Development of a Practical Intelligence Test for Teachers

1. Development of a Practical Intelligence Test for Teachers The 6th International Conference on Education Research Hosted by Education Research Institute, Seoul National University Oct. 20, 2005, Hoam Faculty House, Convention Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea Sun-Geun Baek, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Education, Seoul National University (E-mail: dr100@snu.ac.kr) Hyunsoo Lim, Ph.D., Researcher, Education Research Institute, Seoul National University (E-mail: soo2@snu.ac.kr)

2. Contents CONTENTS • RESEARCH PURPOSES • PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE • METHODS • RESULTS • CONCLUSIONS • DISCUSSIONS

3. Research Purposes • Teachers confront many problematic situations in school. • It is very important to check how well each teacher cope with those problematic situations effectively and pertinently. • The purpose of this study is to develop a Practical Intelligence Test for Teachers ( PITT ), based on the theory of practical intelligence ( PI ). Research Purposes

4. Practical Intelligence Definition Ability to cope with conflictive or problematic situations effectively and pertinently in daily life or on the job. Features • Domain-specificity • Tacit, procedural, methodological knowledge • Judgments of practical experts • In relation to behavioral strategies • Difficulty in transition inter-domains. • Changeable with time and experience.

5. PI for Teachers Teachers’ ability to cope with conflictive or problematic situations while performing their job. Definition PI for teachers Literature reviews and interviews 7 Sub-domains 3 Behavioral Strategies

6. PI for Teachers 7 Sub-domains 3 Behavioral Strategies (BS) • Instruction • Guidance • Administrative work • Relationship with students • Relationship with parents • Relationship with peers • Self-development • Self-adjustment: BS that cope with problematic or conflict situations by changing or sacrificing oneself. • Restructuring: BS that cope with problematic or conflict situations by seeking a change from others or improvement of given conditions. • Indifference: BS that avoid or ignore problematic or conflict situations by not caring of those situations.

7. Methods: Procedure Item analysis-modification & supplement Literature review & interviews Pilot test Developing ‘PITT’ items Item selection 1st experts council The complete form of PITT Item analysis-modification & supplement 2nd experts council Analysis & conclusion <Figure 1> Procedure of Development of PITT

8. Methods Developing items using 2 dimensional table with 7 Sub-domains & 3 Behavioral Strategies

9. Methods: Example & Scoring Laura just started her job as a teacher at JJ Middle school. After the 1st semester, she came to think there were some problems in her instruction method, and she worries how to improve it. What would you do if you are in Laura’s situation? Example • I read books regarding effective instruction to improve it by myself. (Self-Adjustment) • I just wait without any trials because my teaching method will be improved with time.(Indifference) • I ask for help to other teachers who have good teaching methods in order to improve mine. (Restructuring) Scoring • 55 education experts, i.e. superintendents rate 1, 2, and 3 according to the order of priority among three options in each item. • Each option’s mean score of 55 education experts’ ratings is used as a score of each option.

10. Methods: Subjects Sample Size of Pilot Test and PITT Main Test

11. Results (I): Descriptive statistics Descriptive Statistics of PITT (N=278)

12. Results (II): Reliability Test-retest Reliability & Cronbach’s Alpha These coefficients suggest that PITT has a reasonable reliability.

13. Results (III): Construct validity Correlation Analysis : PITT Score & 7 Sub-domain Scores (N=278) ( *p<.05, **p<.01 )

14. Results (IV): Construct validity Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using AMOS Program: Model of PI for Teachers Instruction e1 0.67 Guidance e2 0.54 Administrative work e3 0.31 PI for teachers Relationship with students e4 0.33 0.32 Relationship with parents e5 0.14 Relationship with peers e6 0.44 Self-development e7

15. Results (V): Construct validity Confirmatory Factor Analysis : Fit Indices (N=278) GFI> .95 AGFI > .95 NNFI > .90 RMSEA < .05 The model that was suggested in this study fits very well to the empirical data.

16. Results (VI): Difference according to experiences PITT scores were distributed as V-shape. PITT scores differed according to teaching experiences (N=278). < Reasons ??? > • Commitment to job • Attitude • Childcare, etc. 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21- F-value(5.00, p<.001)

17. Results (VII) Difference in BS according to Teaching Experiences (N=278) (Differences in ‘Restructuring’ & ‘Indifference’ according to teaching experiences.) Indifference(12.00) Restructuring(9.96) Self-adjustment(0.96) (F-value) 6-10 0-5 11-15 16-20 21-

18. Results (VIII) : Profile Analysis Instruction Teacher B Self-development Guidance Relationship with peers Administrative work Teacher A Relationship with parents Relationship with students

19. Conclusions Empirical data strongly supports the conceptual framework of the seven sub-domains suggested in this study. PITT scores differed according to the teaching experiences. 1 2

20. Discussions PITT will be a basis for future research on PI for teachers due to a good reliability and acceptable validity. (PI for teachers can be studied on the relationship with academic intelligence.) This study has a limitation on that the subjects consisted only of middle school teachers. ( Studies on PI for teachers with other school levels are necessary.) 1 2

21. Thank youvery much !!!