examining teachers’ efficacy in mathematics teaching: a pilot study natalie a. tran 1, david drew...
TRANSCRIPT
Examining Teachers’ Efficacy in Mathematics Teaching: A Pilot Study
Natalie A. Tran1, David Drew2, Mark Ellis1, Ruth Yopp-Edwards1, Mike Matsuda3, and Martin Bonsangue1
1California State University, Fullerton2Claremont Graduate University
3Anaheim Union High School District
NSF Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program ConferenceMay 25, 2012
Washington, D.C.
Agenda
• MT2 Overview• Partner Selection • Research & Findings• Questions
The Partners
The MT2 Program• Funded in 2010 for six years• Targets Foundational-Level Mathematics
– English Learners– Technology
• 10 Master Teaching Fellows• Two Cohorts of 10 Teaching Fellows
Master Teaching Fellows
• Recruitment and Selection• Training– Summer Institutes and other professional learning
experiences– National Board Certification
• Expectations– Work with CSUF teacher candidates– Open their classrooms– Provide leadership– Collaborate
Teaching Fellows
• Recruitment and Selection• Preparation– FLM credential program–M.S. in Secondary Education program
• Expectations– Complete credential requirements– Complete graduate program requirements– Teach in high-need district– Collaborate
Partner Selection
• Common Vision• National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards• Districts’ Demographics• History of Collaboration
Districts’ Demographics
White17%
Hispanic62%
Asian/ Pac. Isl.16%
African Amer.3%
Other2%
AUHSD
White12%
Hispanic76%
Asian/ Pac. Isl.
8%
African Amer.3%
Other2%
NLMUSD
AUHSD
NLMUSD
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Free/Reduced Lunch
Students Scoring at Proficient & Advanced in 2010-2011
Subject District A
County District B County State
Mathematics 36% 60% 46% 48% 50%
Language Arts 50% 63% 52% 51% 54%
Science 44% 55% 31% 36% 43%
Social Science 49% 59% 41% 44% 48%
History of Collaboration
• University Perspectives
- Establish long-term partnership with districts
- District needs inform university programs• District Perspectives
Research • Data Collection• Sample• Instrumentation• Analysis• Preliminary Findings
Data Collection• Collaborated with district leaders & department chairs
to disseminate paper survey
• Master Teaching Fellows distributed survey to colleagues
• Collected survey via site visits
• 58 of 95 (61%) teachers responded to the survey
Participants: MT2 = 9 NonMT2 = 49
American Indian Asian Black Latino Pacific Islander White0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
0
3
0
2
1
9
3
9
2
26
Comparison of Racial/Ethnicity Composition Between MT2 and Non-MT2 Teachers
MT2
Non-MT2
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 120
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
56
3 3 3
67
10
12
22
25 25 25
Comparison of Grades Taught Between MT2 and Non-MT2 Teachers
MT2Non-MT2
Years of teaching in current grade
MT2 Non-MT2
Characteristics of Teachers in the Sample (N = 58)N Percent Mean Standard
DeviationMinimum Maximum
Number of years teaching current grade level
56 -- 8.55 6.217 1 32
Current grade level taught
Grade 6 58 14% -- -- -- --
Grade 7 58 26% -- -- -- --
Grade 8 58 31% -- -- -- --
Grade 9 58 43% -- -- -- --
Grade 10 58 48% -- -- -- --
Grade 11 58 48% -- -- -- --
Grade 12 58 48% -- -- -- --
Highest degree
Associate's degree 57 0% -- -- -- --
Bachelor’s degree 57 32% -- -- -- --
Master’s degree 57 65% -- -- -- --
Ph.D., Ed.D., or other professional degree
57 3% -- -- -- --
Characteristics of Teachers in the Sample (N = 58)N Percent Mean Standard
DeviationMinimum Maximum
Gender
Female 57 54% -- -- -- --
Male 57 46% -- -- -- --
Ethnicity
American Indian 58 2% -- -- -- --
Asian 58 24% -- -- -- --
Black 58 5% -- -- -- --
Latino/a 58 19%
Pacific Islander 58 0% -- -- -- --
White 58 48% -- -- -- --
Other 58 2% -- -- -- --
InstrumentationConstruct s #Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Outcome Expectancy“When a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort.”
8 .792
Teacher Efficacy“I am typically able to answer students' questions.”
6 .711
Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology“Technology makes calculations and graphing quicker and easier.”
8 .885
Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology“There is not enough teacher time to investigate the potential of using technology.”
5 .696
Teacher Using Technology“Basic calculator, graphing calculator, movie clips, computer software programs, applets, hand-held media device”
5 .669
Student Using Technology“Basic calculator, graphing calculator, movie clips, computer software programs, applets, hand-held media device”
4 .658
Teacher Support“The adequacy of your prior training for teaching math to today's students.”
11 .661
Job Satisfaction “If you could go back to your college days and start over again, would you become a teacher or not?”
8 .738
Descriptive Statistics for Various Constructs
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Outcome Expectancy 1.75 4.63 3.36 0.57
Teacher Efficacy 3.17 5.00 4.53 0.43
Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology
2.00 5.00 3.96 0.57
Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology
1.40 4.20 2.92 0.61
Teacher Using Technology 1.00 4.80 1.68 0.78
Student Using Technology 1.00 3.75 1.28 0.54
Teacher Support 1.45 3.82 2.87 0.43
Teacher Satisfaction 2.38 5.00 3.82 0.57
Comparison of Various Outcomes
Outcome E
xpect
ancy
Teach
er Effi
cacy
Attitudes To
ward Adva
ntage o
f Usin
g Tech
nology
Attitudes To
ward Disa
dvantag
e of U
sing T
echnology
Teach
er Usin
g Tech
nology
Studen
t Usin
g Tech
nology
Teach
er Su
pport
Teach
er Sa
tisfacti
on0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
3.53
4.72
4.4
2.8
2.02
1.47
2.68
3.99
3.33
4.5
3.88
2.94
1.61
1.24
2.9
3.79
MT2 Non-MT2
Correlations Between Various ConstructsOutcome Expectancy
Teacher Efficacy
Attitudes Toward Advantages of Using Technology
Attitudes Toward Disadvantages of Using Technology
Teacher Using Technology
Student Using Technology
Teacher Support
Teacher Efficacy -0.02
Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology
0.23 0.30*
Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology
-0.19 -0.19 -0.53**
Teacher Using Technology
0.01 0.29* 0.53** -0.27
Student Using Technology
0.01 0.17 0.40** -0.39** 0.76**
Teacher Support 0.06 0.34* 0.07 -0.15 0.04 0.08
Teacher Satisfaction 0.16 0.29* 0.52** -0.35** 0.21 0.22 0.20
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Advantage of technology Use technology
Disadvantage of technology Use technology
Use technology Efficacy in teaching mathematics
Efficacy in teaching mathematics Job Satisfaction
Teacher support Job Satisfaction
Sig. effect
Mediational Model
Teachers’ attitudes toward advantage of
technology
Teachers using technology in the
classroom
Teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching
mathematics
0.68***(.16)
0.19*(.09)
0.22*(.10)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
References• Enochs, L.G. Smith, P. L. & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing
Factorial Validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 194-202.
• Goos, M. & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20 (3), 102-130.
• National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Schools and Staffing Survey. U.S. Department of Education. Last accessed March, 7, 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/questionnaire.asp
Questions?
Questions?
More Inform
ation• MT2 Program: http://mt2.fullerton.edu
• Martin Bonsangue, CSUF: [email protected]
• National Board Certification: www.nbpts.org