Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15: 245256, 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

C ISSN: 1091-367X print / 1532-7841 online DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2011.594353

ARTICLES

A National Prole of Teacher Education Faculty: The Construction of an Online Survey

Kim C. Graber
Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

Heather Erwin
Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky

Amelia Mays Woods

Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

Jesse Rhoades
Department of Physical Education, Exercise Science, and Wellness, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota

Weimo Zhu
Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
Physical education teacher education faculty are responsible for educating the next generation of teachers. Despite their signicant role, little is known about their characteristics, work preferences, or role responsibilities. The last comprehensive study undertaken to examine these variables was conducted approximately 25 years ago by Metzler and Freedman (1985). The purpose of the current investigation is to describe and validate an instrument for obtaining an updated comprehensive prole of physical education teacher education faculty in the United States. An online survey consisting of six sections was developed. To establish validity and conrm the psychometric quality of the instrument, testretest was conducted with a subsample of 40 participants. In addition, Cronbach alpha

Correspondence should be sent to Kim C. Graber, Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, Freer Hall, 906 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: kgraber@illinois.edu

246

GRABER ET AL.

analysis was conducted to provide support for the internal structure of the instrument. The survey accurately identies and discriminates between the current characteristics and work responsibilities of todays teacher educators and facilitates comparison between teacher educators today to those who completed the survey nearly 25 years ago. Key words: Teacher educators, higher education, physical education teacher education

INTRODUCTION University teacher educators play a critical role in preparing K12 teachers for the 21st century. As Darling-Hammond recognized, We owe all children well-qualied teachers every single year they are in school (2008, p. 733). Understanding the characteristics of the teacher education professorate can provide important insights for preparing teachers. Yet, problems in dening this population continue to exist, and only limited research addresses the professional roles and demographics of teacher educators. Related to personal characteristics, research shows that 70% of teacher educators in general education are married white males (Wolf-Wendel, Baker, Twombly, Tollefson, & Mahlios, 2004) who average 50 years of age (Tierney, 2001) and have lower-middle class backgrounds (Durcharme & Agne, 1989). These professionals have typically spent part of their career teaching on the K12 level (Ducharme & Kluender, 1990; Tierney, 2001; Zimpher & Sherrill, 1996). Thirty-six percent are employed at research universities (Wolf-Wendel et al., 2004), and they spend more time on scholarship when compared to their colleagues at comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges (Menges & Austin, 2001). With the exception of a handful of investigations (e.g., Goc Karp & Williamson, 1993; Lawson, 1991; Metzler & Freedman, 1985; Woods, Phillips, & Carlisle, 1997), there has been relatively little research devoted to understanding the characteristics and work responsibilities of physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty as a separate subset of teacher educators. Metzler and Freedman (1985) conducted the most signicant and heavily cited investigation to date; however, that was nearly 25 years ago. At that time, 56% were females, 67% were tenured, the mean salary was $23,000, the average workweek was 50.3 hours, PETE faculty published 3.7 articles in their careers, and 18.1% carried coaching assignments. Since the Metzler and Freeman investigation, substantial changes have occurred in teacher education in higher education, such as increased emphasis on scholarship and the addition of national beginning teacher standards (National Association for Sport and Physical Education, 1995, 2003, 2009). As a result, an updated investigation is timely and warranted. Specically, there is a need to compare the personal characteristics and work responsibilities of todays PETEs with those from 1985. A better understanding of the characteristics and work responsibilities of PETEs can ultimately enhance the preparation of physical education teachers. The purpose of the current investigation was to modify and validate an instrument for obtaining a comprehensive prole of PETE faculty in the United States. The aim was to invite every teacher educator throughout the nation to complete an online survey designed to elicit information related to (a) personal characteristics, (b) education and experience, (c) actual and preferred work responsibilities, (d) professional involvement, (e) perceptions concerning the current climate of teacher education, and (f) departmental demographics. Characterized by four separate stages, the investigation entailed rening a previously existing survey and conrming content

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF TEACHER EDUCATION FACULTY

247

validity, dening a participant pool, pilot testing the survey for reliability, and requesting eligible participants to complete the survey. The objective of this manuscript is to describe the processes employed to ensure the psychometric quality of the instrument and the procedures for obtaining an inclusive sample of teacher educators. It represents one of the rst validated online surveys to obtain a comprehensive sample of teacher educators. Survey questions were rened or, in some cases, developed with an eye toward situating the results within an appropriate grounding framework. Career and occupational socialization theories guided the inclusion and renement of questions. The former emphasizes lifelong learning and professional growth throughout ones career, and the latter addresses the signicance of the occupational community and role identication (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). Specically, questions initially asked in the Metzler and Freedman (1985) survey were analyzed by the current investigators using these theories to determine if they were compatible for understanding such things as actual and preferred work responsibilities and professional involvement of teacher educators. Although many questions were purely demographic and not written for purposes of advancing any particular theory, other questions were included as a means of further understanding participants work preferences in relation to actual performance requirements. In relation to developing a valid and reliable survey instrument, several procedures were followed. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999), validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of specic inferences made from test scores (p. 9), or in this case, survey data. To establish validity of the survey, categories related to content and internal structure (Messick, 1993), were used as sources of evidence. The internal structure validity was ascertained by asking experts in the eld to assess the importance of survey items, including the question format and wording (see Stage I below). The validity evidence source of internal structure was employed to determine the degree to which individual items t the underlying constructs (Beckman, Cook, & Mandrekar, 2005, p. 1160). More specically, unidimensional items should be highly correlated, while multi-dimensional should not. Therefore, the organization of content into survey sections and subscales was guided by these denitions. Reliability is the degree to which test scores are free from errors of measurement (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999, p. 19). In this study, the investigators employed two specic methods to conrm reliability: (a) testretest strategy with calculation of intraclass correlation coefcients (ICCs) and (b) scale and subscale internal consistency with calculation of Cronbach alpha. METHODS/ANALYSIS/RESULTS BY STAGE Four primary stages guided the development of the survey and eventual online distribution to participants. Each stage is discussed separately. Stage I: Survey Development and Content Validity Evidence The purpose of Stage I was to conrm the degree to which the survey adequately sampled the characteristics and workplace features of the PETE population. Thus, the initial stage of the investigation addressed content validity evidence (internal structure is addressed later in the

248

GRABER ET AL.

manuscript). A three-step process was enacted to conrm content validity. First, the research team made initial contact with Dr. Michael W. Metzler from Georgia State University to discuss the potential for replicating portions of the original survey that he developed in collaboration with Mark S. Freedman. The original survey, which lacked formal conrmation of validity or reliability, included 7 thematic sections with 34 questions. After receiving enthusiastic endorsement from Metzler, conversation centered on ways in which the survey could be improved and modes of analysis could exceed the scope of the previous investigation. Specically, Metzler suggested revising the survey in ways that would allow role responsibility comparisons between and among teacher educators who were located in different types of universities as classied by Carnegie. Second, four university professors and one graduate student met approximately once per week for several hours over the period of a year to discuss what questions from the original survey were most relevant to present-day teacher education and what additional questions needed to be added. In some cases, questions were retained verbatim from Metzler and Freedmans original survey (1985). In other cases, questions were rewritten to reect societal and relevant changes in teacher education, revised to elicit a more comprehensive and clear response from participants, or simply eliminated. After 7 rounds of revision, 45 questions were developed, and 6 of the 7 original sections were retained. While only a few of the questions from the original Metzler and Freedman survey were utilized verbatim, many were either incorporated into new questions, revised, or broken into several sub-questions. Third, the survey was forwarded to six experts in the eld who had written extensively on issues related to teacher education and who provided their consent to participate. This panel, compromised of professors employed at different Carnegie level institutions, was asked to complete the survey, provide recommendations for improvement, and comment on the degree to which the survey accurately measured what it was intended to measure. Five of the six replied with relatively minor suggestions for improvement, along with the recommendation to proceed. Despite two reminders, the sixth expert never responded. After addressing the comments of the expert panel, the revised survey was forwarded to Metzler and one member of the expert panel for follow-up conrmation. This second check resulted in only minor additional revisions. Subsequently, it was converted into a web-based format, in which responses from the survey would be immediately stored in a database. Multiple functionality tests were run by graduate students through the use of repeated entry of pseudo data. In order to facilitate an appropriate participant response rate, Human Kinetics Publishers agreed to provide a discount to all participants who completed the survey and ten $50 gift certicates to be used as an added incentive. In exchange, their logo was placed on the nal page of the online survey. As a result of the methods enacted in Stage I, the research team determined that the instrument had adequate content validity evidence that could shed light on the roles and responsibilities of teacher educators. Further, the revised version of the survey could now tease out differences between and among faculty employed at different types of Carnegie level institutions. Survey Description The nal survey consisted of 45 primary questions and 119 sub-questions, for a total of 164 total questions. For example, Question #11 was considered a primary numerical question that contained ve sub-questions under the section of the survey addressing education and experience:

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF TEACHER EDUCATION FACULTY

249

Question #11. Total number of years within each rank at all institutions in which you have been employed (complete all that apply): a. b. c. d. e. _____ Instructor/Lecturer/Teaching Associate _____ Assistant Professor _____ Associate Professor _____ Professor _____ Other

In another example, Question #20 was considered a primary Likert-scale question that contained 16 sub-questions under the section of the survey addressing actual and preferred work responsibilities (see Table 1).

TABLE 1 Survey Question #20 Question #20. Using the following scale, indicate your work preferences from least preferred to most preferred (1 = least preferred; 6 = most preferred; NA = not applicable) Administrative (e.g., department head, area coordinator) 1 2 3 4 5 Advising/mentoring graduate students (not related to research) 1 2 3 4 5 Advising mentoring undergraduate students (not related to research) 1 2 3 4 5 Advising/mentoring graduate students on research projects 1 2 3 4 5 Advising/mentoring undergraduate students on research projects 1 2 3 4 5 Conducting research studies (data collection, data analysis, scholarly writing) 1 2 3 4 5 External consulting 1 2 3 4 5 NCATE or other accreditation 1 2 3 4 5 Professional service (professional committees and ofces held) 1 2 3 4 5 Public or community service 1 2 3 4 5 Reading professional articles/journals 1 2 3 4 5 Student teaching supervision 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching graduate students 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching undergraduate students 1 2 3 4 5 University service 1 2 3 4 5 Writing research grants 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

250

GRABER ET AL.

Each of the six sections of the survey contained a variety of types of questions. These included (a) categorical5 primary questions, (b) Likert scale3 primary questions, (c) multiplechoice11 primary questions (d) numerical22 primary questions, (e) open ended3 primary questions, and (f) ordinal1 primary question. Categorical questions asked participants to make a choice about a particular category in which they belonged. For example,
Question 32. Gender: Male Female

Likert-scale questions (see Table 1) required participants to use a six-point scale to provide an opinion that ranged from least to most preferred or important. Multiple-choice questions asked participants to select the best possible response from several options. For example,
Question #12. Tenure status: Tenured Non-tenured but on a tenure track Non-tenured and not on a tenure track

Numerical questions requested that participants provide a response to a question by using a number (see Question #11 above). Open-ended questions asked participants to provide an open response. For example, If you were on a national commission to reform physical education teacher preparation programs, which three changes would you argue for most strenuously? These questions were qualitatively coded, and there was no attempt to validate them. Finally, the one ordinal question on the survey requested participants to provide a rank ordering:
Question #26. Rank the forms of research (funded and unfunded) you engage in most frequently. 1 indicates greatest involvement. If you do not engage in research, skip this question. _____ Quantitative (e.g., quasi-experimental, correlational) _____ Qualitative (e.g., ethnography, naturalistic, feminist) _____ Mixed method (qantitative and qualitative combined)

Stage II: Establishing a Participant Pool Well into Stage I, the investigators initiated Stage II by searching the two most recent editions of Carnegie Classication of Institutions of Higher Education (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994, 2000), along with the internet resource, UnivSource (http://www.univsource.com/ussc.htm), to obtain the name of every institution of higher education in the United States and its respective Carnegie classication. Subsequently, the ve researchers and seven additional graduate/advanced undergraduate student volunteers were assigned to locate these institutions on the internet and determine if teacher certication in physical education was offered. Of the 3,941 public, private not-for-prot, and private for-prot institutions listed in the 2000 edition of Carnegie, 655 were determined to offer certication. A database containing the names of each institution, as well as the names and contact information for all individuals determined to be teacher educators, was created during Stage II and was constantly updated throughout all phases of the investigation. In cases where it was difcult to

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF TEACHER EDUCATION FACULTY

251

determine job responsibility, the department head or secretary was contacted by phone or e-mail and asked to provide that information. Of the 655 institutions that offered teacher certication, the names and contact information for teacher educators from 599 institutions were obtained. Despite numerous attempts by telephone or e-mail contact, the investigators were unable to obtain the correct contact information for teacher educators from 56 schools. Thus, those institutions were not included in the study. In total, the names of 1,035 teacher educators from 599 institutions were included in the database. The institutions of PETE faculty included in the database were classied by using the 1994 Carnegie Classications: Research I = 39 (6.5%), Research II = 23 (3.8%), Doctoral Universities I = 33 (5.5%), Doctoral Universities II = 28 (4.7%), Masters (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I = 230 (38.5%), Masters (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities II = 35 (5.8%), Baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) College I = 29 (4.8%), Baccalaureate Colleges II = 172 (28.7%), Associate of Arts College = 6 (1.0%), and Specialized Institutions = 4 (.6%). As per Metzlers suggestion, the investigators elected to use the 1994 classications because they were more discriminating in their criteria than the more current classications. Stage III: Pilot Testing for Reliability/Scale Internal Structure The purpose of this stage was to examine testretest reliability and the subscale internal structure of the survey. A stratied sample (n = 96) of teacher educators was randomly drawn from the constructed database and recruited to participate in a testretest pilot study. Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics of the characteristics of this group, as well as those in the nal sample. Participants were contacted via e-mail and provided with a password and url address to the online survey. At least 14 days after completing the rst survey, participants were sent a follow-up e-mail with new access directions to the survey site and invited to complete the survey again. If
TABLE 2 Characteristics of TestRetest Participants Participant Characteristics Gender TestRetest Sample (n = 40) Male = 17 Female = 19 No report = 4 M = 51.08 (SD = 7.5) M = 18.64 (SD = 9.48) N = 5 (12.5%) N = 2 (5.0%) N = 3 (7.5%) N = 2 (5.0%) N = 16 (40.0%) N = 3 (7.5%) N = 3 (7.5%) N = 5 (12.5%) N = 0 (0.0%) N = 1 (2.5%) Final Sample (n = 501) Male = 185 Female = 261 No report = 55 M = 48.73 (SD = 9.89) M = 16.93 (SD = 10.28) N = 51 (10.2%) N = 23 (4.6%) N = 38 (7.6%) N = 30 (6.0%) N = 193 (38.5%) N = 36 (7.2%) N = 20 (4.0%) N = 104 (20.8%) N = 4 (0.8%) N = 2 (0.4%)

Age Years in higher ed Research I Research II Doctoral Universities I Doctoral Universities II Masters I Masters II Baccalaureate I Baccalaureate II Associate of Arts College Specialized Institutions

252

GRABER ET AL.

the survey was not completed a second time, an additional request was forwarded. Forty teacher educators, representing a 42% response rate (17 male, 19 female, 4 no report), completed the survey twice. The data from these individuals were used to determine the testretest reliability of the instrument. Due to the condential nature of the study, one researcher was responsible for the maintenance of the database while another was responsible for recruitment. Alphanumeric identication numbers generated for each participant were periodically compared to the database to conrm functionality. Additionally, weekly test submissions were conducted, and participants were encouraged to report functionality issues to the researchers via e-mail. If a submission error did occur, the participant was encouraged to complete the survey a second time or was provided with an electronic text le of the survey.

Reliability With regard to reliability, consistency across two test administrations was calculated by using reliability coefcients according to the nature of variables. Because different types of primary and sub-questions were housed within each section of the survey, all responses within an individual section were summed for test 1 and test 2, and different statistical procedures were used to determine consistency based upon the type of question asked. Survey sections were subsequently compared using ICCs. Results from categorical questions are displayed as percentage averages and scored using intra-reporter agreement. Numerical and ordinal questions were scored using Pearson product. Likert-scale and multiple-choice questions were analyzed using Spearman rho. Table 3 displays the results for the testretest reliability of the six sections of the survey based on the pilot sample: (a) personal characteristics, (b) education and experience, (c) actual and preferred work responsibilities, (d) professional involvement, (e) perceptions concerning the current climate, and (f) departmental demographics.

Subscale Internal Structure According to Van Maanen and Barley (1984), the characteristics of a workplace contribute to ones professional identity, thus creating unique sub-cultures across higher education. For example, teacher educators employed at research institutions spend more time on scholarship than do their colleagues at comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges (Menges & Austin, 2001). Although sometimes slow to change, these subcultures are organic in nature, as expectations of employment and standards of practice evolve over time. Because of the potential relationship between workplace characteristics (requirements for professional advancement and climate) and personal preferences (work preferences, professional involvement, change), ve subscales were created and the relationship between the subscales examined. This enabled the investigators to examine the viability of workplace theory. The subscale of work preferences contained 16 sub-questions and was housed in the section of the survey addressing actual and preferred work responsibilities. The subscale of professional advancement contained 16 sub-questions and was located in the section of the survey focusing on department demographics. The subscale of professional involvement contained six sub-questions and was

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF TEACHER EDUCATION FACULTY

253

TABLE 3 TestRetest Reliability of Survey Sections (N = 40) Section Personal characteristics Age Gender Salary and ethnicitya Education and experience Education and experiencea Years experiencea Actual and preferred work responsibilities Conducting researchb Writing grantsb Reading journalsb Advising students researchb Teachingb Student teaching supervisionb University serviceb Administrative dutiesb NCATE serviceb External consultingb Work preferencea Professional involvement Indicated involvementa Perceptions concerning the current climate Perception of PEa Future growth and improvementa Department demographics Contract (months of service)a Professional advancementa Size of departmentb Size of programb Masters Doctorate Note: Intra-Reporter Agreement. a Spearman rho. b Pearson product. p < .01. Percent Reliability Coefcient

89 90

.72 .82 .91 .79 .84 .94 .75 .76 .70 .75 .91 .86 .86 .61 .54 .60 .65 .92 .68 .74 .86

83 91

housed in the section of the survey related to professional involvement. The subscales of current climate (3 sub-questions) and change (11 sub-questions) were located in the section of the survey addressing perceptions concerning the current climate. As seen in Table 4, the analysis of the intercorrelations among the subscales revealed moderate relationships. A moderately high correlation was noted between work preferences and professional advancement, thus meeting the expectation that there would be alignment between job performance requirements and an individuals work preference. Additionally, there were moderate correlations between the subscales of change and work preference, change and professional advancement, and change and current climate. The subscales of involvement and current climate

254

GRABER ET AL.

TABLE 4 Intercorrelations Among the Subscales Work Preferences Professional Advancement Current Climate

Subscale Intercorrelations among the subscales for pilot testing (N = 40) Work preferences (16 sub-questions) Professional advancement (16 sub-questions) Involvement (6 sub-questions) Current climate (3 sub-questions) Change (11 sub-questions) Total Intercorrelations among the subscales for complete sample (N = 501) Work preferences (16 sub-questions) Prof. advancement (16 sub-questions) Involvement (6 sub-questions) Current climate (3 sub-questions) Change (11 sub-questions) Total
p

Involvement

Change

.60 .22 .45 .56 .82 .24 .53 .68 .88

.36 .37 .39

.76 .71

.87

.73 .14 .27 .44 .87 .15 .32 .42 .86 .34 .32 .33

.47 .49

.74

< .01.

displayed a weak relationship. These results indicate that the items in the instrument t the underlying construct by measuring the homogeneity of uni-dimensional items while differentiating between multi-dimensional constructs.

Stage IV: Survey Completion by Eligible Participants With the psychometric qualities of the instrument conrmed, the survey was determined to be appropriate and consequently released in three phases to the remaining eligible participants. Upon receipt of a participants response, his/her data were stored in Microsoft Access and subsequently SPSS v17.0 for data reduction and analysis. If an individual was unable to submit the survey online, he/she was asked to complete the survey as an attachment to an e-mail. These data were entered into the nal database by hand. If participants did not respond after three e-mail reminders, surveys were forwarded by U.S. mail to those individuals for whom a mailing address could be located. Overall, 501 teacher educators completed the survey, resulting in a 48.4% total response rate (see Table 2 for direct comparison of testretest group with nal sample). Descriptive statistics of each test item revealed normal variability. For instance, the mean age of the nal sample of participants was 48.73 with a standard deviation of 9.9. To further support the extent of internal consistency of the subscales, Cronbach alpha coefcients were calculated for each subscale (.81 work preference, .85 professional development, .53 involvement, .69 current climate, and .70 change). These ndings suggest that the survey minimized variance, which

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF TEACHER EDUCATION FACULTY

255

may be attributed to item difference, conditions of administration, or other potential inuential factors. DISCUSSION In this study, data were collected to examine the psychometric quality of the survey instrument. The validity evidence sources of content and internal structure support the intent of the survey, particularly that the survey items examined the characteristics (i.e., work preferences, professional involvement, and change) and responsibilities of PETE professionals (i.e., requirements for professional advancement and climate). Associations between and among these characteristics help to shape the identity of individuals embedded in an educational setting. More specically, high correlations between work preferences and the requirements of employment were expected and attained (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). Lower associations between unrelated subscales, such as professional involvement and work preference, reected item and instrument discrimination. In relation to reliability, the testretest ICCs and Cronbach alpha analyses provided evidence of moderate, but acceptable levels of internal consistency. The testretest ICCs demonstrated consistency with values ranging from .54 to .94 (see Table 3 for additional values). Two factors may have contributed to the moderate reliability: (a) the large number of test items and (b) the diversity of question format. The large number of test items provided the researchers more opportunities to conrm the internal consistency of the instrument, while the diversity of the question format allowed the investigators to ask questions in different ways. In addition, calculations of the Cronbach alpha for nal samples were at or above acceptable levels. Although the purpose of this manuscript was not to address career or occupational theories in great depth (that discussion is reserved for future publications), it is important to emphasize that these theories were used when rening existing or developing new survey questions. For example, one goal of the research team was to determine the degree to which teacher educators perceived that they met the role responsibilities required of them in their current place of employment. Career development theory supports the notion that individuals inuence their workplace environments, and those environments, in turn, inuence individuals (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). By utilizing the theory, the investigators were able to word survey questions in a way that would tease out differences between and among individuals employed at different levels of Carnegie institutions. The investigators accomplished their objectives by demonstrating validity and reliability of the instrument. The survey accurately identies and discriminates between the current characteristics and work responsibilities of todays teacher educators and facilitates comparison between teacher educators today to those who completed the survey nearly 25 years ago (Metzler & Freedman, 1985). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the following individuals who spent countless hours assisting in the different stages of survey construction, participant location, and data analysis: Kristin Bolton, Lauren Madawick, Erin Nordmeyer, Julia Valley, Montana Willamon, and Martha Woods. The

256

GRABER ET AL.

authors also express particular gratitude to Dr. Michael W. Metzler for his guidance and assistance during all stages of the project and to Darla Castelli for her signicant contributions related to development of the online survey and data analysis. In addition, special thanks is extended to the expert panel and many teacher educators who completed the survey. Finally, the authors acknowledge Human Kinetics Publishers who provided discounts and gift certicates as incentives for participants to complete the survey. REFERENCES
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA Publications. Beckman, T. J., Cook, D. A., & Mandrekar, J. N. (2005). What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 11591164. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1994). A classication of institutions of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Author. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). A Carnegie classication of institutions of higher education. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). A future worthy of teaching for America. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 730733, 736. Ducharme, E., & Agne, R. (1989). Professors of education: Uneasy residents of academe. In R. Wisniewski & E. Ducharme (Eds.). The professors of teaching: An inquiry (pp. 6786). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ducharme, E., & Kluender, M. (1990). The RATE study: The faculty. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 4549. Goc Karp, G., & Williamson, K. (1993). PETE faculty at work: The reciprocal nature of relationships between organizational structures and identity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 413423. Lawson, H. A. (1991). Future research on physical education teacher education professors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 229248. Menges, R. J., & Austin, A. E. (2001). Teaching in higher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 11221156). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Messick, S. (1993). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Metzler, M. W., & Freedman, M. S. (1985). Heres looking at you, PETE: A prole of physical education teacher education faculty. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 123133. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). National standards for beginning physical education teachers. Reston, VA: Author. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2003). National standards for beginning physical education teachers (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2009). National standards and guidelines for physical education teacher education (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author. Swanson, J. L., & Fouad, N.A. (1999). Career theory and practice: Learning through case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tierney, W. (2001). Faculty of education in a period of systematic reform. In W. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty work in schools of education: Rethinking roles and rewards for the twenty-rst century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1984) Occupational communities; culture and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 287365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wolf-Wendel, L., Baker, B. D., Twombly, S., Tollefson, N., & Mahlios, M. (2004). Whos teaching the teachers? Evidence from the national survey of postsecondary faculty and the survey of earned doctorates. American Journal of Education, 112, 273300. Woods, M. L., Phillips, D. A., & Carlisle, C. (1997). Characteristics of physical education teacher educators. The Physical Educator, 54, 150159. Zimpher, N. L., & Sherrill, J. A. (1996). Professors, teachers and leaders in schools, colleges and departments of education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 279305). New York: Macmillan.

Copyright of Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.