more common in low income schools with high minority student populations (Murphy, DeArmond & Guin, 2003; Scafidi, Sjoquist & Stinebrickner, 2005) • 40% of low income students are taught by under-qualified mathematics teachers (Ingersoll, 2008) • High attrition rates in high need schools compared to low need schools (Ingersoll, 2001; Lankford, Loeb & Wyckoff, 2002)

3. Background • Understanding recruitment and retention issues require understanding the career decisions made by teachers • Why teach? (e.g. Lortie, 1975) • Interpersonal, service-oriented, family/time friendly • Where to teach? (e.g. Boyd et al., 2003) • Why remain in teaching? (e.g. Ingersoll, 2001; Weiss, 1999) • Studies have begun to link career decisions with career moves • Case studies of select groups (e.g. Rinke, 2009; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003)

4. Purpose • To address the recruitment and retention problems of high need schools by investigating the career decisions and career moves of STEM teachers in high need schools • Construct a grounded theory model representing career paths • What are Noyce scholars’ reasons for the decisions made on the career path of becoming and remaining teachers in high need schools?

5. Research Design—Context • Noyce Scholarship Program • Awards funding to STEM majors or professionals to become teachers in high need schools • Scholars agree to teach for two years in high need districts for every year of funding • Actual implementation of Noyce program at teacher education institutions varies • “High need districts” • Defined according to FRL rates, percentage of teachers without minimal qualifications and teacher attrition rates

6. Research design—Data collection • Data collection • In-depth, semi-structured interviews • Protocol modified based on participants’ current situations • Protocol modified throughout data collection as ongoing analysis revealed areas of interest • Interviews audio recorded and transcribed verbatim • Over 250 single-spaced pages of transcripts

7. Research Design—Participants • 38 past and present Noyce scholars • 50% teaching in high need schools beyond Noyce commitment • 26% were not teaching • 66% had 3-4 yrs of experience; skewed toward less experience • 37% were career changers • 35% held leadership positions in their schools • 52% mathematics teachers • 80% high school teachers

8. Research Design—Analysis • Strauss & Corbin (1990) grounded theory methodology • A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents…One does not begin with a theory, then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge (p. 23). • Coding in Nvivo 8.0 • 1) Open coding • Breaking down and labeling the raw data • Categorizing, defining properties and dimensions • 2) Axial coding • Determining relationships between codes, categories • 3) Selective coding • Validating relationships, finalizing model, searching and accounting for discrepant data

9. Limitations Selection bias Small numbers of certain groups of scholars (e.g. left teaching in high need schools for other schools), tentative associated findings Not longitudinal Inexperienced sample

10. Findings—Research question What are Noyce scholars reasons for the decisions made on the career path of becoming and remaining teachers in high need schools?

11. Findings service work summary

12. Findings—Choosing teaching Major reasons: altruistic, service-oriented desires Desire to “make a difference” and “give back” …a big social commitment. When I was working full time in laboratory I would volunteer tutoring. It was sort of a United Way program that was trying to reach out to the female and minority students who teachers thought were capable but just needed extra support and I’m just a huge, huge believer that education is the way for women to take care of themselves... (Cara) Well, because I was a high needs student. I’m from—originally from Detroit, Michigan, and I was an at-risk, high needs student, so kind of like, decided to help someone that was in my shoes. (Sean)

13. Findings—Choosing teaching Desire to make a difference Desire to give back Aiden Garrett Lucy Melanie Not teaching Dirk Emma Sean Cindy Celeste Teaching, HN, 1-6 yrs. Jason Amy Brenda Jessica Teaching, HN, 3-6 yrs.

14. Findings—Choosing teaching

15. Findings—Role of Content Prep There seems to be a lack of knowledge for what science is and it seems like [the students are] not prepared. Some students will say to me, well I want to be a dentist, or I want to be (inaudible), but they say they don’t really like science, but that’s a science. You might not think of it like that, but I have a love for science and I wanted to use it. (Karen)

16. Findings—Role of content prep • Content preparation was related to the school setting • Courses taught • Leadership opportunities • Impacted job satisfaction and career moves • I think if I would have had maybe, I taught geometry which I enjoyed teaching. I felt like that challenged me but I also taught a class which was called applied math. And that class was sort of frustrating to me that it was basically like another way for students to get an extra math credit in high school and I mean, sometimes I would, literally, be teaching seniors how to add integers… (Stacy)

17. Findings—Role of content prep

18. Summary—Major findings • Who chooses teaching and why is critical • Difference between “desire to make a difference” and “desire to give back” • Role of previous career • STEM teachers’ career paths are highly complex

19. Implications—Contributions to future research • Model is rich with relationships to explore further • Construct surveys using categories, properties and dimensions • Longitudinal, quantitative studies • More nuanced studies of role of motivation to teach • “desire to make a difference”; pathway of career changers; what informs desire to “give back” and “make a difference” • Compare findings with other groups of teachers

20. Acknowledgements Research funded by NSF Grant REC0514884. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

21. Thank you! Questions?

22. Research Design—Analysis • Open Coding • “The data are broken down into discrete parts, closely examined, compared for similarities and differences” (p. 62) • Categorizing • “The process of grouping concepts that seem to pertain to the same phenomena…categories have conceptual power because they are able to pull together around them other groups of concepts or subcategories” (p. 65)

23. Research Design—Analysis • Defining properties and dimensions • Properties: “…attributes or characteristics of a phenomenon (category)” (p. 70) • Dimensions: “represent locations of a property along a continuum” (p. 69) Past work experience

24. Research Design—Analysis • Axial coding • “Data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories” (p. 97) • Exploring relationships: • Researcher sensitivity to data; theoretical memos • Discussions with Noyce evaluation team and PI • Tools in NVivo