TPI Reflection

      Prior to last Wednesday, I had not heard of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) test.  My responses to each question yielded scores of 36, 32, 39, 37, and 16 in the teaching perspective categories of Transmission, Apprenticeship, Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform, respectively.  The (downward-biased sample) standard deviation was computed as follows:

x bar = (36 + 32 + 39 + 37 + 16) / 5 = 32,
s^2 = [(36-32)^2 + (32-32)^2 + (39-32)^2 + (37-32)^2 + (16-32)^2]/5 = 69.20,
s = 8.32

      The TPI summary page deem any perspective score exceeding [x bar + s =] 40.32 are dominant, while those less than [x bar - s =] 23.68 are recessive.  I did not have any dominant perspectives, but I did have one (strongly) recessive one, namely Social Reform.  I was not surprised to see these results; I believe that most mathematics taught at the secondary level is intended to improve the individual first, before they move onto more advanced work that may affect our society as a whole sometime down the line (pending impact).  Two internal inconsistencies of note are the Belief subsection of the Developmental perspective and the Action subsection of the Nurturing perspective.  Both sub-scores were lower than the other subsections within each category.  Also, the highest subsection in 3 of the 5 categories was Intention.  These observations could be explained by the short amount of time I spent taking the test or the fact that I have yet to establish consistent sub-perspectives as a teacher candidate.  
      Do the TPI test results perfectly describe me as a teacher?  Certainly not, but it displays a fairly accurate portrayal of my pedagogical tendencies.  It would be interesting to retake this test sometime after I finish my practicum and then again 3-5 years down the road to see how these stats evolve.