A Comparison of Three Retrospective Self-reporting Methods of Measuring Change in Instructional Practice

Abstract

In the post + retrospective pretest method of measuring change, evaluators ask the respondents to recall pre-intervention status at posttest time. Research has produced strong evidence in support of this approach over the pretest-posttest approach to measuring change. However, no research has yet to examine and compare different forms of retrospective methods. We compared three retrospective methods of measuring elementary grade teachers’ self-reported change in mathematics instructional practices: the post + retrospective pretest method (reporting current practices and earlier practices), the post + perceived change method (reporting current practice and the amount and direction of change), and the perceived change method (reporting only the amount and direction of change). Teachers in the post + retrospective pretest condition reported least change, followed by teachers in the post + perceived change condition; teachers in the perceived change condition reported the greatest change. We can explain our findings in terms of differential satisficing (the tendency to exert minimal effort in responding) caused by differences in cognitive demands among the three methods. Greater task difficulty leads to greater satisficing, which causes respondents to resort more to socially desirable responses. A greater tendency to provide socially desirable responses leads to relying on expected implicit theory of change and subsequently reporting greater change in instructional practices.