Examining Teachers Efficacy in Mathematics Teaching: A Pilot
Examining Teachers Efficacy in Mathematics Teaching: A Pilot Study Natalie A. Tran1, David Drew2, Mark Ellis1, Ruth Yopp-Edwards1, Mike Matsuda3, and Martin Bonsangue1 California State University, Fullerton 2 Claremont Graduate University 3 Anaheim Union High School District 1 NSF Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Conference May 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
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 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 Comparison of Racial/Ethnicity Composition Between MT2 and Non-MT2 Teachers 30 26 25 20 MT2 15 Non-MT2 10 9
9 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 0 American 0 Indian Asian 0 Black Latino Pacific 0 Islander White Comparison of Grades Taught Between MT2 and Non-MT2 Teachers 30
57 32% -- -- -- -- Masters degree 57 65% -- -- -- -- Ph.D., Ed.D., or other professional degree 57 3%
-- -- -- -- Number of years teaching current grade level Current grade level taught Highest degree Characteristics of Teachers in the Sample (N = 58) N Percent Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Female 57
54% -- -- -- -- Male 57 46% -- -- -- -- American Indian 58 2% -- --
-- -- Asian 58 24% -- -- -- -- Black 58 5% -- -- -- --
8 .885 5 .696 5 .669 4 .658 11 .661 8 .738 When a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort. Teacher Efficacy I am typically able to answer students' questions. Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology Technology makes calculations and graphing quicker and easier.
Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology There is not enough teacher time to investigate the potential of using technology. Teacher Using Technology Basic calculator, graphing calculator, movie clips, computer software programs, applets, hand-held media device Student Using Technology Basic calculator, graphing calculator, movie clips, computer software programs, applets, hand-held media device Teacher Support The adequacy of your prior training for teaching math to today's students. Job Satisfaction If you could go back to your college days and start over again, would you become a teacher or not? 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
3.33 3 2.8 2.94 2.9 2.68 2.5 2.02 2 1.61 1.5 1.47 1.24 MT2 1 0.5 0 Ou y nc ta
c e xp E e m tco r he c a Te cy ca Effi rd wa o T es d tu Atti Ad o ge a nt
va g sin U f gy lo o n ch Te d ar w o sT e d tu tti A o ge a nt va d sa Di
g sin U f gy lo o n ch Te g sin U er ch a Te gy lo o n ch Te g sin U nt de
u St gy lo o n ch Te rt po p u rS e h ac Te r he c a Te n tio c fa tis Sa
Non-MT2 Correlations Between Various Constructs Outcome Expectancy Teacher Efficacy Attitudes Toward Advantages of Using Technology Attitudes Toward Disadvantages of Using Technology Teacher Using Technology Student Using Technology 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
0.22 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Teacher Support 0.20 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 using technology in the classroom 0.19* (.09) 0.68*** (.16) Teachers attitudes toward advantage of technology 0.22* (.10) Teachers self-efficacy in teaching mathematics * 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? s n o i t s e Qu ? MT2 Program: http://mt2.fullerton.edu National Board Certification: www.nbpts.org More Information Martin Bonsangue, CSUF: [email protected]
Tight stereochemical fit and Van der Waals forces Electrostatic interactions Hydrogen bonding Hydrophobic effect All forces add up giving the total energy of binding: Gbound- Gfree= RT lnKd Simple binding Receptor occupancy: Mass action: (Langmuir isotherm) kinetic parameters equilibrium parameter...
Lateral . lemniscus. Auditory brainstem response audiometry. Measure the neuronal activity from the brainstem auditory pathway. Each peak is thought to be generated at a different anatomic point in the auditory pathway
Humanities include English, literature, classics, folklore, philosophies, and the arts. Cultural Anthropology and Sociology. Share an interest in social relations, organization, and behavior. Difference in . ... Unit 1 - What is Anthropology? Last modified by:
Pagan culture that was home to the Temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinthus with 1,000 consecrated prostitutes. So notorious for its pleasure seeking atmosphere the term Korinthiazomai ("to act like a Corinthian") became a synonym for debauchery and prostitution. Considerations:...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!