This paper describes the development and validation of a science teacher leadership instrument modeled on the seven domains of the Teacher Leader Model (TLM) Standards (The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011). Instrument development was part of National Science Foundation–funded Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) program that aimed to develop science teacher leaders through the use of Project-Based Science (PBS) in the context of renewable energy. Ratings of professional development sessions presented by teacher leaders to their peers were analyzed to assess whether the instrument could be used to measure teacher leadership in this context. The resulting TLM Standards Instrument is presented as a valid instrument to observe the development and assessment of teacher leadership.
AngelleP. S., & DeHartC. A. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher leadership: Examining differences by experience, degree, and position.NASSP Bulletin,95(2), 141–160. doi: 10.1177/0192636511415397.
2.
AngelleP., TaylorD., & OlivierD. (2008, March). School improvement through increased leadership capacity: Preliminary construction of a measure of teacher leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
3.
BergJ. H., CarverC. L., & ManginM. M. (2013). Teacher Leader Model Standards: Implications for preparation, policy, and practice.Journal of Research on Leadership Education,9(2), 195–217. doi:10.1177/1942775113507714.
DoraiswamyN. (2015). A Case Study on Science Teacher Leadership to Address Diversity and Equity Through Professional Development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
9.
EngelhardG. (2013). Invariant measurement. Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences.New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
10.
FisherW. P. (1992). Reliability, separation, strata statistics.Rasch Measurement Transactions,6(3), 238.
JacksonT., BurrusJ., BassettK., & RobertsR. D. (2010). Teacher Leadership: An Assessment Framework for an Emerging Area of Professional Practice. Research Report ETS RR-10-27. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-10-27.pdf.
16.
LeithwoodK., JantziD., & SteinbachR. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
LunzM. E., & LinacreJ. M. (1998). Measurement designs using multifacet Rasch modeling. In MarcoulidesG.A. (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 47–77). New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
OstiniR., & NeringM. L. (2006). Polytomous Item Response Theory models.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
26.
RielM., & BeckerH. (2008). Characteristics of teacher leaders for information and communication technology, In VoogtJ., & KnezekG. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology and secondary education (pp. 397–417). New York, NY: Springer.
27.
SmithE. V., WakelyM. B., De KruifR.E.L., & SwartzC. W. (2003). Optimizing Rating Scales for Self-Efficacy (and Other) Research.Educational and Psychological Measurement,63(3), 369–391. doi:10.1177/0013164403063003002.
WrightB. D. (1994). A Rasch unidimensionality coefficient.Rasch Measurement Transactions,8(3), 385.
30.
WrightB. D., & DouglasG. A. (1977). Conditional versus unconditional procedures for sample-free item analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement,37(3), 573–586.
31.
WrightB. D., & MastersG. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis.Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
32.
York-BarrJ., & DukeK. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship.Review of Educational Research,74(3), 255–316. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003255.
