Microsoft Word - Nixon_Packard_Dam_Teacher_Contract_Renewal_What_Matters_to

Teacher Contract Non-Renewal:

What Matters to Principals?

This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of

Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a significant contribution to the

scholarship and practice of school administration and K-12 education.

Andy Nixon

University of West Georgia

Abbot Packard

University of West Georgia

Margaret Dam

Walden University

This quantitative study investigated the relationship between teacher dispositions, subject

content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and reasons that school principals

recommend non-renewal of teachers’ contracts. Nearly 2,000 school principals in 13 states

completed an emailed survey.

In deciding whether to non-renew a teacher contract, principals reported that they

observed most a lack of pedagogical content knowledge from ineffective teachers and that they

prioritized the importance of instructional skills. Ethical issues received greatest importance.

Principals identified teacher integrity, honesty, and dependability as important teacher

dispositions.

The study’s findings are important for the planning of teacher and principal professional

development initiatives and hiring selection decisions. Knowing how to accurately ascribe

variance in student learning has potential for improving student outcomes, particularly with the

emphasis on value-added teacher evaluations.

NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, Vol. 11, No. 1– May, 2016

Quality teaching is the crucial component needed for student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006;

Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2007; Marzano, 2006). More specifically, both subject content

knowledge (SCK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) are essential components of

successful teaching. What is less clear, however, is the association among teacher contract non-

renewals, teacher dispositions, subject content knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge.

In this quantitative study, nearly 2,000 school principals in thirteen states responded in three

general areas: a) ineffective teacher behaviors, b) the importance of specific dispositions, and c)

criteria for teacher contract non-renewal.

Teachers enter the teaching profession with at least four knowledge bases: their

disposition, knowledge of pedagogy, subject matter knowledge, and context. One presumption is

that teachers begin professional preparation with some level of subject content knowledge and as

they learn to teach they transform and begin to develop pedagogical content knowledge. More

than 50 years ago, James Conant (1963) argued that strong subject content knowledge with

limited exposure to pedagogical knowledge constitutes a sufficient basis to prepare teachers. A

search of the literature finds no shortage of supporters advocating the deregulation of teacher

certification to allow college graduates who lack course work in the field of education to qualify

for teaching certificates based on their content knowledge alone (Hess & Finn, 2004; Podgursky,

2005). Podgursky (2005) confidently reported, “the most basic academic requirement is

knowledge of the relevant discipline” (p. 75).

Subject Content Knowledge

Subject content knowledge refers to the concepts and constructs within an academic field and the

relationships among them. Subject content knowledge includes knowledge of a subject area or

discipline as well as knowledge of the substantive and syntactic structures of the discipline

(Schwab, 1964). Shulman (1986) stated that subject matter knowledge “is the comprehension of

the subject appropriate to a content specialist” (p. 26). This view includes conceptualizations of

how the field is organized and questions which guide inquiry. Without knowledge of the

aforementioned structures within a field, teachers may misrepresent and impact the level of

classroom discourse.

Arzi and White (2008) found that the “required school curriculum is the single most

significant factor affecting teacher content knowledge” (p. 242). This impact manifests itself

through the curriculum that teachers previously learned as school students and the curriculum

that teachers currently teach. These factors determine priorities for new subject matter learning.

Content knowledge does not begin or end in the university, but rather is a complex interactive

process.

Subject content knowledge is often measured by the number of university subject-matter

course credits for both pre and in-service teachers (Arzi & White, 2008). Yet, this characteristic

of university-based teacher subject content learning has modest effects on student achievement

(Wayne & Youngs, 2003). According to Arzi and White (2008), this view of earning subject

matter credits “conceptualizes teacher knowledge as a unidimensional static entity, ignoring

variety within and changes that it may undergo over time…beyond the boundaries of tertiary

institutions” (p. 222). They noted that the school curriculum serves as both knowledge organizer

and source of teacher subject content knowledge. They also suggested a three phase model

which represents how teachers acquire subject content knowledge: “phase one includes the

acquisition of academic details, phase two is curricular aggregation, and phase three is

characterized by intra and inter-disciplinary linking and pattern construction” (p. 245). They

claimed that the lines between the phases are not sharp and that transitions are gradual. They

suggested that phase two is probably a point where pedagogical content knowledge begins. It

was Shulman (1986), who succeeded in linking SCK and PCK.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Shulman (1986) connected previously disparate views regarding subject content knowledge and

pedagogical knowledge by noting that there are missing questions about the content of lessons

taught. Related, more content knowledge is useless without the instructional skills (or

pedagogical knowledge) to deploy it. Shulman (1986) drew attention to the value of both subject

content knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy. Zeidler (2002) noted that the analysis of several

studies leads to the inference that teacher subject content knowledge is a necessary but

insufficient condition for the transfer of central ideas (p.31).

A prevailing view is that teachers must possess a level of general pedagogical knowledge

and knowledge of teaching in areas such as knowledge and skills about learning, knowledge of

general principals of instruction, and knowledge and skills about classroom management. All of

these underscore the importance of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge for student learning

(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Doyle, 1986). Shulman (1986) said that pedagogical knowledge

“goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge

for teaching” (p. 9). Content in this sense refers to its teachability. In essence, (PCK) relates to

the idea that teachers must be aware of students’ common misperceptions and subject specific

difficulties and knowledge of useful representations and appropriate instructional techniques for

teaching the content (Shulman, 1986).

Pedagogical content knowledge lacks a precise definition in the literature (Ball, Thames,

& Phelps, 2008). Attempts at definitions appear so broad that the concept seems to include

nearly everything a teacher might know in teaching a concept. Many definitions, directly or

indirectly, describe the attributes that PCK would encompass. Definitions include “the

intersection of knowledge of the subject with knowledge of teaching and learning…” and “that

domain of teachers’ knowledge that combines subject matter knowledge and knowledge of

pedagogy”… or “the product of transforming subject matter into a form that will facilitate

student learning” (Ball et al., 2008, p. 394). Nilsson (2008) said that pedagogical content

knowledge is a “way of understanding the complex relationship between teaching and content

through the use of specific teaching approaches and is developed through a process rooted in

classroom practice” (p. 1283). Geddis and Wood (1997) called PCK a “broad category of those

kinds of knowledge involved in pedagogical transformations of subject matter” (p. 612). They

included the learner’s prior concepts, subject matter representations, instructional strategies,

curriculum materials, and curricular saliency. Curricular saliency refers to the teacher’s

understanding of the role and place that the topic fits into the curriculum.

Pedagogical content knowledge application is the activity of a teacher shifting focus from

a general conception of content to a more detailed level. This begins with some method of

organizing content in a progressive or logical order. PCK has “become a way of understanding

the complex relationship between teaching and content through the use of specific teaching

approaches and is developed through a process rooted in classroom practice” (Nilsson, p. 1283).

Gess-Newsome (1999) reviewed studies on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter

and the relationship to teaching. She took the position that there is a distinction between an

integrative and transformative model of teacher cognition. With the integrative view, PCK does

not exist and teacher knowledge is explained by the intersection of subject matter, pedagogy, and

context. Knowledge from all three domains is integrated as needed. In the transformative model,

PCK is a well-structured and easily accessible form through which something new and different

in the way the three domains combine; consequently the new knowledge itself is transformed

into PCK.

Grossman (1990) conceived of pedagogical content knowledge as composed of four

central components: knowledge and beliefs about the purposes for teaching a subject at different

grade levels; knowledge of the students’ understanding, conceptions, and misconceptions of

particular topics in a subject area; knowledge of curriculum materials available to teach a

particular subject matter; and knowledge of instructional strategies and the skill to implement

them. As Shulman noted (1986), teachers must also draw upon knowledge that is specific to

teaching particular subject matters. In effect, this represents the dimension of subject matter

knowledge for teaching. Within this realm we see the most useful forms of representation of

concepts, analogies, illustrations, and demonstrations, among others (Shulman, 1986, pp. 9-10).

Torff and Sessions (2009) stated, “The test-score research suggests that teachers’ content

knowledge and pedagogical knowledge both appear to be positively associated with student

outcomes, but which has the greater effect remains in dispute.” (p. 129). Two studies by Torff

and Sessions (2005; 2009) found that the most frequent causes of teacher ineffectiveness were

deficiencies related to pedagogical knowledge. Deficiencies in subject content knowledge were

the least common perceived cause. Results suggest that lack of pedagogical content knowledge is

the most common underlying cause of problems of teacher quality.

Dispositions

Much current interest in dispositions stems from the National Council for Accreditation of

Teacher Education (NCATE, 2011) and Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium Principles (INTASC, 2011) mandates to incorporate dispositions into teacher

candidate assessment. Borko, Liston, and Whitcomb (2007) claimed that NCATE standards have

set the stage for a major debate about the role of dispositions in teacher preparation. The change

from NCATE to the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) does not

appear to have changed the emphasis on professional dispositions (CAEP, 2013).

For over seven decades, the importance of teacher candidate dispositions is evident in the

literature (Albee & Piveral, 2003). A prevailing view is that effective teaching requires teacher

knowledge, skills, and appropriate dispositions (Danielson, 2002). Due to the limitations of

measurement tools, integrating dispositions into teacher education programs has lacked

widespread systematic and intentional effort (Albee & Piveral, 2003). NCATE (2011) describes

dispositions as “the values and commitments” that define teacher performance. NCATE

standards call for dispositions that are consistent with the idea of “fairness” and “the belief that

all students can learn.” NCATE refers to dispositions as teacher behaviors toward students,

families, colleagues, and communities that affect student learning, motivation, and development

as well as the educator’s own professional growth. When dispositions gained popularity in the

1990’s, they were supposed to be a way to address the less tangible aspects of teaching (e.g.,

commitments, values, and beliefs). Inevitably, these aspects of teaching encompass moral

sensibilities and inherently describe a moral activity (Schussler & Knarr, 2013). Importantly,

dispositions embrace the why of teaching decisions, not just the what.

Character-related Dispositions

There are numerous and divergent efforts in the literature to describe teacher dispositions.

Because definitions and conceptions of dispositions fall into several broad, general categories, it

is useful to look at dispositions on a continuum that ranges from concepts that are not unique to

teaching (character-related) to those that are essential components of effective teaching

(competence-related).

Some researchers refer to dispositions as certain temperaments, attitudes, beliefs, and

personality characteristics. These might best be described as character-related dispositions (Jung

& Rhodes, 2008). This point of view tends to hold the personal characteristics of individuals as

their dispositions rather than their competencies as professionals. This interpretation is furthest

removed from the teacher’s classroom dispositions, due to its general nature. The character-

related viewpoint is of dispositions as values, beliefs, personalities, morals, and ethics contrasted

by professional competencies which exist in areas such as technology, assessment, instruction, or

leadership. The character-related dispositions include characteristics such as meeting deadlines,

respecting differences, and good citizenship. None of the aforementioned characteristics are

particularly unique to the teaching profession yet they are essential to effective teaching (Jung &

Rhodes, 2008). Teacher education programs or school principals cannot likely help teachers

become better people or to change their character-related dispositions, but they can influence

awareness and promote a self-assessment reflective component of professionalism.

A similar character-related conception of dispositions often includes a moral or ethical

aspect, characterized by descriptors such as “fairness, being democratic, empathy, enthusiasm,

thoughtfulness, and respectfulness” (Rike & Sharp, 2008, p. 151). Because dispositions are often

viewed as beliefs, personal values, and commitments, they also may be conceptualized as

components of a moral compass and ethical strand that provides direction to teacher decision-

making over time. A similar view is to look at dispositions as a dimension of personality.

According to Damon (2007), disposition development mirrors personality development. Damon

calls dispositions a “deep-seated component of personality going back to the origins of our

temperaments…” (p. 367). Although certain character-related dispositions are prerequisites of

effective teaching, alone they still fall short of ensuring teacher competence in the disposition

realm. Schussler and Knarr (2013) referred to dispositions as an element of “moral sensibilities”

which encompass “the inclination to think through assumptions and ramifications behind one’s

values… and the responsibility one has to care for others as a teacher” (p. 75).

Another view is of dispositions as a pattern of behavior. Katz and Raths (1986) provided

a useful explanation, calling dispositions “the trend of a teacher’s actions across similar

contexts” (p. 2). More than mere mindless habits, dispositions are viewed as employing a

conscious pattern of behavior that is directed to a goal (Katz, 1993). Similarly, Borko, Liston,

and Whitcomb (2007) said that dispositions are “predictive patterns of behavior” (p. 361). A

related conception of teacher dispositions is of a reflective practitioner. Reflective practice falls

into the realm of a disposition as an area of expected or desired teacher competence. A

mechanically competent teacher falls short of the archetype expert who has developed the

desirable intellectual disposition to reflect (Goodlad, 1990). Dispositions are acts that are chosen

in a particular context and at a specific time, that when called upon require skillful behavior. Or

conversely, a disposition may include failure to act or to employ the knowledge or skills that the

teacher possesses. Simply possessing a disposition does not ensure that it will be employed for

the benefit of students. Although character-related teacher dispositions provide a necessary

foundation for teacher success, they alone are insufficient. When viewed as competence-related

framework, however, teacher dispositions have the potential to become useful and powerful.

Competence-related Dispositions

Competence-related dispositions, unlike character-related, can be more readily observed and

influenced by school principals. Training and relevant educational experiences can be used to

advance dispositional aspects in the practice of teaching. Rather than observing a teacher’s

personality to see if the person is collaborative, a teacher can be led to employ collaborative

work in classroom settings through professional learning and principal expectations. In addition,

describing dispositions in more of a competence-related framework provides a better opportunity

to assess pre-service and in-service teacher performance (Jung & Rhodes, 2008). In addition,

competence-related dispositions are likely more genuine and are less likely to be faked or

contrived, whereas a character-related issues might be deliberately hidden.

A genuine benefit to viewing dispositions as competence-related is the improved

opportunity to identify and evaluate specific desirable teacher dispositions. Competence related

dispositions manifest themselves as teaching behaviors and strategies which are most often

observable. Jung and Rhodes (2008) proposed that dispositions can be generalized toward any

instructional strategy by the teacher’s: 1) willingness and intention to embrace the recommended

strategy, 2) belief in the value of the strategy including a positive attitude regarding its use, 3)

intention to increase the capability of the strategy, and 4) confidence in using the strategy (p.

656). This framework moves from the mindset of dispositions as an abstract character of

personality to dispositions as an element of effective teaching. Additionally, assessment of

dispositions becomes more palatable as it progresses beyond a teacher’s personality

characteristics to the measurement of specific teacher competencies.

Schussler, Stooksberry, and Bercaw (2010) provided a useful structure for understanding

dispositions in a classroom setting. They refer to intellectual, cultural, and moral dispositional

domains. Intellectual dispositions entail the learning expectations that teachers establish for all

students, including what and how to teach, beliefs about how students learn, and an

understanding of one’s role as a professional. This domain includes areas such as pedagogy and

content. The intellectual framework requires continually reflecting on one’s practice, a behavior

which principals can observe and measure.

The cultural disposition domain refers to the teacher tendency and desire to meet the

needs of all learners in the classroom. This includes the teachers’ inclination to make necessary

modifications to meet the needs of diverse learners and includes an awareness of their own

culture and its effect on their teaching. Related, teachers also need to be aware of the students’

culture and its effect on learning. This domain includes areas such as “knowing your students”

and “meeting students where they are at” and motivating students by making the content

relevant. Although not easy to measure, principals have a reasonable chance to gauge cultural

dispositions.

Moral dispositions involve the inclination to think through one’s moral values and how

one relates to others. In practice, this domain may manifest itself in areas such as handling

inappropriate behavior, motivating students, and grading fairly. As the teacher supervisor and

leader of instruction, the school principal is best positioned to help teachers reflect on moral

dispositions.

The school principal can practically and legally examine these competence dispositions

in practice (as described by Schussler, Stooksberry, & Bercaw, 2010). A school principal who

consistently monitors classroom instruction denotes each teacher’s “dispositional trend” with

respect to planning, interactions with students, collegiality, and interest in their own professional

growth. This trend provides a window to the teacher’s level of effectiveness with students, and

affords a reasonable basis to determine, in part, teacher contract non-renewals (Nixon, Dam, &

Packard, 2010).

Teacher Contract Non-Renewal

Review of the literature regarding common elements related to teacher contract non-renewal

quickly leads to criteria that are often designed in state legal systems and to concepts that bear

some relationship to SCK, PCK, and dispositions. Teacher contract non-renewals are legal

procedures that are defined in courts, by hearing examiners, through state statutes, and by means

of master contracts and local policies and procedures. All states differentiate between the

requirements for ending the employment of teachers depending on their tenure status. Most

importantly, a tenured teacher must be afforded certain procedural rights prior to dismissal or

termination. These rights generally include notice of the grounds for the action and the

opportunity for a hearing. Depending on the statutory protections of the state granting tenure,

tenured teachers often must be provided with names of witnesses, the power of subpoena to

compel production of documents and testimony of witnesses, the right to counsel at all stages of

the process, and the right to appeal. Non-tenured or probationary teachers are considered “at will

employees” and not generally afforded the same due process rights as tenured teachers. They

may have their contracts non-renewed without cause at the option of the employer, upon proper

notice of the intent not to renew by the employing school board at the end of any contract year.

Even though probationary teachers may have their contracts non-renewed without cause,

emblematic reasons exist for both tenured and probationary teachers. The most common legal

reasons are defined in state statutes and often include incompetency, insubordination,

immorality, good cause, reduction in force, and contract violations. The legal reasons manifest

in behaviors such as excessive absenteeism and tardiness, neglect of duty, abusive language,

administering corporal punishment, unethical conduct, sexual misconduct, abuse of a controlled

substance, theft or fraud, misuse of a school computer, criminal misconduct outside the work

setting, and conduct unbecoming a teacher (Lawrence, Vashon, Leake, & Leake, 2005). It’s

possible to link these legal reasons to PCK, SCK, and dispositions, but they appear most difficult

to connect to SCK. Incompetency and good cause, however, could be for SCK reasons.

The first legal reason for contract non-renewal, teacher incompetence, is viewed as a

pattern of behavior rather than a single event. Alexander and Alexander (2009) defined

incompetence in the context of fitness to teach, noting that “fitness to teach is essential and

contains a broad range of factors…lack of knowledge of subject matter, lack of discipline,

unreasonable discipline, unprofessional conduct, and willful neglect of duty” (p. 796). McCarthy

and Cambron-McCabe (1987, p. 395) similarly defined incompetency as “lack of ability, legal

qualifications, or fitness to discharge the required duty.” Rossow and Parkinson (1992) noted

that removing a teacher for incompetence requires repeated evaluations and attempts to

remediate deficiencies. The courts view incompetence as needing a “multiple deficiencies

requirement” which involves principal time and documentation.

Another legal reason for contract non-renewal is immorality. Immorality has been viewed

as a course of conduct that offends the morals of the community (Van Berkum, Richardson,

Broe, & Lane, 2008). The standards of dismissal for immorality are vague, often leaving a

principal in the difficult position to evaluate whether teacher actions are immoral. Typically, a

case of morality might involve teacher dishonesty or sexual misconduct. These may best be

considered character-related dispositions.

Another common statutory reason cited for teacher contract non-renewal is

insubordination. Insubordination is the willful disregard, or refusal to, obey reasonable

directives. Often insubordination manifests itself in teacher behavior such as absenteeism and

tardiness. Generally, teacher actions over a period of time that are not corrected may be

interpreted as insubordination. This is frequently one of the easiest legal grounds to show to a

court or hearing examiner, as insubordinate behavior might be more apparent than a more

subjective instructional deficiency. Classifying insubordination as a character-related disposition

is probably most valid.

Good or just cause means that there is a legitimate or real cause or basis to non-renew a

contract. Good cause is distinguished from a whim or arbitrary decision—because the principal,

acting in good faith, develops a defensible, reasonable ground for the action. Many state laws

provide this general provision due to the reality that no statute can cover all possible reasons for

a contract non-renewal. All three areas (SCK, PCK, & disposition) could fall under the good and

just cause standard.

Reduction in force typically refers to “downsizing” and includes processes that lead to an

overall reduced number of teaching positions. A teacher contract non-renewal as a result of a

reduction in force is normally the result of either a decline in revenue or student enrollment. In

these cases the school district is typically obligated to provide documentation regarding the

financial hardship of the district.

A teacher contract non-renewal is an intricate legal process, which is understandable

given the significance to the involved individuals and students. Several of the emblematic

reasons have face value with respect to teacher dispositions, SCK, and PCK. Insubordinate

behavior and immorality are two common reasons for contract non-renewal that might also be

related to teacher character dispositions. In fact, in reviewing the list of common reasons for

contract non-renewal it is relatively easy to conceive of both character-related and competence-

related reasons that school principals recommend non-renewal of teacher contracts. As the

understanding of dispositions continues to evolve to include competence rather than just

character, additional relevance and the relationship of dispositions to contract non-renewal will

likely be more evident.

Teacher Evaluation and Race to the Top

Any teacher contract non-renewal involves an evaluation process. In 2009, the Race to the Top

(RTTT) legislation offered large federal financial grants to states that were willing to pursue

aggressive school reforms that included teacher evaluation (RTTT, 2009). The legislation calls

for “recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals”… and

“improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance…” (RTTT, 2009, pp. 2, 4).

The legislation defines an effective teacher as one “whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g.,

as least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth…teacher effectiveness is

evaluated, in significant part, by student growth” (RTTT, 2009, p. 12).

Similarly, in 2011, the U.S. Department of Education created a flexibility program that

offered states waivers from sanctions from No Child Left Behind (Popham & DeSander, 2014).

In return for the waivers, states often promised to pursue new school reforms which included

tougher teacher evaluation systems (Steinbrecher, Cosbey, & Thorstensen, 2014). Many of the

recent reforms of teacher evaluation processes have included value-added modeling (VAM),

which requires a substantial element of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student performance

scores (Paige, 2012). According to Scherrer (2012), VAM improves accountability systems by

moving past status models as VAM has the potential to isolate teacher effects on student

learning. Because the value-added modeling is relatively new to most teachers and principals,

and has unproven reliability, an already complex and difficult task for school principals to

determine methods for teacher contract non-renewals has become more cumbersome (Paige,

2012). In addition, other challenges with VAM include determining growth as all students start at

different places on a scale, the term value-added does not have a universal definition, and states

are using a variety of growth models (Franco & Seidel, 2014). In the present study, data were

collected from school principals in the first years of implementation of RTTT; therefore we

presume that the impact of the legislation had not yet been felt by school principals. We

anticipate that the impact of teacher evaluations tied to value-added modeling and contract non-

renewal will continue to grow over time.

The study answered three overarching questions:

1) Which behaviors do principals report observing most frequently from ineffective

teachers?

2) Which teacher dispositions do principals report are most important to success in the

classroom?

3) Which teacher criteria are most important to school principals in deciding whether to

recommend contract non-renewal of a non-tenured teacher?

Research Methods

Participants

Principal email addresses were accessed in the 13 selected states using either state department of

education websites or third party websites. Emails were sent by state and region in a 30 month

period in several cycles from 2010 until 2012. The databases were imperfect, however, because

they typically contained data a year or two old, leaving recently appointed principals out of the

population. Additionally, school district filters and spam controls prevented some principals

from receiving the email. Also, some school district policies forbid research participation without

specific permission. Additionally, some of the email addresses were not accurate or had changed

as 1,850 emails were returned to the researchers as undelivered. The response rate was just over

14%, as 13,500 emails were sent and 1,935 school principals from Alabama, Colorado, Georgia,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and

Washington completed the survey. Participating states were selected based on several factors,

including their regional proximity, demographic representation, and public availability of school

principal email addresses.

Table 1

Participating Principals by State

State

Frequency

Percentage

Alabama

113

5.8

Colorado

156

8.1

Georgia

242

12.5

Idaho

3.7

Illinois

277

14.3

Indiana

238

12.3

Iowa

139

7.2

Montana

2.5

North Carolina

160

8.3

Ohio

265

13.7

South Carolina

3.5

Utah

4.6

Washington

3.6

Total

1935

100

Forty-eight percent of participants identified that they were located in a rural school, 33%

in a suburban school, and 19% in an urban setting. Fifty-six percent said that they had less than

10 years of experience as a principal, 33% between 10 and 20 years of experience, and only 11%

had more than 20 years’ experience as a principal. Forty-nine percent reported that they were

elementary principals, 16% middle school, 21% high school, and 15% other. Ninety-seven

percent of the respondent principals work in public schools.

Instrumentation

The study’s research questions and our interests led to the development of a descriptive survey

(Mertens, 2005). The initial survey instrument was piloted as a paper mailed survey with 60

principals in four southeastern states. Revisions to the instrument were made after additional

analysis and feedback. The instrument has been modified several times and builds upon eight

related studies (Nixon, Dam, & Packard, 2010; Nixon, Packard, & Dam, 2011a; Nixon, Packard,

& Dam, 2011b; Nixon, Packard, & Dam, 2012a; Nixon, Packard, & Dam, 2012b; Nixon,

Packard, & Dam, 2013; Nixon, Packard, & Dam, 2014; Nixon et al., 2010). Survey development

was guided by the design considerations offered by Creswell (2005) and Mertens (2005). While

the data are self-reported, respondents have nothing to gain by particular responses so bias has

been removed or reduced.

Survey questions and answer choices were created after extensive review of the literature

concerning teacher contract non-renewal, teacher dispositions, pedagogical content knowledge,

and subject content knowledge. The survey includes 22 Likert-type questions plus an open-ended

question. Each respondent provided demographic information regarding their years of experience

as a principal, the size and level of school, state information, and whether their school was rural,

urban, or suburban. Responses were collected in several cycles, primarily by geographic region.

For example, data from the southeastern states were collected in fall of 2010 and winter of 2011,

whereas data from the Rocky Mountain States were collected in winter of 2012. A web survey

was used because it can achieve a comparable response rate to mailed surveys (Cook, Heath, &

Thompson, 2000; Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004), and it is substantially less expensive.

Four core survey questions are relevant to this study’s research questions, which include

22 possible responses. One survey question asked, “Which behaviors do you observe most

frequently from ineffective teachers?” The three answer choices included “lack of subject

content knowledge,” “lack of instructional skills,” and “unacceptable disposition.” In another

question, principals rated the importance of subject content knowledge, instructional skills, and

disposition to contract non-renewal decisions on a scale from 1 to 3. A third question was

“Which teacher dispositions are important to success in the classroom;” and included the

following answer choices “collaborative,” “integrity,” “reflective,” “knowledgeable,” “initiator,”

“flexible,” “relationship-builder,” “creative,” “honest,” “dependable,” and “other (please

specify).” Respondents were given four answer choices, including “highest importance,” “very

important,” “some importance,” and “no importance.” A final question asked respondents to

“rank order the following possible reasons that might lead you to recommend contract non-

renewal of a non-tenured teacher.”

Analysis Procedures

Survey results were analyzed and are reported descriptively. Analysis was performed using IBM

SPSS Statistics Version 22 to generate the frequency of responses and the valid percentages for

the reported survey questions.

Results

Ineffective Teacher Behaviors

Principals were asked to respond to a question, “Which behaviors do you observe most

frequently from ineffective teachers?” Answer choices were “observe least frequently,” “observe

second most frequently,” and “observe most frequently.” The answer criteria were “lack of

subject content knowledge,” “lack of instructional skills,” and “unacceptable disposition.”

Table 2

Principal's Observations of Ineffective Teacher Behaviors

Teacher Behavior

Observe Least

Frequently

Observe Second

Most Frequently

Observe Most

Frequently

Mean

(SD)

Lack of subject content

knowledge

955

(49.3%)

822

(42.5%)

126

(6.5%)

1.56

(.615)

Lack of instructional

skills

(1.8%)

407

(21.0%)

1477

(76.3%)

2.75

(.473)

Unacceptable

disposition

905

(46.7%)

686

(35.4%)

318

(16.4%)

1.69

(.739)

The results demonstrate that principals place strong emphasis and importance on PCK.

More than three-fourths of principals selected “lack of instructional skills” as the most observed

behavior from ineffective teachers, while less than two percent identified it as least frequently

observed. Principals seem torn regarding the frequency of lack of SCK, with a nearly even split

between selecting “lack of SCK” and “unacceptable disposition.” Interestingly, there was greater

variability in responses (SD .739) within “unacceptable disposition” however, as principals

responses ranged significantly.

Teacher Dispositions

Principals responded to a survey question which asked, “Which teacher dispositions are

important to success in the classroom?” Answer responses included “no importance (1),” “some

importance (2),” “very important (3),” and “highest importance (4).” Criteria listed included

“collaborative,” “integrity,” “reflective,” “knowledgeable,” “initiator,” “flexible,” “relationship-

builder,” “creative,” “honest,” “dependable,” and “other (please specify).” Eighty-six principals

offered a response to the “other” category. Responses in the “other” category were wide ranging,

however a couple of themes were evident. Ten respondents mentioned “attitude” as part of their

response; while six mentioned “cares” about students. “Sense of humor” and “relates to people”

were also mentioned four times each. Table 3 contains the responses to the identified

dispositions (4.0=highest importance).

Table 3

Principal's Identification of Important Teacher Dispositions

Disposition

Mean

Median

Range

Integrity

1922

3.60

.532

4.00

Honest

1924

3.54

.565

4.00

Dependable

1886

3.53

.538

4.00

Relationship-Builder

1924

3.45

.659

4.00

Knowledgeable

1926

3.33

.589

3.00

Collaboration

1925

3.22

.615

3.00

Reflective

1915

3.20

.668

3.00

Flexible

1916

3.20

.643

3.00

Creative

1915

2.82

.698

3.00

Initiator

1908

2.80

.680

3.00

Ranges in principal responses from the mean scores are relatively narrow, differing only

by .80 from highest to lowest ranking of importance. Results from principal responses place the

highest importance on “integrity,” followed by “honesty” and “dependable.” The low SD scores

for “integrity” (.532), “honesty” (.565), and “dependable” (.538) further cement the consensus of

the highest importance of these criteria. The lowest mean scores of “creative” (2.82) and initiator

(2.80) also had the highest SD.

Teacher Criteria for Contract Non-Renewal

Two sets of questions were constructed to help identify teacher criteria for contract non-renewal.

In the first question, principals ascribed the level of importance of certain criteria in deciding

whether to recommend contract non-renewal of probationary teachers. Answer choices provided

were “subject content knowledge,” “instructional skills,” and “disposition.”

Table 4

Criteria for Teacher Contract Non-Renewal Identified by Principals

Criteria

Least Important

Important

Most Important

Mean (SD)

Subject content

knowledge

602

(31.8%)

1011

(53.3%)

282

(14.9%)

1.83

(.662)

Instructional

skills

(2.8%)

459

(24.0%)

1399

(72.2%)

2.70

(.514)

Disposition

1224

(63.9%)

448

(23.4%)

242

(12.6%)

1.49

(.709)

“Instructional skills” was the most often selected criterion reported in deciding whether to

recommend contract non-renewal, as nearly three-fourths of principals identified the criterion as

“most important.” The comparably low SD (.514) for instructional skills further demonstrates a

consensus regarding its place as highest importance. SCK was identified as important, with

“dispositions” identified as least important by more than three-fifths of principals.

Results from a related second question are in Table 5, which includes the results from the

rank order responses of principals. Respondents were asked to rank order seven criteria, ranging

from “most likely” “second most likely” and so on as criteria which would lead them to

recommend a contract non-renewal.

Table 5

Principal's Reasons Which Lead to Contract Non-Renewal by Number of Responses

Reasons

Mean

and

(SD)

Most

unlikely

Very

Unlikely

Likely

Very

Likely

Second

most

likely

Most

Likely

Absenteeism/

tardiness

2.27

(1.4)

709

(36.6%)

404

(20.9%)

278

(14.4%)

194

(10.0%)

100

(5.2%)

(1.5%)

(1.0%)

Classroom

management

3.80

(1.5)

101

(5.2%)

300

(15.5%)

363

(18.8%)

385

(19.9%)

369

(19.1%)

185

(9.6%)

(3.2%)

Ethical

violations and

inappropriate

conduct

6.30

(1.3)

(0.9%)

(1.8%)

(2.1%)

(4.4%)

118

(6.1%)

318

(16.4%)

1172

(60.5%)

Incompetence

5.67

(1.2)

(0.7%)

(1.9%)

(4.1%)

133

(6.9%)

319

(16.5%)

796

(41.1%)

437

(22.6%)

Professional

demeanor

2.77

(1.5)

413

(21.3%)

413

(21.3%)

357

(18.4%)

247

(12.8%)

175

(9.0%)

(3.6%)

(0.5%)

Insubordination

4.26

(1.6)

(4.7%)

204

(10.5%)

272

(14.0%)

372

(19.2 %)

469

(24.2%)

298

(15.4%)

122

(6.3%)

Lack of student

achievement

3.61

(1.6)

229

(11.8%)

259

(13.4%)

344

(17.8%)

430

(22.2%)

313

(16.2%)

161

(8.3%)

(3.7%)

“Ethical violations and inappropriate conduct” was the strong consensus choice as “most

likely” reason, with nearly 61% of principals selecting it. “Incompetence,” which could be a

function of SCK, PCK, or dispositions, was selected by 41% or principals as the “second most

likely” reason. “Insubordination” was the third most likely response (24%). Interestingly, the

criterion “lack of student achievement” (22%) was selected as the fourth most likely reason to

recommend contract non-renewal.

Discussion

Teacher Behaviors

Principals selected lack of instructional skills as the most common behavior that they observe

from ineffective teachers, as nearly 77% of principal respondents identified this criterion as the

most frequently observed. This finding elevates the importance of teacher pedagogical

knowledge and supports the findings of Torff and Sessions (2005; 2009) regarding the

importance of PCK. Interestingly, principals seem torn regarding the importance of SCK.

Perhaps the issue of SCK is somewhat bifurcated, meaning that for certain subjects, SCK is

deemed more essential. Due to the well-known difficulty of selecting and hiring effective

teachers in math and science areas, principals may well feel pressured about the importance of

SCK. The results of our query into ineffective teacher behaviors clearly points to the fact that

principals view pedagogical and instructional factors as the reasons for teacher ineffectiveness.

However, when one breaks down the general criteria more specifically as we have done in

research question three (survey question four), character-related dispositions assume a more

prominent place in respondent selections. Seemingly a “flawed” character leads more quickly to

a termination than a competence-related issue.

Teacher Dispositions

Principals identified a preference for those dispositions that can be readily branded as character-

related. Integrity, honesty, and dependability, each arguably a character trait, were the highest

rated dispositions. Each also had the lowest SD, leading us to conclude that there was a relatively

strong consensus for these three criteria. This finding suggests that principals view dispositions

as a characteristic of personality and that they tend to define their importance as a function of

personality rather than professional competence. Conversely, we note the lower importance

ascribed to the dispositions that are more performance related, such as knowledgeable,

relationship builder, creative, and initiator. While not surprised, the relative low importance

given to creativity and initiative, which arguably are important elements of effective teaching,

perhaps expresses the current preference for teachers who can help students perform well on

standardized tests and who can follow and implement structured curricular programs closely. It

again seems to reinforce principals’ preferences for character-related issues in contract non-

renewal issues.

It should be noted that the relatively narrow range of mean scores (2.80 to 3.60) and the

range of SD (.532 to.698) reflect principals lack of ability to strongly discriminate in their

answer selections. Principals may be saying that there is some level of importance to each of the

criteria, which leads us to question if we might find a better method of probing principal

responses in this area.

Teacher Criteria for Contract Non-Renewal

Using results from Table 4, consistent with Torff and Sessions (2005; 2009) findings, principals

selected instructional skills as the most central criterion in contract non-renewal considerations.

Almost 73% of principals selected the criterion as most important. Dispositions were the

consensus choice as the least important criterion for teacher contract non-renewal.

Table 5 includes several interesting results. These results include a mixing of criteria,

some of which might be best classified as a PCK area (e.g., classroom management), SCK (e.g.,

incompetence), and disposition (e.g., ethical violation). In previous questions, principal

responses were less likely to select disposition and to a lesser extent principals minimized SCK.

The forced rankings of specific criteria in survey question four led to more importance attributed

to the criteria that are arguably more dispositions-like.

Conclusions

Issues related to teacher contract non-renewals, teacher behaviors, dispositions, subject content

knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge are complex and interrelated. From the

perspective of teacher contract non-renewals, this study affirms the literature that each is

consequential. Expertise in both subject content and pedagogy must be woven together, yet

overall, principals in this study selected pedagogical content knowledge as the most relevant

criterion for teacher contract non-renewal issues. As noted by Torff and Sessions (2009), the

only way to genuinely determine the most consequential criteria is to improve the teacher

evaluation process to ascertain whether teacher effectiveness is best attributed to dispositions,

subject-content knowledge, or pedagogical content knowledge. Attempts to better understand the

variance in weight for criteria that impact student learning and teacher contract non-renewals are

worthwhile pursuits. Given the recent introduction of value-added teacher evaluations, we cannot

be certain whether the teacher evaluation process is valid or reliable. In fact, we must question

the extent to which the instruments measure what is intended and whether principals are

proficient in using them. These are potential areas for future investigation.

As found in this study, teacher deficiencies are most evident in pedagogical content

knowledge. This finding suggests several important propositions. The implication of this finding

for teacher preparation, teacher selection, and professional development suggests the need for

pedagogical emphasis compared to subject content knowledge. It also calls into question

alternative teacher certification programs which emphasize the importance of subject content

knowledge at the expense of the pedagogical content knowledge. It seems logical to suppose that

more alternative certification routes may lead to additional teacher contract non-renewals and

further attrition in the profession. The finding also raises questions about teacher certification

renewal requirements which reward teachers for additional courses in the subject content areas.

Similarly, a legitimate question includes whether policies such as No Child Left Behind’s

definition of highly qualified teachers was on target.

Only 13% of principals reported that a teacher’s disposition is the most important

criterion in determining whether to recommend contract non-renewal. Given the importance of

dispositions by NCATE (CAEP) and teacher preparation programs, this low percentage seems

incongruous. The incongruity may be explained by the vague and murky understanding of

dispositions, and the lack of precision of instruments designed to assess teacher dispositions.

Ironically, when we offered principals specific choices to rank the importance of various criteria

to the contract non-renewal process, disposition choices were given high importance. Digging

deeper, there is evidence in this study that principals place more importance on dispositions

(primarily character-related) than they may even know. Each principal who completed the

questionnaire had a unique understanding and denotation of dispositions, but evidently a

preponderance of the respondent principals viewed dispositions through the eyes of a teacher

trait or personality characteristic (character disposition), rather than as a competence-related

criterion. The character view probably led to principals seeing less relationship between effective

teaching and dispositions than for other answer choices (instructional skills and subject content

knowledge). It seems apparent that the construct of teacher dispositions is less well developed

than SCK and PCK; therefore much more investigation is needed in this area.

The need to continue to work to develop methods that validly and reliably assess teacher

dispositions is evident. Following the suggestions of Jung and Rhodes (2008), to conceptualize

dispositions as instructional strategies provides a useful starting place for that conversation. In

time, teacher competence dispositions may be viewed very similarly to the body of skills and

strategies that we expect from teachers, and may be viewed as something akin to “teacher

professional responsibilities.” Subject content, pedagogy, and teacher dispositions each

contribute to the variance in student outcomes. Continuing to consider these relationships and

attributing relative weights to their importance is a worthwhile endeavor, particularly as value-

added teacher evaluations become more common. Finally, we expect the importance of “lack of

student learning” to take a larger importance as RTTT and new teacher evaluation processes

expand throughout the country. Because of the RTTT requirement to tie evaluations to student

growth, we are confident that principal responses will be changing as will the principals’ needs

for support in the teacher evaluation and contract non-renewal process.

References

Albee, J. J., & Piveral, J. A. (2003). Management process for defining and monitoring teacher

dispositions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6/7), 346-356.

Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2009). American public school law (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Arzi, H., & White, R. (2008). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17-year

longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221-251.

Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it

special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407.

Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. (2007). Apples and fishes: The debate over dispositions in

teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 359-364.

Conant, J. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw Hill.

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web or

internet surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-36.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2013). CAEP Accreditation

Standards. Washington DC: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.

Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (2

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Damon, W. (2007). Dispositions and teacher assessment: The need for a more rigorous

definition. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 365-369.

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21

century teacher education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 57, 300-314.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook

of Research on Teaching (3

ed. pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

Franco, M., & Seidel, K. (2014). Evidence for the need to more closely examine school effects in

value-added modeling and related accountability policies. Education and Urban Society,

46(1), 30-58.

Geddis, A., & Wood, E. (1997). Transforming subject matter and managing dilemmas: A case

study in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 611-626.

Gess-Newsome (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J.

Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content

knowledge (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Hess, F., & Finn, C. (Eds.). (2004). Leaving no child left behind?:Options for kids in failing

schools. New York: Macmillan.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (INTASC, 2011). Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standard

s_2011_MS_Word_Version.html

Jung, E., & Rhodes, D. (2008). Revisiting disposition assessment in teacher education:

Broadening the focus. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 647-660.

Kaplowitz, M., Hadlock, T., & Levine. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response

rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101.

Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1986). Dispositional goals for teacher education: Problems of

identification and assessment. Paper Presented at the World Assembly of the

International Council for Teaching (Eric document 272470).

Katz, L. (1993). Dispositions as educational goals. Washington, DC: Office of Educational

Research and Improvement (Eric document 363454).

Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2007). Photo finish: Teacher certification does not

guarantee a winner. Education Next, 7(1), 60-67. Available at

http://educationnext.org/photo-finish/

Lawrence, C. E., Vachon, M. K., Leake, D. O., & Leake, B. H. (2005). The marginal teacher: A

step by step guide to fair dismissal for identification and dismissal (3

ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2006). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McCarthy, M., & Cambron-McCabe, N. (1987). Public school law: Teachers’ and students’

rights (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon.

Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity

with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (NCATE, 2011). Unit Standards in

Effect 2008. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content

knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10),

1281-1299.

Nixon, A., Dam, M., & Packard, A. (2010). Teacher dispositions and contract non-renewal.

Planning and Changing, 41(3/4), 210-219.

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2011a). School principals and teacher contract non-renewal.

International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(3).

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2011b). Teacher contract non-renewal: Southeast and

Midwest principals. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(4).

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2012a). Teacher contract non-renewal: Midwest principals.

International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(1).

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2012b). Teacher contract non-renewal: Midwest, Rocky

Mountains, and Southeast. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,

7(2).

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2013). Principals judge teachers by their teaching. Teacher

Educator, 48(1), 58-72.

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2014). Teacher contract non-renewal in the Rocky

Mountains. School Leadership Review, 9(2).

Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Douvanis, G. (2010). Nonrenewal of probationary teachers: Negative

retention. Education, 131(1), 43-53.

Paige, M. (2012). Using VAM in high stakes employment decisions. Kappan, 94(3), 29-32.

Podgursky, M. (2005). Teaching is not medicine. Academic Questions, 18(1), 69-78.

Popham, W. J., & DeSander. M. (2014). Will the courts save teachers? Educational Leadership,

71(5), 55-58.

Race to the Top. (RTTT, 2009). Retrieved October 10, 2014 from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Rike, C., & Sharp, L. (2008). Assessing preservice teachers’ dispositions: A critical dimension of

professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84(3), 150-153.

Rossow, L., & Parkinson, J. (1992). The law of teacher evaluation. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan.

Scherrer, J. (2012). What’s the value of VAM (value added modeling)? The Phi Delta Kappan,

93(8), 58-60.

Schussler, D., & Knarr, L. (2013). Building awareness of dispositions: Enhancing moral

sensibilities in teaching. Journal of Moral Education, 42(1), 71-87.

Schussler, D., Stooksberry, L., & Bercaw, L. (2010). Understanding teacher candidate

dispositions: Reflecting to build self-awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4),

350-363.

Schwab, J. (1964). The structure of disciplines: Meanings and significance. In G. W. Ford & L.

Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp.1-30). Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher 15(2), 4–14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Steinbrecher, T, Selig, J., Cosbey, J., & Thorstensen, B. (2014). Evaluating special educator

effectiveness: Addressing issues inherent to value-added modeling. Exceptional Children,

80(3), 323-336.

Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2005). Principal’s perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 530-537.

Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2009). Principals’ perceptions of the causes and teacher

ineffectiveness in different secondary subject. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(3), 127-

148.

Van Berkum, D., Richardson, M., Broe, K., & Lane, K. (2008). Teacher dismissal. In Lane, K.,

Gooden, M., Mead, J., Pauken, P., & Eckes, S. (Eds.). The principal’s legal handbook

(4th ed., pp 361-381). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Wayne, A., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A

review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.

Zeidler, D. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge,

pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in science education reform.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 27-42.