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: mbonsangue@fullerton.edu

• National Board Certification: www.nbpts.org