Date: Monday, May 25, 2026
Greetings! We are Meg Gambrell, doctoral student in Science Education at Texas Christian University (TCU); Andreas Thompson, Data Analyst at Institute for Biomedical Philosophy (IBP); Molly Weinburgh, Piper Professor & Andrews Chair of Mathematics & Science Education, Department of Teaching and Learning Sciences at TCU; and Melissa K. Demetrikopoulos, Director of Scientific Communications at IBP; with our team, including Dean Williams at TCU and John Pecore at University of West Florida. We are interested in assessing whether the measure of STEM teacher support is adequate and appropriate in an ongoing study researching high-need Local Education Agencies (LEAs) under NSF Award 2243392. The goal of this research is to understand how learning modalities schools used upon reopening in Fall 2021, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, affected both teacher retention and effectiveness.
Support is critically related to job satisfaction and self-efficacy which predict teacher retention. But how does one adequately measure support? In our mixed-methods study, we interviewed and surveyed teachers about support they received across three time periods: before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic. We specifically asked about three different kinds of support (curricular, technical, and support to meet student needs), as well as asking from where they received support (e.g. other people such as teachers or principals, partnerships, various forms of formal professional development, and online resources). Our survey instrument asked teachers to “Please indicate the level of support that you received from the sources listed in the questions below using the 5-point Level of Support Scale”. The 5-point Likert scale was Exceeded my Needs; Adequate to Meet my Needs; Minimal AND Relevant; Minimal but NOT Relevant; None.
Participants provided more detail about support they received during the qualitative interview phase. Interview and survey data was triangulated to provide deeper understanding of teachers’ perceived support across time. Utilizing qualitative interviews alongside surveys allowed us to determine whether teachers felt supported, and which specific support measures they attributed to effectiveness and retention.
Instruments developed for this project underwent a series of iterative changes based on ongoing mapping of results to program goals. Some initial assumptions about teaching modalities (fully in person, hybrid, and fully virtual) used by schools when they returned after the pandemic were related to data reported to CDC by districts. However, teachers’ reporting of modalities utilized did not match official records due to the necessity to be flexible during this unprecedented event. This necessitated some modifications to survey instruments and interview questions so original and emerging research questions could be adequately answered. Specifically, it was important to be able to measure a number of factors including various forms of support provided, where support came from, and which, if any, support components contributed to teacher retention and/or effectiveness.
As much as we hope there will not be another global pandemic, it is likely that schools will shut down locally in response to a variety of factors including weather-related phenomena or teacher strikes. Therefore, understanding which support measures kept teachers in the classroom and feeling effective would be critical knowledge to implement in such an instance. Evaluators may also use a similar n-by-m design to understand supports researchers need to accomplish project goals with “n” number of support types by “m” number of ways that support can be obtained measured through a survey with the 5-point Level of Support Scale, followed by a structured interview that allows for more detailed information to be collected.
The American Evaluation Association is hosting STEM Education and Training TIG Week with our colleagues in the STEM Education and Training Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our STEM Education and Training TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the AEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.