Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education, Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2014

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Behavioral Sciences

Volume 1, Page 1

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Education Edition, Volume 2, Issue 1 Spring 2014

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC ISSN: 2330-6556 ISSN: 2330-6564

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 2 ISSN: 2330-6556 ISSN: 2330-6564

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Spring 2014

Volume 2, Issue 1

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 3

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education The Center for Scholastic Inquiry (CSI) publishes the Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education (JOSI: E) to recognize, celebrate, and highlight scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practice in the field of education.

Academic research emphasizing leading edge inquiry, distinguishing and fostering best practice, and validating promising methods will be considered for publication. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method study designs representing diverse philosophical frameworks and perspectives are welcome. The JOSI: E publishes papers that perpetuate thought leadership and represent critical enrichment in the field of education.

The JOSI: E is a rigorously juried journal. Relevant research may include topics in administration, early childhood education, primary education, elementary education, secondary education, vocational-technical education, alternative education, special education, higher education, international education, change agency, educational leadership, and related fields.

If you are interested in publishing in the JOSI: E, feel free to contact our office or visit our website.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan Executive Director & Managing Editor Center for Scholastic Inquiry 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241

Web: www.csiresearch.com

Phone: 855-855-8764

Email: editor@csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 4

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: EDUCATION Spring 2014, Volume 2, Issue 1

Managing Editor Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jamal Cooks

General Editor Daniel J. O’Brien

APA Editor Jay Meiners

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 5

Editorial Advisory Board Shirley Barnes, Alabama State University Joan Berry, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Brooke Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery Timothy Harrington, Chicago State University Mark Wesolowski, Practitioner-Chicago Public Schools Lucinda Woodward, Indiana University Southeast

Peer Reviewers Taik Kim Bradford Allison Brooke Burks York Williams Josephine Sarvis Dyan Bayan

John Hanes Jerome Fischer Debra Vinci Minogue Gilbert Duenas Haiping Chen

Sally Ingles Rachel Trinkley Shirley Barnes Myrna Olson Nick Bourke

Cynthia Valenciano Glenn Koonce Lisa Douglass Sonja Harrington Catherine Cook

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

· · · · ·

·

Volume 2, Page 6

Would you like to elevate your status as a scholar-practitioner and develop your professional reputation and credentials through presentation and publication?

Would you enjoy stimulating professional rejuvenation and tranquil personal relaxation at the same time by combining meaningful professional development with a luxury getaway?

Would you enjoy tailored continuing education experiences by choosing the conference sessions that best suit your professional interests and vocational pursuits?

Would you appreciate collaborative collegiality with luminaries and pioneers conducting the most academically and scientifically meritorious research?

Are you interested in developing your thought leadership and contributing to the body of validated knowledge in your academic or professional field?

Are you interested in diverse scholarship by learning with and from education, business and behavioral science practitioners and professionals from around the world on a wide range of contemporary topics?

THEN PLAN TO CONFER AND PRESENT WITH THE CENTER FOR SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY No matter your role in business, education, or behavioral science, there is something for everyone.

Professionals from the public and private sectors will learn about emerging trends, best practice and innovative strategies.

For more information about attending, presenting and/or publishing, check out CSI’s website:

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS Publication Agreement and Assurance of Integrity Ethical Standards in Publishing Disclaimer of Liability Research Manuscripts

8

9-175

Program Evaluation Practices of Residential Environmental-Education Centers Nicholas F. Bourke, Auburn University Montgomery Julie K. Herron, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo

9

The Use of Dispositional Assessment in Teacher Preparation Programs as a Means of Preparing Ethically Responsible Teachers Sally A. Creasap, Capital University Bradley Conrad, Capital University

20

Improving Preschool Family/Student Motivation and Achievement through Multicultural Teaching and Learning Bonnie Gail Sullivan, Wetumpka Elementary School for Elmore County Public Schools Gilbert Dueñas, Auburn University at Montgomery Shelly Hudson Bowden, Auburn University at Montgomery

40

Teachers’ Actual Practices with Regard to NCTM Guidelines: A Quantitative Analysis of Teaching Practices in Urban Schools Taik Kim, New Mexico Highlands University

58

The Impact of Student Teaching on Teacher Self-Efficacy R. Kevin Mackin, Upper Iowa University

77

Altered Books: Creating Opportunities for Family Involvement in Education Paula Schubert J. Elizabeth Casey

109

Homework in a Liberal Arts Math Course to Increase Student Participation and Performance Dawn Locklear

123

A Formative Experiment to Increase English Language Learners’ Awareness and Use of Metacognitive Strategies through Reciprocal Teaching J. Elizabeth Casey

143

Manuscript Submission Guide

176

Why Purchase Our Journals

178

Library Recommendation Form

179

Journal Purchase Form

180

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 8

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INTEGRITY By submitting a manuscript for publication, authors confirm that the research and writing is their exclusive, original, and unpublished work. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors grant the Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC (CSI) the sole and permanent right to publish the manuscript, at its option, in one of its academic research journals, on the CSI's website, in other germane, academic publications; and/or on an alternate hosting site or database.

Authors retain copyright ownership of their research and writing for all other purposes.

ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING The CSI insists on and meets the most distinguished benchmarks for publication of academic journals to foster the advancement of accurate scientific knowledge and to defend intellectual property rights.

The CSI stipulates and expects that all practitioners and professionals submit original, unpublished manuscripts in accordance with its code of ethics and ethical principles of academic research and writing.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY The CSI does not endorse any of the ideas, concepts, and theories published within the JOSI: E. Furthermore, we accept no responsibility or liability for outcomes based upon implementation of the individual author’s ideas, concepts, or theories. Each manuscript is the copyrighted property of the author.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 9

Program Evaluation Practices of Residential Environmental-Education Centers Nicholas F. Bourke Auburn University Montgomery Julie K. Herron California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo

Abstract Presently, a lack of quality, systematic evaluation has been noted in the area of environmental education. This is problematic because evaluation is critical to the design of quality educational experiences. This study reports the results of a survey of residential environmental-education center directors regarding their program-evaluation practices. One hundred and fourteen center directors across the United States participated in the survey (55.6% response rate). An analysis of the survey data revealed that residential centers evaluate programs by using a variety of tools and processes but lack effective methods for evaluating important center goals and documenting a program’s impact on visiting students.

Keywords: environmental education, program evaluation, residential education

Residential environmental-education centers (REECs) are locations that offer students an opportunity to study environmental education firsthand in a field-based setting (Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008). These centers are unique providers of environmental education because they offer students the opportunity to learn as part of a residential experience, and students typically stay for two to five days. These centers offer a structured curriculum outside of the traditional classroom setting. Additionally, experiences offered at these unique environmental education providers can “grab learners’ attention, provoke emotional responses, and support direct experience with phenomena” (National Research Council, 2009, p. 42). Research has shown that early experiences with nature ,like a visit to a REEC, could make students more likely to choose a career in a science-related field (Tai, Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006) or develop an appreciation for nature that could lead them to be more environmentally sensitive adults (Coyle, 2005).

Although program evaluation is an important part in the successful operation of organizations that provide educational services to students (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003), environmental-education programs have been criticized for their lack of a quality evaluation

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 10

process (Carleton-Hug & Hug, 2009; McDuff, 2002). Indeed, nonformal education settings, including REECs, possess unique characteristics that can pose problems for conducting evaluations. Clavijo, Fleming, Hoermann, Toal, and Johnson (2005) described various challenges to evaluation that are commonly present in nonformal education programs including a lack of infrastructure for understanding and interpreting evaluations, a lack of buy-in from staff, and a focus on evaluating for external purposes (e.g., funding sources) rather than programdevelopment purposes. Powell, Stern, and Ardoin (2006) maintain that few environmentaleducation organizations “regularly undertake systematic and meaningful program evaluations themselves” (p. 231). They reason that the expertise, time, and expense of conducting meaningful evaluations are beyond the means of most environmental-education centers. Norland (2005) identifies several constraints to evaluation decisions including money, time, and personnel. Lastly, the fact that many of these programs have multiple goals is a major hurdle for conducting evaluations of nonformal education centers (Christensen, Nielsen, Rogers, & Volkov, 2005).

In addition to these challenges, the National Research Council (2009) concluded that good outcome measures were not available for assessing the learning goals of science centers like REECs. It states “conventional achievement measures are too narrow and not well aligned to the goals of informal providers” (p. 303). Currently, an evaluation model that fits the needs of REECs in a timely and cost-effective manner is not available. Powell et al. (2006) describe program evaluation for REECs as “a daunting task that often requires energy and expertise beyond what is typically available in-house” (p. 232).

Although much has been written regarding REECs’ lack of quality program evaluation, the last national survey of evaluation practices for REECs was completed in 1985 by Chenery and Hammerman. They found that although most programs were conducting evaluations of some type, REEC center directors typically reported using surveys that measured only the satisfaction of teachers and students with the programs and camp facilities. This survey was limited in several ways. The survey did not include questions related to the program directors’ satisfaction with present program evaluations or assess whether current program evaluations are meeting their centers' needs.

With these limitations in mind, the researchers sought to update the current literature that is related to REEC program-evaluation practices and program directors’ evaluation needs. The present study utilized an Internet-based survey of REEC program directors throughout the United States.

Methodology This study, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Alabama, used survey-research methodology to assess the current program-evaluation practices of REECs. An online survey was sent to 205 program directors of REECs. Several methods were used to develop a list of e-mail addresses of all residential program directors in the United

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 11

States A national database listing residential centers across the U.S. was examined, and e-mail addresses were collected from this database for center program directors Also, contact information for an organization of REEC directors was utilized. Invitations to participate in the study were sent to this organization’s members. A total of 205 program directors were added to the researcher’s database of program directors for participation in the study’s survey portion.

Before e-mail addresses were added to this database, center websites were examined to verify that the centers were, in fact, residential in nature and that the centers’ focused on environmental education.

Steps detailed by Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) were followed in the survey’s construction.

The research objectives were defined, a sample was selected, and the questions were tested by an independent researcher and a residential center program director. Comments made by the independent researcher and the program director were recorded, and changes were made in the survey to address the comments. The corrected surveys were sent to the independent researcher and program director for further testing. Again, corrections were made in the survey based on comments from the independent researcher and the program director. A final version of the survey was deemed acceptable by the independent researcher and the program director. The survey’s final version was posted on the web-hosting site SurveyMonkey. A link to the completed survey was sent to the independent researcher and the program director for a final field test. The survey’s link was sent to the research participants only after the survey’s Internet version had been field-tested.

Research participants were contacted in the fall of 2010 and invited to participate in the research study. A link to the survey’s location on SurveyMonkey was provided in the e-mail invitation. Through the link provided to the participants, the participants were able to view the study’s consent form. The participants were allowed to proceed with the survey only after they completed the consent form. As the surveys were completed, the Survey Monkey website stored the data, which was downloaded at the study period’s conclusion. After three weeks, a second reminder was sent to the program directors’ e-mail addresses requesting their participation in the research study. A third e-mail reminder was sent to the program directors one week before the end of the survey period. The survey was open to the center directors for a period of five weeks, which began with the first e-mail invitation. At the conclusion of the five-week period, the survey was made inactive, and survey data were downloaded from SurveyMonkey.

The survey design was based on Chenery and Hammerman’s (1985) survey, which previously documented the evaluation practices of REECs. The online survey consisted of 25 questions that were designed to be completed in 15 minutes. Though the questions were based on survey questions included in the original program-evaluation survey that was conducted by Chenery and Hammerman (1985), new questions were added to assess program directors’ overall satisfaction with their program evaluations, barriers to constructing and conducting program evaluations, program directors' needs regarding program evaluations, and desired characteristics in a program evaluation. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions with an option of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 12

“other.” A text box was provided after the “other” choices so that program directors could elaborate on their answers to the survey questions.

Results At the survey period’s conclusion, 114 of the 205 invited program directors had participated in the survey, and this provided a 55.6% response rate. The survey data were analyzed using SAS 9.0. Descriptive statistics were generated and organized into tables that included frequencies and percentages for the survey responses. Survey responses that were open ended and involved completion of the “other” text boxes were analyzed qualitatively.

Table 1 summarizes basic information provided by center directors about the programs they supervise. Multiple responses were allowed for each survey question, so the n and the percentages do not always correspond to the total number of respondents. The participants most frequently provide science-education programs to 4th–6th grade students. Most of the centers are self-funded; however, many report receiving additional funds from a variety of outside sources including government entities and corporate/private entities.

The characteristics of center program-evaluation practices are presented in Table 2. Most often, the program director designs and conducts the program evaluations with full-time staff and center instructors. Independent evaluators are infrequently involved in program evaluation.

The most commonly reported methods of evaluation are surveys of or discussions with teachers and chaperones. Program observation is the second leading method of evaluation.

About half of the programs report using surveys of and discussions with students. Methods that assess learning including pretesting, post testing, and standardized achievement testing are not frequently used.

The participants in the evaluation process are visiting teachers, parent chaperones, and students about half of the centers also assess program staff and instructors. The most common purposes of program evaluations are improving programs and staff, planning future programs, and ensuring adequate accommodations. Finally, the typical time set aside for programevaluation activities is at the end of a center visit.

The end of a class’ visit to an environmental center is the most frequently selected time for conducting program evaluations according to the survey data’s results. 92.3% of the directors indicated that program evaluation occurs at the end of the stay at the camp. Evaluation materials are collected from teachers and parent chaperones as they prepare to leave the site.

Only 24.8% of the directors indicated that evaluation materials are completed seasonally, and even fewer (9.2%) indicated that evaluation materials are completed on a yearly basis. The survey results revealed that marketing to schools was an important use of program-evaluation results. Directors' responses also revealed that the justification of a program's existence was an important use of evaluation results. Issues of marketing and program justification are important to centers relying on fees collected from visiting students. For this reason, it is not surprising that teacher and chaperone satisfaction along with the operational aspects of a camp visit

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 13

represent the greatest percentages for being included in program evaluations. A comparison of this survey’s results with Chenery and Hammerman survey results (1985) indicates that, if anything, these trends have gotten stronger over time.

Survey Comparisons The present survey was conducted to update and extend the findings of the programevaluation practices of REECs Table 3 is a summary of the percentages of program directors who responded to questions that were in both surveys. In some cases, no appreciable changes were observed. For example, about 85% of the program directors reported primary responsibility for the evaluations’ content in both surveys. In both the present survey and Chenery and Hammerman's survey, over 90% of the respondents reported that evaluations are conducted at the end of a group's stay. However, differences in the percentage of directors who endorse certain items were also observed.

The greatest change in program evaluations (+350%) was the use of outside researchers as program evaluators. Although the percent increase is large, the number of programs reporting the use of outside researchers as program evaluators is still under 10%. Comparisons of other items present in both surveys indicate an increase in the number of programs that survey teachers (+19.4%) and a decrease in the number of programs that survey students (-26.4%). One final comparison records a decrease in assessing student satisfaction (-15.2%).

Discussion The survey data provide an important update of current REEC program-evaluation practices. Overall, REEC-evaluation practices related to student outcomes are not widely included in program evaluations. The nature of the surveys and discussions undertaken with students leads the researchers to question the depth and systematic nature of student involvement in program evaluations. Teacher satisfaction and student satisfaction were common focal points of evaluation designs. A camp’s operational aspects in regards to visitor satisfaction were also commonly included in the evaluations.

Parents and teachers are the primary participants in REEC evaluations according to the directors’ survey. Because teachers are primarily responsible for bringing students to the centers, their participation in program evaluations is important. Students are much less likely to be included in program evaluations.

Conclusion Though many changes have occurred in the educational landscape, changes in program evaluations of REECs have not been meaningful. If these centers truly hope to make judgments about the merit, value, and worth of their educational programs, effective tools must be

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 14

developed to assess the learning outcomes that meet the needs of these unique centers. The training of REEC directors and their staff members is likely to enable REEC centers to build their capacities for conducting meaningful program evaluations.

The urgency of environmental issues could increase the demand for the evaluation of environmental-education programming. REECs are important providers of environmental education, and they can contribute to the development of an environmentally literate society that is capable of making important decisions. Student outcomes must a part of program evaluations of REECs for these evaluations to be truly beneficial for the centers conducting them. Providing program directors with the proper tools to conduct relevant program evaluations is needed if REECs are to meet their program goals.

Further study of REECs and the assessment tools utilized by REECs is important.

Program evaluations are integral to the successful operation of organizations that provide educational services to students (Gall et al., 2003). The ability of residential center program directors and their staff members to conduct effective program evaluations can mean the difference between success and failure for REECs. Author Biographies Dr. Nicholas Bourke is an assistant professor at the Auburn Montgomery School of Education. He teaches science and math methods for elementary education majors and graduate students. His research interests include documenting the impacts of informal education experiences and elementary environmental education. Before coming to Auburn Montgomery, Nicholas served as a classroom teacher for 22 years in a variety of settings including public and parochial schools. His teaching duties revolved mainly around science and math instruction in the 4th–9th grades.

Dr. Julie Herron is an assistant professor of elementary mathematics at the California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo. She teaches elementary math methods in the School of Education’s Elementary Teaching Credential Program. Her research interests include teachers’ perceptions of early childhood mathematics and informal mathematics assessments in the early childhood classroom.

References Carleton-Hug, A., & Hug, J. (2009). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 159-164.

Chenery, M., & Hammerman, W. (1985). Current practices in the evaluation of resident outdoor education programs: Report of a national survey. Journal of Environmental Education, 16(2), 35-42.

Christensen, L., Nielsen, J., Rogers, C., & Volkov, B. (2005). Creative data collection in nonformal settings. New Directions for Evaluation, 108, 73-79.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 15

Clavijo, K., Fleming, M., Hoermann, E., Toal, S., & Johnson, K. (2005). Evaluation use in nonformal education settings. New Directions for Evaluation, 108, 47-55.

Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

McDuff, M. (2002). Needs assessment for participatory evaluation of environmental education programs. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 1(1), 25-36.

Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Norland, E. (2005). The nuances of being “non�: Evaluating nonformal education programs and settings. New Directions for Evaluation, 108, 5-12.

Powell, R., Stern, M., & Ardoin, N. (2006). A sustainable evaluation framework and its application. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 5, 231-241.

Stern, M., Powell, R., & Ardoin, N. (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31-43.

Tai, R., Liu, C., Maltese, A., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science.

Science, 312, 1143-1144.

Thomas, I. (1990). Evaluating environmental education programs using case studies.

Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 3-8.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 16

Table 1 Characteristics of Residential Environmental-Education Centers that Participated in the Survey Characteristic N % Clientele K–3rd Grade 52 46 th th 4 –6 Grades 105 93 7th–8th Grades 86 76 High School 65 57.5 College 44 39.3 Adult 41 36.6 Educational Focus Science 109 97.3 Personal Growth 34 30.4 Social Studies 24 21.4 Recreation 16 14.3 Creative Expression 6 5.4 Agriculture 3 2.7 Funding Source Self-Funded 89 79.5 Government 27 24 Corporate/Private 24 21.4 School/University 15 13.4 Other 10 8.9 Religious 9 8 Nonprofit 4 3.6 *Note. (N = 114). The n and percentages do not sum to 114 and 100, respectively, because multiple responses were allowed for each survey question.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 17

Table 2 Characteristics of Evaluation Programs Reported by Directors of Residential EnvironmentalEducation Centers that Participated in the Survey Characteristics N % Responsible for Evaluation Design Program Director 94 85 Full-Time Staff 53 48 Center Instructors 26 23.4 Other 19 17 Advisory Board 16 14.4 Board of Directors 15 13.5 Independent Evaluators 5 4.5 Responsible for Conducting Evaluation Program Director 86 77.5 Full-Time Staff 48 43.2 Center Instructors 44 39.6 Other 20 18 Advisory Board 8 7 Independent Evaluators 8 7 Board of Directors 5 4.5 Program Evaluation Methods Survey: Teachers 100 90.9 Program Observation 90 81.8 Discussions: Teachers 77 70 Survey: Chaperones 62 56.4 Discussions: Chaperones 55 48.2 Survey: Students 53 46.5 Discussions: Students 49 44.5 Pretests and Posttest of Knowledge 33 30 Interviews: Parents/Students 16 14.5 Independent Evaluator 11 10 Other 8 7.3 Standardized Tests 3 2.7 Program Evaluation Participants Visiting Teachers 102 93.6 Parent Chaperones 72 66 Students 61 56 Visiting Administrators 57 52.3 Program Staff 50 45.9 Program Instructors 48 44 Other 9 8.3 Independent Researchers 6 5.5 Note. (N = 114). The n and percentages do not sum to 114 and 100, respectively, because multiple responses were allowed for each survey question.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 18

Table 2 Continued Characteristics of Evaluation Programs Reported by Directors of Residential EnvironmentalEducation Centers that Participated in the Survey Characteristics n % Program Evaluation Participants Visiting Teachers 102 93.6 Parent Chaperones 72 66 Students 61 56 Visiting Administrators 57 52.3 Program Staff 50 45.9 Program Instructors 48 44 Other 9 8.3 Independent Researchers 6 5.5 Purpose of Program Evaluation Program Improvement 99 92 Plan Future Programs 92 85 Staff Improvement 86 80 Ensure Adequate Accommodations 81 75 Staff Evaluation 79 73 Assess Program Accomplishments 70 65 Marketing 63 58 Accountability to Overseers 49 45.4 Other 2 1.8 Evaluation Times End of Visit 101 92 Seasonally 27 24.8 Weekly 17 15.6 Multiple Times 16 14.3 Other 11 10 End of Year 10 9 End of Semester 7 6.4 Monthly 5 4.6 Note. (N = 114). The n and percentages do not sum to 114 and 100, respectively, because multiple responses were allowed for each survey question.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 19

Table 3 Comparison of Survey Results Survey Question

Response Rate

% Change

Observation of program used as a method of program evaluation

1985 90.4

Present 81.8

-9.5

Classroom teachers complete some form of the program evaluation

78.4

93.6

19.4

Students complete some form of the program evaluation

76.1

56

-26.4

Evaluation completed at the end of a group’s stay

93

92.3

-0.8

Program director determines content of program evaluation

85

84.7

-0.4

Independent researcher is involved with administration of program evaluation Teachers’ satisfaction with program included in evaluation

1.6

7.2

350

85.1

93.6

10

Students’ satisfaction with program included in evaluation

86.6

73.4

-15.2

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 20

The Use of Dispositional Assessment in Teacher Preparation Programs as a Means of Preparing Ethically Responsible Teachers Sally A. Creasap Capital University Bradley Conrad Capital University

Abstract Around the year 2000, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education added the assessment of dispositions to the standards for teacher education programs. However, teacher preparation institutions still struggle with how to define and assess the dispositions of their teacher education candidates. While it is often clear whether a candidate has the knowledge and skills to become a teacher, it is much more difficult to determine if the proper dispositions exist.

Even more challenging is the process involved when unacceptable dispositions surface in a candidate. This paper looks at Capital University’s research in exploring these questions and ambiguities to assess the dispositions of teacher education candidates. While the research produced as many questions as answers, it was evident that change was necessary in the current dispositional assessment process. After the education department reviewed many options, a pilot project was implemented in the fall of 2010, and its full implementation occurred in the fall of 2011. The new process provided the validity and reliability that were previously missing.

However, after further review of the literature and the data collected during implementation of the new process, a need for additional change emerged - the need for candidates to engage in self-reflection, group reflection, and written reflection surrounding the disposition process and assessment data.

Keywords: dispositions, standards, assessment, reflection

Introduction The media is plagued with stories about teachers who have behaved in a manner unbecoming to their profession. In Ohio alone, the Department of Professional Conduct received

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 21

8,252 allegations of misconduct against teachers in 2010. This number continues to rise each year and has nearly doubled since the 4,771 allegations of misconduct in 2005 (Office of Professional Conduct 2010 Annual Report- Submitted to the State Board of Education May 2011). So it would seem obvious that colleges and universities preparing future teachers would have solid measures in place to ensure that no candidate is being licensed if there is any doubt of the candidate’s ethical credibility. However, this is not necessarily the case because two instances of blatant and repeated dishonest behavior by teacher education candidates in 2007– 2008 at Capital University prompted one faculty member to investigate university policies and procedures for dealing with such misconduct.

In the first instance, a student had missed numerous classes for what appeared to be justifiable reasons. According to the student, her mother was dying of cancer, the student had medical power of attorney, and the mother was in a hospital three hours away. There were many occasions when the student claimed that she needed to return home (i.e., emergency surgeries or near-death experiences). In turn, the faculty was supportive of her needs during this difficult time and allowed her to not worry about classroom attendance and assignments. However, nearly six weeks into the semester, she confessed that the stories about her mother had all been fabricated. In fact, she had been lying about her mother to faculty for the past three semesters.

In the second instance, several faculty members had e-mailed concerns to an advisor about an education major who habitually missed class. By communicating with faculty members and meeting with the student several times, the advisor concluded that the student was having a string of bad luck. When one of his professors called his house to check on them, his mother was unaware of any of these incidents. These two scenarios, both happening in the same academic year, led one faculty member at Capital University to consider how teacher educators might best monitor and assess the ethical and moral qualities of teacher education candidates.

This search, which included a thorough review of both the teacher education literature and various presentations given at the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) Annual Conference, led to a closer examination of teacher dispositions. More specifically, the literature reveals that dispositional assessment instruments are used by several teacher education programs to not only assess and mold teacher candidates’ dispositions but also to improve teaching effectiveness in the classroom (Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000; Flowers, 2006; Harrison, McAffee, Smithey, & Weiner, 2006; Rike & Sharp, 2008; Notar, Riley, Taylor, Thornburg, & Cargill, 2009; Almerico, Johnston, Henroitt, & Shapiro, 2011). Dispositions are defined as the confluence of beliefs, intentions, and actions (Conrad, 2014). Intentions refer to a teacher’s explicit goals or objectives for his or her practice and the students in his or her classroom (Uhramacher, Conrad, & Lindquist, 2010). By beliefs, we mean what someone thinks is true or right; individuals develop their beliefs based on previous experiences and their current knowledge (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006). Intentions and beliefs are intimately connected. As Pratt (1992) explains, “For most people, beliefs informed their intentions” (p.

208). Ajzen (1991) further illuminates that beliefs and intentions are nearly identical except that there is a future component to intentions. Otherwise stated, one might believe something without

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 22

the intent of acting on that belief. When one has an intention, perceptual psychology further elucidates that it is directly informed by a belief and that he or she will likely act on that intention in the future (Wasicsko, 2002; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In turn, action refers to what one actually does or how one behaves.

It quickly became apparent that a focus on dispositions would be most helpful to not only assess and monitor student teachers’ ethics and morals at Capital University but also to improve teacher quality. Furthermore, several teacher-education accrediting bodies, such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) -include dispositions in their standards. With this in mind, this paper will provide a better understanding about the meaning of dispositions, how dispositions might be assessed, and what dispositional data on teacher candidates might reveal.

The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, we examine the literature on teacher dispositions, sharing information on the disparate definitions that exist while elucidating how some teacher education programs have used dispositional assessment instruments. Next, we share the results of a two-year pilot study that sought to assess teacher candidate dispositions.

Finally, we consider how teacher education programs might better assess teacher dispositions based on our findings from the pilot study while considering how to improve the dispositional assessment implementation process. Therefore, the following questions guided this research: · What kind of data might a dispositional assessment tool yield to a teacher education program about its students? · How might a teacher education program best implement a dispositional assessment instrument?

Literature Review Dispositions: Definitions and Malleability Though the idea of dispositional assessment is hardly a new concept in the field of education, it has greatly increased in popularity over the past several years. Synonyms for the word disposition have continued to evolve, and they include words like attitudes (Thurstone, 1928), habits (Dewey, 1922), meta-abilities (Goleman, 1995), rational passions (Paul, 1993; Scheffler, 1991), virtues (Paul, 1991; Schrag, 1988), attitudes, beliefs, and values- (Freeman, 2007; Ritchhart, 2001). Currently, researchers, administrators, teachers, and policy-makers are only beginning to grapple with the definitional and philosophical aspects of dispositions (Dottin, 2010). A major stumbling block in this process is created by the lack of an agreed-upon definition for dispositions because there is a great deal of ambiguity and inconsistency in its definition (Thompson, Ransdell, & Rousseau, 2005; Talbert-Johnson, 2006; Damon, 2007; Murray, 2007; Boggess, 2010). However, a number of functional definitions for dispositions have emerged in the literature (Burant, Chubbick, & Whipp, 2007; Diez, 2007; Diez & Raths,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 23

2007; Helm, 2006; Johnson & Reiman, 2007; Talbert-Johnson, 2006). Most of these definitions hinge on words like habits of mind, ways of behaving, values, intentions, beliefs, and attitudes (Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000).

While others such as Arnstine (1995) may have discussed the concept of dispositions as it relates to the field of education, Katz and Raths (1985) are credited with suggesting that the concept of dispositions be a goal in teacher education (Freeman, 2007). Prior to the mid-1980s many other terms were utilized instead of dispositions. In addition to knowledge and skills, for example, attitudes and values are often referenced as essential elements for teachers. Though knowledge and skills still remain central issues to teacher quality, disposition is a central element to educational professional standards (Thornton, 2006).

“Behavior in reacting to certain circumstances” appears to be a theme running through many contemporary definitions of dispositions. Damon (2007), for example, surmises that “a disposition is a trait or characteristic that is embedded in temperament and disposes a person toward certain choices and experiences that can shape his or her future” (p. 367). Similarly, Villegas (2007) refers to dispositions as “tendencies for individuals to act in a particular manner under particular circumstances, based on their beliefs” (p. 374). Ritchart (2001) refers specifically to habits when defining dispositions as “habits of minds including both cognitive and affective attributes that filter ones knowledge, skills and beliefs and impact the actions one takes in classroom or professional settings…” (p. 144). Though Rinehart (2002) suggests a distinction between the two terms when he discusses a disposition as a range of similar reactions or responses when approaching like situations, he writes that a habit is more of a “mindless and automatic response that is not readily controllable” (p. 20). With this in mind, one might consider the definition of dispositions as being the confluence of beliefs, intentions, and actions in which beliefs inform intentions and intentions result in action. Without all three elements in place, a disposition does not exist.

With the use of terms such as choice and tendencies in the above definitions, one might conclude that individuals have some control over dispositional factors. Moreover, if dispositions are choice responses to situations, then the question remains: can acceptable dispositions be taught? The general consensus is yes. Indeed, Oser (1994) argues that dispositions are not inborn and can be malleable. Similarly, Ajzen (1991) found that outside events or experiences can alter intentions and change a person’s behavior, thus, changing his or her dispositions.

Dewey (1922) proposed such a belief when he emphasized the importance of the acquisition and development of dispositions. He referred to learning from experience as “the power to retain from one experience something, which is of avail in coping with the difficulties of a later situation. This means power to develop dispositions. Without it, the acquisition of habits is impossible” (1944, p. 45).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 24

The Growth of Dispositions in Education and Current Instruments Recent popularity in the concept of dispositions can be attributed to standards and accreditation. The National Board for the Professional Teaching Standards was created in 1987 and shortly thereafter issued its first policy statement: What Teachers Know and Should be Able to Do. This policy contained five core propositions that formed the foundation and framework for the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and beliefs that characterize National Board Certified Teachers. In 1992, under the leadership of Linda Darling Hammond, the INTASC standards were approved. These standards addressed indicators of knowledge, dispositions, and performance pertaining to 10 principles of effective teaching. In 2001, the NCATE added the assessment of dispositions to the standards for teacher education programs. In its glossary of terms, the NCATE defines dispositions as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect student learning, motivation and development as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Dispositions are guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility and social justice. For example, they might include a belief that all students can learn, a vision of high and challenging standards, or a commitment to a safe and supportive learning environment. (2001, p. 30) The recent popularity of dispositions seems to validate the importance of the construct, but ambiguities still prevail. The NCATE definition of dispositions provides examples of characteristics that teachers should possess, such as caring, honesty, fairness, and respect, but it does little to define what elements comprise target dispositions (Johnston, Almerico, Henriott, & Shapiro, 2011). Likewise, there is little or no guidance on how to measure such dispositions nor is there insight on what actions to take when target dispositions are not obtained. However, some examples do exist in teacher education, which we will discuss momentarily.

These same questions seem to baffle other teacher education preparation programs, and they have been the subject of much debate in the past decade following the requirement of dispositional assessment in the NCATE standards. A review of the literature on dispositions has proved to be as ambiguous as content presented at the ATE’s conference sessions. There were many sessions to choose from, but the sessions varied greatly in content and context. Granted, the context and the number of sessions were somewhat dependent on a conference’s theme; however, as Table 1 suggests, disposition has been a topic of interest at the ATE Annual Conference for the past nine years.

Dispositional Assessment Instruments in Use Several examples of researchers utilizing tools to assess dispositions exist. Though he never utilized them in the field, Combs (1974) utilized rubrics to assess teacher dispositions.

Haberman (1996) also utilized rubrics as well as surveys in identifying his “star teachers.”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 25

Though these early instruments laid the foundation for dispositional assessment, many models began to grow from these rubrics. As Thornton (2006) points out, multiple models for assessing dispositions currently exist and are utilized across the education field. The professional behaviors model looks at how teachers should behave in their schools and classrooms, and it looks at elements such as how they dress and whether they are on time or reliable. The standards language model uses state and national standards as a lens for evaluating teacher actions in the classroom while also looking at their professional ethics, or actions. The ethics and equity model looks at teacher dispositions in relation to diversity. This model seeks to examine the alignment of teacher and student worldviews. It has also found that misalignment of teacher and student worldviews can cause teachers to view students of diverse backgrounds through a deficit perspective (Zeichner, 1996). The self-reflections model was built off of the work of Arthur Combs and his associates (1969). This model relies on teacher reflection in order to examine teachers’ dispositions when they engage in journaling after teaching. This practice permits researchers and teachers to examine how dispositions change over time. The disposition in action model examines thinking patterns and how one is predisposed to act, identifying a clear connection between intentions and actions. Of the five models, this is the only one that focuses on how a teacher’s feelings about issues of morality, ethics/values, and diversity manifest in his or her classroom.

Specifically in teacher education, there are a number of dispositional assessments currently in use. Taylor and Wasicsko (2000) created an innovative instrument that examines 12 dispositions of teacher candidates, looking at them in the university classroom, the clinical experience, and the student-teaching experience. This instrument relies heavily on observable behavior to assess dispositions. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte drew upon INTASC standards to develop a rubric for evaluating the dispositions of their teacher candidates in clinical experiences that have been tested for reliability and validity (Flowers, 2006). The University of Memphis utilizes a particularly sophisticated tool that examines teacher candidates’ dispositions in the categories of university classroom behavior (as students), practicum behavior, communication skills, and general dispositions. The University of Tampa looked at a multitude of currently used dispositional assessment tools to develop their own assessment, evaluating 23 dispositions of their teacher candidates. They not only rate their candidates on a 1–4 scale for dispositional quality, but also they provide comments for strengths and areas of growth (Almerico et al., 2011). Henderson State University draws on the Pathwise classroom observation system and the 22 components of Danielson’s Enhancing Professional Practice Framework to develop their rubric (Harrison et al., 2006). They assess dispositions through an entry-and-exit interview of their teacher education students while also assessing teacher candidates’ actions during field experience. The students can also self-assess their own dispositions in this process. Though these are just a few of the instruments currently utilized, many others do, in fact, exist. What is interesting to note is that none of the above listed dispositional assessments currently in use look at all three elements of a disposition: beliefs, intentions, and actions. Furthermore, they do not seek the alignment of these three entities to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 26

assess whether a disposition actually exists. Finally, most of these instruments derive the actual dispositions that they should examine from outside entities, such as the NCATE or other universities. None of the dispositional assessments currently in use draw upon the larger body of literature that covers the intentions, beliefs, and actions of effective teachers, though Wasicsko (2002) would argue that no specific teaching behaviors have been proven to be directly related to teaching effectiveness. He does also argue, however, that a theoretical approach to teacher disposition assessment is called for (Wasicsko, 2002).

An Adaptable Dispositional Assessment Instrument While all of these instruments could have certainly informed the dispositional assessment instrument we might have adopted at Capital University, one particular instrument caught our interest. This instrument, presented at the 2010 ATE conference by Rinaldo, Denig, Sheeran, Vermete, and Smith from Niagara University, had a particularly strong focus on the assessment’s reliability and validity. They were an NCATE-accredited institution that had to answer to accreditation issues around disposition. Likewise, they also recognized that there was an occasional disconnection between a student’s strong academic success and his or her ability to transfer success to the classroom setting. The Niagara University group was well aware of the legal issues surrounding assessing intangible human qualities, and this was the most interesting thing to us because we were hoping to quickly apply a tool in our own program; they had designed an assessment tool that was representative of the total learning process as opposed to just cognitive processes. Their process involved a high degree of accountability at many levels, which began with the student. Upon acceptance into the teacher education program, all students had to sign two copies of the “Statement of Commitment to Dispositions,” which exposed them to the behavioral expectations of good teaching. All instructors were provided with rating forms, and they kept a record of student behavior that deviated from the acceptable behavior of someone wishing to enter the teaching profession. At the end of each semester, the department chair aggregated the data by using a definitive scoring process. Students who received two or more scores below an acceptable level were flagged. If it was their first offense, they received a letter from the department chair that required them to engage in a written reflection that included a plan of action. If it was their second offense, they had to meet with an ad hoc committee to determine their next steps, which could include continuing the program or being counseled to leave the program.

Method A proven instrument and process seemed like a good fit for our teacher education program. In response to the recent concerns about dispositions, we formed a committee to look at our current process of looking at dispositions, which was in its infancy, and we also considered how we might use data gleaned from a new dispositional assessment tool to inform

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 27

our processes for working with troubled students. Some of the discussion centered around a need to look at past data to inform any decisions and review the NCATE’s definition and position on dispositions. Other discussion centered on the need to develop a new instrument to replace the existing one. What was required was an instrument that was valid and reliable in which the data could be used for more than just to satisfy an accreditation requirement. In May 2010, the Rinaldo work was shared with the committee, and there was agreement that it contained important items missing from our current process; however, the following questions needed to be addressed: Should the existing tools and procedures set forth by Rinaldo et al. be implemented as a pilot study? Could we then use the first year’s data to alter or change the process if necessary? Should any changes to the assessment tool be made before implementing it, which would then require a recalibration for validity and reliability? Which courses should be involved in the pilot study, and should there be voluntary or mandatory instructor participation?

The proposed plan was taken to the entire education faculty, and the decision was made to test the existing assessment tool while only making minimal changes to the process and that the two instructors who teach the early field placement courses would be the only ones testing the process during the 2010–11 academic year. With little reflection on either the process or the data, the faculty then agreed to fully implement the pilot program in the fall of 2011.

In their first year, all of the teacher education candidates would receive two copies of the new disposition inventory that was adopted from Niagara University—one to keep and one to sign and return. They would then be assessed on these same disposition elements three times before completing their program: during their early field placement (their sophomore year), during their pedagogy field placement (their junior year), and during student teaching (their senior year). At each of these junctures, the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor would complete the assessment while the teacher education candidate would complete the selfassessment. The elements measured in the disposition inventory were the exact ones proposed

by Rinaldo et al. (2010); however, the means of rating differed. Table 2 shows the dispositional elements. The choices for rating were as follows: 1) Strongly Disagree, 2) Disagree, 3) Agree, 4) Strongly Agree, and 5) Exceptional/Outstanding.

Analysis of Data Data were collected at three specific points—the sophomore early field experience, the junior pedagogy field experience, and the senior student-teaching experience—in the fall of 2011. The 21-item dispositional survey was administered through an electronic medium (Tk20) in which the university supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers were given access to the program that housed the survey. Responses were not required, but they were strongly encouraged. During the early field experience, 72 university supervisors, 62 cooperating teachers, and 45 students responded to the survey. During the junior pedagogy experience, 67 university supervisors, 90 cooperating teachers, and 33 students responded to the survey.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 28

Finally, during the senior student-teaching experience, 99 university supervisors, 148 cooperating teachers, and 81 students responded to the survey.

When the surveys were collected at each point, the ratings for each of the 21 dispositions on the instrument were entered into a database. One database represented the responses of the university supervisors, another database for the cooperating teachers, and another database for the students. The data were then disseminated to identify patterns among students, to identify similarities among students, supervisors, and cooperating teachers; and to compare the ratings at each of the three points when the survey was administered. The following bar graphs show aggregate dispositional data collected from the early field experience (Figure 1), the pedagogy field experience (Figure 2), and the student-teaching experience (Figure 3).

Our analysis of the data yielded several interesting observations. During the early field experience, there was a considerable alignment of the ratings with respect to the students and the university supervisors; however, the cooperating teacher ratings often differed. One explanation for this difference could be a lack of clarification as to the teacher education program’s expectation of students during this first field placement. At this level, the university supervisor is the same faculty member who teaches the course(s) coinciding with the field experience, so the expectations would be clear. However, the expectations for the cooperating teachers may be blurred if they have mentored students at other field experience levels.

In the pedagogy field experience, which usually occurs during a student’s junior year, the average ratings were more closely aligned than they were for the early field experience; however, the ratings from the university supervisor ranked lowest across all 21disposition elements. In most cases, the university supervisor is a full-time faculty member who has had the students for one or more classes prior to supervising them in their pedagogy experience. So there is perhaps both an expectation that students should be at a higher level by this time and a perceived need to bring to the forefront any weaknesses that need to be addressed as the university supervisors help prepare them for student teaching.

On the other hand, for the student-teaching experience, the university supervisor’s ratings were highest on all 21 dispositional elements, while the cooperating teacher ratings were lowest on 19 of the 21. There could be multiple explanations for such a discrepancy. Again, many of the university supervisors are full-time faculty members who have experienced the teacher education candidates in one or more classes throughout the program; they have likely seen growth over the four years, which could help explain the higher ratings. Conversely, cooperating teachers are surrounded by practicing teachers, some with many years of experience and expertise, which could alter their perceptions of beginning teachers. In some cases, they may have little or no experience working with teacher education candidates, so their expectations of what a teacher should be able to do could be higher.

Another aspect revealed by the data was the suggestion of student growth on dispositional factors. Of 63 possible ratings (21 dispositional factors times 3 raters), there were only seven average ratings that exceeded 4.5 for the early field experience. There were 20 ratings for the pedagogy field experience, and there were 36 ratings for student teaching. Even

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 29

though it is not a comparison of the same group of students across all three experiences, the data led the faculty to believe that dispositions can change/improve over time.

One of the biggest revelations that occurred when attempting to analyze the data was that no rubric existed to explain what the ratings indicated. This not only made using the data for student growth and programmatic change difficult, but also it provided some possible insight into why the cooperating teacher ratings were inconsistently aligned with the other two raters.

However, perhaps the biggest disappointment was the final piece of data that was collected. The spring 2013 student teachers, for the most part, should have been the students who were exposed to the pilot disposition process in their early experience, and they should have been exposed to it again during the process’ full implementation during their pedagogy experience. In early March 2013, 69 student teachers responded to a brief survey about their recollection of and involvement in the disposition assessment process over their previous two field experiences. The students were given a copy of the disposition inventory, and they were asked several questions. With respect to the early field experience, only 12 students indicated that they filled out the self-assessment, and another 24 students could not remember whether they had filled it out. When asked about reviewing the same data that had been filled out by both the cooperating teacher and university supervisor, 41 students indicated that they did not know it was available to them. One student indicated that she knew it was available but failed to look at it, another eight students looked at it briefly without giving it much thought, and none engaged in reflection about the responses.

The numbers were better with respect to the pedagogy field placement, but they were still of concern. Thirty-seven students said “yes” about completing a self-assessment of the disposition survey, while 14 students did not remember. When asked about their involvement with the same inventory results that were completed by the cooperating teacher and university supervisor, 25 students did not know the data was available to them, three students knew it was available but failed to look at it, nine students looked at it briefly without giving it much thought, 30 students claimed to have engaged in some self-reflection about the responses, and two students indicated that they engaged in deeper reflection involving writing or talking with others about the responses. Therefore, if a desired outcome of implementing a new disposition inventory tool and assessment process was to make teacher education candidates more cognizant of the expected dispositions for a quality teacher, the end result was a failed attempt.

Discussion Several items became evident after analyzing three semester’s worth of data from the disposition inventory and reflecting on the process that took place over the past two-and-a-half years. First, it was clear that a key item was missing from the process—a rubric to evaluate the actions of teacher candidates. As evident from the literature review, multiple teacher education programs account for this element in their dispositional assessments. Furthermore, as the literature would indicate, if dispositions are comprised of the confluence of beliefs, intentions,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 30

and actions, we must be able to account for all three. More research is required in this area to identify which specific dispositions (beliefs, intentions, and actions) we might include in our assessment tools. A synthesis of the literature might offer such insight. Dee and Henkin (2002) may agree because they have called for the use of rubrics in disposition assessment. Moreover, much literature exists indicating that there is a connection between teacher dispositions and student learning and development (Notar et al., 2009; Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000; Collinson, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 1999; Combs, 1974). Most immediately, the literature has also shown that dispositions are malleable and not innate (Oser, 1994; Ritchhart, 2001; Collier, 2005; Diez, 2007), which could greatly impact how we train current and future teachers.

Second, while the numerical data provided evidence of some trends, there was much ambiguity about what the numbers represented. This same ambiguity likely contributed to discrepancies in the data that were compiled from cooperating teachers. Because these individuals were farther removed from the institution than either the student or the university supervisor, they were the ones who would benefit most from clarification of expectations. This leaves one to wonder how we might reconfigure the relationship between teacher education departments and the teachers who help train teacher candidates.

Third, there must be intentional involvement by the student in not only the dispositional assessment process but also in the development of those dispositions. Although we had hoped to expose them to the assessment tool multiple times during their program with the hopes of providing them with the needed awareness of characteristics becoming to an education professional, their exposure to the disposition inventory was minimal and without intentional opportunities for reflection. Titone, Sherman, and Palmer (1998) found that reflection and inquiry are the most effective ways for developing appropriate dispositions. Koeppen and Davidson-Jenkins (2007) added, “with written reflection, individuals stand a better chance of weaving positive teacher dispositions into their emerging identity” (p. 34). Congruently, reflection and inquiry based on observations assessed by rubrics are crucial in assisting dispositional development (Yost, 1997). Currently, there is no place in the curriculum to explicitly address dispositional awareness, and development. As mentioned earlier, the current student teachers that should have experienced the new disposition inventory in both their early field placement and their pedagogy placement had limited memories of even completing a selfassessment or seeing data from assessments completed by others. Not surprisingly, qualitative feedback from the candidates included requirements by instructors to engage in self-reflection, group reflection, and written reflection on the inventory data.

Much can be reaped from the work of Koeppen and Davidson-Jenkins (2007) regarding the how teacher education programs might assess dispositions. Their continuous progress on teacher dispositions contains many aspects currently missing from the existing process. First and foremost, they have a rubric that defines target levels for each dispositional element. The rubric utilizes descriptors such as “consistently,” “usually,” “occasionally,” and “rarely.” More importantly, the rubric has undergone more than one revision based on student feedback, and the belief is that experience and critical reflection will keep improving the process. Many other

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 31

models exist that we can utilize to develop a disposition rubric that assesses the quality of dispositional behavior.

During the 2012–13 academic year, a significant amount of the education department’s meeting time at Capital University had been devoted to discussions about the quality of students being admitted to teacher education as well as the quality of teachers exiting the program. While this discussion had been ignited by issues surrounding standards-based accountability, an increasing number of student issues that occurred during student teaching had also raised concern about quality. When issues do arise in student teaching, they are more likely to be dispositional in nature as opposed to concerns about candidates’ knowledge and skills. As the discussion about disposition continues, it seems that one vital piece needs to be a commitment by faculty and students to engage in a seamless process of assessing and reflecting on dispositions throughout the entire teacher education program.

Author Biographies Sally Creasap received her Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration. While working a Consultant with the Ohio Department of Education, she completed a Master’s Degree in Business Administration and an Associate’s Degree in Early Childhood Education. After seven years as a teacher and administrator in a Head Start setting, she completed a Ph.D. in Education Policy and Leadership. Upon graduation, she began a career as a college professor.

In addition to teaching, she currently serves as the Education Department Chair and NCATE Coordinator at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. Her current research interests are in the area of teacher candidate dispositions and defining the role of college/university department chairs.

Bradley Conrad is an assistant professor in the Education Department at Capital University. Dr. Conrad has published several articles in the areas of curriculum, teacher dispositions, and culturally responsive pedagogy. He has severed as a faculty member at Capital for the past three years where he teaches a variety of teacher education courses while mentoring undergraduate students in their teaching and research.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Almerico, G., Johnston, P., Henriott, D., & Shapiro, M. (2011). Dispositions assessment in teacher education: Developing an assessment instrument for the college classroom and the field. Research in Higher Education Journal, 11. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11830.pdf

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 32

Arnstine, D. (1967). Philosophy of education: Learning and schooling. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Arnstine, D. (1995). Democracy and the arts of schooling. New York, NY: SUNY Press.

Boggess, L. (2010). Tailoring new urban teachers for character and activism. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 65-95.

Burant, T., Chubbuck, S., & Whipp, J. (2007). Reclaiming the moral in the dispositions debate.

Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 397–411.

Collier, M. D. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher efficacy. The Urban Review,37(4), 351-359.

Collinson, V., Killeavy, M., & Stephenson, H. (1999). Exemplary teachers: Practicing and ethic of care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(4), 340-66.

Combs, A. W., Soper, D. W., Gooding, C. T., Benton, J. A., Dickman, J. F., & Usher, R. H. (1969). Florida studies in the helping professions. Social Science Monograph #37, University of Florida Press.

Combs, A. W. (1974). Humanistic goals of education. Educational accountability: A humanistic perspective. San Francisco,CA: Shields.

Conrad, B. (2014). Rubrics in teacher disposition assessment and the potential for transformational change in the educational enterprise. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Damon, W. (2007). Dispositions and teacher assessment: The need for a more rigorous definition. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 365-369.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: an introduction to social psychology. New York, NY: Modern Library.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education.

New York, NY: Macmillan Company.

Diez, M. E. (2007). Looking back and moving forward: Three tensions in the teacher dispositions discourse. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 389-396.

Diez, M., & Raths, J. (Eds.). (2007). Dispositions in teacher education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Dottin, E. S. (2010). Dispositions as habits of mind. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc. Freeman, L. (2007). An overview of dispositions in teacher education. In M. E. Diez & J. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in teacher education: A volume in advances in teacher education.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Flowers, C. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of scores on clinical experience rubric: A measure of dispositions for teacher candidates. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 66(3), 478-488.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 33

Harrison, J., McAffee, H., Smithey, G., & Weiner, C. (2006). Assessing candidate disposition for admission into teacher education: Can just anyone teach? Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 72-80.

Haberman, M. (1996). The preparation of teachers for a diverse, free society. In L. Kaplan & R. Edelfelt (Eds.), Teachers for the new millennium. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Helm, C. (2006). The assessment of teacher dispositions. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(6), 237–239.

Johnson, L., & Reiman, A. (2007). Beginning teacher disposition: The moral/ethical domain.

Teaching and Teaching Education, 23, 676–687.

Johnston, P., Almerico, G. M., Henriott, D., & Shapiro, M. (2011). Descriptions of dispositions for assessment in pre-service teacher education field experiences. Education, 132(2), 391-401.

Katz, L.G. (1993). Dispositions as educational goals. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301-307.

Koeppen, K., & Davison-Jenkins, J. ( 2007). Teacher dispositions: Envisioning their role in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

Murray, F. (2007). Disposition: A superfluous construct in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 381–387.

NCATE 2002 Standards. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Notar, C. E., Riley, G. W., Taylor, P. W., Thornburg, R. A., & Cargill, R. L. (2009).

Dispositions: Ability and assessment. International Journal of Education, 1(1), 1-14.

Oser, F. K. (1994). Moral perspectives on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 57– 127.

Paul, R. W. (1991). Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to know to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for critical thinking.

Richhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Richhart, R. (2001). From IQ to IC: A dispositional view of intelligence. Roeper Review, 23(3), 143-150.

Rike, C. J., & Sharp, L. K. (2008). Assessing pre-service teachers' dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84, 150-155.

Rinaldo, V., Denig, S., Sheeran, T., Vermete, P., & Smith, R. M. (2010) Validly and reliably assessing teacher candidate dispositions toward teaching. A paper presented at the 2010 ATE annual conference.

Scheffler, I. (1991). In praise of the cognitive emotions. New York, NY: Routledge.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 34

Schrag, F. (1988). Thinking in school and society. New York, NY: Routledge.

Talbert-Johnson, C. (2006). Preparing highly qualified teacher candidates for urban schools: The importance of dispositions. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 147-160.

Taylor, R. L., & Wasicsko, M. M. (2000). The dispositions to teach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Region Association of Teacher Educators Conference, Lexington, KY. Thompson, S., Ransdell, M., & Rousseau, C. (2005). Effective teachers in urban school settings: Linking teacher disposition and student performance on standardized tests. Journal of Authentic Learning, 2(1), 22-34.

Thornton, H. (2006). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice?

Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53-68.

Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-554 Titone, C., Sherman, S., & Palmer, P. (1998). Cultivating student teachers’ dispositions and ability to construct knowledge. Action in Teacher Education, 19(4), 76-87.

Uhrmacher, P. B., Conrad, B., & Lindquist, C. (2010). The power to transform: Implementation as aesthetic awakening. In T. Costantino & B. White (Eds.), Essays on Aesthetic Education for the 21st Century. Boston, MA: Sense.

Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 370-380. Retrieved from http://jte.sagepub.com/ Wasicsko, M. M. (2002). Assessing teacher dispositions: A perceptual psychological approach.

Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://coehs.nku.edu/content/dam/coehs/docs/dispositions/resources/Manual103.pdf Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and thinking. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.), (pp. 715–737). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yost, D. S. (1997). The moral dimensions of teaching and preservice teachers: Can moral dispositions be influenced? Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 281-92.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 133-175). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 35

Table 1 Summary of Disposition-Related Sessions Presented at the ATE Annual Winter Conferences Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# of Session with “Dispositions” in the title 4 6 12 13 7 10 29 7 5

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 36

Table 2 Candidate Disposition Inventory 1. The student maintains confidentiality as appropriate.

2. The student demonstrates enthusiasm toward teaching and/or learning new and/or challenging material.

3. The student demonstrates an understanding of, and compliance with, laws and policies at the local (e.g. university, college, program, etc.) state and national level.

4. The student maintains professional/appropriate appearance.

5. The student is prepared and punctual for class and appointments.

6. The student is enthusiastic about instructional content.

7. The student demonstrates academic honesty.

8. The student maintains high expectations for self and others.

9. The student demonstrates respect for the beliefs, views, and needs of self and others.

10. The student demonstrates respect for self and others through appropriate support of peers.

11. The student demonstrates behaviors that exemplify recognition and promotion of diverse opinions and perspectives of individuals and groups.

12. The student demonstrates compassion for those experiencing difficulty.

13. The student demonstrates patience/flexibility with self or others during the learning process.

14. The student demonstrates enthusiasm about collaborating or working with others.

15. The student demonstrates the ability to think problems through in a critical manner.

16. The student addresses issues of concern professionally.

17. The student accepts constructive criticism from peers, instructors, and/or professors.

18. The student attempts to solve problems independently but seeks help when needed.

19. The student exhibits the ability to reflect on program readings or class discussions.

20. The student defines and identifies specific course/program goals for continuous personal improvement.

21. The student self-assesses personal progress over time.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Figure 1. Year 1 - Early Field Experience Disposition Survey Results

Volume 2, Page 37

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Figure 2. Year 2 - Pedagogy Field Experience Disposition Data

Volume 2, Page 38

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Figure 3. Year 3 - Student-Teaching Disposition Survey Results

Volume 2, Page 39

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 40

Improving Preschool Family/Student Motivation and Achievement through Multicultural Teaching and Learning Bonnie Gail Sullivan Wetumpka Elementary School for Elmore County Public Schools Gilbert Dueñas Auburn University at Montgomery Shelly Hudson Bowden Auburn University at Montgomery

Abstract During a one-week research project at a university early childhood center located in the Southeast United States, the researchers collaborated with parents and educators to explore the effects of including 10 multicultural educational experiences to familiarize 20 three- to five-year olds about the diversity and family practices of the Chinese, Korean, African-American, Hispanic, and American cultures. Findings for this qualitative study were synthesized from videotapes of children’s spontaneous interactions and from data collected during observations of classroom instruction as well as interviews with parents, children, and student teachers. The purpose of this exploratory study was to forge trusting partnerships between parents (of five distinct cultures) and educators in an effort to meaningfully incorporate each child’s household and cultural knowledge within classroom instruction. The aim of this study was to enrich the children’s regular classroom learning with developmentally appropriate activities that instilled in them a greater knowledge base of people around the world. This study illustrates the intrinsic value of classroom teachers integrating multiculturalism within daily classroom routines.

Key Words: multicultural education, qualitative study, preschool, action research

Schools across the nation are faced with many unprecedented challenges in meeting the critical academic needs of an increasingly diverse student community (Brock, 2001; Civil, 2008; Fitzgerald, 1995). Students must experience intellectual learning but also gain a solid foundation in becoming socially responsible citizens that are cognizant and respectful of varying lifestyles.

Furthermore, skills and dispositions for solving the complex needs of the 21st century and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 41

beyond must be addressed for students to succeed in a global community (Lieberman, 2011).

With the continual evolution of information-processing technologies, the current generation of students must also develop a working knowledge of digital literacy to effectively access and disseminate data. One way of becoming a productive citizen in a global community is for students to have multiple opportunities to embrace the rich cultural backgrounds, stories, and household traditions of fellow students. In this manner, the cumulative effect of all school experiences would address the broader learning needs of the ‘whole child,’ which encompass the child’s cognitive, social, and emotional engagement in classroom dialogue and experiential activities. Thus, this particular study focused on preschool students and their families at a university’s early childhood center located in the Southeast United States and how their teachers incorporated multicultural themes throughout their instruction of the preschool curriculum. The preschool environment was purposely chosen as noted in Dodge, Colker, and Heroman (2002) because it is here that children first begin to socialize with others of similar ages, interact with others as part of a community of learners, and explore a range of academic skills, such as practicing numbers and letter sounds, singing songs, constructing make-believe places with blocks, and solving problems.

Literature Review Mitchell (2009) examined the concept of multiculturalism within the educational setting and asserted that multicultural teaching is not just telling students about different cultures.

Rather, it is acknowledging and understanding the perspectives and practices of other cultures in society. It is the responsibility of educators and parents to ensure that children grow up feeling comfortable and appreciative of other cultures. With the ever-increasing diversity of the world, there is a corresponding change in the academic arena; thus, Costley (2012) noted the following: Student diversity is a major topic in education today. Diversity will not be going away anytime soon. Even over thirty years ago, educators were beginning to discuss the subject of diversity and multiculturalism. In fact, during the 1970’s and 1980’s; the word diversity was seldom used at all. The term multiculturalism was at the forefront of the scene. (p. 2) From eight years of experience as an educator, the first author understands how difficult it is to teach in a diverse classroom. From prior teaching experiences, the first author found that the traditional education curriculum must be connected with the student’s culture. The acknowledgement of diverse groups as part of classroom learning could entail, for example, how members of a cultural group observe holidays or what literacy practices are used in the household. This does not mean that they cannot learn; it means that we have to adjust and revise our traditional instructional practices. The majority of teachers at our elementary school are predominately Caucasian women from a middle-class background, which leads them to teach in the ways they were taught with in school. A multicultural classroom implies that children from other cultural backgrounds learn differently. Therefore, we need to understand how each child

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 42

learns instead of giving up when encountering differences and saying that the child cannot understand the lessons. We need to start understanding the types of cultures our students come from; with that added insight, we can be more effective when teaching them. Costley (2012) pointed out, “All teachers need to access prior knowledge with all students, yet especially for atrisk children� (p. 6).

For example, I had a fourth grade student in my classroom this past year that was from another country. He struggled with reading instruction, especially comprehension.

Instead of looking at the assessments and saying he was not paying attention, I decided to take a look at what might be causing the problem. Each time we read a story, I would talk with him about how he felt about the story. This was a success. I realized that it was not that he could not comprehend rather he just thought of things differently. For example, one story was about having a Hispanic aunt visiting a family for a period of time. The student was able to make a connection with the characters because he was familiar with hearing Spanish language. I feel that this also increased his motivation and self-confidence as a reader. (B. Sullivan, personal communication, March 8, 2012) Bodur (2012) examined data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showing that the Hispanic population is increasing in the United States: According to the NCES (2010), the United States witnessed significant shifts in its ethnic composition between 1980 and 2008. Although the white population represented about 80 percent of the total population in 1980, this number decreased to 69 percent in 2000 and 66 percent by 2008. On the other hand, Hispanic population increased from 6.4 percent in 1980 to 12.6 percent in 2000 and 15.4 percent in 2008. These changes were inevitably reflected in the ethnic composition of schools and classrooms.

Between 2000 to 2001 and 2007 to 2008, the percentage of white students decreased from 61 percent to 56 percent while the percentage of Hispanic students increased from 17 to 21 percent. At the regional level, the ethnic distribution of students depicts a clearer picture of diversity in U.S. classrooms. For example, according to the Southern Education Foundation (2010), students of color in the southern part of the country is the majority, with percentages ranging from 51.2 in Louisiana to 66 in Texas. Enrollment trends show a steady increase in the number of ethnically diverse students, especially Hispanic students. Current and projected demographics reveal that cultural and linguistic diversity in classrooms will increase. (p. 41-42) Bernstein, Zimmerman, Werner-Wilson, and Vosburg (2000) found that there is a growing movement in the field of early childhood education to recognize and validate the range of diversity seen in preschools, as well as to prevent early development of prejudice (DermanSparks & the ABC Task Force, 1989; York, 1992). Although children are aware of differences such as skin color and hair texture, and will naturally comment on these differences (Katz, 1976), such comments can be discussed, framed, and interpreted in either a positive or negative manner.

Swadener (1988) implemented a multicultural program that encouraged positive interpretations of diversity in mainstreamed multicultural child care programs. In both formal curriculum activities and informal conversations, children were encouraged to accept human diversity. By

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 43

focusing on individual differences, the program emphasized respecting gender equality and accepting those with physical disabilities. This educational program lacked specific activities for dealing with racial and cultural diversity, which teachers later attributed to their own fears of stereotyping or being superficial. (p.182) Taylor (2000) highlighted that multicultural children’s literature holds a special place in the call for inclusion and curricular reform by groups who have been largely marginalized by society today and in the past. Its roots began in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s that was led by African-Americans. According to Taylor (2000), “This effort was rekindled in the 1980s by Latinos, American Indians, Asian Americans, women, people of varying abilities, and the elderly” (p. 24). Another study by Cavanaugh (1995) found that using literature is one way that multicultural learning can be integrated in the curriculum. The use of multicultural literature in the classroom allows students to develop a sense of how everyone is different. The literature selection should include a variety of cultural backgrounds and address events taking place in the world. The inclusion of multicultural literature can have a positive impact on many students and families. In turn, this instructional practice can also help families recover from past negative experiences they might have had in school (Cavanaugh, 1995).

Cavanaugh (1995) determined the following criteria for selecting multicultural literature: · “The Author’s Perspective –Does the author have an in-depth understanding of the group, or is the author standing on the outside looking in?” (p. 5) · “Teacher Awareness – Teachers need to make an effort to learn about their students’ cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and other important characteristics, such as social class and level of assimilation.” (p. 5) · “Cultural Groupings – An example is referring to the various Native American tribes as a single united group instead of recognizing that each tribe is an entity onto itself.” (p. 6) Similarly, Yokota (1993) found the following criteria that classroom teachers should be aware of when selecting multicultural literature: · Cultural accuracy · Richness of cultural detail · Authentic dialogue and relationships · In-depth treatment of cultural issues · Inclusion of members of ‘minority’ groups for a purpose. (p. 6) Swick’s (1995) study found many ways for teachers and school officials to get parents involved in multicultural topics. One example was for teachers to hold orientation meetings to explain how multiculturalism is embedded throughout the curriculum. Schools can provide the following resources for parents: books, handbooks in different languages, articles, videos, a bulletin board of events, and newsletters. These resources could be very helpful in schools with a large population of multicultural children (p. 2).

Swick (1995) identified the following activities for implementing multicultural learning

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 44

and teaching into the school setting: · “FAMILY STORIES, written by children and parents about themselves as families shared in the classroom, can stimulate tremendous growth and sensitivity. Such stories might include historical anecdotes about ancestors, accounts of family struggles, and humorous incidents.” (p. 4) · “Children respond enthusiastically to STORY TELLING by parents, grandparents, neighbors, and teachers.” (p. 4) · “VIDEOTAPES, sometimes accompanied by companion books, provide a means for enhancing children’s cultural understanding.” (p. 4) · “MUSIC AND DRAMA either recorded or produced by the children themselves are effective for supporting children’s multicultural development.” (p. 4) In Sturgess and Locke’s study (2009), the authors found an interesting approach with multicultural teaching in New Zealand by using the fairy tale literary genre. “Multiculturalism as a concept is devoid of meaning until it is constructed in certain ways, and there are a number of ways in which it can be constructed” (p. 4). Teaching multicultural topics with fairy tales is enjoyable because children are easily entertained by them. “Student feedback indicated that they enjoyed the opportunity to explore and to present an aspect of their own culture. They gained more knowledge of each other and, for a few students, more knowledge of their own culture” (Sturgess & Locke, 2009, p. 16).

The Sturgess and Locke (2009) study also showed how a teacher implemented multiculturalism learning in teaching with fairy tales in the following activities: · To look at the stereotyped version of a fairy tale and compare with Shrek. · To research a fairy tale in a different culture from their own. · For some students to compare languages and translation in fairy tales. · To write a fairy tale having considered the issue of stereotyping. (p. 8) In Mitchell’s study (2009), participants joined a six-hour workshop in which they explored their beliefs about multiculturalism and teaching diverse students. The participants had conversations with each other and found empathy for those who were different from them. The themes that emerged from this study are as follows: increasing cultural awareness, teaching strategies in culturally diverse environments, developing multicultural competence, growing personal and general teaching efficacy, and creating multicultural awareness. The results from Mitchell’s (2009) study suggest that teachers label their own values and beliefs in order to connect with others and become more culturally responsive.

Research by Bernstein et al. (2000) found the following: Many American children, however, grow to adulthood unaware of and insensitive to the experiences of other cultural groups. In order to increase the potential for harmony between diverse groups of people, it is necessary for children to possess a cultural awareness that extends beyond their immediate experience (Ramsey & Myers, 1990).

Multicultural education and its contemporary, anti-bias curriculum are built on the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 45

assumption that it is the responsibility of adults working with young children to acknowledge these differences in a positive, accepting way and to overtly teach appropriate responses to children's inquiries or discomfort regarding differences (Derman-Sparks & the ABC Task Force, 1989). To understand how children develop attitudes about race and ethnicity, it is useful to review the literature on prejudice and stereotyping, cognitive development, classification, and intervention strategies. (p. 181) Results from the Bernstein et al. (2000) study: The results of this study provide valuable insights for designing multicultural education programs for preschool children. First, the findings seem to indicate that multicultural intervention programs can help young children overcome the cognitive limitations associated with the preoperational stage of development. With the proper guidance, it seems that children are capable of thinking about people from other ethnic groups in a way that surpasses their years. As such, these results are encouraging for early childhood educators, as they paint a more optimistic picture of 4- and 5-year-olds than the one originally created by Piaget (1952, 1954, 1962). Second, the results provide support for the assumption that young children are capable of comprehending overt discussions about race and ethnicity (Derman-Sparks & the ABC Task Force, 1989). In fact, it appears that children can profit when conversations about race and ethnicity are conducted in a structured format that acknowledges and accepts differences between groups. Third, after children participated in the intervention program, they began to classify people on the basis of gender and age, in addition to race/ethnicity. In order to prevent children from stereotyping on the basis of these two factors, it would seem prudent to include lessons about gender and age into a curriculum that concerns multicultural issues. Thus, multicultural education may be more effective when it emphasizes restructuring how children think about people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, rather than retraining what they think about those individuals. (p. 190) Research Focus The objective of this one-week study was to explore the benefits of incorporating multicultural learning with daily classroom instruction as part of the daily curriculum for preschool children. By engaging in multicultural learning, children would develop a greater awareness and understanding of the diverse lifestyles, languages, and cultural practices of their fellow students. Based on our understanding of early child-development theories, it was our contention that preschool children learn the most from what is going on around them; the landscape of learning is most evident when they can physically see events happen. Action research was conducted by collaborating with teachers and researchers concerning the enhancement of multicultural education for preschoolers (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Thus, the research questions that drove our investigation are as follows:

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 46

1. What are the effects on preschool children’s learning as a result of enriching their school experience with multicultural events?

2. What are the ways in which the parents’ voices and cultural knowledge could enrich their child’s school experience?

3. What opportunities are there for parents and educators to forge a respectful, trusting partnership?

Methods Research Design This action-research study drew upon Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) research assumptions by using qualitative research methods such as interviews, observations, and field notes. These tools enabled rich, contextual description and naturalistic data to portray the setting in which participants interacted with one another, and they provided the reader with a clear understanding of what the experiences and activities meant to the participants. Second, this study drew upon Souto-Manning and Mitchell’s (2010) action-research study focusing on the efforts of early childhood teachers to incorporate culturally relevant teaching in their curricula and instructional practices. The study illustrated the importance of teachers using the classroom as a forum to interact with and learn from each child’s voice and create trusting, enduring alliances with the students’ parents as a strategy for sharing authentic portrayals of culturally diverse families.

This study also relied on surveys as an additional mode of inquiry to discover the parents’ attitudes and opinions about multicultural events valued in their household and as a tool to obtain feedback from parents about their child’s school learning. The surveys provided triangulation with periodic in-person or telephone conversations with the parents regarding the inclusion of multicultural events as part of the daily school instruction and drew upon Creswell (2003) who stated, “A survey design provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population. From sample results, the researcher generalizes or makes claims about that population” (p. 153).

Gaining Stakeholders’ Participation After getting approval from the university research office, the study began with a meeting between the principal researcher, the Early Childhood Center (ECC) director, and two student teachers to plan the specific multicultural activities for the one-week study. In a collaborative manner, we created an organized schedule of events and activities for the children enrolled during the summer of 2012 in the ECC. Afterwards, a packet outlining the proposed study and the series of multicultural activities was sent home with the students and it included a letter written in English, Chinese, and Korean.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 47

Setting and Participants The study took place on school days from July 11–20, 2012 during the hours of 8:00 am to 3:00 pm at a university’s early childhood center located in the Southeastern United States.

The participants in this study were 20 three- to five-year-old children representing five different cultures (Chinese, Korean, African-American, Hispanic, and American) enrolled in the ECC during the summer of 2012, two student teachers completing their early childhood practicum prior to entering their internships, eight undergraduate students majoring in early childhood education, the parents of the children in the ECC, two university professors, the principal investigator, and the director of the ECC. Data Collection Observations. Data were collected while the principal researcher visited the ECC once a day for one to three hours and observed the interactions between the children, student teachers, and undergraduate students and listened to conversations while the children participated during self-selected learning centers, circle time (such as singing songs, listening to a story, or playing a game with other children), snack time, outside play, and lunch throughout the day. In particular, the researcher focused on several issues, such as how the student teacher activated the children’s prior cultural knowledge, whether the children’s interest for learning increased when multicultural topics were addressed, and how the student teacher maintained a lesson’s organization and flow. In addition, this study explored the extent to which the multicultural learning experiences addressed the National Association for the Education of Young Children standards as part of the ECC’s efforts to meet accreditation requirements for 2013. The following standards were addressed: Standard 2.L.03 – Children are provided varied opportunities and materials to build their understanding of diversity in culture, family structure, ability, language, age, and gender in nonstereotypical ways.

Standard 2.L.05 – Children are provided varied opportunities and materials to learn about the community in which they live.

Standard 2.J.01 – Children are provided varied opportunities to gain an appreciation of art, music, drama, and dance in ways that reflect cultural diversity.

Standard 2.H.03 – Technology is used to extend learning within the classroom and to integrate and enrich the curriculum. (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2013, pp. 18-22) Interview process. Throughout the one-week study, the researcher conducted five- to ten-minute interviews with the children in the ECC, the students’ parents, the two student teachers, and the ECC director. In talking with the parents, a variety of open-ended questions were used to learn about their cultural perspectives: “How do you view the word culture?”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 48

“What is the most celebrated holiday of your culture?” “How do you and your family promote cultural traditions in the household?” “What are examples of words or behaviors considered most respectful and disrespectful in your culture?” In talking with the undergraduate interns, various open-ended questions were used to solicit their candid expectations and reflections from the inclusion of multicultural activities within the ECC curriculum: “How do you feel about this manner of teaching the curriculum?” “Why do you think that acknowledgement of the children’s cultural knowledge is important?” “How might this experience influence your own future instructional practices?” Multiple reflective meetings were held with the ECC director. From these meetings, the goal was to remain child focused and to offer the children a variety of developmentally appropriate learning experiences.

Video-recordings. All of the children’s parents were asked if they would be willing to video record an oral narrative about a special family story. This effort was important not only to gain the parents’ involvement in the research project, but also to better understand their cultural heritages, what stories or family memories still moved their everyday lives in the United States, and how they wished to influence the content of classroom instruction. Parents were videotaped throughout the week as they shared their cultural stories with all the children seated before them.

For example, one family talked about their daughter’s favorite experience in visiting their family’s native country, which is also known as their ‘hunting land.’ Another family shared their child’s first birthday celebration while living in Korea.

End-of-day reflections. As part of the study, the two student teachers working in the ECC regularly met with each other to reflect on their students’ unique learning needs and adjust their instructional pedagogy. From previous research by Swick (1995), it was suggested to provide multiple learning experiences for young children to learn about different cultures. In addition, it was also encouraged to allow children to share their own knowledge. This allows them to develop a deeper understanding of the world around them.

Field notes. At the end of each day, the researcher prepared one- to two-page field notes to summarize observations of classroom activities and annotate reflections as a result of listening to student comments and students’ interactions with the parents. Here is one example of a field note entry: The more I talked with the families the more I learned. The more multicultural activities we provided for the children the more all of us learned about each other. It is my opinion that multicultural education at the very start of a child’s school learning, and each day thereafter, is an integral component of how children view themselves and others. We certainly learned a lot from each other. (B. Sullivan, personal communication, July 13, 2012.)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 49

Surveys. A five-question survey was sent to the parents’ homes in order to explore what the families viewed as cultural values, how they wished to be involved in their children’s school learning, what kinds of multicultural topics should be integrated in classroom instruction, and the ways they wished to partner with the ECC teachers.

Results Learning about Mexico On the second day of the study, the children learned about Mexico. We had an interesting day because our presentation was interrupted due to an emergency evacuation on campus. However, we continued our presentation sitting by a large, open tree house by the nursing building on campus. A Hispanic university professor taught the children how to say simple words and numbers in Spanish. The children seemed to have a stronger connection to multicultural ideas and thoughts when we had a person from that particular culture share his or her experiences. In other words, it was easier for the professor to present the Mexican culture because he was born and raised by parents who were originally from Mexico and later immigrated to the United States. The children went home early due to the emergency evacuation. The instructional activities on Mexican culture continued the following day.

On the third day of the study, during family morning time, the teachers reviewed what they had learned the previous day about Mexico with the children. The teachers reviewed the following lessons focused on cultural practices: saying hello and counting in Spanish, the use of musical instruments, such as maracas; and traditional clothing. During center time (a time in which children chose to either play with blocks, draw, or look at picture books), the children made salsa with the teachers. The children listened to directions, helping to measure and use ingredients in the correct sequence. When it was time for the children to enjoy a snack, the teachers discussed the types of food eaten in other cultures. The teachers passed out the chips and salsa and modeled how to eat it. A lot of the children had never tried salsa. The majority of the children as well as the teachers seemed to like the taste of salsa. At the end of snack time, the children completed a survey on whether they liked or did not like the salsa.

Learning about the United States of America The next country that we studied was the United States of America. This lesson appeared easier to teach mainly because we live in America and the Fourth of July was just celebrated.

The teacher talked about facts from a USA poster. During family circle time, we had a student dress up in his dad’s military uniform. He carried a special box that had a surprise in it. The children loved guessing what was in the special box. The surprises in the box were USA star sunglasses. The children also enjoyed eating red, white, and blue cupcakes.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 50

Learning about Korea During the study we had a special visitor, a local Taekwondo instructor. We learned how to greet each other with a bow and say simple words in Korean. The children enjoyed a special martial arts presentation involving chopping several pieces of wood by hand. During small group and center time, the children made a single Korean musical drum.

In an interview, the student teachers expressed: The study went very well and felt that the children learned a lot about different countries.

They agreed that it was important for the children to understand that they are not all the same and notice their differences. Lunch is a prime example because children from different cultures eat various foods. The children noticed the types of Chinese and Korean foods and they are quick to say aloud which food is Chinese or Korean. For future recommendations, the student teachers suggested developing more activities focused on the food items, dress, traditional celebrations, and languages of different cultural groups. (B. Sullivan, personal communication, July 23, 2013) In an interview, two interns expressed that the study went very well; they felt that the children learned a lot about different countries. They agreed that it was important for the children to understand that they are not all the same and notice their differences. Lunch is a prime example because children from different cultures eat various foods. A Korean child today had seaweed for lunch. The students noticed the types of Chinese and Korean foods and they are quick to tell you which food is Chinese or Korean. For future recommendations, the interns suggested developing more activities focused on the following: foods, dress, celebrations, and languages.

Learning about Africa The children gathered around the area rug to begin their morning family time. The teacher began the lesson by introducing me, the researcher for this project. Then the teacher introduced Africa by asking, “What do you know about Africa?” The children responded with various comments, such as there are elephants, my dad went to Africa, and many animals live there. Then the teacher showed them where Africa was on the globe. The teacher also made a poster that included pictures of African flags, people, and language. The teacher taught the students to say hello in Swahili, which is spelled as “Jambo.” Then, the children listened as the teacher read “Moja Means One,” which is written by Mauriel Feelings and illustrated by Tom Feelings. The book informed the children how to count in Swahili from one to 10.

Afterwards, the children went to small group/center time to enjoy a few activities. The ECC director also shared her experiences about when she went to Africa. She told the children that she had to tie a towel around her head and carry bananas in it for two miles. She said that it was special if visitors to Africa were invited into the huts of local families. The children loved hearing the stories. They created African necklaces from straws and beads, and they enjoyed zebra cakes as a snack. The children also learned that there is a lot of mud in Africa and that

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 51

people use the mud to make huts. Later that afternoon, the children enjoyed getting to play in the mud (Field Notes, July 12, 2012). Swick (1995) suggested having families and children share their own experiences about different cultures. It helps families and children learn more about themselves as well as appreciate differences in others. In sharing stories about different places, others can learn just from having a conversation about an unknown place. The researcher was able to try this with a child in the ECC by asking him to talk about Africa: There is an ocean by it. My dad has been super close to Africa to be in the war.

Cheetahs, leopards, snakes, and ant eaters live in Africa. Ant eaters have sharp, giant claws to tear open termites. People like science and studying the animals. Take survival stuff on a trip to Africa. (B. Sullivan, personal communication, July 13, 2012) While reflecting on the lesson they had presented about Africa, the student teachers disclosed that their personal connection toward knowing about the people and cultural traditions of Africa was unexpectedly stretched because of the children’s natural tendency to ask a myriad of questions. For example, during the reading of “Moja Means One,” one child commented that the word “moja” was close to the Spanish word mojado, meaning wet. Second, while counting from one to 10 in Swahili, the children tried several times to correctly emulate the letter sounds and, later in the day, continued to utter what they had experienced about Africa. The student teachers viewed the children’s uninhibited reactions as a genuine, childlike acceptance of other people’s values, generational stories, and traditions. Lastly, the student teachers felt that the children would recall this lesson because of the chance to learn in multiple ways—hear a story, construct a memento, and eat a traditional food item representative of the African culture (B. Sullivan, personal communication, July 13, 2012).

Learning about China On the next day, a parent came to share the Chinese language with the children. The teacher gave him an abbreviated name, Mr. Q, so that the children would be able to call him by his name. He wore a Chinese jacket and shared a toy drum with the children. He taught them a lot of words, such as how to say hello, count from one to 10, and the words for sun, moon, person, and people. The easiest activity was counting in Chinese. Also, the children learned how to greet each other by bowing. After the guest speaker finished the lesson, the children were able to express their own creativity through making Chinese lanterns. Later, they enjoyed Chinese fortune cookies as a snack.

Embracing Technology as a Conduit for Storytelling Education has changed greatly over the past decade. In fact, new technology is being used across many schools in the United States. In the spirit of featuring technology as an instrument to elevate the parents’ voices, several families from the child development center shared a special story on their iPads and posted pictures on the ECC’s Shutterfly page. The

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 52

families were encouraged to share a family tradition, a song in their native language, a memorable story, or any life experience that they valued and wanted to share. A mother and daughter enthusiastically shared a special song and artwork. A Korean father and daughter collaboratively shared how they celebrated the daughter’s first birthday. What follows is a wonderful story about the Korean culture: The first birthday party is special for any baby around the world, but Korea has a unique tradition of putting various things on the table in front of the baby and letting the baby pick one of these to tell the future of the baby. Money, thread, rice, and pencil are usually placed on the table. The baby will be rich if it picks money, will live long with thread, and be a scholar by picking a pencil, which reflects Confucian tradition. Rice means that the baby will have enough food throughout his or her life, which was a huge blessing when people often suffered from famines. The tradition is changing. Now some parents put a microphone on the table, which means the baby will become an entertainer, or a golf ball, wishing that the baby will be a famous golf player. (B. Sullivan, personal communication, July 18, 2012) The videos of children’s interactions with the weeklong multicultural activities were also placed on the Shutterfly account for other families to view and enjoy.

Reflecting on and Publishing Multicultural Learning Experiences In the last part of the research study held at the ECC, the children and classroom teachers reviewed important points about each cultural group explored during the study. For example, we talked about the types of languages, special clothing, foods, geographic locations, and artwork covered during the study. To bring together this immense multicultural learning experience, a newsletter was published and sent to all families to showcase memorable photographs, a written description of events, the candid sentiments of many participants, and a special section that expressed our deepest appreciation for all of the parents and guest speakers.

Discussion Children’s Questions and Reactions Caused Us to Continually Reevaluate Our Instructional Practices for Promoting Awareness of Cultural Diversity It was quite informative to listen to the honest, straightforward reactions from the children as they saw, heard, and learned about people from different parts of the world. Many times, the children looked straight at the teacher or guest speaker and said exactly what was on their minds. The children’s smiles laughs and even their raised hands to ask a question served as a barometer of whether we were saying something that caught their attention. As we moved through each day’s multicultural activities, we regularly reflected on our efforts to appropriately share a piece of knowledge or tradition representative of five different cultures. It was especially

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 53

important that the children’s voices were a part of the lessons. At times, an abrupt decision was made to allocate more time to the children’s many questions because they had questions that needed to be answered. In other instances, the children’s questions or reactions let us know that we had said something that took them back to a special place, family tradition, or memorable experience. When a child started to “relate to” the moment’s learning experience, we cherished their reactions and became enthralled in what the child had contributed to the lesson. The carefree expression in the children’s voices prompted us several times to improvise our intended instructional activity to accommodate their presence and desire to participate. Even in our interviews with the undergraduate students, a recurring theme that resonated in many of the endof-day reflective sessions was the relaxed manner in which the children had literally blurted comments that made us smile as we realized that the day’s learning experience had resonated within their hearts and minds.

Children Were Most Excited When Multiple Ways of Learning Were Used Keeping in mind that children at this age are very mobile, it was certainly critical that our weeklong multicultural activities tap into their multiple ways of learning—seeing, hearing, and touching. At times, instead of raising their hands to ask a question, the children abruptly got up to express what was on their minds. The children did not just want to be bystanders in what adults had preplanned for their education. Rather, the children grew impatient and guardedly came forward to express their excitement and desire to be engaged in what was being demonstrated. It was not enough to only see objects, smell food items, or hear music; these children wanted to use their bodies to illustrate what they knew and how they interpreted the lessons. When we had them moving (as in the case of the martial arts demonstration), the children were fearless in their desire to pound the floor or move their limbs. In many ways, the children’s natural tendency to move was the signature feedback that we anticipated as we guided the children through drawing, reading, singing, and talking. By way of specially orchestrated multicultural activities, the children were always at the center of what we said and how we displayed representative artifacts, music, words, or food items. When children were physically, emotionally, and cognitively engaged in what was happening, we concluded that classroom instruction was relevant and informative. Of special interest, the children were seeing themselves as members of a global family with everyone having responsibilities to help and respect each other.

Parental Involvement Improved Because Their Cultural Knowledge Was an Integral Element of Their Child’s School Learning From the very start of this project, the parents’ presence was not just an anecdotal event, but a centerpiece in the success of this initiative to weave the rich diversity of various social and cultural groups as a strategy for reforming the curriculum presented. The parents’ readiness to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 54

offer suggestions on what aspect of their cultural histories to emphasize served as the linchpin in our efforts to connect the chosen content to the children’s prior knowledge. This trusted source of information was invaluable in making the presentations about China, Korea, Africa, Mexico, and the United States accurate, yet memorable learning experiences for the impressionable minds of these three- to five-year olds. Furthermore, the parents’ sharing of what their children were learning and experiencing in their households provided us a deeper understanding of each child’s true identity and background. While extending an open invitation to genuinely hear the parents’ voices, we were learning to replace misconceptions with truths and first-person histories. Most importantly, the parents’ enthusiastic response to share memorable family stories and cultural traditions in person and via technology tools such as the iPad or the early childhood center’s Shutterfly page was priceless. Likewise, the parents’ desire to be an active part of their children’s education served to strengthen the perceived parity of parent and educator for guiding student learning. In other words, the household and the school were acknowledged, collaborative sources of knowledge for the children.

ECC Teachers Were Able to See the Children’s Connection with the Multicultural Activities, and, Many Times, the Children Were the Teachers The children’s capacity to absorb so many different multisensory activities with regards to our coverage of the five distinct cultures was a significant educational event. The children intuitively wanted to learn and take as much from each multicultural event as possible; the children could not even pretend to be passive, but through their youthful lenses, they served as sources of new knowledge and ideas for the classroom teachers. Watching the children utter the most unexpected comments or ask unanticipated questions gave the narrators of this research project much opportunity to pause and recognize that the children were thinking about what was happening during the entire week. In several instances, the children’s responses during one-onone interviews provided us a deeper understanding into how they had come to perceive memorable household and life experiences. The children’s connection between classroom learning and what they securely knew provided us the benchmark to express our own excitement.

It was most interesting that the children were at ease as we closely interacted with them throughout the day, noticing what was taking place all around them. The children became our inspiration to continue this instructional practice for future ECC students. This experience also offered a framework for capitalizing on the children’s cultural strengths and addressing their innate desires to learn.

Technology Can Become an Important Tool for Children and Families to Document Generational Stories, Traditions, and Photos The power of technology was particularly evident in publishing the full spectrum of human voices and life experiences so that others would be better informed. Although only one

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 55

week was reserved for this wonderful learning experience, the parents and children figuratively “seized the microphone” to broadcast never-before-heard generational stories, treasured customs, and ways in which family members collaborated with one another—such as the first birthday celebration or the observance of a holiday. Through the advances of electronically mediated communication, it was possible to archive important household and cultural sentiments that perhaps had never been articulated within a public forum. Now, with the limitless reach of social media tools, what these families constructed in these self-made recordings will serve as a counterpoint to misperceptions that often influence the way people relate to others who appear, think, speak, or dress differently. Furthermore, the first-person documentation of both parents and their rambunctious children’s voices created a distinct format for recording and reflecting on the power of a home-school partnership. In turn, these participating children and families will recall the rare opportunity to have an instrumental influence in how classroom learning was conducted at the ECC during the summer of 2012.

Implications/Limitations Schools across the United States are becoming culturally and ethnically more diverse every day. This implies that teachers must continually reflect on and adjust their traditional pedagogical practices in order to value the voices of students from other cultures. In view of this realization, this study highlighted the importance of infusing multicultural activities into the curriculum in an effort to visibly validate the prior knowledge, cultural competencies, and bicultural perspectives of diverse students for promoting better human beings and successful learners (Gay, 2010). While observing the interactions among the children during the one-week period and reflecting upon the feedback from the student teachers, the researchers learned that it is important to develop appropriate, simple activities involving multiple sensory learning, such as singing, drawing, talking, playing, listening, and smelling. While progressing through the series of multicultural activities, the children appeared to enjoy looking at clothes, tasting food, listening to guest speakers, and creating crafts from other cultures. Consequently, it is our contention that there be a comprehensive effort to weave an accurate understanding of the hopes, struggles, everyday lives, and household practices that characterize the cultural backgrounds of diverse families as part of the children’s academic regimen that encompasses the entire school year.

One important limitation of this study was that it occurred at one educational setting: an early childhood center located in a university. And, as noted earlier, there were 20 three- to fiveyear old children representing five different cultures. It is possible the study outcomes might have significantly differed if this study had been conducted at a preschool facility not associated with a university with limited resources, caretakers, and only one or two cultural or ethnic groups represented among the enrolled children. A second important limitation was that the study lasted for about one week due to the semester ending at the end of July 2012. It is possible that certain omissions may have occurred, such as not all of the students’ parents being able to participate in

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 56

the weeklong activities. Also, the children may have felt pressured to absorb so much information in a short period of time without sufficient chance to express their cognitive and emotional learning. A third limitation was that the weeklong series of activities were implemented as a result of dialogue between the children’s parents and representatives from the ECC; however, the young voices of the children were not incorporated while deciding which multicultural activities to schedule in the five-day period.

A future recommendation would be for school administrators and classroom teachers to frequently ask families from various social and cultural groups to not only recommend but also serve as participants in special multicultural activities that could be incorporated in classroom learning for children attending schools in the United States. This introductory study serves as an exemplar for all educators to incorporate multicultural activities within their respective programs of education, forging stronger parent-teacher alliances and preparing children to succeed in a global community.

Author Biographies Bonnie Sullivan is an Assistant Principal at Wetumpka Elementary School for Elmore County Public School System. Mrs. Sullivan has teaching experience in second and fourth grade. She has earned a Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education, Masters of Education in Elementary Education, Instructional Leadership Certification, and an Education Specialist Degree in Elementary Education from Auburn University Montgomery in Montgomery, Alabama. E-mail: bonnie.sullivan@elmoreco.com Dr. Gilbert Dueñas is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Reading at Auburn University Montgomery in Montgomery, Alabama, with research interests in household and cultural influences of Latino parents on their children’s learning. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses and supervises students’ field experiences at elementary schools. E-mail: gduenas@aum.edu.

Dr. Shelly Hudson Bowden is a Professor at Auburn University Montgomery in Early Childhood Education. Her research interests include mentoring and creating naturalistic classroom environments. E-mail: shudsonb@aum.edu References Bernstein, J., Zimmerman, T., Werner-Wilson, R., & Vosburg, J. (2000). Preschool children's classification skills and a multicultural education intervention to promote acceptance of ethnic diversity. Journal of Research In Childhood Education, 14(2), 181-192.

Bodur, Y. (2012). Impact of course and fieldwork on multicultural beliefs and attitudes.

Educational Forum, 76(1), 41-56.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 57

Brock, C. (2001). Serving English language learners: Placing learners’ learning on center stage.

Language Arts, 78(5), 467-475.

Cavanaugh, L. M. (1995). Multicultural education: A checklist for selecting children's literature in the classroom. Insights into Open Education. North Dakota University, Grand Forks Center for Teaching and Learning.

Civil, M. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning of immigrant students: A look at the key themes from recent research: Paper presented for ICME Survey Team 5: Mathematics Education in MulticulturalMultilingual Environments, Monterey, Mexico.

Costley, K. C. (2012). Who are today's students in a diverse society? Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED528453.pdf Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cultural Interview Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/people/linda.levine/courses/HRTM111/s1/Cultural_Intervxw_Questi ons.doc Derman-Sparks, L. the ABC Task Force (1989/1991): Anti-Bias-Curriculum. Tools for empowering young children.

Dodge, D. T, Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2002). Creative curriculum for preschool. (4th ed.).

Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second language reading instruction in the United States: A research review: Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 115-152.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Katz, M. S. (1976). Educational law and legislation; education, compulsory; history; United States. Phi Kappa Delta Educational Foundation. Bloomington, IN. Lieberman, A. (2011). Can teachers really be leaders? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(1), 13-15.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (2013). Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/accreditation/search Souto-Manning, M., & Mitchell, C. H. (2010). The role of action research in fostering culturallyresponsive practices in a pre-school classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 269-277.

Sturgess, J., & Locke, T. (2009). Beyond "Shrek": Fairy tale magic in the multicultural classroom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(3), 379-402.

Taylor, S. (2000). Multicultural is who we are: Literature as a reflection of ourselves. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 24-20.

Swick, K. J. (1995). Family involvement in early multicultural learning [Abstract]. ERIC Publications, ED 380240, 1-6.

Yokota, J. (1993). Issues in selecting multicultural children’s literature. Language Arts, 70(3), 156-167.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 58

Teachers’ Actual Practices with Regard to NCTM Guidelines: A Quantitative Analysis of Teaching Practices in Urban Schools Taik Kim New Mexico Highlands University Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the quality of classroom instruction by investigating how teachers apply the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards and recommendations. The results showed that more than 96% of classroom instruction in the schools observed was lecture oriented. Less than 4% of classes engaged in activities that would fit NCTM guidelines. One of the findings in the study was that teachers who had mathematicsrelated degrees used more NCTM-oriented instruction (p < .05). Furthermore, teachers who had masters’ degrees in a mathematics-related subject were much more NCTM oriented than those who only had bachelor’s degrees in a nonmathematics major (p < 0.2). In summary, teachers who had majors in the field of mathematics and, in addition, master’s degrees, tended to use more diverse teaching methods rather than the direct teaching method. This study showed that there is a tremendous gap between teaching methods in public schools (especially urban schools) and the NCTM principles and recommendations. Ultimately, without the improvement of teachers’ ability to apply other teaching methods, the NCTM principles and recommendations will not be easily achieved in the typical classroom.

Perspectives The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) suggests that mathematics in schools should be conveyed and taught as a subject that improves one’s logical thinking, analytical reasoning, and evaluative skills, which are all essential to most career paths (NCTM, 2000). Because such vital skills may be developed by learning mathematics, the subject is valuable for gaining a well-rounded education. There is a consensus among reform-oriented mathematics education researchers that students need to understand mathematics and need the opportunity to construct mathematical knowledge rather than infer its finished form from the teacher: A major goal of school mathematics programs is to create autonomous learners, and learning with understanding supports this goal. Students learn more and better when they take control of their learning by defining their goals and monitoring their progress. When challenged with appropriately chosen tasks,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 59

students become confident in their ability to tackle difficult problems, eager to figure things out on their own, flexible in exploring mathematical ideas, and trying alternative solution paths, and willing to persevere. (NCTM, 2000, p. 21) One of the main goals for students in learning mathematics is to improve their reasoning and analytical skills in order to become mathematical problem solvers (NCTM, 1989). McNair (2000) concluded that tradition teacher-centered teaching methods, which often rely on a hierarchical transference of knowledge rather than student-based knowledge, do not improve students’ logical thinking, analytical reasoning, and evaluative skills. The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers reflect the NCTM Standards and recommendations in their classroom teaching practices and to infer the typical “quality” of classroom instruction from extensive classroom observations. The quality of classroom instruction is frequently linked to a high-quality teacher who demonstrates effective teaching (Berliner, 2005). According to gentry (2007), quality teaching means that it is both good and effective. He identifies that good teaching has at least three components: logical acts of teaching, such as demonstration and explanation; psychological acts of teaching, such as motivation and punishment; and moral acts of teaching, such as tolerance and fairness. Meanwhile, effective teaching is defined as the achievement of goals. In Gentry’s study, the quality of classroom instruction can be defined as an indication that the teacher has a significant influence on student learning. Thus, students should have a meaningful learning experience through quality classroom instruction.

The NCTM Standards have a long 20-year history. In 1989, the NCTM recommended a new type of teaching to improve learner’s logical and analytical skills. The NCTM (1991) strongly recommended a change from traditional lecture-based instruction to methods with student activities based on constructivism. Constructivism is one explanation for how learners gain knowledge of new ideas. Egeen and Kauchak (2001) describe constructivism as “a view of learning in which learners use their own experiences to create understanding of knowledge that makes sense to them rather than have understanding delivered to them in already organized forms” (p. 246). Novak and Gowin (1986) define the concept of constructivism as people using their experiences or prior knowledge to understand new things. The constructivist framework of Vygotsky (1978) can be a key to teaching and learning mathematics. This theory stresses that students need to understand certain basic concepts and fundamental structures before learning new ones.

Meanwhile, traditional lecture-oriented teaching normally features the teacher giving a brief explanation of the content, and then students practicing with a worksheet. There are a few discussions or presentations on how to solve the problems and check for correct answers.

Textbooks and worksheets are the main instruments for instruction, rather than manipulatives and connections to real-life situations. Usually, students are busy copying their teacher’s notes for the duration of class instead of completing worksheets. The NCTM has provided two important recommendations: (1) to make stronger connections between mathematics and real-life applications, and (2) to move the focus of the classroom environment from inactive learning,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 60

such as rote memorization of formulas and procedures, to interactive lessons that rely heavily on students’ participation in the logical reasoning processes of mathematics.

The National Research Council (1989, 1999) has also maintained that the classroom environment needs to change in order for students to improve their analytical thinking and logical reasoning skills. Silver and Stein (1996) participated in a project called Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying Student Achievement and Reasoning (QUASAR), which tested the assumption that improved learning would occur when students receive diverse teaching methods, such as lectures combined with active interaction, quality mathematical activities, and tasks that develop understanding of mathematical concepts. QUASAR teachers applied varied instructional methods that emphasized mathematical understanding, thinking, reasoning, and problem solving in order to help students develop the necessary understanding of mathematical concepts. Silver and Stein observed that QUASAR provided the high levels of conceptual and meaningful understanding required of students.

Similarly, Boaler (1998) provided three-year case studies of two secondary schools to examine student experiences and understanding with different teaching approaches: traditional teaching and activity-oriented teaching. Data collection included the use of case studies, questionnaires, interview, and student assessments. Both activity-related tests in real-world situations and traditional test problems were given to students for assessment. Boaler found that the different teaching approaches affected students’ achievement greatly. Students who received traditional teaching were able to develop procedural knowledge but lacked conceptual understanding, while the students in the activity-oriented class achieved better in real-life situations. In her later article, Boaler acknowledge that an open-ended approach to mathematics positively affected students’ achievement and actually enhanced the learning of students of different social levels (Boaler, 2002). Boaler suggested that a reform-oriented curriculum could reduce the inequality in mathematics learning.

Research has also suggested that a way to improve mathematics learning is to implement a new curriculum that includes engaging activities and connects life experiences to mathematics instruction (Martin, Sexton, Wagner, & Gerlovich, 1997; Portal & Sampson, 2001). In these reports, the researchers indicate that students not only enjoyed the class, but also improved their mathematical skills and held a less negative attitude toward mathematics. In order to meaningfully teach mathematics to African American students, Ladson-Billings (1994) suggested using culturally relevant teaching as an approach to develop students’ self-images.

According to Ladson-Billings, the mathematics curriculum should integrate African American culture to improve students’ self-esteem. Davidson and Kramer (1997) suggested that culture would be a vital resource connecting mathematics to students’ experiences. Several studies were conducted with culturally relevant teaching, one of which took place in a Mexican American community. There, Gutstein, Lipman, Hernandez, and de los Reyes (1997) proposed a new teaching model to enhance students’ learning mathematics within their cultural tradition. In addition, Matthews (2003) investigated how four elementary teachers in Bermuda integrated ‘a model of culturally relevant teaching’ into their curriculum. His finding was that students’

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 61

mathematics skills improved along with their cultural awareness. In looking for culturally based activities through a community’s members and educators, Lipka, Wildfeuer, Wahlberg, George, and Ezram (2001) sought after undisclosed mathematical concepts in traditional Inuit customs.

In 1985, D’Ambrosio introduced the term ethnomathematics to depict the mathematical practices among cultural groups. Since then, a good deal of research related to ethnomathematics has emerged. For example, research has been conducted on sociocultural aspects of mathematics education (Bishop, 1994; Hershkowitz & Schwarz 1999; Yackel & Cobb, 1996), on mathematics and culture (Barkley & Cruz, 2001; Bockarie, 1993; Eglash, 1998; Pinxten, 1994; Powell & Temple, 2001; Weiger, 2000), on mathematics and society (Abraham & Bibby, 1988), on a multicultural view of mathematical ideas (Ascher, 1991, Katz, 1994), on epistemology and ethnomathematics (Frankenstein & Powell, 1994), on languages and mathematics (Iseke-Barnes, 2000), and on race and ethnicity (Kirkpatrick, Crosnoe & Elder, 2001; Thomas, 2000).

Ascher (1991) offered that the main goals of multicultural mathematics were not only to provide opportunities to recognize mathematical problems developed from various cultures, but also to identify that people learn mathematics in many different ways. Cobb (1996) agreed with Ascher’s view that learning mathematics must be a process of enculturation. Katz’s (1994) view on ethnomathematics was that the employment of culture into the mathematics curriculum was necessary to help students connect mathematical concepts with culture. Furthermore, Frankenstein (1990) suggested that ethnomathematics should include economic, social, and political issues in addition to the cultural aspect. Barkley and Cruz (2001) proposed that ethnomathematics would be one of the feasible methods of helping students understand mathematics.

In summary, these studies were consistent with the principles and the standards of the NCTM (1989, 2002), advocating equity in curricula and instruction that responds to the cultural backgrounds of the students. To achieve equity in teaching and learning mathematics, the first step would be to implement a curriculum relevant to the various cultural or ethnic groups in the classroom.

Despite these new guidelines and recommendations, mathematics instruction in the classroom has hardly changed (Hoff, 2003; Silver & Stein, 1996). In their large-scale study analyzing 364 science and mathematics lessons through observations of and interviews with teachers in schools across the United States, Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, and Heck (2003) reported that the quality of classroom instruction was poor, lacking in lessons that were challenging to students. The general consensus echoes the NCTM guidelines: that teaching and learning mathematics should not be a one-sided transmission of knowledge from the teacher to the students.

Recently, Pianta, Belsky, Houts, and Morrison (2007) reported that there was little highquality mathematics instruction designed to improve analytical, problem-solving, or reasoning skills. In their multistate observational and longitudinal study of elementary classrooms, most instruction occurred in the form of lectures or individual student work without any interaction

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 62

between teachers and students. Even though the teachers were considered highly qualified elementary teachers by their statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; standards, 91.2% of their teaching methods were far from meeting the recommendations of the NCTM. Another issue relevant to the present study is the relationship between teaching quality and teacher qualification. Many studies have shown that qualification is directly linked to teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; content knowledge and student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Ingersoll, 1998). Goldhaber and Brewer (1996) analyzed data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 and concluded that higher degrees in mathematics and science were related to higher student-performance scores. Jerald (2002) found that economically disadvantaged schools tend to have mathematics teachers who do not have majors or minors related to mathematics and cannot be defined as highly qualified. Peske and Haycock (2006) verified that teachers in high-poverty and high-minority schools were inexperienced and poorly qualified. They reported that teacher quality was an essential factor in student achievement. Kim (2010) pointed out that a teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to handle a classroom was one of the important qualities for a teacher to possess in an urban school. When comparing two similar high-poverty schools, Peske and Haycock (2006) found that students taught by teachers with higher Teacher Quality Indices (TQI) had almost twice the amount of academic achievement in comparison to students taught by teachers with lower TQI. Methodology Setting and Participants The participants were 11 mathematics teachers from 3 middle schools and 2 high schools.

The data in the study came from classroom observations by the research and the interpretation of survey data from the participants. Class observation data were collected in seventh- to ninthgrade mathematics classes in a large, urban school district in Ohio. The participants (eight females and three males) allowed the researcher to observe their classrooms from 2004 to 2007.

Three of the teachers were African American and eight were European American. The teaching experience of the participants ranged from 1 to 36 years. Seven of the teachers had mathematicsrelated majors (three mathematics education, three mathematics, and one computer science) while four had nonmathematics-related majors (one sociology, one physical education, and two general education). Classes ranged from 15 to 36 students, while the average class size was approximately 27 students. The average number of classroom observations per teacher was 25, ranging from 20 to 30 observations during the academic years of 2004-2007. Class length ranged from 500 to 120 minutes. Nine teachers were certified and two teachers did not have any teaching certification.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 63

Instruments The researcher observed seventh, eighth, and ninth-grade mathematics classes. In order to distinguish between instruction that followed the NCTM Standards and tradition lectureoriented instruction, the researcher coded the activities that teachers used in their classes. Since it is very difficult to measure all aspects of the NCTM Standards, which include deeper issues about where authority lies, the coding scheme was limited to a basic count of eight different behaviors: four considered “lecture-oriented” and four considered “NCTM-oriented.” Besides the difficulty in measuring all aspects of the NCTM, there is also an issue with how the NCTM Standards can be reduced to observable behaviors. As Hiebert (1999) stated, the NCTM Standards were selected products from many different resources through a complicated process: Standards in mathematics education represent the goals we set for our students.

They are value judgments about what we would like our students to know and be able to do. They are chosen through a complex process that is fed by societal expectations, past practice, research information, and vision of the professional in the field. (p. 6) There were two aspects to deciding how behaviors from the NCTM Standards compared to traditional learning: (1) the psychological aspect (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996) that deals with personal behavior, and (2) the cognitive and ethnographical aspect (Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995) that gives attention to the development of interaction, such as the interaction between students and the teacher or interaction among students during group activities.

There were four typical behaviors identified in the typical lecture-oriented teaching methods: (1) explaining the procedure using an overhead projector, (2) writing notes or formulas on the board, (3) asking students to check their answers, or (4) requesting the completion of worksheets. In contrast to lecture-oriented teaching, behaviors that reflected the NCTM’s recommendations were identified as follows: (1) connecting mathematics instruction to real-life situations, (2) using technology other than calculators for simple calculations, (3) promoting interaction between students and the teacher or among students in a small group, or (4) conducting hands-on or group activities. Warm-up questions and homework assignments were excluded from coding. For interpretation purposes, the researcher subtracted 1 “point” for lecture-oriented teaching components and added 1 point for components reflecting the NCTM Standards. Thus, outcomes ranged from “-4,” representing the most lecture-oriented teaching, to “+4,” representing the most Standards-oriented teaching.

Data Analysis For the quantitative data analysis, a hierarchical linear model (HLM) (Raudenbush & Byrk, 2002) was used to examine the data. Besides descriptive statistics, an HLM was used to determine teachers’ perspectives on the NCTM guidelines and their applications to teaching.

Because a traditional multivariate analysis of variance cannot handle a nested data structure, an

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 64

HLM was used as the analytical method in this research to address the lack of independence among observations and the problem of cross-level relationships.

The HLM analysis of data in this study was used to determine how teaching-quality data were related to other factors: major, degree, certification, and class size. To measure teaching quality, scores from repeated observations of teaching quality in mathematics were the dependent variable at level 1, while major, degree, certification, and classroom size were the independent variables. Teaching experience, gender, ethnicity (European American and African American), and age were covariates at level 2.

Teaching Quality Measures Level 1(class level): Dependent variables: teaching quality scores.

Level 2 (personal level): Independent variables: major, degree, certification, and classroom size Covariates: teaching experience, gender, ethnicity (European American and African American), and age Results Descriptive Statistics There were a total of 307 classroom observations in 3 different grades and 5 different schools. Table 1 shows the demographic information of participants and class size, and each schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mathematics achievement information during the 2004-2005 academic year. Seventhand eighth-grade mathematics achievement indicates the percentage of students at and above the proficient level. There are five school proficiency ratings in Ohio: Excellent, Effective, Continuous Improvement, Academic Watch, and Academic Emergency. The designations depend on how many state indicators were met (out of 14 total).

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for classroom observation scores. Explaining the procedure with an overhead projector was used 301 times (98% of the classes observed), writing notes or formulas on the board was used 294 times (95.8%), inviting students to answer questions happened 295 times (96.1%), and requesting the completion of worksheets occurred 292 times (95.1%). However, mathematics instruction connected to real-life situations occurred only 6 times (2% of the classes observed). There were no cases of any technology being used other than calculators for simple calculations. Interaction between students and teacher/among students in small groups occurred 10 times (3.3%) while there were 13 occasions (4.2%) of teachers using hands-on or group activities.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 65

Teaching Quality Measures Two levels were considered for measuring teaching quality. Level 1 refers to the teaching class level and level 2 refers to the individual level. The dependent variable for the teaching class level was the score from classroom observation. The other covariates were scores from each classroom. At level 2, the independent variables were teachers’ background variables: major, degree, certification, and classroom size. The covariates were teaching experience, ethnicity, and gender. In order to know whether an HLM should be used, one would calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient using the unconditional model. The estimated variability between groups was 6.51% of the variance in the teaching class level, indicating slight variation between classes. Thus, use of an HLM is acceptable The HLM model is specified as follows: Level-1 Model Y = β0 + R Level-2 Model β0 = γ00 + γ 01*(MAJOR) + γ 02*(DEGREE) + γ 03*(CERTIFIED) + γ 04*(Size) +U0 Y = the outcome variable, TEACHING QUALITY SCORE β0 = the initial status MAJOR: College major of teachers DEGREE: Masters’ degree or bachelor’ degree CERTIFIED: Certified teacher or not certified SIZE: Classroom size R = the level-1 random error γ’s = the level-2 coefficients U0 = the level-2 random errors Note that some independent variables or covariates (e.g. ethnicity or gender) were not included in the HLM model above because they were not significant predictors for the outcome in a preliminary analysis.

To write out the equation for the HLM model at the first level, one would express teaching quality scores as the outcome variables by the initial status (β0) and the linear growth rate (β1, β2): Y = β0 + R β0 = -3.68 +.16*(MAJOR) + .53*(DEGREE) + .00*(CERTIFIED) + -.03*(Size) The outcome variable in the HLM analyses was the teaching quality scores. The mean scores for teaching quality were -.98 (SD = .14), -.96 (SD = .20), -.96 (SD = .19), -.95 (SD = .22), .02 (SD = .14), .00 (SD = .00), .03 (SD = .18), and .04 (SD = .04) for each variable (see Table 4) and -3.76 (SD = 1.03) for overall scores (see Table 3).

Figure 1 illustrates the teaching-mean score of each teacher. In the figure, the mean score for teaching quality was -3.76, indicating that most instructions were direct-teaching oriented.

The figure also shows that 6 teachers among the total of 11 participants record -4.0, which means

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 66

that their instructions were 100% direct-teaching oriented. Five teachers at least tried a teaching method or activity other than the traditional teaching method, although only in very rare instances.

Table 4 shows the parameter estimates from the HLM analysis for teaching quality at the classroom level. The class size was a significant effect related to the teaching quality at the α= .01 level at the classroom level. There was a significant effect related to the teaching quality at the α= .05 level at the classroom level: major, p < .05 and degree, p < .02. The result indicated that teachers who taught larger classes were significantly affected by the instructional method at p < .01. The data also suggest that teachers who have majors related to mathematics as well as master’s degrees tend to use more diverse teaching methods rather than the direct teaching method. However, whether teachers were certified or not did not significantly affect teaching quality (p < .75, ES = .02).

Importance of Major, Degree, and Certification The results for teaching quality scores are presented in Figure 2. In the figure, 0 on the xaxis refers to the teachers who do not have any mathematics-related degree, while 1 on the x axis refers to teachers who have mathematics-related degrees. As seen in Figure 2, teachers who had mathematics-related degrees scored higher (p < .05) in their total teaching scores than the teachers who did not have any. At the same time, teachers who had master’s degrees in a mathematics-related subject recorded far better scores than those who had only a BS degree in a nonmathematics major (p < 0.2).

Effect on Class Size Figure 3 displays how class size affected teaching quality with major and degree. The results indicate that class size significantly affects teaching quality at the p = .01 level. The results also show that large class sizes actually have a negative effect on teaching quality whether or not teachers have mathematics-related majors. Even the teaching-quality scores of teachers who had both mathematics-related degrees and master’s degrees and were the best of all the groups were negatively impacted by large classes.

Discussion To reiterate, the purpose of this study was to determine the quality of classroom instruction by investigating how teachers apply the NCTM Standards and recommendations.

The NCTM recommends using teaching methods with a higher cognitive demand based on constructivism to enhance not only students’ learning in the mathematics classroom but to also improve students’ logical thinking and reasoning skills, rather than utilizing traditional methods like delivering formal lectures, using practice exercises, and emphasizing procedures. However,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 67

recent research indicates that teaching methods in public schools have not changed much from the traditional methods of 20 years ago (Pianta et al., 2007; Hoff, 2003; Silver & Stein, 1996).

Results showed that more than 96% of classroom teaching in the schools observed was lecture oriented. Less than 4% of the classes engaged in activities that would fit the NCTM guidelines. Alarmingly, there were no cases with any technology use except the use of calculators during the study. This evidence supports the statement of Strutchens (2000), which was based on Chunn’s (1988) and Haberman’s (1991) research.

There were also limitations in the study outlined. First, there was difficulty in reducing the NCTM Standards to observable behavior. Because of the complex nature of the Standards, the findings of this research can differ through interpretation. For the purposes of quantitative analysis, (specifically, providing a “count of behaviors) some other features were deliberately neglected. A second limitation that could affect the outcomes was the number of teachers observed. It is important that the outcomes are not generalized. There is also the factor of teacher participation. Since all teachers did not participate equally as volunteers, the results from this study would apply only to teachers who had credentials comparable to those selected for the study.

One of the findings in the study was the effect of class size, which was significantly related to teaching quality at the classroom level (α < .01). The result indicated that teaching in a larger classroom significantly affected the instruction method (p < .01), meaning that reducing class size may be an option to improve teaching quality.

Another finding was that teachers who have mathematics-related degrees use more NCTM-oriented instruction (p < .05). Furthermore, teachers who held master’s degrees in a mathematics-related subject were much more NCTM-oriented than those who only had bachelor’s degrees in a nonmathematics major (p < 0.2). In summary, teachers who had both majors related to mathematics and master’s degrees tended to use more diverse teaching methods rather than the direct teaching method. The outcome also supported Strutchens’s (2000) finding that only 47% of mathematics teachers in high-minority classrooms hold a degree in mathematics or mathematics education. The examination of previous research implies that teacher qualification could affect teaching quality. Without the improvement of teachers’ ability to apply other teaching methods, the NCTM principles and recommendations will not be easily achieved in the typical classroom. One solution would be to implement quality professional training to improve teaching quality. However, as Stein, Smith, Henningsen, and Silver (2009) pointed out, teachers tend to unsuccessfully apply new teaching ideas and practices in their classrooms even after attending professional training. Professional development needs to be “practice based," placing the teacher in the actual application of instruction.

However, it was also discovered that whether or not teachers were certified did not significantly affect teaching quality (p < .75, ES = .02). It may be evidence that the current state of teacher education has not been effective enough to meet the NCTM Standards. In other words, because of the inadequacy of teacher education, implementation of the NCTM Standards has been minimal even though they have been around for two decades. Conclusively, teacher

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 68

education should focus on how future teachers should apply the recommendations of the NCTM Standards in their instruction.

Author Biography Dr. Kim, a long-time, impassioned math educator and researcher, is the mathematics education professor of New Mexico Highlands University. (NMHU) When he came to NMHU in 2011, he redesigned two mathematics curriculums for elementary teachers that aligned with the Common Core State Standards, and also developed course syllabi. With the redesigned curriculum, which used the constructivist theory of teaching and research-based best practices, his students were not only improving their content and pedagogy knowledge, but also greatly decreasing their anxiety toward mathematics. His research agendas focus on the effects of curriculum on the relationship between instructional practices and student outcomes. His agendas also include how teachers effectively implement inquiry-based teaching, coupled with a technology-driven program in the field of mathematics, and how teachers challenge students to take an interest in mathematics so that the rest of their education can be successful.

References Abraham, J., & Bibby, N. (1988). Mathematics and society: Ethnomathematics and a public educator curriculum. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(2), 2-11.

Ascher, M. (1991). Ethnomathematics: A multicultural view of mathematical ideas.

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Barkley, C. A., & Cruz, S. (2001). Geometry through beadwork designs. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(6), 362-367.

Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of teacher Education, 56(3), 205-213.

Bishop, A. J. (1994). Cultural conflicts in mathematics education: Developing a research agenda.

For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(2), 15-18.

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.

Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(1), 239-258.

Bockarie, A. (1993). Mathematics in the Mende culture: Its general implication for mathematics teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 93(4), 208-211.

Chunn, E. W. (1987). Sorting black students for success and failure: The inequality of ability grouping and tracking. Urban League Review, 11, 93-106.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 69

D'Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(1), 44-48.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Journal of Education Policy Analysis, 8(1).

Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Eglash, R. (1998). Geometry in Mangbetu design. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(5), 376-381.

Frankenstein, M., & Powell, A. B. (1994). Toward liberatory mathematics: Paulo Freire's epistemology and ethnomathematics. In P. McLaren, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Politics of liberation: Paths from Freire . New York, NY: Routledge.

Gentry, R. (2007). It takes 2 to produce a quality teacher: A groovy student and a harmonizing professor. A paper presentation for the Third Annual Reaching Out to Mississippi Education in Action (ROMEA) conference. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/databases/record/eric/ED498729 Goldhaber, D. D, & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/databases/record/eric/ED406400 Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C., Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., Hernandez, P., & de los Reyes, R. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a Mexican American context. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 709-737.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi delta Kappan, 73, 290-294.

Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (1999). The emergent perspective in rich environment: Some roles of tools and activities in the construction of sociomathematical norms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1-3), 149-166.

Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM Standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds), A research companion to Principles and Standards for school mathematics (pp 5-23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.

Hoff, D. J. (2003). Large-scale study finds poor math, science instruction. Education Week, 23(1), 8.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773776.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 70

Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.

Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

Iseke-Barnes, J. M. (2000). Ethnomathematics and language in decolonizing mathematics. Race, Gender & Class, 7(3), 133-149.

Jerald, C. D. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of field teaching. The Education Trust, 1-14. (ED 468 741) Katz, V. J. (1994). Ethnomathematics in the classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(2), 26-30.

Kim. T (2010). An effective way to improve mathematics achievement in urban schools.

Education Research Quarterly. 34(2), 60-71.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Mark, R., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.

Kirpatrick Johnson, M., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Student's attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 318-340.

Lipka, J., Wildfeuer, S., Wahlberg, N., George, M., & Ezram, D.R. (2001). Elastic geometry and Storyknifing: A Yupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ik Eskimo example. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(6), 337343.

Martin, R., Sexton, C., Wagner, K., & Gerlovich, J. (1997). Teaching science for all children. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Matthews, L. E. (2003). Babies overboard! The complexities of incorporating culturally-relevant teaching into mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 61-82.

McNair, R. E. (2000). Life outside the mathematics classroom: Implications for mathematics teaching reform. Urban Education, 34(5), 550-570.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://standards,nctm.org/document/chapter7/comm.htm National Research Council. (1989). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2001): A description of state responsibilities. Published by the Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/index.cfm Novak, J., & Gowin, B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 71

Peske, H. G. & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality (A report and recommendations by the Education Trust). The Education Trust, 1-18. (ED494820) Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795-1796.

Pinxten, R. (1994). Ethnomathematics and its practice . For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(2), 23-25.

Portal, J., & Sampson, L. (2001). Improving high school students’ mathematics achievement through the use of motivational strategies. Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460854) Powell, A. B., & Temple, O. L. (2001). Seeding ethnomathematics with Oware: Sankofa.

Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(6), 369-375.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50, 859-877.

Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR project: The “revolution of the possible” in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30, 476-521.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standardsbased mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development, (2nd ed.).

Reston, VA: National Council of teachers of Mathematics.

Strutchens, M. E. (2000). Confronting beliefs and stereotypes that impede the mathematical empowerment of African American students. In W. G. Secada, M. E. Strutchens, M. L. Johnson, & W. F. Tate (Eds). Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on African Americans. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Thomas, J. P. (2000). Influences on mathematics learning among African American high school students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(3), 165-183.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, (Eds.), Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weiger, P. R. (2000). Re-calculating math instruction: Professors in the ethnomathematics movement are bringing diversity, culture and a more accurate history to math instruction.

Black Issues in Higher Education, 17(13), 58-62.

Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States.

Retrieved September 21, 2005, from www.horizon-research.com Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 72

Table 1 Demographic and School Information Achievement

Percent

School 7th Math 8th Math 9th Math Minority Free Lunch* State Indicators** Avery 14.3 12.2 N/A 98.8 100 % 1 (Academic Emergency) Marble 8.1 7.1 N/A 100 100 % 0 (Academic Emergency) Oak 29.3 33.6 N/A 100 N/A 4 (Continuous Improvement) Polar N/A N/A 22.7 100 100 % 1 (Academic Emergency) Saturn N/A N/A 15.2 100 100 % 1 (Academic Emergency) Note. *Free lunch indicates these students belong to an economically disadvantaged group. **State Indicators met out of 14: Excellent (94%-100%), Effective (75%-93.9%), Continuous Improvement (50%-74.9%), Academic Watch (31%-49.9%), and Academic Emergency (0%30.9%).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 73

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Classroom Observation Scores Pre-Test

Total (N=307)

Percent

SD

301

98%

.139

Writing notes or formulas on the board

294

95.8%

.202

Inviting students to answer questions

295

96.1%

.194

Requesting the completion of worksheets

292

95.1%

.216

6

2.0%

.139

0

0%

.000

10

3.3%

.178

13

4.2%

.202

Teaching Component Explaining the procedure by teacher using overhead projector

Mathematics instruction connected to real-life situations Using technology besides using calculator for simple calculation Interaction between students and teacher, among students in the small group Hands-on or group activities.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 74

Table 3 Mean Scores on each Component of Measuring Teaching Quality

Explaining the procedure by teacher using overhead projector

Size (N) 307

MEAN SCORE -.98

SD .14

Writing notes or formulas on the board

307

-.96

.20

Inviting students to answer questions

307

-.96

.19

Requesting the completion of worksheets

307

-.95

.22

Mathematics instruction connected to real-life situations

307

.02

.14

Using technology besides using calculator for simple calculation

307

.00

.00

Interaction between students and teacher, among students in the small group

307

.03

.18

Hands-on or group activities.

307

.04

.20

Overall Scores

307

-3.76

1.03

Teaching Component

Table 4 Final Estimation of Fixed Effects for HLM 2 Fixed Effect Coefficient SE For INTRCPT1, β 0 INTRCPT2, γ00 -3.68 .30 MAJOR, γ 01 .16 .07 DEGREE, γ 02 .53 .16 CERTIFIED, γ 03 .00 .12 SIZE, γ 04 -.03 .01

df

t

p

6 6 6 6 6

-12.34 2.46 3.34 .00 -3.61

.00** .05* .02* 1.00 .01**

* Significance level at p < .05. ** Significance level at p < .01.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 75

Teaching Quality Score Mean

4

2

0

-2

-4 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Teacher ID

Figure 1. Teaching-Quality Mean Score of Each Teacher

0

BS, NO CERTIFIED BS, CERTIFIED MS, NO CERTIFIED MS, CERTIFIED

Total Scores

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

-4.00 0.00

1.00

Major

Figure 2. Major, Degree, and Certification Difference

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 76

0

NO MATH, BS DEGREE NO MATH, MS DEGREE MATH, BS DEGREE MATH, MS DEGREE

Total Scores

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

-4.00 20.00

23.50

27.00

30.50

Class Size

Figure 3. High & Low GPA Group Difference

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 77

The Impact of Student Teaching on Teacher Self-Efficacy R. Kevin Mackin Upper Iowa University

Abstract The teacher education program and the student-teaching experience form the foundation upon which a teaching career is built and can influence teaching effectiveness for years. Research is limited, however, about how the foundational student-teaching experience and corresponding teacher self-efficacy differ among different types of traditional teacher-preparation programs.

This study examined the impact of student teaching upon student teacher self-efficacy and compared the self-efficacy of graduate and undergraduate student teachers. In addition, this study looked at the relationship between important demographic variables (age, gender, undergraduate grade point average, and location of placement) and teacher self-efficacy. The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and a demographic survey designed by the author were administered to 271 student teachers from 11 Minnesota colleges before student teaching, and they were administered to 269 student teachers at the conclusion of student teaching. The results indicated that teaching self-efficacy scores increased significantly as a result of student teaching, but no significant difference was found between the scores of undergraduate student teachers and graduate student teachers. Elementary student teachers had significantly higher scores than secondary-level student teachers after student teaching, and there appeared to be a curvilinear relationship between age and self-efficacy with the highest scores found in the 35â&#x20AC;&#x201C;44-year-old age group. The research both reinforced and contradicted current assumptions about the self-efficacy of graduate student teachers and undergraduate student teachers, and the results should be noted by all teacher education programs and those that hire the teacher candidates of those programs.

Keywords: undergraduate student teachers, graduate student teachers, student teaching placements, self-efficacy, undergraduate grade point average, gender, age Introduction As Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 public education faces increasing scrutiny and criticism for failing to close the achievement gap, the call for accountability has begun to move in the direction of teacher preparation programs. Criticism of teacher education is not new (Popham & Greenberg, 1958), but a growing chorus of critics contend that traditional teacher education programs are failing to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 78

produce the kind of teachers needed in today’s schools (Greenberg, McKee & Walsh, 2013).

Central to that discussion is a key question: Do current traditional programs do an effective job of preparing our next generation of teachers? Unfortunately, very little is known about how effectively various types of programs prepare teachers.

One common approach to measuring the impact of teachers is to look at teacher selfefficacy. Teacher self-efficacy has been studied for over 30 years and has provided mounting evidence that teachers’ beliefs about their competencies have a significant impact on teaching effectiveness. There is a strong research base on teacher self-efficacy (Ross, 1994) and its impact on teacher effectiveness. Among the many positive correlates of high teaching selfefficacy, students of teachers with high teaching self-efficacy have demonstrated higher student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986) and motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer & Eccles, 1989).

The student-teaching experience, in combination with the teacher education program, plays a pivotal role in the formation of teacher self-efficacy. Darling -Hammond, Chung, and Frelow (2002) identified the sense of preparedness as the strongest predictor of teaching selfefficacy. The student-teaching experience is the traditional teacher-education program’s capstone and is considered by teacher candidates and teacher educators to be the most influential component of teacher preparation (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001).

It appears that teacher self-efficacy is most malleable during the first few years of teaching (Bandura, 1986), so the student-teaching experience can have a long-term impact on teaching success or the lack thereof. Because research on self-efficacy has shown that student teaching and the first few years of teaching have a significant impact on teacher efficacy (Hoy & Spero, 2005; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990) and that teacher self-efficacy apparently becomes resistant to change with experience (Henson, 2002), it would seem that teacher education programs and teacher induction programs should promote and assess teacher self-efficacy. Research is limited, however, about how the foundational student-teaching experience and corresponding teacher self-efficacy differ among different types of traditional teacher-preparation programs.

No Child Left Behind has placed an increased emphasis on highly qualified teachers.

The term highly qualified usually refers to the academic preparation in the content areas that teachers are expected to teach. A positive relationship between grades and teaching efficacy is implied in the criticism that education schools, on average, accept students with lower grade point averages (GPAs) than other professional programs. Some support for that assumption comes from an Israeli study by Wertheim and Leyser (2002).It found that secondary preservice teachers had higher self-efficacy than elementary preservice teachers and this information correlated with the fact that secondary teachers have higher high-school grades and admissions test scores (Kfir, Ariav, Feigin & Libman, 1998). If college grades are a rough measure of students’ mastery of content and if a greater mastery of content leads to higher self-efficacy in teaching, then college grades might also predict teaching efficacy.

Bandura (1977) noted that efficacy is context specific, and Labone (2004) has lamented the fact that much efficacy research lacks a consideration of context. That lack of context leads to questions related to teacher self-efficacy within different educational contexts. Teaching in an

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 79

urban setting is a different context than teaching in a suburban or rural setting. Teaching at the secondary level presents a different set of challenges than teaching at the elementary level.

Student teachers are placed in a variety of educational contexts, and both the efficacy beliefs of student teachers and their subsequent comfort in those contexts may rest on their studentteaching experiences.

The expansion of graduate programs and alternative paths to licensure has led to the introduction of teaching candidates who span across the age spectrum. Very few studies have examined the relationship between age and self-efficacy among novice teachers. Older teacher candidates bring varied life experiences and maturity into the classroom and that experience could factor into self-effiacy.

Teaching is a profession that, demographically, is dominated by women (Feitzritzer, 2011), and the trend lines suggest that the profession will either remain that way or the ratio of female teachers to male teachers could even increase.. While there is a push, especially at the elementary level, to increase the number of male teachers, the impact of those efforts do not appear to be making a significant impact on gender balance. Given this gender imbalance, it would seem advisable to explore the relationship between gender and teacher self-efficacy.

It is evident that the research on student-teaching self-efficacy and the factors that impact it have generated more questions than answers. There is a strong need for more data surrounding the variety of teacher education programs and their effectiveness in developing the kinds of teacher candidates that are needed to increase student achievement. Even among programs offered in traditional colleges of education, there is much variety and surprisingly little data that indicate what makes a difference in teacher preparation. The current study explored the impact of student teaching upon a student teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s self-efficacy. It also examined the relationship between the type of program (undergraduate and graduate) and teaching self-efficacy.

Additionally, it examined the relationship of several demographic variables to teaching efficacy, including age, gender, undergraduate GPA, and the setting of the student-teaching placement (urban, suburban, rural, elementary, and secondary).

Literature Review Almost all of the research on teacher self-efficacy for the past three decades has evolved out of the theories of Rotter (1966) and Bandura (1977). While Banduraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work has taken on increasing importance, the bulk of the original research grew out of the RAND study (Armor et al.,1976) and Rotterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conceptual model of locus of control. Researchers, however, were concerned about the reliability of a two-item scale, so additional efficacy measures built upon the Rotter locus of control model were created. Additional studies reinforced earlier correlations between efficacy and achievement (Ashton, 1985; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Herman, Meece, & McCombs, 2000), the willingness to use innovations (Gaith & Yaghi, 1997; Smylie, 1988), and the tendency to stay in teaching (Glickman & Tamishiro, 1982).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 80

In the 1980s, efficacy scales that were more closely aligned with Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy were beginning to be developed. Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), and Ashton (Ashton & Webb, 1986) created vignettes that measured teacher self-efficacy beliefs. The TES measured both personal teaching efficacy (self-efficacy expectation) and general teaching efficacy (outcome expectations).

More recent research on self-efficacy continues to add more clarity to the relationship between teacher beliefs and student achievement. Ross (1994) reported initial findings (Dembo & Gibson, 1985) on general teaching efficacy and years of teaching experience that indicated that general teaching efficacy decreases over time. In that study, preservice teachers had a stronger belief in the school’s ability to overcome the disadvantaged backgrounds of students than the more experienced in-service teachers. That finding has since been reinforced on numerous occasions (Gaith & Yaghi, 1997; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Taylor & Tahakkori, 1995).

Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) have theorized that the decline in general teaching efficacy comes with the increased realization among veteran teachers of the impact of factors outside of school over which they have no control.

The research reported that the relationship of experience to personal teaching selfefficacy has been somewhat inconclusive. Several research studies across the globe have found a positive correlation between personal teaching efficacy and years of experience (Campbell, 1996; de la Torre Cruz & Arias, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan & Quek, 2008), but others have shown no correlation (Ghaith & Shaaban, 1999; Guskey, 1987).

Research on the impact of experience on personal teaching efficacy versus outcome expectancy is worth noting because it appears that outcome expectancy is either stable or decreases with age and experience, whereas teaching efficacy increases with age and experience.

Dembo and Gibson (1985) found that while outcome expectancy is higher for preservice teachers than for experienced teachers, expectancy scores decline with experience for all groups. Two international studies add to that finding. Canadian student teachers showed an increase in personal teaching efficacy but a slight decrease in outcomes expectancy (Housego, 1992), and Korean preservice teachers significantly increased in personal teaching efficacy but showed no corresponding increase in outcomes expectancy (Gorrell & Hwang, 1995). It seems that, over time, both student teaching and teaching experience tend to increase the teachers’ beliefs about their abilities to successfully perform teaching tasks, but they decrease the belief that those behaviors will always lead to successful results for students. Over time, teachers seem to come to the conclusion that student learning is impacted by many factors beyond the teacher’s skill and knowledge (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997). As Guskey (1987) observed, teachers feel more capable of producing positive outcomes (personal efficacy) than in preventing negative ones (outcomes efficacy).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 81

Teacher Self-Efficacy Measures The measurement of the self-efficacy construct has evolved over time. The initial construct was named and defined by the RAND Corporation (Armor et al., 1976). At about the same time, Gibson and Dembo (1984) created a 30-item scale (the TES) that attempted to measure teacher self-efficacy by using social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) as its foundation.

Gibson and Dembo (1984) labeled the two factors personal teaching efficacy and teaching efficacy. The latter was eventually described as general teaching efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Interestingly, research on general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy has shown only a very modest correlation between the two factors by using both the RAND and Gibson and Dembo scales. Dissatisfaction with the theoretical and statistical limitations of the RAND scale as well as concerns about the construct- validity (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) and reliability (Henson, 2002) of the TES subscale for general teaching efficacy has led to additional efforts to create a more accurate and useful scale for teacher selfefficacy.

Bandura (1997) created his own 30-item instrument (the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale) that reflected a multi-faceted view of teacher efficacy beliefs. The research base using that scale has been quite limited. Banduraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach, however, was extended when Tschannen-Moran and Woofolk Hoy (2001) created the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, which was later renamed the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). That scale was created by combining some of Banduraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statements with additional areas deemed important by a group of teachers who assisted in the development of items. As expected, the TSES reflects teacher self-efficacy beliefs and the many dimensions of teacher responsibilities. The TSES has been used in a growing body of teacher self-efficacy studies. As a result of the strength of its research base and its demonstration of construct validity as related to self-efficacy theory, the TSES was selected for this study.

Student Teaching Some recent studies have specifically focused on the self-efficacy of student teachers (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001; Ward, 2005) and teachers new to the profession (Hoy & Spero, 2005). Earlier studies assessed the impact student teaching has on efficacy (Benz, Bradley, Alderman, & Flowers, 1992) and professional retention (Hall, Burley, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1992). The research on student teachers has paralleled other research on self-efficacy in the consistent findings of positive outcomes associated with higher levels of self-efficacy.

The impact of student teaching on efficacy is somewhat inconclusive. While the majority of research findings have shown an increase in self-efficacy, (Fortman & Pontious, 2000; Housego, 1992; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008) a significant number have found no increase (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Lin & Gorrell, 2001). Research has shown that while self-efficacy tends to increase at the end of student teaching, it tends to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 82

decrease at the end of the first year of teaching (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Hoy & Spero, 2005).

Weinstein (1988) posited that the decrease in efficacy is due to the reality shock of just how difficult it is to teach effectively. Hoy and Spero (2005) hypothesize that the college’s support buffers the student during student teaching, whereas those support systems are often lacking in schools, and teachers grow frustrated with the gap between how they want to perform and how they see themselves performing.

Type of Program Research comparing efficacy based on the type of teacher preparation is limited, and it is beset with problems comparing unlike groups. A few studies have looked at the differences between traditional four-year programs and five-year programs. Andrew (1990) and Andrew and Schwab (1995) compared four-year and five-year program teachers at the University of New Hampshire, and they found that the five-year program graduates had higher career satisfaction, job retention, and initial employment rates and that they gave higher ratings to their own teaching skills. Paccione, McWharton, and Richburg (2000) compared teacher candidates in a traditional undergraduate program with teacher candidates in a one-year master’s level program (Project Promise) in Colorado. Their study found more positive outcomes associated with the master’s degree students. These students had more success finding a job and staying in the field, and they had higher performance ratings by the principals charged with their supervision.

However, a confounding factor for both the Colorado and New Hampshire studies may be that the master’s program and the five-year program had more selective admissions processes.

The selective admissions factor was identified as a positive feature of graduate-level teaching programs (Coley & Thorp, 1986) because those programs were attracting academically superior students to teaching. The more rigorous selection process is a factor that has to be considered when making comparisons of traditional undergraduate programs with graduate level programs.

This study will attempt to address the admissions criteria by examining the relationship between undergraduate GPA and efficacy for both graduate and undergraduate student teachers.

Grade Point Average There has been very little research on the relationship of college grades to teaching efficacy. Pigge and Marso (1997) examined GPA in a longitudinal study that spanned from early in a teacher candidate’s preservice program to the fifth year of teaching. While they did not directly measure efficacy, they reported that high GPA was associated with a reduction in “self concerns” related to teaching between the initial field experiences and the completion of student teaching, whereas low GPA students reported an increase in “self concerns.”

Ferguson and Womack (1993) and Guyton and Farokhi (1987) found that GPA within the college major and standardized test scores for subject matter mastery have a very small impact on teaching performance in comparison to education courses. Increasing the number of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 83

content courses alone had little impact on science teaching efficacy (Moore & Watson, 1999; Schoon & Boone, 1998), but teaching science methodology courses had a significant impact on science efficacy (Watters & Ginns, 2000; Palmer, 2006).

A potential confounding factor in examining the correlation between grades and efficacy is the issue of grade inflation in schools of education. Research from 1960 (Weiss & Rasmussen) showed that, at that time, education majors were twice as likely to receive an “A” compared to business or liberal arts students. Koedel (2011) found similar grade inflation in colleges of education in a study of three major universities during the 2007–2008 school year.

The mean GPA of students in education at the three universities ranged from 3.66 to 3.8. The uniformly high grades in education could mean that grades will not serve as a means to distinguish student achievement.

Gender Gender has been examined in a few studies related to preservice teachers. Preservice male teachers, for example, tend to place more emphasis on classroom management, fairness, and good communication, whereas female teachers tend toward student-centeredness, being supportive and well organized (Ogden, Chapman, & Doak, 1994; Witcher & Onwuegbuzie, 1999). Another study that examined student teachers (Lamote & Engels, 2010) found that male teachers attached more importance to classroom discipline, while female teachers emphasized student involvement. The research on gender’s relationship to teacher self-efficacy has been inconclusive. Earlier studies (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1998; Lee, Buck, & Midgeley ,1992; Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992) found that females in elementary and secondary schools had higher self-efficacy than males. Recent studies have found no gender difference among student teachers (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008) and no gender difference for novice or experienced teachers (Tschannen-Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2007).

Age There are several studies that have examined the relationship between years of teaching experience and teaching efficacy, but few have made a distinction between age and experience.

Campbell (1996) looked at both in a study of preservice teachers and experienced teachers in Scotland and the United States. Experienced teachers had higher efficacy scores than preservice teachers, and more experienced teachers had greater efficacy than novice (1–3 years of experience) teachers in both countries. Campbell also found that older teachers (over 40 yearsold) had higher self-efficacy scores than younger teachers (under 25 years-old). Among experienced teachers in Singapore, Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, and Quek, (2008) found that experience positively related to teacher efficacy but age was only positively related to efficacy of classroom management and that it was negatively associated with being “a source of instrumental help” to students. Chester and Beaudin (1996) reported that, during the first year of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 84

teaching, there was an increase in self-efficacy for older “novices,” while younger novices had a decrease in self-efficacy. However, age, separate from experience, is still relatively unexamined in teacher efficacy research.

Research that directly measures the relationship between age and teaching self-efficacy is very limited. In an Australian study, Campbell (1996) found that older teachers (40 +) had higher efficacy than younger (< 25) teachers, but experience was not factored out. Attrition rates have been tied to lower teaching efficacy, and Kirby, Berends, and Naftel (1999) tracked novice teacher attrition rates and found that older teachers had lower attrition rates in their second year of teaching than younger candidates. Chester (1991) observed that teachers who were older when they started their teaching careers demonstrated greater increases in personal teaching efficacy in the first few months of teaching as compared to their younger colleagues.

Rocca and Washburn (2006) looked at the teaching self-efficacy of traditionally certified and alternatively certified agriculture teachers. They observed that the alternatively certified teachers were 10 years older on average. The authors found no difference in efficacy between traditional and alternative programs, and they suggested that age and life experience may have countered the educational training advantage of traditionally prepared teachers. In other words, when examined in isolation, the alternatively certified teachers might have been expected to have lower self-efficacy, but their age and occupational experiences compensated for their lack of instruction in pedagogy. Rocca and Washburn (2006)recommended that future studies consider the impact of age, occupational experience, and advanced degrees on teaching self-efficacy.

Urban/Rural/Suburban Context Tschannen-Moran, Woofolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) noted that efficacy is context specific, so perceived ability changes with the situation. School-context variables can impact the selfefficacy of teachers, especially preservice teachers. Hoy and Spero (2005) found that a school’s socioeconomic level impacted the degree to which teachers felt supported and the perceived difficulty of teaching. Teachers of higher socioeconomic statusclassrooms felt more supported and perceived their jobs as less difficult.

The findings on student-teaching efficacy in the urban context are mixed, but many of the studies show no difference between teachers’ efficacy in urban environments and rural or suburban schools (Tschannen-Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2007). Guyton (1994) had preservice teachers complete the TES upon entry to an early childhood program, prior to the initial practicum experience and again upon completion of the student-teaching experience. In an interesting finding, she found that placement into schools serving large numbers of low socioeconomic students led to a decrease in efficacy after the practicum experience but an increase in efficacy after student teaching. She hypothesized that self-selection had a role because student teachers could select their type of placement, so students who were more highly

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 85

skilled and confident at teaching urban students would select that option. It is also possible that the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ages (preschool) may have been a mitigating factor.

Knoblauch and Woofolk Hoy (2008) found no significant difference in the teaching selfefficacy of student teachers placed in urban, suburban, and rural schools. Student teachers in all three placements showed a significant increase in teaching self-efficacy after completion of student teaching. The authors hypothesized two possible explanations for the urban student teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; self-efficacy. They posited that it is consistent with social cognition theory (Bandura, 1997) because mastery of difficult tasks will lead to heightened mastery, and, therefore, success in a difficult educational environment would boost efficacy scores. The second explanation was that any lack of success would be attributed to the environment and not personal teaching efficacy, thus, insulating the impact of the school environment upon efficacy scores. While Knoblauch and Hoy did not find self-efficacy differences based on location, they did find a difference in pupil-control ideology with suburban student teachers taking a less rigid and more humanistic approach to classroom management.

Elementary /Secondary Context In an Israeli study, Kfir, Ariav, Feigin, and Libman (1998) reported that students majoring in junior high education had higher secondary-school grades and higher scores on college entrance exams and that they had correspondingly higher personal teaching efficacy scores compared to students majoring in elementary and early childhood education. There is a similar pattern in scores on college admissions tests for American teacher candidates with secondary candidates scoring higher than elementary candidates (Gitomer, Latham, & Ziomek, 1999; Podgursky, Monroe, & Watson, 2004), but there has been no finding of lower efficacy scores for elementary student teachers.

Methodology This quasi-experimental study employed a quantitative design using a teacher self efficacy survey. It compared the teaching self-efficacy scores of teacher candidates before and after their student-teaching experience. A survey collecting demographic characteristics was administered to students at the beginning of student teaching in a variety of teacher preparation programs in Minnesota, including four-year undergraduate teacher-preparation programs and graduate-level teaching licensure programs. At that same time, students completed the short form of the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

After the completion of student teaching, students were administered the TSES a second time. Results from the surveys were analyzed to see if there were significant differences in the self-efficacy scores of student teachers as a result of the student-teaching experience and to see if there were differences in the self-efficacy of graduate and undergraduate student teachers.

Results were also analyzed to see if significant differences were associated with the demographic

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 86

variables of age, gender, undergraduate GPA, level of teaching (elementary and secondary), and the type of student teaching placement (urban, suburban, and rural).

Surveys were administered to volunteer participants for the study. For most participants, the initial survey was administered following their orientation to student teaching or at their first student-teaching seminar. The follow-up survey was administered at the end of student teaching at a time deemed appropriate by the college supervisors. Two groups of student teachers completed the post student-teaching survey online.

Population and Sample The Minnesota teacher education programs were contacted through the Minnesota Association of Colleges of Teacher Education . The colleges that chose to participate included nine private colleges and two public colleges. Participation among the colleges was voluntary, and student participation within the colleges was also voluntary. There were 271 student teachers who participated in the survey before student teaching, and 269 student teachers participated after student teaching. Seventy-five percent of the participants were female, and 25% were male. Most of the student teachers (64%) were 24 years of age or younger with 24% of the population in the 25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;34 age group. Student teachers in the 35â&#x20AC;&#x201C;44 years of age group comprised 8% of the total, and 4% of the student teachers were 45 years or older. The majority of student teachers were enrolled in undergraduate programs (78%) versus graduate level programs (22%). The average undergraduate cumulative GPA of all the student teachers was 3.54 with undergraduates reporting a slightly higher GPA (3.55) as compared to the undergraduate GPA of graduate students (3.50).

The population did not vary widely from the national profile of teachers (Feitzritzer, 2011) as a total group, but some differences between the graduate and undergraduate groups were notable. The ratio of males to females was somewhat higher than the national sample with 25% of the sample population identified as male compared to the national demographic of 16% being male (Table 1). The difference was even more notable in the graduate group, which was almost 40% male (Table 2).

There was a rather dramatic difference in the percentage of secondary teachers among the graduate level programs in this study. Nationally, elementary teachers account for the largest share of teachers and that was also true among this group of student teachers with 55% of the teachers placed at the elementary level. However, the larger number of undergraduate student teachers in this study obscures the relatively high percentage of graduate level students (77%) who were placed at a secondary school. Taken separately, the graduate programs trend toward secondary level teachers, whereas the undergraduate programs trend toward elementary. As a group, the graduate students differed in gender, age, and level of placement compared to undergraduates (Table 2).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 87

Instrument and Measures This study used a demographic survey created by the author and the TSES developed at Ohio State University by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). The TSES was designed to measure self-efficacy beliefs, and it is aligned with Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy.

Based on the recommendation of Woolfolk Hoy, this study used the total self-efficacy score of the short form. The reliability of this instrument is relatively high (.92 Cronbach’s alpha), and validity was demonstrated by correlating this instrument with Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) wellresearched Teaching Efficacy Scale (TES). The Pearson coefficient for correlation between the TSES and the TES was .64.

The short form consists of 12 questions, including four items for each of the three subscales: efficacy for instructional strategies, efficacy for student engagement, and efficacy for classroom management. Response to each item was a 9-point Likert-type scale with 1 corresponding to “Nothing” and 9 corresponding to “A Great Deal;” thus, higher scores on the scale are equated with greater efficacy beliefs. An example of an instructional strategies item is “To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?” An example of a student engagement item is “How much can you do to help your students value learning?” An example of a classroom management question is “How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?”

Data Collection The initial survey data were collected from student-teacher supervisors after studentteaching orientations. The supervisor distributed the survey to student teachers along with a letter of explanation in an individual envelope, and each student was given the option of not participating in the study. The student deposited the completed or uncompleted survey back into the envelope and placed that envelope in a larger envelope that was then sealed and mailed to the author of this study. Thus, the anonymity of the student teachers was ensured, and it was not evident whether a student chose to participate. The final survey was collected in a similar manner and mailed to the author after the final student-teaching seminar. A script was provided to college supervisors to help standardize the survey’s presentation. At the initial meeting, important demographic data were collected and that same data were collected upon completion of student teaching and used to match the scores. Based on the variables being studied, information about the student teacher’s age, gender, and placement setting was collected in a self-reported survey. Because the student responses were anonymous, the surveys were not reviewed for completion. Incomplete entries on the demographic survey led to a reduced population (205) for the paired t-test comparisons and varying numbers for the analysis of demographic variables.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 88

Data Analysis All of the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Muijs, 2004). A paired t-test was used to compare the graduate and undergraduate teaching candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; pre-test (before student teaching) and post-test (after student teaching) self-efficacy. A one-way analysis of variance was used to examine the relationship between the demographic variables and teaching self-efficacy. The one-way analysis of variance was performed on the variables of age, gender, level of placement, location of placement, and undergraduate GPA. Results Impact of Student Teaching A paired samples t-test was run comparing the self-efficacy of 206 student teachers before and after student teaching. The mean efficacy score before student teaching was 85.0, and the mean score after student teaching was 90.08. Table 3 presents the mean scores of all student teachers before and after student teaching as well as the standard deviation, mean standard error, and the t-test score (8.32). Based on the paired sample t-test, the null hypothesis was rejected.

The t-test scores showed that the student-teaching experience significantly (p < .001) increased the self-efficacy scores of student teachers.

Graduate student teachers compared to undergraduate Table 4 presents the means scores, standard deviations, mean square, and F score for the analysis of variance. The sample consisted of 213 undergraduate student teachers and 58 graduate level student teachers. The mean self-efficacy score of undergraduate student teachers prior to student teaching was 84.83, and the mean self-efficacy scores of graduate students prior to student teaching was 85.47. This was less than a 1 point differential, and a one-way analysis of variance yielded an F score of .209, which fell far short of a significant difference between the two groups (p > .05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted for hypothesis 2: there is no significant difference in perceived teacher efficacy between undergraduate and graduate level preservice teachers at the start of student teaching.

Table 5 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, mean square, and F score for the comparison of teaching self-efficacy of graduate and undergraduate students after the completion of student teaching. The mean score for the 213 undergraduates upon completion was 90.55.

The mean score for the 56 graduate students upon completion was 91.57. The mean difference between the groups was 1.02, and a one-way analysis of variance yielded an F score of .703, which did not approach significance (p>.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted for hypothesis 3: there is no difference in perceived teacher efficacy between graduate and undergraduate preservice teachers at the end of student teaching.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 89

Urban, Suburban, and Rural Placement Locations Table 6 presents the means scores, standard deviations, mean square, and F score for the one- way analysis of variance. The mean score after student teaching for the 44 student teachers placed in an urban teaching environment was 91.61. The mean score for the four students placed in urban private schools was 96.75. The mean score for the 91 student teachers placed in suburban settings was 89.87, and the mean score for the 60 students placed in rural settings was 89.95. Even though the numerical difference between the private urban placements was relatively large, the small n for that group resulted in a large standard of error. The one-way analysis of variance on the impact of student-teaching placement on efficacy yielded an F score of 1.35, which did not meet the requirement significance (p>.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis was supported: there is no difference in the perceived efficacy between urban, suburban, and rural student teachers.

Gender Table 7 represents the mean scores, standard deviation, standard error, mean square, and F score for the one-way analysis of variance of differences between male and female student teachers. The table reports the mean self-efficacy scores of 67 male student teachers and 201 female student teachers after completing student teaching. The mean efficacy score of male student teachers was 90.51, and the mean efficacy score of female student teachers was 90.76.

The difference between the means is reflected in an F score of .50, which falls far short of significance. As a result, the null hypothesis was accepted: there is no difference in perceived self-efficacy between male and female student teachers.

Elementary and Secondary Placements Table 8 represents the mean efficacy scores, standard deviations, mean square, and F score for a one-way analysis of variance for differences between elementary and secondary student teachers. The sample included 113 elementary student teachers and 87 secondary student teachers. After completing student teaching, elementary student teachers had a mean selfefficacy score of 91.63, and secondary student teachers had a mean self-efficacy score of 88.79.

That difference resulted in an F score of 6.12, which indicates a significant (p< .05) difference between the groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Based on this research study, elementary student teachers have a significantly higher self-efficacy score than secondary student teachers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 90

Grade Point Average Table 9 reports the mean self-efficacy scores, standard deviations, mean square, and F score for the one-way analysis of variance for the differences in efficacy based on undergraduate GPA. The sample consisted of the 265 student teachers who self-reported their GPA. The GPAs were organized into seven subgroups with the mean GPAs between 2.4 and 4.0. The mean scores of those groups ranged from a high of 92.0 to a low of 87.54. The analysis of variance yielded an F score of .83, which falls far short of the score necessary for the finding of significance. Based on that analysis, the null hypothesis was accepted: there is no correlation between undergraduate GPA and perceived teaching efficacy.

Age Table 10 reports the mean self-efficacy scores, standard deviations, mean square, and F score for the one-way analysis of variance for the differences in efficacy based on age. The sample consisted of 269 student teachers who reported their age group upon completion of student teaching. Four age groups were identified (20–24, 25–34, 35–44, and 45 and over). The mean efficacy scores ranged from a high of 96.05 for the 35–44-year-old group to a low of 89.13 for the group aged 45 and older. The one-way analysis of variance yielded an Fscore of 4.28, which is significant (p<.05). In order to identify which differences between the groups were significant, a post hoc test was run (Tukey Honest Significant Difference), and those results are reported in Table 11. Based on the findings of significance in the analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test for multiple groups, the null hypothesis was rejected: there is a correlation between age and teaching self-efficacy for student teachers. Teachers in the 35–44-year-old group have significantly higher efficacy scores than student teachers in the 20–24-year-old group.

Discussion Population The overall population of this group of student teachers was similar to the national population of current teachers (Feitzritzer, 2011) in that it was predominantly female (75%) with slightly more elementary teachers (55%) than secondary teachers (45%). A comparison of the graduate and undergraduate student teachers, however, points to significant differences between those two populations in gender, age, and level. While the graduate student teachers were older as a group, most of them were still under the age of 35. The age differences are to be expected, but the differences in gender and teaching level are worth noting. The percentage of male graduate student teachers in this study was more than double the national average (38% to 16%), and the percentage of secondary teachers was nearly double (77% to 30%) the national averages.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 91

Based on this study, graduate-level teacher-education programs attract more males and secondary level teachers than the traditional undergraduate programs. If graduate level teachers bring content-related life experiences into the secondary classroom, the high number of secondary teachers may add value to their classrooms. Because the percentage of males in Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 education has been decreasing, the graduate programs may be tapping into a population that will bring more gender balance into the schools albeit mostly into secondary classrooms.

Impact of Student Teaching A primary focus of this study was to determine the impact of student teaching on teaching self-efficacy. The mean cumulative efficacy score before student teaching was 85.0, and the mean cumulative self-efficacy score after student teaching was 90.08. A paired samples t-test found significant differences between the efficacy scores before and after student teaching..

The analysis generated a t-score of 8.32, which is significant at the .001 level. The significant increase in teaching efficacy adds to a growing body of research of the positive impact of student teaching (Gorrell & Hwang, 1995; Housego, 1992; Knoblauch & Woofolk Hoy, 2008).

The improved self-efficacy scores were consistent across all groups: undergraduate, graduate, elementary, secondary, urban, suburban, rural, younger, and older student teachers. It is worth noting that the initial self-efficacy scores were quite high. On a 9-point Likert scale, the student teachers averaged slightly over 7 on the pretest and slightly over 7.5 on the posttest.

Knoblauch and Woolfolk Hoy (2008) found similarly high results in their study of student teachers in Ohio.

This high teaching self-efficacy stands in contrast to the report of current in-service teachers (Feitzritzer, 2011) who reflected upon their initial teaching competency. In this recent national study, only 25% of the teachers reported that they were very competent in the area of discipline, and 27% of teachers reported that they were very competent in the area of classroom management at the beginning of their teaching careers. The numbers were slightly higher for being very competent in subject matter (44%) and the ability to motivate students (39%), but they still do not match the efficacy reported in this study of student teachers. Further support of a contrast between the efficacy of student teachers and in-service teachers was reported in a study that used the same measure of self-efficacyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the TSES (Tschannen-Moran &Hoy, 2007).

In that study, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) reported the efficacy scores of novice teachers averaged 6.87, and veteran teachers averaged 7.29. This means the novice teacher self-efficacy scores in that study were lower than the scores of student teachers before student teaching in the current study (7.08) and that the post student-teaching scores (7.51) of the current study were higher than the experienced teachers in the study by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007).

Based on the efficacy scores of novice and veteran teachers shared above, those high efficacy scores seem likely to experience a decrease during the first years of in-service teaching.

The pattern of decreased self-efficacy in the initial years of teaching is not a new finding (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The unrealistic optimism of first-

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 92

year teachers (Weinstein, 1988) may be partially generated by student teaching, and it leads to the inevitable discrepancy between expectations and performance for the novice teacher (Friedman, 2000).

Nevertheless, the increase of self-efficacy during student teaching is a positive finding.

Bandura (1997) has suggested that it is beneficial for teachers to slightly overestimate their actual teaching skills because it serves as a motivator to persist during setbacks. Perhaps student teaching gives many teacher candidates a reservoir of confidence for them to persist through the difficult challenges of the first years of teaching. It may be that Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 schools can utilize the dimensions of mastery experiences and social persuasion promoted in student teaching and apply those dimensions in their induction programs to mitigate the documented decreases in selfefficacy during the first years of teaching.

Graduate and Undergraduate Comparison A major focus of this study was to examine what, if any, differences existed in the efficacy of undergraduate student teachers compared to graduate level student teachers. The teaching self-efficacy scores of graduate and undergraduate student teachers were compared before student teaching and after student teaching. Before student teaching, the mean selfefficacy score of undergraduates was 84.83 and the mean efficacy score of graduate students was 85.47. The differential of less than one point did not approach statistical significance (p =.648).

After student teaching, the teaching self-efficacy scores of both groups increased with undergraduates averaging 90.54 and graduate student teachers averaging 91.57. Although the difference grew slightly after student teaching to just over 1 point, it still fell far short of statistical significance (p= .403). It was concluded, therefore, that there are no differences between the teaching self-efficacy of undergraduate and graduate level student teachers before and after student teaching.

Previous research (Andrew & Schwab, 1995; Paccione, McWharton, & Richburg, 2000) had found a variety of positive outcomes in favor of student teachers in graduate programs.

Those studies, however, did not collect data at the end of student teaching and did not directly assess teaching self-efficacy. It may be that the level of preparation could have some long-term impact on satisfaction and efficacy. This study did not show a significant difference before or after student teaching, but it does not project future outcomes. It was also noted in earlier research (Coley & Thorpe, 1986) that more positive outcomes of graduate school programs may be related to graduate schools drawing a more academically capable student. This study found no significant difference between the undergraduate GPAs of current undergraduate student teachers and current graduate level student teachers. If there was a GPA differential among past students that contributed to differences in efficacy, that difference does not appear to be present in the current educational environment.

Without a significant difference in academic achievement, it may be that all other differences between graduate level and undergraduate level student teachers balance out. The

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 93

recent K–12 experience and the undergraduates’ more current content-area coursework may counterbalance the more extensive life experiences and expected maturity of the graduate students. Comfort with technology is a factor that was not explored in this study and not measured by the TSES. It is possible that younger student teachers are more comfortable with the technology expectations of current schools.

Placement Location Bandura (1997) noted that self-efficacy is context specific. There is a general consensus that urban schools present a more challenging teaching context. This study attempted to shed light on the relationship between the teaching environments found in urban, suburban, and rural schools and teaching efficacy. Before student teaching, the mean efficacy scores for urban, suburban, and rural student teachers were 85.03, 84.27, and 85.71, respectively. Post studentteaching efficacy scores for urban, suburban, and rural teachers were 91.60, 89.86, and 89.95 respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups before or after student teaching (P=.260).

The fact that there were no significant differences between urban placements and the suburban and rural placements contradicts conventional thinking, but it is consistent with a similar study at Ohio State University on student teachers by Knoblauch and Woofolk Hoy (2008). In both the Ohio State study and this study, there were no significant differences between the three placement locations, and the urban student teachers showed a slightly greater (but not statistically significant) average increase in self-efficacy). The greater increase in efficacy as a result of the student-teaching experience in a more challenging environment is consistent with social cognition theory (Bandura, 1997) because success in a more difficult task results in greater self-efficacy.

Follow-up research on the comparative growth based on placement location would seem advisable. Another factor that may be worth studying is the context of the student teacher’s K– 12 experience. Boyd, Hamilton, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005) found that teachers tended to gravitate to their home environment to teach, and it may be worth comparing the efficacy of those returning to a home environment with those in a new environment.

Elementary and Secondary Teachers Another context for teaching self-efficacy is the level of placement. The context of an elementary school classroom presents different challenges than the context of a secondary classroom. The mean self-efficacy score of elementary student teachers before student teaching was 85.50 compared to a score of 84.10 for secondary student teachers. Those differences were not significantly different (p=.28). After student teaching, the efficacy score for elementary teachers was 91.62, whereas the post efficacy score for secondary teachers was 88.79. That

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 94

differential was statistically significant (p=.014). This would seem to indicate that the studentteaching experience contributed to the difference in teaching self-efficacy.

The difference between elementary and secondary teachers was spread across all three components, but the differential was greatest in classroom management and student engagement.

Two individual questions may shed some light on the differences. Question #8 asked student teachers to rate “How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?” Before student teaching, there was virtually no difference between elementary (6.88) and secondary (6.90) scores, but after student teaching, elementary scores were notably higher (7.83 versus 7.47). Question #2 asked students to rate “How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?” For this question, there was a fairly large difference that grew during student teaching. Before student teaching, the average elementary score was 6.91 and the average secondary score was 6.58, and after student teaching, the elementary score was 7.16 compared to a secondary score of 6.67.

There is very little research that compares elementary and secondary student teachers. A study conducted in Israel (Kfir et al., 1998) reported that students majoring in junior high education had higher secondary school grades and higher scores on college entrance exams, and they had correspondingly higher personal teaching efficacy scores compared to students majoring in elementary and early childhood education. This study did not examine college entrance scores and could only compare self-reported college GPAs. Elementary student teachers in this study had a slightly higher GPA (3.55) than their secondary student teaching counterparts (3.47). The findings of significance for the elementary student teachers’ higher efficacy after student teaching merits further research, and more exploration of the contribution of classroom management and student engagement may also be warranted.

Gender The past research on the relationship of gender to teaching self-efficacy has been mixed.

This study sought to clarify that relationship. The pre-student-teaching self-efficacy measure found that female teachers had a slightly higher self-efficacy score (85.45 versus 83.69), but if fell short of statistical significance (p=.173). Those differences were virtually eliminated at the end of student teaching (90.76 versus 90.51). Therefore, it is concluded that there is no difference in teaching self-efficacy between men and women.

These findings mirror recent research (Knoblauch & Woofolk Hoy, 2008, Tschannen Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2007) that found no gender differences. The closing of the small gap that existed prior to student teaching might echo a different study by Ng, Nicholas, and Williams (2010), who found that teaching experience decreased gender differences. This study adds to the growing body of evidence that suggests gender does not play a significant role in teaching selfefficacy.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 95

Grade Point Average Although GPA and the academic capabilities of education majors has been a part of the national discourse on admissions requirements for teacher education, there is a lack of research that examines the relationship between grades and teaching efficacy. This study sought to clarify that relationship. Using the self-reported GPA of students, this study put students into one of seven GPA-based categories that ranged from 2.4–4.0. A one-way analysis of variance found no significant differences between their GPAs and teaching self-efficacy.

Education majors in this study had very high grades overall with well over half having GPAs over 3.6, and only 6% reported having undergraduate GPAs under 3.0. Koedel (2011) found similarly high grades in schools of education in a study of three major universities during the 2007–2008 school year, so the pattern is not restricted to Minnesota teacher education programs. Grade-based distinctions may be difficult to establish with the high proportion of students with GPAs exceeding 3.6. It may be that the preponderance of high grades masks the differences in academic aptitude.

An examination of the component scores presents an interesting finding. Although there is little difference overall between the teaching self-efficacy scores of students above and below a B (3.0) average, there are differences in the component scores. Students with a GPA lower than 3.0 had higher scores in the category of student engagement and lower scores in the category of teaching strategies. The average efficacy score on student engagement for the lower GPA group was 7.32 compared to a mean score for all participants of 7.08. In particular, two questions contributed to the difference: question #3—“How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?” and question #4—“How much can you do to help your students value learning?” The average efficacy score for the low GPA group on question 3 was 7.70 compared to 7.27 for the mean score of all participants, and the average efficacy score on question 4 was 7.65 for the lower GPA group compared to 7.16 for all participants. These questions may reflect that the lower GPA students could relate better to K–12 students who need a confidence boost to believe in their own school efficacy. In the component area of instructional strategies, the pattern was reversed. The average score for the low GPA group was 7.39 compared to the overall mean score of 7.82. The questions that contributed most to the differences were: #5—“To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?” and #12—“How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?” The mean score for the low GPA group on question 5 was 7.56 compared to 8.02 for all participants, and the average for the low GPA group on question 12 was 6.82 compared to 7.61 for all student teachers. These questions may reflect strategies learned in college classes and reflect the grades better than the student engagement questions, which were somewhat more dispositional in nature.

The relationship between grades and teaching efficacy merits further exploration.

Colleges and governmental agencies are looking at ways to raise the bar for teaching candidates, and grades are one metric that they can use. If there is no correlation between grades and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 96

teaching efficacy, then raising the GPA requirements for prospective teachers will produce little improvement in teaching candidates.

Age The final variable examined in this study looked at the relationship between age and teaching self-efficacy. Student teachers were placed into one of four separate age categories: 24 and under, 25–34, 35–44, and 45 and older. The post student-teaching efficacy scores showed a curvilinear relationship with the scores rising with each age group until peaking in the 35–44year-old group and then decreasing with the 45 and older group. A one-way analysis of variance showed a significant difference between the 24 and under group and the 35–44-year-old group (p=.004).

There is a very small research base that has examined the relationship of age, separate from experience, to teaching efficacy. Rocca and Washburn (2006) compared traditional and alternatively certified agriculture teachers and found that the alternatively certified teachers were about 10 years older on average, and they found no difference in efficacy between the two groups. What is not clear in that study is to what extent the type of certification contributed to that finding.

The finding of significant differences related to age in this study merits further study.

The scores of the 35–44-year-old group were consistently higher across all three components.

The 35–44-year-old group consisted of about an equal number of graduate students and nontraditional undergraduate students. This study did not separate the nontraditional undergraduate students from the traditional, but these results indicate that separation would be worth consideration in a future study. The high efficacy scores of both undergraduate and graduate students in this age group may point to age as a more important factor than the level of a program.

The curvilinear relationship is also worth further investigation. The small group (eight) of student teachers 45 and older made it difficult to establish significant differences, but there is a strong trend line within this group. The results of the 45 and older group parallel the results found by Yeo et al. (2008). In that study, they found that age and experience produced significantly higher scores on classroom management, but there were no significant differences on student engagement and instructional strategies. For this group of student teachers aged 45 and older, they had equivalent scores on classroom management but averaged a quarter of a point lower than the mean efficacy scores for both instructional strategies and student engagement.

The 30-year gap between their K–12 student experiences and their entry into teaching may create additional transitional challenges that impact efficacy.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 97

Implications for Teacher Preparation The data from this study can help teacher education programs, colleges, and those who determine educational policy have a deeper understanding of the efficacy belief systems associated with the programs that are preparing the next generation of teachers. It will help clarify gender and age differences of candidates who enter the field, and it will examine the impact of placement location on the student-teaching experience. It will also examine the relationship between college grades and teaching efficacy. These findings have the potential to improve the outcomes of both traditional and alternative paths to teaching licensure programs.

Teacher educator programs can use the results to help shape admissions criteria, the selectivity of field placements, and components of program design.

It is reinforcing for teacher educators to know that the student-teaching experience tends to increase teaching self-efficacy across both graduate and undergraduate student-teaching programs. The fact that teacher candidates finish their student-teaching experiences with high self-efficacy scores should help them begin their teaching careers with confidence. Although those scores may be somewhat inflated compared to their actual efficacy and many novice teachers can anticipate a drop in self-efficacy early in their careers, the higher efficacy scores may help those teachers persist through their early struggles. The challenge may be for school districts to look at how they can continue to build upon the kind of mastery experiences and social persuasion structures that are present in student teaching and embed them into their teacher induction programs. Student teaching and teacher induction provide the best windows of opportunity to shape teacher self-efficacy. The self-efficacy increases throughout studentteaching may point school districts toward the need to develop similar support systems throughout the first few years of teaching.

The finding that there was no difference in self-efficacy between undergraduate and graduate student-teaching programs puts both programs on equal ground. The fact that the graduate program students did not have higher self-efficacy may give school districts pause in granting masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree contract status and increased pay to teacher candidates who earn their licenses and masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees at the same time.

It was encouraging to see that the efficacy scores of students placed in urban districts compared favorably with students in rural and suburban school districts. Those results suggest that teacher preparation programs should continue to promote urban field experiences and/or field experience placements in schools with racial and socioeconomic diversity as a part of comprehensive teacher preparation.

The finding that elementary student teachers completed student teaching with higher levels of self-efficacy than secondary teachers merits more detailed study. Because student teaching seems to contribute to that gap, it may be that teacher preparation programs should consider ramping up the support provided to secondary teachers. Classroom management and motivating students appear to be two areas that might contribute to the difference in scores, and secondary teachers may have greater needs for direction and support in those areas.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 98

The finding that there were no significant differences based on GPA has several implications. If the relatively high grades of teacher candidates are reflective of the increasing quality of the student-teacher pool, then this is a positive finding. If grade inflation limits the ability of grades to distinguish performance, teacher preparation programs may want to examine the rigor and grading expectations of their programs. If grades do not impact teaching selfefficacy, then raising the GPA requirements for admission to teacher preparation programs may be called into question. These implications call for more research to clarify the relationship between grades and teaching self-efficacy.

The preliminary findings of a relationship between age and efficacy but not a relationship between undergraduate and graduate programs would seem to indicate that age may be more of a factor than the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level. It also points to the need to examine the nontraditional undergraduate student teacher population separate from traditional undergraduates. There was roughly the same number of undergraduate student teachers as graduate student teachers in the older age groups. As a result, the positive relationship between age and teaching self-efficacy was determined by older undergraduate students as well as older graduate students. The curvilinear relationship between age and efficacy may point to the need for an examination of the needs of older teacher candidates. One specific area that may be challenging is technology. The role of technology in teaching efficacy was not examined in this study but is worth attention in future self-efficacy research Limitations A major limitation of this study is that the demographic data and the teacher-efficacy survey are all self-reported. The findings of this study would be strengthened considerably if there were an external validation of the self-reported efficacy scores. All institutions participated voluntarily, and all student teachers within those institutions were voluntary participants. It is possible that less efficacious programs and less efficacious student teachers would choose not to participate. Eleven Minnesota colleges participated in this study, and nine of the 11 colleges were private colleges. Because the majority of colleges were private and all of the teacher preparation programs were based in Minnesota, generalizing beyond the population of this study should be done cautiously.

Conclusion The primary focus of this study was to examine the impact of student teaching on teaching self-efficacy and to compare the teaching efficacy of student teachers prepared in graduate and undergraduate programs of teacher education. This study also examined the relationship between teacher efficacy and demographic (age, gender, and GPA) and contextual (location and level) variables. Because some of the results from this study stand in contrast to conventional wisdom, not finding a significant difference was often of equal informational value

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 99

as was finding a significant difference. Not finding significant differences in the teaching efficacy of graduate and undergraduate student teachers was as informative as finding a significant increase in efficacy upon the completion of student teaching. Finding no significant difference based on undergraduate GPA and teaching efficacy was as compelling as finding a positive relationship between age and teaching self-efficacy. Finding no significant difference between student teachers placed in urban settings and their rural and suburban counterparts is just as interesting as finding that elementary student teachers had significantly higher efficacy than secondary student teachers. The value of this research rests on the degree to which it helps inform teacher education programs and stimulates further research that will guide those programs toward creating a pool of highly effective teacher candidates.

Author Biography Dr. R. Kevin Mackin is the Chair of the Master of Education program at Upper Iowa University and previously he served as an Assistant Professor in the Graduate Teaching Licensure program at the College of St. Scholastica. Prior to joining higher education as a faculty member, Mackin had a lengthy career in K-12 education as a teacher, counselor and administrator. He has earned degrees from the University of Wisconsin (B.S.), University of Minnesota (M.A.), University of St. Thomas (Ed.S.) and Bethel University (Ed.D.). His research interests include teacher development and efficacy, data-driven school improvement and classroom assessment.

References Anderson, R., Greene, M. & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thinking skills, sense of efficacy and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.

Andrew, M. (1990). The differences between graduates of four year and five year teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education,41,45-51.

Andrew, M., & Schwab, R. (1995). Has reform in teacher education influenced teacher performance? An outcome assessment of graduates of an 11-university consortium.

Action in Teacher Education, 18(3), 43-53.

Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., . . . Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243) Ashton, P. T. (1985). Motivation and teachers' sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 141- 174).

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 100

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York, N.Y.: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, N.Y.: W. H. Freeman.

Benz, C., Bradley, L., Alderman, M., & Flowers, M. (1992). Personal teaching efficacy: Developmental relationships in education. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 274286.

Boyd, D., Hamilton, L., Loeb,S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 113-32.

Campbell, J. (1996). A comparison of teacher efficacy for pre and in-service teachers in Scotland and America. Education, 117, 2-11.

Chester, M. (1991). Changes in attitude within first-year teachers in urban schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational research Association, Chicago.

Chester, M., & Beudin, B. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban schools.

American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233-257.

Coley, R., & Thorpe, M. (1986). A look at the MAT model of teacher education and its graduates: Lessons for today. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R. , & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286-302. de la Torre Cruz, M., & Arias, P.(2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in inservice and prospective teachers. Teachers and Teaching Education, 23, 641-652.

Dembo, M. S., & Gibson,S. (1985) Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 173-184.

Feitzritzer, C. E. (2011). Profile of Teachers in the U.S. 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Information.

Ferguson, P. & Womack, S. (1993) The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 155-63.

Fortman, C., & Pontious, R. (2000). Self efficacy during student teaching. Paper presented at the. Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Ghaith, G., & Shaabam, K. (1999). The relationship between the conceptions of teaching concerns teacher efficacy and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education,15 (5), 487-496.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 101

Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, M. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,13, 451-458.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.

Gitomer, D., Latham, A., & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing .Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558-562.

Gorrell, J., & Hwang, Y. (1995). A study of self efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers in Korea. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 101-105.

Greenberg, J., Mckee, A.,& Walsh, K,. (2013). Teacher Prep Review: A review of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: National Council of Teaching Quality.

Guskey, T. R. (1982). Differences in teachers' perceptions of personal control of positive versus negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 70-80.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47.

Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 37-42.

Guyton, E. (1994). Relationships among economic diversity and context of student teaching placements and educational attitudes and performance of pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La. April 4-8.

Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L. (1992). An attempt to explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first year teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Henson, R. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher research on teacher efficacy.

Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137-150.

Herman, P., Meece, J., & McCombs, B. (2000). Teacher experience and teacher efficacy: Relations to student motivation and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.

Housego, B. (1992). Monitoring student teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; feelings of preparedness to teach, personal teaching efficacy, and teaching efficacy in a new secondary teacher education program.

Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38(1), 49-64.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 102

Hoy, W. K., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 343– 356.

Hoy, W. K., & Woofolk, A. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300.

Hoy, W. K. & Woofolk, A. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.

Kfir, D ., Ariav, T., Feigin, N., & Libman, Z. (1998). The academization of teacher education and the teaching profession. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Publications, The Hebrew University.

Kirby, S., Berends, M., & Naftel, S. (1999). Supply and demand of minority teachers in Texas: Problems and prospects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 47-66.

Koedel, C. (2011). Grading standards in education departments at universities, No 1002, Working Papers, Department of Economics, University of Missouri http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:umc:wpaper:1002.

Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.

Labone, E. (2004) Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education,20, 341-359.

Lamote,C., & Engels, N. (2010). The development of student teachers’ professional identity.

European Journal of Teacher Education,33 (1), 3-18.

Lee, M., Buck, R., & Midgley, C.(1992). The organizational context of personal teaching efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Association . San Francisco, CA. Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 623-635.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student selfand task –related beliefs in mathematics during transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Moore, J., & Watson, S. (1999). Contributors to the decision of elementary education majors to choose science as an academic concentration. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14, 97-126.

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.

Ng, W., Nicholas, H. & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service teachers' evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 278-289 Ogden, D. H., Chapman, A. D., & Doak, L. (1994). Characteristics of good/effective teachers: Gender differences in student descriptors. Paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 103

the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383657).Sage Publications.

Paccione, A., McWhorter, B., & Richburg, R. (2000). Effective teacher preparation for nontraditional candidates. In D.J. Mcintyre & S.M Byrd (Eds.), Research on effective models for teacher education: Teacher education yearbook VIII (p. 218-234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self-efficacy of preservice primary teachers.

International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655-671.

Pigge, F., & Marso, R. (1997). A seven year longitudinal multi-factor assessment of teaching concerns development through preparation and early years of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(2), 225-235.

Plourde, L. (2002). The influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; science self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 245-253.

Podgursky, M., Monroe,R. & Watson,D. (2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review ,23(5): 507-518.

Popham,W. J. & Greenberg, S. (1958). Teacher education: A decade of criticism. The Phi Delta Kappan,40(3), 118-120.

Raudenbush, S., Rowan, B. & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement.

Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.

Ross, J. A. (1994). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and impacts of teacher efficacy.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Calgary.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Schoon, K., & Boone, W. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553-568.

Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30.

Taylor, D., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as predictors of job satisfaction and teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sense of efficacy. The Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 217-230.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. and Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and its measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

Tschannen-Moran, M., &Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 104

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944956.

Ward, R. (2005). Impact of mentoring on teacher efficacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9(4), 148-154.

Watters, J., & Ginns, I. (2000). "Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education 11(4), 277â&#x20AC;&#x201C;313.

Weiss, R. & Rasmussen, G. (1960). Grading practices in undergraduate education courses: Are the standards too low? The Journal of Higher Education, 31, 143-149.

Weinstein, C. S. (1988). Preservice teachers' expectations about the first year of teaching.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 31-40.

Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. Journal of Educational research, 96(1), 54-63.

Witcher, A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 438, 246).

Yeo, L., Ang, R., Chong, W., Huan, V., & Quek,C. (2008) Teacher efficacy in the context of teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27, 192-204.

Table 1 Student Teaching Sample Population Compared to National Teacher Population Number of MN Percent of total MN Percent of National participants in study participants Teacher Population in 2011 Elementary 113 56.5% 61% Secondary 87 43. 5% 39% Male 67 25% 16% Female 201 75% 84% Undergraduate path to 213 79% 65% licensure Graduate path to 56 21% 18% licensure

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 105

Table 2 Comparison of Undergraduate Student Teachers and Graduate Student Teachers on Key Demographic Factors Undergraduate Graduate Undergraduate Graduate participants program percentage student participants percentage Elementary 103 10 66% 23% Secondary 54 33 34% 77% Under age of 164 9 77% 16% 25 Age 25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;34 31 35 15% 61% 35 or older 17 13 8% 23% Male 46 21 22% 38% Female 166 35 79% 63% Table 3 Paired Samples T-test Comparison of Self-Efficacy Before and After Student Teaching Paired Samples SelfEfficacy Before Student Teaching SelfEfficacy After Student teaching Paired Difference

N

Mean

206

85.00

Standard Deviation 9.28

206

90.08

8.22

206

-5.08

8.76

t-value

Significance (two-tailed)

-8.32

.001

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 106

Table 4 One-Way Analysis of Variance for Graduate and Undergraduate Student Teacher Self-Efficacy Scores Before Student Teaching Graduate/Undergraduate N Mean Standard Mean F p Deviation Square Graduate 58 85.47 10.12 Undergraduate 213 84.83 9.25 Between groups 18.63 .209 .648 Table 5 One-Way Analysis of Variance for Graduate and Undergraduate Student Teacher Self-Efficacy Scores After Student Teaching Graduate/Undergraduate N Mean Standard Mean F p Deviation Square Graduate 56 91.57 8.50 Undergraduate 213 90.55 8.02 Between Groups 46.33 .703 .403 Table 6 Comparing Efficacy by Student-Teaching Placement Placement N Mean Standard Mean Location Deviation Square urban public 44 91.61 9.07 urban private 4 96.75 8.06 suburban public 91 89.87 8.39 rural public 60 89.95 6.70 Between 87.98 Groups

F

p

1.35

.260

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 107

Table 7 Comparing Efficacy and Gender Gender N Mean female male Between Groups

201 67

90.76 90.51

Standard Deviation 7.54 9.52

Mean Square

F

p

3.24

.050

.824

Table 8 Comparison of efficacy of elementary and secondary student teachers Level of N Mean Standard Mean F Placement Deviation Square elementary 113 91.63 7.15 secondary 87 88.79 9.07 Between 395.13 6.12 groups

p

.014

Table 9 Comparing Efficacy and Undergraduate GPA Selfreported Standard GPA N Mean Deviation 2.40-2.69 3 92.0 5.29 2.70-2.99 13 87.54 8.22 3.0-3.19 27 90.44 8.61 3.2-3.39 29 89.07 7.21 3.4-3.59 51 91.51 8.46 3.6-3.79 60 90.62 7.28 3.8-4.0 83 91.70 8.56

Mean Square

F

p

54.61

.833

.545

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 108

Table 10 Comparing Self-Efficacy and Age Age of Student Teacher N Mean 20-24 173 89.87 25-34 66 91.55 35-44 22 96.05 45 and 89.12 older 8 Bet. Groups

Standard Deviation 8.03 7.70 7.32 10.51

Mean Square

F

p

271.55

4.28

.006

Table 11 Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test for Multiple Comparisons AGE Mean

ages 20–24

ages 25–34

ages 35–44

ages 45 and over

ages 25–34 ages 35–44 ages 45 and over ages 20–24 ages 35–44 ages 45 and over ages 20–24 ages 25–34 ages 45 and over ages 20–24 ages 25–34 ages 35–44

Difference (I-J) -1.67840 -6.17840* .74205

Std. Error 1.15306 1.80397 2.88216

1.67840 -4.50000 2.42045

1.15306 1.96203 2.98363

.466 .102 .849

6.17840* 4.50000 6.92045

1.80397 1.96203 3.29042

.004 .102 .155

-.74205

2.88216

.994

-2.42045 -6.92045

2.98363 3.29042

.849 .155

Sig. .466 .004 .994

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 109

Altered Books: Creating Opportunities for Family Involvement in Education Paula Schubert Limestone College J. Elizabeth Casey Huntingdon College

Abstract Promoting family involvement during the early childhood years can increase a child’s success in school, while at the same time supporting parents who may not be comfortable engaging in conversations about educational approaches with professionals at the school.

Research has demonstrated that family access to quality healthcare and early childhood education, as well as family involvement in the early childhood years, has a positive correlation with a child’s reading ability and lower rates of grade retention (e.g., Miedel & Reynolds, 1999; Ramey, Campbell, Burchinal, Skinner, Gardner, & Ramey, 2000). Likewise, the number of activities in which families engage in together increases a child’s success. This article describes activities that involve parents in art-activities to further promote family involvement in the early childhood years.

Keywords: parent involvement, early childhood education, altered books

In early childhood and kindergarten classrooms, parental involvement in the educational process can boost opportunities for adult-child interactions and learning (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Through relationships with families, knowledge and understanding of child development can be mutually shared (Copple. & Bredekamp, 2009). Creating opportunities for parents to participate in activities with their children supports the child’s learning and development.

However, it is important to provide activities that foster early involvement in the educational process and increase parent-child dialogue, especially at the early childhood level.

To enhance parental involvement, it is vital to recognize the relationship parents and teachers have in educating the child (Berger, 1981). Realizing that families and teachers make a difference in children’s creative growth, it may be beneficial to provide educational activities that promote a more creative aspect. Furthermore, parents with low educational self-efficacy may be more likely to engage in what can be viewed as a non-threatening, creative educational

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 110

activity. Involving families in creative art activities can promote early reading and writing skills that emerge naturally during the parent-child interactions. Altered books can provide opportunities to promote dialogue, build upon children’s prior experiences, and provide creativity in the education of the child.

Statement of the Problem Family involvement has become a greater challenge in recent years because family dynamics have changed. Mothers constitute a significant portion of the workforce. Many low income children are living in households headed by a single mothers (census.gov), making it more difficult to juggle work with children’s school activities. Children whose parents spend a lot of time providing positive feedback and explanations about schoolwork often have larger vocabularies and score higher on I.Q. tests than their same-age peers who do not have the opportunities for such conversations. The thirty million word gap (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hart & Risley, 2003) is still a factor in diverse homes across America today. However, providing families with opportunities to engage in activities that encourage language development, promote parent-child dialogue about academic concepts, and allow for conversations that may not otherwise happen to take place, can make a difference in the child’s academic endeavors.

Potential Solution Altered books are an effective medium in promoting parent-child dialogue and increasing opportunities for young children to engage in art and academic conversations at home. Altered books repurpose old, damaged, or discarded books. Old or new books can be recycled by creative means into a work of art.

Altered books have been utilized in the scrapbooking community for years (Ure, 2006) and provide a medium to create opportunities for family involvement. These books can capture the child’s early learning experiences in an art form that is both a keepsake and a home-school collaborative tool. When they help create altered books, parents will have opportunities to support their child’s efforts as they become involved in learning activities, and collaborate with the teacher to support the needs of the child.

Review of the Literature Research has demonstrated that the quality of education children receive improves when families are involved in the process (Kreider, 2002). Bouffard, Little, & Weiss, (2006) posited that there are constructive outcomes for families who are involved in the education of the child.

These constructive outcomes include the child’s development in cognition, social skills, and language (Bouffard et al., 2006). The earlier in a child’s education that parents become involved, the more powerful are the effects of that involvement (Comer & Haynes, 1991). The

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 111

Harvard Family Research Project (Kreider, 2002) established that there are certain processes, such as informal connections and parental participation, that influence young children’s development. In addition, building relationships with families should not solely be for academic purposes (Sheldon, 2005). Informal connections through the use of altered books between schools and homes in the early childhood years can promote a home-school relationship that will build a foundation for the future success of the student.

For various reasons, there are many parents who may not feel comfortable navigating the process between home and school to build collaborative relationships. Parents may feel that they are unable to bridge this gap for any number of reasons, including past experiences with schools, cultural contexts that they are unfamiliar with, and/or their own sense of self-efficacy. Studies have shown that parents’ self-efficacy affects the amount of involvement they have with their child’s school (e.g., Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997; Waanders, Mendez, & Downer, 2007). For this reason, some parents remain a remote part of the educational process, permitting the practitioner to take responsibility for instructional programs. Other parents may feel reluctant to get involved, unaware that practitioners desire and need parental involvement for the maximum benefit of children (Lopez, Kreider, & Caspe, 2004). Parents who believe they can make a difference and feel they have the skills to help their child in the home environment are more motivated to become involved in the education of their child (Green, Walker, HooverDempsey, & Sandler, 2007). If educators have a way to bridge the gap between the home-school relationships, everyone benefits.

Methods The purpose of this study was to determine if altered books can be used to increase opportunities for young children to engage in dialogue with parents, as well as increase homeschool communication. This study used qualitative research to determine how altered books might increase dialogue between parents and their children, and be utilized by classroom educators as a tool to increase communication between homes and schools. A case study (Yin, 1994), undergirded with sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), was used to address the research question: Can altered books be used by Early Childhood educators to increase dialogue between parents and young children while enhancing home-school collaborations?

Participants Parents, children, and early childhood educators in the southeast participated in this study across several locations, including early childhood classrooms, community centers, and university classrooms. Early childhood educators received a day-long workshop to introduce them to altered books (Casey, 2009). Parents and children were required to participate in monthly, family night activities to receive reduced tuition at a local early childhood center within

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 112

a university setting. During one family night, altered books were introduced in an evening of play to promote conversations among families (Schubert & Casey, 2009).

Procedures An exploratory case study (Yin, 1994) was selected as the research design to better understand how altered books might strengthen home-school partnerships. The creation of altered books by early childhood educators, parents, and children in preschool classrooms was the source of data triangulation (Denzin, 1984). Altered books have been used for years in the craft world, but applying this medium to the early childhood classroom was a new experience for participants. The researchers wanted to better understand how parents and early childhood educators might use altered books in terms of practicality to achieve the goal of this study.

Qualitative data included interviews with early childhood educators after the PD workshop, interviews with parents after family night, interviews with educators after introducing altered books to early childhood students within the classroom environment, and the altered books created by all participants. Data was analyzed for themes by both researchers independently.

All participants were viewed as collaborators with the researchers to enhance children’s efforts to engage in conversations about content while creating their altered books. Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) was an important component to this methodology to ensure that parents’ and students’ efforts, educators’ ideas and thoughts, and researchers’ engagement with participants were all valued within the context of this study.

Professional Development Early Childhood educators were invited to take part in a day long Professional Development (PD) workshop in the summer of 2009 at a university in the southeast. There were four sessions offered during the morning and afternoon in two-hour increments. Altered books was among the selections for PD as a method for engaging young children in art activities that could promote home-school collaboration (Casey, 2009. Random participants were selected for interviews after each session. After the researchers’ notes for the interviews were reviewed, a theme emerged: the ease of using altered books to promote communication between home and school.

Parent Training The second researcher conducted family night activities, and both researchers introduced parents and children to altered books. The altered book station was one of several stations where families could participate in a creative activity. Other areas included a puppet theater created from old boxes, a foam-art table with shaving cream, a how-to-make playdough table, and a paper machíe area. When interacting with parents and children from different cultural

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 113

backgrounds (e.g., Au, 1998; Delpit, 1995), it is important that the cultural wealth families bring to the conversation is accepted and celebrated. At the altered book table, parents and children were invited to choose an old book from the table and begin to create a book. Questions about how to begin the project were addressed by both researchers, and families were encouraged to take ownership of the book as a way of representing their family life. Parents and children were guided through the process of removing and/or gluing pages together by the researchers. This process prepared each book to support the weight of the paint and other items to be added. The children then accessorized the pages with stickers, ribbons, paintings, bits of feathers, colored paper, and colorful handprints. Once pages were decorated, adding children’s early literacy efforts created an educational keepsake (figures 1 & 2).

The conversations that took place between parents and children that night included discussions about art mediums, book selection, specific pages in books, and craft supplies that could be incorporated into books. Participants were randomly selected to take part in interviews with the first researcher and another theme emerged: Nonthreatening educational activities.

Parents were encouraged by the idea of using altered books as a home-school collaborative tool because they felt comfortable with the activity. More importantly, the idea was financially feasible; and parents asked pertinent questions about where to find the craft items, as well as how to go about the process to continue altering their child’s book.

Early Childhood Classrooms After PD, the researchers observed an early childhood educator in the classroom to analyze the practicality of using altered books in a school setting. Twelve students were introduced to altered books and the researchers and early childhood educator allowed students to create their own books independently. The researchers and educator assisted children with the activity by answering questions and providing materials. Students were allowed to be as creative as they wished with their books and there were no set guidelines to ensure all students were able to create their own work of art.

Results Researchers’ notes from parents and early childhood educator interviews revealed two themes when analyzed separately by both researchers: 1) the ease of using the books; and, 2) the nonthreatening format of the altered book. Both themes were positive and encouraging because they indicated that altered books can be used as tools to enhance interactions between parents and their children as well as interactions between parents and early childhood educators.

Students’ books were analyzed to determine whether students were tying early literacy skills or content learned during instruction into the art project. Figure 3 represents a child’s attempt to describe the picture of her bees, flowers, and butterflies. The “r” and “e” sound in the words are clearly represented in the letters on the sticky note she placed in the book.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 114

The overall response from all participants was positive, and interviews included the following statements from practitioners (all particpants’ names are pseudonyms): Ms. Esperanza: “I love this idea. This will really help me with preparing keepsake books for the end of the year.”

Ms. Smith: “When will you be having another workshop?”

Ms. Wheat: “I love this idea! I can’t wait for the school year to begin.”

Statements from parents were also encouraging: Ms. Washington: “Can we take this book home? I want to continue working on it with my son.”

Ms. Davis: “Where did you get these supplies? I would like to create an altered book of my own.”

Both researchers were encouraged by the positive response from all participants during the interviews that followed PD and family night. The overall experience from participants after all interviews had been analyzed revealed that altered books were fun and provided a creative aspect to the educational component of a child’s early learning experiences.

Discussion After the workshops, parents and early childhood educators were excited about the prospect of using altered books to promote home-school partnerships. This enthusiasm was also evident in the attention to detail parents gave to the project and the verbal communication that occurred between parents and children during family night workshop.

In the PD workshop, many of the early childhood educators were exposed to altered books for the first time. They were given the opportunity to begin their own altered book, and were delighted with the idea of implementing this project in the early childhood classroom.

During interviews, many educators described their efforts to collect each student’s work during the course of the school year to create a keepsake of the pre-kindergarten year. The idea of the altered book immediately captured their attention; and the possibilities of using these books to create a dialogue between the home and school and a functional work of art was apparent to all the practitioners. Instead of teachers having to laminate pages of the child’s art work, buy expensive keepsake books, or use some other means to compile a collection for the child’s early years, the educators can have parents select a book from their local thrift store. The child and parent can choose how to transform the book; and then the teacher, child, and parent can select early literacy attempts and art work to showcase in the books.

When preparing to use altered books in the classroom, educators can share suggestions with parents in order to keep costs down. Parents can visit local thrift stores with their child to select a book that will become a piece of art that illustrates their child’s early efforts at art and writings. In figure 4, an old book cover has been transformed by removing the plastic overlay to create a new book cover. The child used stickers, ribbons, and colored gemstones to decorate the book. The child selected the book and immediately took possession of the space inside by

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 115

painting over the words before adding hand-prints, stickers, feathers, ribbons, and early writing projects. Painting over pages is a strategy many preschool children employ in creating their altered books (figure 5). A simple cardstock pocket was glued to the page by the practitioner, and the child inserted special keepsakes she created in class.

Limitations Parents provide an essential role in this creative process by helping the child glue pages together at home, collect ribbons, stickers, childhood treasures, colorful leaves or dried flowers, and gather other objects that can be used to decorate the book. Participants in this study may not be representative of parents and teachers in other areas of the country. Parents are partners with educators, and their involvement is critical in ensuring the success of using altered books as a home-school collaborative tool. Altered books are easy to create and use, and there are no set guidelines for creating altered books. However, parents with low self-efficacy may need encouragement and instruction to ensure that the project is viewed as a fun activity that will enhance their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early literacy efforts.

Supplies can become expensive. Educators can encourage parents to contribute to, as well as take from, a classroom goodie box of scrapbooking paraphernalia. If parents have extra stickers, bits of fabric, tissue paper, yarn, feathers, buttons, and other scrapbook material, they might consider donating those items to the classroom box. Thrift stores are a great resource for educators and parents to use because they have a variety of scrapbooking material at reasonable prices. Parents and children would then have a ready supply of items.

Recommendations Early childhood educators will need parental involvement to keep the books progressing toward a storehouse of classroom artifacts. Through the creative process, parents, educators, and students work together to create a work of art that is both functional and beautiful. More than that, however, an altered book can provide an opportunity for young children to make decisions about how to alter the book while providing a place to store educational artifacts of the childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s educational progress. These books act as an easel that allows the child to create works of art that are functional.

If altered books are utilized as a home-school collaborative tool, enriching opportunities for parent-child dialogue are created. Through the simple act of creating an altered book, parents and their young children will have opportunities for conversation that they might not have had before. Young children need help to create their books, and conversations about which color of paint to use, what types of stickers should adorn the pages, and which early childhood drawings and early literacy documents to include will naturally arise. Dialogue that incorporates color, decision-making, art form, and other topics can be a rewarding and educational experience for a young child.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 116

Here is an example of a conversation that might take place between a young child and a parent, or a kindergarten student and a teacher, when they begin creating an altered book: Child: Why do we glue the pages together?

Parent: The pages in the book are thin. If we glue two or three pages together, we will make a thicker page. Feel the difference. This is a single page, and this new page is thicker.

Child tests the difference in the feel of the pages.

Child: May I glue them together?

Parent: Yes. Let’s count three pages and then we can add the glue.

Through the simple conversation, a dialogue about texture and numbers arose naturally, and more importantly it had a purpose and took place in the appropriate context. Eventually, the conversation would turn to paint color, art media, and decision making about what to include in the book. Parents and children, in a collaborative manner, can create an altered book showcasing early writing skills.

Although parents and educators may question the practice of utilizing books in a manner that promotes tearing out pages to minimize bulkiness, gluing pages together to create a more durable page, as well as cutting, painting, and altering the original text, the outcome is a new book that is also a work of art incorporating the child’s early academic endeavors. Young children can be taught that these books are their own special books, and a conversation about recycling would likely ensue if a child questioned the practice of altering a book. Likewise children will learn that altering books recycles books that might otherwise have been destroyed or sent to thrift stores (Lincoln, 2004). Furthermore, copyright infringement does not come into play because an altered book does not express the original meaning of the book it alters (Russell, 2007).

More than just promoting the home-school partnership, and acting as a form of recycling, altered books can function as part of a multi-arts approach to early literacy skills. The books can be utilized to hold early writings and drawings made by the child at school. Educators can ask students to reproduce paintings in their altered books that connect with art forms that have been introduced in a lesson. For example, Souto-Manning and James (2008) described a multi-arts approach that promoted multiple art forms within the context of the classroom. With this approach, an altered book captures and holds children’s attempts at replicating their own Matisse style painting (Souto-Manning & James, 2008). When children are engaged in a multi-arts approach, diverse learning styles, as well as varying abilities and strengths of students, are fostered (e.g., Au, 2008; Delpit, 1995; Souto-Manning & James, 2008).

Creativity in the form of art may be an opportunity to navigate the divide and encourage home-school collaboration. Creativity through visual arts can provide an excellent and nonthreatening way to get parents involved in their child’s education. Art is an activity enjoyed by young and old alike. Creative work can foster children’s independence because they have the opportunity to choose the outcome of their altered book. Creative work in early childhood education also provides opportunities to increase knowledge and help children learn from each other.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 117

Altered books would be a useful tool for a home-school collaborative partnership in the early years. The costs for families would be low, and the parental support educators received through family involvement would be invaluable. A home-school collaborative effort that includes opportunities for art and family involvement to support the growing child is essential.

Creating opportunities for children to receive parental support in a manner that does not require parents to feel uncomfortable with their own efficacy is also important. Finally, when parents get involved in their child’s early education, they are more likely to stay involved, a benefit for the parent, educator, and child.

Author Biographies Paula Schubert is an Assistant Professor at Limestone College. Dr. Schubert completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Missouri. She also attended Berry College and received a Master’s in Early Childhood Education. She graduated from Clemson University with a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, with an emphasis in Early Childhood Education. Dr. Schubert is the Program Coordinator of the Early Childhood Program at Limestone College in upstate South Carolina. She currently teaches early childhood methods courses and supervises both field experiences and clinical practice. Her research interests include integrating technology to enhance learning, preparing future teachers for 21st century learners, and parental involvement in relation to academic achievement.

J. Elizabeth Casey is an Assistant Professor at Huntingdon College. Dr. Casey received her Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education from The University of Texas. She received her MA in English and Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction from Clemson University. She currently teaches special education courses, and elementary and secondary methods courses. Dr. Casey supervises field experiences and internships. She taught fourth and fifth grade students, serving many English language learners in San Antonio, prior to completing her graduate degrees. Her research interests include reflective practice enhanced through technological integration, integrating arts into elementary curriculum, and supporting the needs of English language learners.

References Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297-319.

Berger, E. H. (1981). Parents as partners in education: The school and home working together.

C. V. Mosby Co: St. Louis, Missouri.

Bouffard, S., Little, P., & Weiss, H. (2006). Building and evaluating out-of-school time connections. The Evaluation Exchange, 12(1 & 2), 2–6. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue33/theory.html.

Casey, J. E. (2009). Art for the Early Childhood Classroom. EC Presentation, Clemson

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 118

University.

Comer, J., & Haynes, N. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 271-277.

Copple, C., & S. Bredekamp, eds. 2009. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Delpit, L.D. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press Denzin, N. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Green, C.L., Walker, J.M.T., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H. (2007). Parents’ motivation for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3) 532-544.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children's schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 538-548.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, Maryland: Brookes Publishing.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator, 27, 4–9.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42.

International Society of Altered Book Artists. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.alteredbookartists.com/ Kersey, K. C., & Masterson, M. L. (2009). Teachers Connecting with Families--In the Best Interest of Children. YC Young Children 64.5 34.

Kreider, H. (2002). Getting parents "ready" for kindergarten": The role of early childhood education. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved May 22, 2009. http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/getting-parents-readyfor-kindergarten-the-role-of-early-childhood-education.

Lincoln, M. (2004). Weeded books inspire student art projects. Library Media Collection, 23(3), 30.

Lopez, M.E., Kreider, H. & Caspe, M. (2004). Evaluating Family Involvement Programs, The Evaluation Exchange 10(4), 2-3.

Miedel, W.T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 379-402.

Ramey, C.T., Campbell, F.A., Burchinal, M., Skinner,M.L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000). Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 2-14.

Russell, C. (2007). Carrie on copyright. School Library Journal, 53(8), 24.

Schubert, P., & Casey, J. E. (2009). Involving parents in hands-on activities. Parent

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 119

training in collaborative activities with their children. Clemson Child Development Center, Clemson, S.C. Sheldon, S.B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106 (2), 171-187.

Souto-Manning, M., & James, N. (2008). A mulit-arts approach to early literacy and learning.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(1), 82-96.

U.S. Census Bureau, (2009). Retrieved April 19, 2009. http://search.census.gov/search?q= head+of+household&btnG=Search+This+Site&filter=0&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd& ud=1&ie=UTF8&client=subsite&proxystylesheet=subsite&hq=inurl%3Awww.census.go v%2Fpopest%2F&subtitle=hhes-xyz Ure, S. (2006). The altered book scrapbook. NY: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc..

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children's education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619-636. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.003 Weiss, H. B., Caspe, M. & Lopez, M.E. (Spring 2006). Family involvement in early childhood education. Harvard Family Research Report. Retrieved May 22, 2009. http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/family-involvement-inearly-childhood-education Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 120

Appendix Figure 1

Figure 2

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Figure 3

Figure 4

Volume 2, Page 121

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Figure 5

Volume 2, Page 122

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 123

Homework in a Liberal Arts Math Course to Increase Student Participation and Performance Dawn Locklear Crown College Abstract College professors are continuously looking for new and innovative ways to reach the unique students that are enrolled in a liberal arts math course, to engage them in the learning process, and to help them be successful in college-level math. This studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purpose was to evaluate the impact that online homework could have in addressing these problems. Previous studies have shown that online homework can be an effective tool in other types of math, business, and science courses, but there is very little research addressing the unique learning environment found in a liberal arts math class, which is often comprised of students with high levels of math anxiety and low math self-efficacy. This quantitative study used a quasi-experimental design involving historical data collected over four years (2007â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2011). The results indicated that students did attempt their online homework at significantly higher rates in comparison to traditional paper-and-pencil assignments. Because student engagement is directly correlated with the amount of time spent on a course, it was concluded that student engagement significantly improved with online assignments. However, doing more homework did not translate to significant improvements in test scores or course performance although nominal improvement was made in some cases. If professors truly wish to help their students succeed in math, online homework may help, but it cannot be solely relied upon to reach the desired results.

Yet, positive change can still occur as students become more engaged in the course, discovering that math does have relevance in a variety of disciplines and that it is essential for success in the career world.

Keywords: online homework, liberal arts math, general education math, college math

Liberal arts math courses are offered as a fulfillment of the general education math requirement. They differ from traditional college mathematics courses because they contain a variety of math topics rather than a singular focused course (e.g., algebra, geometry, and calculus). The liberal arts math course was created many years ago as a final college math class, but its goal remains to instill in students the true essence and beauty of mathematics by giving them a broad view of the subject and to show them how it applies to everyday life (George, 2010). Many of the students enrolled in this type of course struggled with math in high school,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 124

and they bring along years of negative perceptions about math. These perceptions can take the form of math anxiety, low math self-efficacy, and even apathy. For most students, liberal arts math is the last math course they will ever need to take, and their primary goal is to pass the course.

From the professor’s perspective, finding ways to reach these students and engage them in the learning process is the problem. With the integration of technology over the past several years, a growing trend is the use of online homework in place of traditional paper-and-pencil assignments in lower-level math and science courses (Hodge, Richardson, & York, 2009). The goal of using online homework is to help students to experience more success in a college math course and to increase their math self-efficacy and overall performance.

This research study’s purpose was to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of online homework in a liberal arts mathematics class. By utilizing the technology of online assignments versus traditional paper-and-pencil assignments, this study considered whether students became more engaged in a course (as measured by the percentage of attempted assignments), whether their understanding of the subject matter improved (as measured by exam scores), whether the assignment style made a difference in overall course performance (as measured by final grades), and whether their overall feelings about the course improved (as measured by a student survey).

In previous studies, the comparison of online homework versus traditional paper-andpencil homework has yielded mixed results across various disciplines. Porter and Riley (1996), Dufresne, Mestre, Hart, and Rath (2002), Hirsh and Weibel (2003), and LaRose (2010) all determined that online homework increased performance as indicated by test scores. On the other hand, Bonham, Beichner, and Deardorff, (2001), Hauk, Powers, Safer, and Segalla, (2005), Kodippili and Senaratne (2008), and Brewer (2009) all concluded that a course’s online sections performed only slightly better than its traditional sections although the difference was not statistically significant. However, none of these studies were applied in a liberal arts math class setting. Due to the different types of students involved, the results of those studies may not extend to a liberal arts math class.

The Online Homework System Online homework systems differ significantly in their pedagogical capabilities, which may attribute to some of the previous research’s inconsistencies (Brewer, 2009). These differences occur in the type of questions asked (multiple choice versus numerical answer), the amount of help available, and the extent of feedback the student receives for incorrect responses.

It is important for this study and future studies to look at the specifics of the online homework system that were utilized in order to determine which of its characteristics were the most effective.

Students in this study who completed their homework online used MyMathLab (MML).

This is a textbook-specific product distributed by Pearson Higher Education and Course Compass. Each problem in MML references the book problem it most closely aligns with.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 125

Thus, the MML problems that were chosen for the online assignments were very similar to the content and difficulty of the corresponding paper-and-pencil problems. This level of correlation between the two homework types is important in this study, and it is a positive feature of this particular online homework system (Brewer, 2009).

MML has many features that can be enabled at the instructor’s discretion. For this study, the following features were included. First, MML provided immediate feedback if the student’s answer was correct or incorrect. If a student answered a numerical problem incorrectly, they were given diagnostic feedback and had the option of retrying the problem two more times.

After the third incorrect response, the correct answer was displayed with an explanation on how the answer was obtained. A similar problem could then be tried with full credit given for correct answers. Second, several aid buttons were available to assist students. These included “Help me solve this” (an interactive, step-by-step solution after which a new problem is given) and “Show me an example”. Finally, several hyperlinks were also available, including links to the textbook, video lectures and animations, as well as the option of sending an e-mail to the professor directly from a problem.

The largest advantage of online homework for students is the amount of timely feedback they receive for both correct and incorrect homework responses (Bonham, Deardorff, and Beichner, 2003; Zerr, 2007). The immediate feedback helps students identify and fix errant thought processes before those thought processes become habitual. A second advantage is the amount of immediate help that is available regardless of the time of day when the assignment was worked on. This is particularly beneficial to procrastinating students who are unable to get the professor’s help in the middle of the night before an assignment is due. Finally, online homework gives students the option of working assigned problems multiple times. The iterative nature of getting feedback and then reworking the problems allows for both practice and mastery of concepts (Dillard-Eggers, Wooten, Childs, & Coker, 2008). In addition, the multiple attempts also develop persistence (Denny & Yackel, 2005) because many students keep trying a problem until they get it correct. Once students realize some success in their homework, their motivation increases as does their confidence in their math ability, both of which are critical to their success in the math classroom (Thiel, Peterman, & Brown, 2008) Two advantages are evident for instructors of online homework classes. The first advantage is a reduction in the time spent reviewing homework and answering homework questions during class. Students are able to use the help tools to answer many of their own questions, freeing up class time for other activities. In the study by LaRose (2010), 10 of 13 instructors were able to significantly change the way they structured their classes after implementing online homework because they were then able to spend more time on new material. The second advantage is the reduction in faculty workload due to the amount of time saved from grading assignments. If a faculty member is fortunate to have a student assistant, financial savings could also be realized, or the student assistant could be freed up to work on other projects. Reducing faculty workload is a huge advantage to professors, but it cannot be the sole reason behind online homework’s implementation. The benefit to students needs to be the primary focus. If it can be shown that

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 126

the exam scores are unchanged or even slightly improved, then online homework is a viable option.

Research Design This quantitative study used a quasi-experimental, two-sample design and historical data.

The quasi-experimental design was necessary because it was not possible to randomly assign participants to either the control group or the treatment group. The historical data came from students enrolled in Math Survey at Crown College over a four-year period. The control group consisted of 174 students (78 male and 96 female) that were enrolled in eight sections of the course (from Fall Semester 2007 through Spring Semester 2009) and utilized traditional paperand-pencil homework assignments. The treatment group consisted of 107 students (57 male and 50 female) that were enrolled in five sections of the same course (from Fall Semester 2009 through Spring Semester 2011) and used online homework assignments.

The professor (researcher) taught all 13 sections of the lecture-based course. This allowed the teaching and grading methodologies to remain consistent throughout the four-year period.

Additionally, all 13 sections used the same textbook (Mathematical Ideas, 11th ed. by Miller, Heeren, & Hornsby). The online assignments were matched as closely as possible with the paper-and-pencil assignments, including both the number of problems assigned and the level of difficulty. Finally, the exams were returned to the students to look at but were immediately collected and kept in the professorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possession. This allowed the exam problems to remain similar for eight semesters. Therefore, the homework delivery method was the only variable that was considered for this study.

For both of the traditional and online homework methods, students submitted homework at the end of each chapter, so an assignment was due approximately every one to two weeks.

The instructor assigned points based upon the percentage of correct answers. There was a total of 100 homework points, which accounted for 20% of the courseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final grade.

The traditional homework consisted of a mixture of even-numbered and odd-numbered problems with the answers for the odd-numbered problems being available in the back of the textbook. All of the even-numbered problems were graded with feedback for accuracy and completeness. Only a minimal number of odd-numbered problems were graded because it was expected that students could check their own answers to these questions. All assignments were returned to the students within one week of their submission. Late assignments were accepted with a 10% penalty for each day an assignment was late. The online homework allowed three attempts per problem, but no late homework was accepted.

Data collected from each student included the percentage of attempted homework assignments, the exam scores for three in-class examinations that were administered throughout the semester, the total points for the course, and the courseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final grade. Additionally, most students completed a course evaluation at the end of the semester, indicating their general reactions to the course, instructor, and subject. Specific questions from this course evaluation

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 127

were compared between the two homework types. The dataâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis was originally performed by using the statistical tests on a TI-84 Plus calculator and verified by using PASW Statistics 18 (SPSS).

Data and Analysis In this study, four basic research questions relating to the effectiveness of online homework were considered. A null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis accompanied each of the research questions. Because these questions dealt with the improvement that the online homework assignments provided, the alternative hypotheses were all one-tailed. Research Question 1: Is there an increase in the percentage of attempted assignments when students utilize online homework assignments instead of traditional paper-and-pencil homework assignments?

Null Hypothesis: The percentage of attempted assignments is the same for the online assignment sections and the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of attempted assignments is greater for the online assignment sections than for the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections.

This research question measured student engagement. The rationale for this question assumes that if a student is engaged in the course, he or she will attempt assignments at a higher rate. It should be reiterated that this study only looked at the percentage of attempted assignments and not the overall homework score because the online homework allowed students multiple attempts for getting correct answers.

To test the null hypothesis, the number of attempted assignments was calculated per student, and the sum total of all attempted assignments was calculated per treatment group. This total, divided by the total number of possible assignments, determined the percentage of attempted assignments for each treatment group. Table 1 lists the number of attempted assignments, the number of possible assignments, and the resulting attempted percentage for each study group (divided out by gender).

A comparison of the percentages determined if the amount of attempted homework remained the same between the control group and the treatment group or if the online sections attempted the homework at a higher rate. The analysis compared the percentages for the two groups by using a 2-proportion z test for the comparison of population proportions (Triola, 2010). A similar test was then run on each gender type. All three tests used the following null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis: H01: p1 = p2 H11: p1 < p2 The results indicated that students made a significant improvement in the percentage of assignments attempted with the online homework. These results are statistically significant at any significance (Îą) level with p-values being 0.0 (to 9 significant digits). When analyzed by gender, the evidence still supports a significant improvement for both genders with male students increasing their usage by 10 percentage points. These results indicate that the use of online

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 128

homework does help engage students in a course more than the use of traditional paper-andpencil homework assignments.

The significant improvement in assignments attempted with the online homework method is not surprising. The ability to complete assignments online is still a relatively new technology especially when it is compared to the traditional paper-and-pencil assignments that students have been utilizing since elementary school. This online technology seems to encourage students to try homework problems when they may not have otherwise. These findings are consistent with several other studies, including Zerr’s (2007), Denny and Yackel’s (2005), and Hirsh and Weibel’s (2003). Because today’s students have embraced technology, they may be more motivated to use it to complete homework assignments rather than using traditional paper-andpencil methods (Dillard-Eggers et al., 2008).

Research Question 2: Is there an increase in the understanding of material when students utilize online assignments instead of traditional paper-and-pencil assignments? Null Hypothesis: The average exam scores are the same for students in the online assignment sections and for students in the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections. Alternative Hypothesis: The average exam scores are greater for students in the online assignment sections than for students in the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections.

This research question was used to determine if a student’s understanding of the subject matter improved with the use of online homework. The Math Survey course is comprised of four exams given throughout the semester. These exams are not cumulative (including the final exam). Because the course is an overview of various math topics, the chapters are, for the most part, independent. For the study, each exam covered material from two different chapters. Three of the exams remained consistent throughout the course of this study, and those three exams comprised the basis for this research question. The descriptive statistics for each of the three exams are given in Table 2.

Levene’s test examined the equality of variances. For the first and third exam, the results were not significant (p = .361 and p = .157, respectively), indicating that equal variances could be assumed. However, for the second exam, Levene’s test returned a significant result at the α = 0.05 level (p = .020), indicating that equal variances cannot be assumed for this exam.

A comparison of the average test scores determined if the scores remained the same for both homework types or if the online sections incurred higher exam scores. A t-test for independent samples (Triola, 2010) compared the averages for each of the three exams separately. Each test used the following null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis, and the results are listed in Table 3: H02: µ1 = µ2 H12: µ1 < µ2 As evident in Table 2, the test scores decreased slightly with the introduction of online homework. Table 3 indicates that this decrease in test scores is not significant for either the first exam or the third exam (using α = 0.05). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 129

means contained zero, indicating that the difference between the means could be negative, positive, or zero. Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and the conclusion is there is no difference in exam scores for the first and third exams.

The second exam was also not significant with respect to the p-value. However, the 95% confidence interval was entirely positive, indicating that µ1 > µ2 or the mean of the control group is larger than the mean of the treatment group. It should be noted that if the alternative hypothesis was switched from H1: µ1 < µ2 to H1: µ1 > µ2, the results would have been statistically significant. In other words, students using online homework actually did significantly worse on this particular exam.

Because gender played an important role in the first research question, the second research question was reanalyzed by gender with the same null hypothesis, the same alternative hypotheses, and the same test (t-test for independent samples). Table 4 contains the descriptive statistics divided by gender.

First, consider the male students. Notice that exam one’s test scores improve with the introduction of online assignments. The improvement is not statistically significant (p = .384), but nominal improvements are made nonetheless. The other two exams drop slightly, but the analysis confirms that there is no significant difference (p = .838 and p = .648, respectively).

Therefore, it can be concluded that the average exam score remains the same for male students regardless of which homework method is utilized.

Female students, on the other hand, produced different results. The test statistics were all larger for the female students than they were for the male students, indicating a larger difference in the exam scores between the two homework groups. The results in Table 4 still indicate that female students completing paper-and-pencil assignments scored higher on all three exams and much higher on exam two. This was the case when all of the students were grouped together. Exam two was the only exam that had a 95% confidence interval that was entirely positive. Again, this indicated that µ1 > µ2. Neither exams one nor three were statistically significant at the α = .05 level. In both of these cases, the 95% confidence interval still contained zero, indicating that the two means could possibly be the same.

In general, for research question two, it appears that the online homework did not significantly improve test scores. In fact, the test scores seemed to get slightly worse in all but one of the cases (male students, exam one) although the results were not significant.

Research Question 3: Is there an increase in overall course performance when students utilize online assignments instead of traditional paper-and-pencil assignments? Null Hypothesis: The distribution of final grades is the same for the online assignment sections and the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections. Alternative Hypothesis: The distribution of final grades is higher for the online assignment sections than the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections.

The final course percentages and the final grades were considered to determine if overall course performance improves with the addition of online homework. A student’s final score was comprised of both 100 possible points in the homework (either method) and 400 possible points

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 130

in the exams (three exams plus a final) for a total of 500 points. A student’s actual scores were totaled and divided by 500 to obtain his or her course percentage. The assignment of final grades was based upon a standard grading scale. Great care was taken to be consistent with the awarding of grades to avoid any type of grade inflation over the four-year period. It should be noted that if any grade was adjusted due to special circumstances or borderline cases, those adjustments were not part of this study. Only the actual percentage and its corresponding letter grade were used for this study. This removed all subjectivity from the grading.

Two different tests were performed on the students’ final course results. The first test consisted of a comparison of the final percentages that were based on homework type. The average total percentage was calculated per treatment group. Table 5 contains the descriptive statistics divided by gender.

It should be noted that the final percentages were used instead of the overall final point totals because six students missed one exam. These students had only 400 points possible, and their percentages were adjusted accordingly. If total points had been used, these missing exams would be considered zeroes, which would be inaccurate. Because these missing exams were not included in the second research question, it would be misleading to include them here. Thus, final percentages were used.

Levene’s test measured the equality of variances. The results were not significant when all students were considered together or when divided by gender, indicating that equal variances could be assumed in all cases. A comparison of averages determined if the final percentages remained the same for both homework types or if the online sections had a higher overall percentage. A t-test for independent means was used to make the comparison. The test utilized the following null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis, and the results are in Table 6: H03a: µ1 = µ2 H13a: µ1 < µ2 As evident in Table 5, the total overall percentage increased slightly with the introduction of online homework. This was true when all students were considered together, and it was also true for the male students when the data was divided by gender. Additionally, the percentage increase is verified by the negative test statistics that are shown in Table 6.

Although the overall course percentages demonstrated a nominal improvement, the results failed to reach statistical significance. Conversely, female students actually had a slightly lower overall course percentage when using the online homework. These results were also not statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval contained zero in all three cases, indicating the means could be the same between the two treatment groups. Thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and the conclusion is there is no difference in the overall course percentage between the two homework methods.

Given the decrease in exam scores from the previous question, it is not surprising that the overall increase in final course percentages were not statistically significant. These overall course results are consistent with the research performed by Hirsh and Weibel (2003), Bonham

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 131

et al. (2001), Brewer (2009), and Kodippili and Senaratne (2008). In all of these studies, it does appear that the online homework is at least as effective as its traditional paper-and-pencil counterpart when the final grades are measured.

The second test for research question three consisted of determining the total number of A, B, and C grades for each treatment group and calculating a percentage (per group) of students who earn an A, B, or C (i.e., the ABC rate) in the course. The ABC rate comparison was considered because several majors require a minimum grade of C- to be accepted into their particular program at Crown College. Table 7 shows the number in each grade category (by gender) as well as the corresponding percentage.

The ABC rates for the two groups were compared to determine if the final letter grades were higher for the online sections versus the traditional sections. A similar test was then run on each gender. The analysis compared the percentages for the two groups by using a 2-proportion z test for the comparison of population proportions (Triola, 2010). The following null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis were used for the three tests, and the results are listed in Table 8: H03b: p1 = p2 H13b: p1 < p2 The results indicated that, regardless of gender, the percentage of A, B, and C grades increased nominally with the use of online homework. Although the largest increase occurred with the male students, the female students also increased their ABC rate. Despite the realized increase in all three of the cases, none of the results reached statistical significance at the α = 0.05 level. This would indicate that the increase is not enough to conclude that online homework makes a significant difference although the use of online homework does appear to improve the ABC rate.

Other researchers that have considered ABC rates include Brewer (2009) and Kodippili and Senaratne (2008). This study mimicked the results obtained by Brewer (2009) in that the percentage of ABC grades improved slightly with the use of online homework. Kodippili and Senaratne realized a significant increase in the ABC rate when online homework was utilized.

The last research question involves subjective data because it relates to the student’s perceptions of the course. At Crown College, instructors give course evaluations to all students at the conclusion of each course. The course evaluation is a questionnaire that is developed and summarized by the IDEA Center (2006). The evaluation provides a number of measurements on teacher effectiveness and student learning. All questions are answered on a Likert 1–5 scale of which 1 is “definitely false,” 2 is “more false than true,” 3 is “in between,” 4 is “more true than false,” and 5 is “definitely true.” There are a total of 43 questions on the evaluation pertaining to the course itself, the instructor, time commitment, difficulty, and the desire to take the course.

This study considered two specific questions on the evaluation that could help to measure a student’s perception of the course. The first question looked at the subject in general (math), and the second question considered this specific liberal arts math course (The IDEA Center, 2006).

Hoyt and Lee (2002) have conducted extensive research about the evaluation form’s reliability and validity. For a class size of 10–14 students, they determined that the reliability

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 132

(using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula) was r = .75 for question #40 and r = .80 for question #42. For a class size of 15–24 students, the reliabilities were even higher for the same two questions at r = .86 and r = .89, respectively (Hoyt & Lee, 2002, p. 73).

In addition, Hoyt and Lee (2002) ran validity tests to determine the validity of the course evaluations in four different areas: the correlation between the instructor’s ratings of the importance of each course objective and the students’ ratings of their own learning progress on those objectives, the consistency of student ratings with intuitive expectations, the differential validity of the teaching method items, and the correspondence between independently obtained student and faculty ratings. The last test pertains particularly to the two questions used in this study. The presence of a relationship between the two ratings (student and instructor) indicated the system’s validity because the instructors and students made their ratings independent of one another (Hoyt & Lee, 2002).

This course evaluation system has been used by Crown College for the past five years.

The data returned to the professor is not tied to any particular student but contains only the summary totals for each question. The sampling design is a nonprobability census design. All students who are present the day evaluations are distributed must fill out the evaluation form before they leave class. The disadvantage of using the census sample is the missing data from absent students. This could cause a slight bias because students who are not present on the day the surveys are distributed are not able to complete one. The students who miss the survey tend to be students who have also missed class on a regular basis. However, because the instructor has the ability to choose what day the evaluations are given (within the last two weeks of the semester), a high attendance day is typically chosen, and the average response rate is approximately 70%.

Research Question 4: Is there an improvement in student attitude toward the course based upon the homework method? Null Hypothesis: The average course rating is the same for the online assignment sections and the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections. Alternative Hypothesis: The average course rating is higher for the online assignment sections than the traditional paper-and-pencil assignment sections.

To determine if a student’s perception of the course improved, the answers to two specific questions on the course evaluations were considered. The first question was “As a result of taking this course, I have more positive feelings for the subject,” and the second question was “Overall, I consider this an excellent course” (The IDEA Center, 2006). The average Likertscale score was calculated by treatment group for each of the two questions. Note that it was impossible to split this data by gender because names or gender questions were not included on the surveys. The frequency table for the two questions and the five possible responses are given in Table 9.

Again, Levene’s test was used to test for the equality of variances for both of the questions. The results were not significant, indicating that equal variances could be assumed in both cases. The means were compared for each question to determine if the student’s perceptions about the course remained the same or improved with the addition of online

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 133

homework. A t-test for independent means was used to make the comparison. The following null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis were used for the test, and the results are listed in Table 10: H04: µ1 = µ2 H14: µ1 < µ2 The results indicated that the student’s attitude toward the course improved. The first question, which pertained to the subject matter, resulted in a nominal increase in the average score (the mean increased by .1). The second question, which pertained to the specific course, resulted in a slightly larger increase (mean increased by .2). Despite the realized increase in both of these questions, the results are not statistically significant at the α = 0.05 level. These results would indicate that the increase is not enough to conclude that online homework makes a significant difference although the use of online homework does appear to improve the student’s perception of both the subject and the course.

Discussion Several reasons could underlie why homework was attempted (and completed) at higher rates but did not translate into increased understanding. The first possibility is that, regardless of the employed homework method, all of the exams were traditional paper-and-pencil exams administered during the class period. Students using traditional homework methods may have been more familiar with the format of the questions, and they were accustomed to physically writing out a solution. This may have been disadvantageous to the students utilizing online assignments.

A second possible explanation for the decrease in exam scores is the amount of effort that was exerted with the online assignments. Peng (2009) found that some students seemingly increase their homework effort because of the shortcuts and assistance the online systems provide rather than using the system to actually learn the concepts. This current study would appear to support Peng’s conclusions. With the online system, students have the capability to work through the problems, especially the multiple-choice problems, by completely guessing until they get them correct. With unlimited tries, they will eventually get the question correct, but it is unknown whether they really understood the question they just answered. Even for problems that require algebraic solutions, it is possible that a student did not understand the concepts but just mimicked the steps of the sample problem. Students have commented that they could obtain the correct answer on the homework, but they had no idea how they got to that answer. A student may receive high homework scores but conceptually still not understand what was transpiring. The lack of understanding becomes very evident when they are unable to do the same problem on the exam.

A third possible explanation for the decrease in exam scores is the false sense of confidence that could be present with high homework scores. If a student has done well on the assignments, they may feel like they understand the material well enough and, consequently,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 134

they do not prepare adequately for the exam. This is definitely problematic and could offer a possible explanation about what occurred in this particular study.

Although exam scores on the whole decreased slightly, there was no significant difference between the two homework types in terms of exam scores on five of the six cases that were studied. In only one case (female students on exam two) was there a significant decrease in exam scores when online homework was used. These results are unique because none of the other research studies experienced a significant decrease in exam scores. Since this is the only study that has considered the use of online homework in a liberal arts math class, further research is necessary to determine if the decrease in exam scores can be correlated to the type of class implementing online homework.

Recommendations One recommendation is to allow students the choice of which homework method they prefer. The majority of students will choose online homework because it is new, different, and involves technology. But there are students who learn better by writing solutions out. If students are given the choice, they can choose the method that supports their particular learning style and not be forced to use one specific method. In addition, because the students are making the choice, they can no longer blame the homework method for failure to understand the material. It ultimately puts more responsibility on the student.

A second recommendation would be to supplement the online homework with short, concept-based quizzes or class problems. This is especially true if the course exams are in the traditional paper and pencil format. These supplemental materials could be the bridge connecting online homework to written exams. With online homework, the computer only looks at the answer, so the student often becomes more concerned with the answer rather than the process (Bonham et al., 2001). The quizzes would allow students to become more familiar with writing out solutions similar to what is required on an exam and, ultimately, help to prepare them for the exams. Additionally, it would help the instructor to identify difficulties students may be having with the entire problem-solving process. The student and instructor could then work together to correct the student’s mistakes, thus, reestablishing the personal relationship that often suffers when online homework is implemented.

Thirdly, it is recommended that some of the “help” features, particularly the “Help me solve this” function, should be disabled. Students become too reliant on this aid even before attempting the problem on their own. In math, where to begin is one of the most difficult problems for students. This aid starts the problem for them, and it walks them step by step through the process, asking questions at each step. Unfortunately, this aid is not available on exams, and the students are back to not knowing where to begin. If the “Help me solve this” function is disabled, it is still possible to use the “Show me an example” feature, which would be similar to looking at an example in the textbook. In general, although these are wonderful

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 135

features of MyMath Lab, students should be encouraged to attempt the problem a few times on their own before utilizing them.

Conclusions The results indicate that the use of online homework does improve the amount of homework a student attempts and, thus, improves their engagement in the class. There is also the indication that online homework increases the ABC rate and that the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of the course improves, but these two items fail to reach statistical significance. However, the results also indicate that exam scores do not improve with the addition of online homework.

Instead, they get slightly worse. Again, statistical significance is not reached. Overall, it does appear that online homework is at least as effective as the traditional paper-and-pencil counterpart.

Technology alone is not going to improve performance, but online homework does have its place. The advantages and disadvantages of online homework for both students and faculty must be carefully considered before specific action items can be identified.

The overall concept of online homework is good. In an ideal situation, students would complete the online homework with the same effort they put forth in traditional homework. The immediate feedback would allow students to adjust their thought process and correct their mistakes while the concept or procedure is still fresh in their minds. They would then have the option to work similar, algorithmically generated problems until the concept/procedure is mastered (Dillard-Eggers et al., 2008).

Unfortunately, online homework does not always get the results it was intended to get. If students do the minimum amount required to complete the assignments, often by trial and error or mimicking a sample problem, they really do not understand the concepts, and their overall understanding of the course content decreases rather than increases. The students need to be motivated to rework problems for understanding rather than just breezing through an assignment for the sake of completing it. Motivation remains a critical factor that influences a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use of online homework and the benefits they obtain from it (Doorn, Janssen, & O'Brien, 2010). As with most things in life, the amount of effort put into it is directly related to the benefits realized from it.

The results of this study do not offer enough evidence to conclude that online homework should not be used in a liberal arts math class. Similarly, online homework cannot be added strictly for the sake of increasing the use of technology. Students need to benefit in some way from its inclusion, or there is no reason to utilize it. Educators need to combine research from related areas, personal experience, and professional judgment to develop specific practices that work for their particular classrooms. The homework method that is used may vary depending upon the type of course or the type of student in the course. One method will not always work in all circumstances. Before utilizing online homework, it must be determined whether the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 136

implementation will be truly beneficial to the learning process and whether students will use it in such a way to maximize its intended benefits.

Author Biography Dr. Dawn Locklear has been teaching college-level math for the past 25 years. She currently is a Professor of Mathematics at Crown College in St. Bonifacius, MN. She loves teaching the entry level college math courses and connecting with students who do not like math or who have had poor math experiences in the past. She also serves as a mentor to several girls and enjoys watching them grow spiritually as well as academically during their time at Crown.

Outside of the classroom, Dawn and her husband, Bruce, are active in their church and love to spend time with their two grown daughters. The summer months will find them traveling or playing golf whenever possible.

References Bonham, S., Beichner, R., & Deardorff, D. (2001). Online homework: Does it make a difference? The Physics Teacher, 39(5), 293-296. HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1119%2F1.1375468" doi:10.1119/1.1375468 Bonham, S. W., Deardorff, D. L., & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1050-1071. doi:10.1002/tea.10120 Brewer, D. S. (2009). The effects of online homework on achievement and self-efficacy of college algebra students (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305007550?accountid=14872 Denny, J., & Yackel, C. (2005, June). Implementing and teaching with WebWork at Mercer University. Paper presented at the 2005 ASCUE Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Retrieved from http://fits.depauw.edu/ascue/Proceedings/2005/p85.pdf Dillard-Eggers, J., Wooten, T., Childs, B., & Coker, J. (2008). Evidence on the effectiveness of on-line homework. College Teaching Methods and Styles Journal, 4(5), 9-15. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/CTMS Doorn, D., Janssen, S., & O'Brien, M. (2010). Student attitudes and approaches to online homework. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1-20. Retrieved from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/sm.htm Dufresne, R., Mestre, J., Hart, D. M., & Rath, K. A. (2002). The effect of web-based homework on test performance in large enrollment introductory physics courses. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(3), 229-251. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jcmst/

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 137

George, M. (2010). The origins of liberal arts math. PRIMUS, 20(8), 684-697. HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F10511970902839377" doi:10.1080/10511970902839377 Hauk, S., Powers, R. A., Safer, A., & Segalla, A. (2004). A comparison of web-based and paper and pencil homework on student performance in college algebra. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from http://hopper.unco.edu/faculty/personal/hauk/segalla/WBWquan.pdf Hirsh, L., & Weibel, C. (2003, February). Statistical evidence that web based homework helps.

FOCUS: The Newsletter of the Mathematical Association of America, 23(2), 14.

Hodge, A., Richardson, J. C., & York, C. S. (2009). The impact of a web-based homework tool in university algebra courses on student learning and strategies. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 618-629. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/ Hoyt, D. P., & Lee, E.J. (2002). Basic data for the revised IDEA system (Report No. 12). The IDEA Center.

The IDEA Center. (2006). Interpreting Adjusted Ratings of Outcomes. Handout 3.

Kodippili, A., & Senaratne, D. (2008). Is computer-generated interactive mathematics homework more effective than traditional instructor-graded homework? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 928-932. HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8535.2007.00794.x" doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00794.x LaRose, P. G. (2010). The impact of implementing web homework in second-semester calculus. PRIMUS, 20(8), 664-683. HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F10511970902839039" doi:10.1080/10511970902839039 Miller, C. D., Heeren, V. E., & Hornsby, J. (2008). Mathematical Ideas Expanded Edition (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Education.

MyMathLab with Ebook--Instant access--for Mathematical Ideas Expanded Edition (11th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Education.

Peng, J. C. (2009). Using an online homework system to submit accounting homework: Role of cognitive need, computer efficacy, and perception. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 263-268. HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.3200%2FJOEB.84.5.263-268" doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.5.263-268 Porter, T. S., & Riley, T. M. (1996). The effectiveness of computer excercises in introductory statistics. Journal of Economic Education, 27(4), 291-299. HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1183236" doi:10.2307/1183236 Thiel, T., Peterman, S., & Brown, M. (2008, July/August). Addressing the crisis in college mathematics: Designing courses for student success. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44-49.

Triola, M. F. (2010). Elementary Statistics (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Education.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 138

Zerr, R. (2007). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of online homework in first-semester calculus. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 55-73. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jcmst

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 139

Table 1 Percentage of Assignments Attempted

Gender Male

Control Group Attempted Possible Percent

Online Homework Group Attempted Possible Percent

768

912

84.21%

537

570

94.21%

Female

1018

1118

91.06%

478

500

95.60%

Total

1786

2030

87.98%

1015

1070

94.86%

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Exam Scores

Exam

Control Group n Mean

Online Homework Group n Mean SD

SD

Exam 1

174

78.523

14.754

106

77.311

16.236

Exam 2

173

81.572

14.143

107

76.790

16.238

Exam 3

171

70.708

17.093

106

67.542

18.685

Table 3 Independent Sample Test for Equality of Means for Exam Scores Test

95% CI of the Difference

Exam

Statistic

df

p-value

Lower

Upper

Exam 1

t = .641

278

p = .739

-2.507

4.930

Exam 2*

t = 2.513

201.48

p = .994

1.031

8.534

Exam 3

t = 1.446

275

p = .925

-1.146

7.478

Note. * For Exam 2 only, the variances were not assumed equal.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 140

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Exam Scores by Gender

Control Group Exam

Online Homework Group

n

Mean

SD

n

Mean

SD

Male

Exam 1

78

77.46

14.682

56

78.25

16.088

Male

Exam 2

78

80.58

13.726

57

78.04

16.008

Male

Exam 3

77

69.52

15.819

57

68.30

19.869

Female Exam 1

96

79.39

14.833

50

76.26

16.500

Female Exam 2

95

82.39

14.498

50

75.36

16.541

Female Exam 3

94

71.68

18.095

49

66.66

17.369

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Final Course Percentage

n

Control Group Mean

SD

Online Homework Group n Mean SD

All

174

.77502

.147461

107

.78164

.155593

Male

78

.75879

.143837

57

.78541

.159927

Female

96

.78821

.149791

50

.77734

.152003

Table 6 Independent Sample Test for Equality of Means Test

95% CI of the Difference

Exam

Statistic

df

p-value

Lower

Upper

All

t = -.358

279

p = .361

-.0430

.0298

Male

t = -1.013

133

p = .156

-.0786

.0254

Female

t = .414

144

p = .660

-.0410

.0628

Note. All variances are assumed to be equal.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 141

Table 7 Grade Distribution by Gender A

A-

B+

B

B-

C+

C

M

11

5

4

9

6

3

F

19

11

5

10

11

Total 30

16

9

19

%

9.2

5.2

C-

D+

D

D-

F

10

4

3

7

5

11

2

8

4

1

6

8

11

17

5

18

8

4

13

13

22

10.9

9.8

2.9

10.3

4.6

2.3

6.9

7.5

13.2

Paper

17.2

Online M

12

6

4

3

5

2

5

5

4

4

1

6

F

10

3

0

8

5

2

4

6

1

2

3

6

Total 22

9

4

11

10

4

9

11

5

6

4

12

8.4

3.7

10.3

9.3

3.7

8.4

10.3

5.6

3.7

11.2

%

20.6

4.7

Table 8 Test for Equality of ABC Rates Sample Proportions

Test Statistic

p-value

Total

1

= .7011

2

= .7477

z = -.8422

p = .1998

Male

1

= .6667

2

= .7368

z = -.8758

p = .1906

Female

1

= .7292

}2

= .7600

z = -.4029

p = .3435

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 142

Table 9 Frequency Table and Descriptive Statistics for Subjective Questions Question 1

n

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

134

25

17

44

34

14

2.96

1.25

Treatment Group

58

7

8

22

16

5

3.07

1.12

Question 2

n

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

134

9

27

33

42

23

3.32

1.17

58

4

6

15

22

11

3.52

1.13

Control Group

Control Group Treatment Group

Table 10 Independent Sample Test for Equality of Means Test

95% CI of the Difference

Question

Statistic

df

p-value

Lower

Upper

Question 1

t = -.558

190

p = .288

-.482

.269

Question 2

t = -1.077

190

p = .141

-.556

.163

Note. Variances are assumed to be equal.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 143

A Formative Experiment to Increase English Language Learners’ Awareness and Use of Metacognitive Strategies through Reciprocal Teaching J. Elizabeth Casey Huntingdon College Abstract This formative experiment introduced a reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) intervention into two fifth grade inclusive, social studies classrooms to increase English language learners’ (ELLs) awareness and use of metacognitive strategies over 13 weeks. A formative experiment (Reinking & Bradley, 2008) was selected as the methodology, and both qualitative and quantitative data were collected to determine student-participants’ progress toward the goal.

Results of the data analysis guided the study, and the intervention was adapted to ensure students moved steadily toward attainment of the established, pedagogical goal. The researcher and teacher-participants worked in a collaborative fashion to make adaptations to the intervention to best support the needs of ELL participants. Qualitative results indicated students’ progress toward the goal.

Keywords: English language learner, reciprocal teaching, formative experiment, metacognitive strategy instruction

In today’s political immigration climate, Latino students may be apprehensive about their outward appearance, trying to fit into the predominant culture in schools they attend. Students with culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds can be assets to the classroom, but often, their cultural wealth is not utilized. Addams (2009) wrote: I believe if these people [immigrants] are welcomed upon the basis of the resources which they represent and the contributions which they bring, it may come to pass that these schools which deal with immigrants will find that they have a wealth of cultural and industrial material which will make the schools in other neighborhoods positively envious. (p. 44) Addams was referring to Italian immigrants at the beginning of the twentieth century.

However, with Latino immigration continuing, Addams’ article is apropos to a discussion of education in U. S. schools in the twenty-first century. According to the Pew Research Center (Passel & Cohn, 2011), the growth in Latino population over the last 20 years rose more than expected: “The 2010 Census counted 50.5 million Hispanics in the United States, making up

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 144

16.3% of the total population” (np). If this Latino population growth trend continues, schools will have an increasingly diverse student population, with some areas of the country impacted more than others. Educators will face greater demands as they strive to meet the needs of their diverse student population. Nevertheless, students and classrooms can benefit from the cultural wealth that diverse classrooms offer (Au, 1998; Genzuk, 1999; Moje, 2007; & Moll and Diaz,1983).

English language learners (ELLs) will be taught in classrooms where English is the dominant language of instruction; but Jiménez (1997) wondered: “How can monolingual teachers increase Latino students’ comprehension?” (p. 242). That question becomes more pertinent when students are introduced to expository texts, where academic language is more demanding due to content area vocabulary. The reality of public schooling is that the majority of teachers are monolingual, but they have to address the needs of ELLs. Latino students need educators who will implement research-based, instructional strategies that lead to greater educational success.

Statement of the Problem Latino students are often described as an at-risk population, but what does at-risk mean?

At-risk often denotes students dropping out of middle or high school (Fergus, 2009), which then puts them at-risk of being unemployed and on welfare (Fashola & Slavin, 1998). It is well documented that students without a high school diploma earn less than their peers who graduate from high school, and much less than their peers who go on to earn an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.

Fergus (2009) expressed concern that 50% of Latino students in the fourth grade are not proficient in either math or reading. If students are struggling readers in fourth grade, they may be less successful in middle and high school. By age 17, many Latino students have the same skill proficiency as that of a White 13 year old (Fergus, 2009). Current trends show that the high school dropout rate for Latino students is approximately 50%, with a higher percentage of Latino males making up that number (Fergus, 2009). Students who experience failure in middle or high school may not have the necessary tools and strategies to monitor their learning, leading to frustration.

Importance of Early Intervention With the rise in the U.S. Latino population, public schools will be impacted. To ensure gains in academic achievement for Latino students, teachers must provide high-quality, researchbased instruction that incorporates the cultural and linguistic needs of this growing student population (Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney, & Kushner, 2006). Increased awareness and use of metacognitive strategies at the elementary level could result in enhanced comprehension and thus, better academic and retention outcomes for Latino students.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 145

Research that highlights effective instructional supports for ELLs in upper elementary settings may provide insight for professional development and/or instructional techniques that can lead to improved retention rates. Furthermore, effective strategies that incorporate opportunities for Latino students to talk about expository content material with their peers can also support their linguistic efforts, especially if these students are still acquiring Basic Intercommunication Skills (BICS) and/or Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984).

Potential Solution Metacognitive strategies have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing academic growth of students, but there are few studies using metacognitive strategy instruction focusing specifically on ELLs (e. g., Ivey & Broaddus, 2007; JimĂŠnez, 1997; Moll & Diaz, 1986; Olson & Land, 2007). Researchers utilizing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) interventions have demonstrated positive academic growth for students; but, there is less research on RT with students whose first language is other than English.

Reciprocal teaching is an approach that involves a set of strategies embedded in a metacognitive conversation among a teacher and students. Reciprocal teaching includes four components that require students to: a) generate questions from text; b) clarify information that is not clear; c) summarize portions of text; and, d) make predictions about text (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Gradually, teachers release the responsibility of learning to students; and students then assume more of the learning of content in groups with peers. After a review of the literature on RT, this research-based, instructional strategy was selected as the intervention for this study.

The purpose of this study was to examine how a RT intervention could be implemented in two fifth grade classrooms to increase Latino studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; awareness and use of metacognitive strategies. The focus of this study was to determine how RT strategies could be effectively implemented by a classroom teacher to address the needs of ELLs via a formative experiment (Reinking & Bradley, 2008) undergirded with sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978).

Review of the Literature Reciprocal Teaching: Review Selection Criteria Rosenshine and Meister (1994) conducted a review of the research on reciprocal teaching from its inception through1994. Their review included only experimental or quasi-experimental studies that cited the work of Palincsar and Brown (1984). Articles selected for inclusion also used the keywords reciprocal teaching. The reviewers found 16 studies that met all the criteria for the review; these included four published articles and 12 studies found in dissertations or paper presentations.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 146

Rosenshine and Meister (1994) analyzed the data according to a number of factors, including: (a) who performed the intervention; (b) group size; (c) quality of the study; (d) assessment used to evaluate studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning; and, (e) number of cognitive strategies used in the study. Rosenshine and Meister found that there were significant results with the researcherdeveloped assessments, with an average effect size of .88, but only slight increases in studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance on the standardized tests, with an average effect size of .33.

Rosenshine and Meister (1994) required the presence of experimental and control groups for inclusion in the study, with either random student assignment or matched students from intact classrooms who were found to be similar on reading comprehension measures. The review for this study provided a broader range of investigations, including qualitative, mixed-methods, or design-based studies that incorporated reciprocal teaching as part of an intervention.

Of the 16 studies retrieved by Rosenshine and Meister (1994) for inclusion in their review, the range of ages consisted of seven-year-olds to adults. This review focused on studies conducted in upper elementary grades. A few studies with high school levels were included because the studies began in sixth grade. Testing the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction in the early elementary grades is confounded by beginning reading instruction (Moje, 2004); and as a result, those studies were not included in this review.

Current Research: Search Procedures A search of the Education Research Complete and Social Sciences Citation Index databases provided 126 articles when the keywords reciprocal teaching were used, with publication dates ranging from 1994 to 2011. Studies were included if they: (a) cited Palincsar and Brown (1984); (b) utilized qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, or design-based research; (c) were peer reviewed or were unpublished dissertations; and, (d) were conducted in the upper-elementary, middle, or high school classrooms. Studies focusing on students with disabilities, as well as studies performed outside the United States, were excluded.

Of the 126 articles, 106 were initially excluded because they did not meet the criteria.

Nineteen articles were retained from the original search, and the author performed a review of the abstracts and the reference sections to ascertain whether the studies cited Palincsar and Brown (1984). Eleven articles met all the criteria, but four were found to be informational articles for practitioners and were subsequently discarded. Hand searches of references from included studies, as well as hand searches of Reading Research Quarterly, The Journal of Literacy Research, and The Reading Teacher, were performed. Two studies were retrieved, bringing the total number of studies to nine.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 147

Findings of ELL Studies Of the studies reviewed, six were in elementary schools (e.g., Munoz-Swicegood, 1994; Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007), two in middle schools (Jiménez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996), one following students from middle to high school (Olson & Land, 2007), and one high school (Pritchard & O’Hara, 2008). Most utilized narrative texts, with two studies using expository and narrative texts (e.g., Proctor et al., 2007) equally. Researcher’s results revealed that students’ comprehension was enhanced through the use of RT strategies. Overall, based on studies reviewed, RT appeared to be an intervention that demonstrated promise in achieving the goal of this formative experiment.

Findings from all intervention studies indicated that metacognitive strategy instruction supported the needs of ELLs (e.g., Jiménez, 1997; Jiménez et al., 1996; Munoz-Swicegood, 1994; Olson & land, 2007;). Some of the studies looked at a single metacognitive strategy such as QAR and generating questions (Muñoz-Swicegood, 1994), while others introduced RT interventions into a classroom or online setting (Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007; Olson & Land, 2007). Generally, RT supported ELLs’ comprehension, when it was explicitly modeled and used in conjunction with a dual language approach (e.g., Jiménez, 1997; Langer, Bartolome, Vasquez, & Lucas, 1990; Padrón, 1992).

Methods A formative experiment (Reinking and Bradley, 2008) was selected as the research design for this study. Formative experiments, which fall under the general terminology of design-based research (van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, & Nieveen, 2006), do not have one specific protocol or set of procedures that researchers must follow. However, Reinking and Bradley (2008) created one framework that was selected for this study, which included establishing a goal, identifying a research-based intervention, and modifying the experiment as needed toward achieving the goal. The goal of this study was to examine how RT could be implemented in two separate fifth grade classrooms to increase Latino student participants’ awareness and use of metacognitive strategies.

Elements of sociocultural theory were used to encourage an environment of collaboration during the course of this study, with a teacher and/or researcher acting as a more knowledgeable other (Vygotsky, 1978) to guide students toward a better understanding in the use of metacognitive strategies. This was an important goal because prior research has demonstrated ELLs lack metacognitive strategies that could be utilized to enhance comprehension (e.g., Franco-Fuenmayor & Padrón, 1992; Waxman & Padrón, 1987); and often, ELLs engage in activities during reading that detract from comprehension (Padrón, 1992; Padrón & Waxman, 1988; Padrón, Knight, & Waxman, 1986).

A mixed methods (Creswell, 2008) approach, embedded within a formative experiment, was determined to be useful in assessing students’ progress toward awareness and use of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 148

metacognitive strategies. Qualitative data sources included: 1) pre, during, and post interviews with the teacher-participants and pre and post interviews with the student-participants; 2) observational field notes; 3) de-briefing sessions with the teachers; 4) researcher reflections; and, 5) student-participants’ summaries and questions. Open coding and axial coding were used to analyze the qualitative data via a Grounded Theory approach (Cresswell, 2008). Quantitative data included the Reading Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ) (Padrón & Waxman, 1988) to determine students’ use of beneficial metacognitive strategies when reading text. Pre and post scores were compared using paired t-tests.

Participants and Setting Oak Way Elementary (pseudonym) was one of eleven elementary schools in a rural county in a southeastern state. The city in which the school was located has a population of 8,102, according to the 2010 census data, with a racial breakdown of 65. 3% White, 29% Black, and 4.5% Hispanic or Latino, with the remainder comprised of Asian, Native American, and two or more races (census.gov). At the time of the study, Oak Way Elementary had an enrollment of approximately 362 students comprised of 73% White, 15% African American, and 5% Hispanic students. Four Latino students and two fifth grade teachers participated in the study, with one student participant in classroom A and three student participants in classroom B. The classrooms were self-contained, and teacher-participants in both classes taught all subjects.

Teacher training. Teacher-participants were provided with excerpts from Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) original article, as well as excerpts from Oczkus’s (2003) book: Reciprocal Teaching at Work: Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension. This strategy, utilized by Hacker and Tenent (2002), helped familiarize teachers with the intervention. Ms. Blumenthal (all participant names are pseudonyms) (Class B) stated that she read the material and thought the strategies were good. Ms.Alvarado (Class A) stated that she was trying to find time to read all of the information. The researcher observed Ms. Blumenthal adding RT strategies to her lesson plans and instruction, while Ms. Alvarado continued to teach social studies in the same way she had always done.

Introducing the intervention. The researcher met with the teacher-participants to discuss ideas in training students to use the strategies. In classroom B, Ms. Blumenthal had three ELLs: Mercedes, Gabriel, and José; and she requested that the researcher initially teach a lesson with the strategies so that she could observe how RT was done. In classroom A, Ms. Alvarado had one ELL in her class: Marcos; and she requested that the researcher co-teach the lesson, inserting strategies as she taught the content. Initially, RT strategies were taught using direct instruction. Direct instruction has been found to enhance students’ effective, independent use of the strategies (Jiménez, 1997; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987). It was

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 149

determined that both teacher’s requests could be met and the intervention was initiated in both classrooms.

This study was designed as a collaborative effort, but both teachers relied on the researcher to guide the study and make modifications based on observations. When de-briefing with the teachers, they often said things like “whatever you think will work” or “whatever you want to do”, preferring to allow the researcher to make modifications.

Data Collection With university IRB approval and parental permission obtained, baseline data collection began; and students’ scores for the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) were requested (Figure 1). ELDA is not an assessment of academic content material, but instead measures academic and social language proficiency in the four domains of language: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The ELDA scores are: 1-pre-functional; 2-beginning; 3intermediate; 4-advanced; and 5-fully English proficient. Teachers’ concerns about permissible access prevented release of students’ ELDA scores until nearly the end of the study.

After four weeks of observations and initial data collection on students’ awareness and/or use of metacognitive strategies, the researcher met with both teachers to determine how to put the intervention into place. The original codes that were produced from the baseline data resulted in a system to determine progress toward the goal. In all, 23 codes (see Appendix B) were generated and categorized into five themes (see Figure 2).

After the intervention was introduced, new codes were generated. To determine reliability of the codes, 10% of the field notes were given to an independent rater, along with the codes and an explanation of the codes. Inter-rater reliability was 86% with classroom B and 100% with classroom A. In this manner, after the intervention was introduced, the researcher continued to record classroom activities as student-participants and teacher-participants were engaged with RT strategies.

Results A Comparison of the four ELLs’ Reading Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ) (Padrón & Waxman, 1988) pre-surveys (see Table 1) demonstrated the differences between their thought processes. Taking into account student-participants’ ELDA scores (see Figure 1), it is reasonable to assume that students with less English proficiency might rely on strategies that may not be conducive to aiding comprehension. For example, on statement twelve in Table 1 “I try to tell the story in my own words,” José replied never, while Mercedes and Marcos selected always, and Gabriel said sometimes. Interestingly, José has the lowest level of English proficiency, of the available data; and telling the story in your own words is positively associated with students’ comprehension (e.g., Franco-Fuenmayor, Kandel-Cisco, & Padrón, 2008; Knight, 1987; Morrow, 1985).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 150

Results demonstrated the variability in the students’ use of comprehension monitoring strategies. Pre and post survey results were charted for each student-participant (see Appendix A), with a selection of never=1, sometimes=2, and always=3. When the RSQ pre and postsurvey data were averaged, a clearer picture emerged (see Figure 3). As can be seen in different data presentations (see Appendix A), the lack of uniformity in student-participants’ choices demonstrated a lack of awareness of strategies that increase comprehension.

When the quantitative data are compared to the participating students’ ELDA scores and qualitative data, it becomes less clear how students’ English proficiency levels are associated, if at all, with their RSQ choices. Mercedes and José had similar EDLA scores, yet their selections on the RSQ were the same on only seven of the twenty statements in the pre-survey (see Appendix A). When looking at student-participants’ pre and post surveys, some of their responses changed adversely. For example, on question ten in the pre-survey, Gabriel responded that he always pictured the text like a picture; on the post-survey, he responded that he never pictured the story.

The averages, pre and post (see Figure 3), demonstrated the variability in the data collected. The paired t-test for student-participants was not statistically significant. There is limited information on the reliability and validity of the survey instrument, and for that reason, this limits the confidence in the findings. In fact, during the post-test, students asked for clarifications of the statements. None of the student participants asked for a statement to be clarified in the pre-test; and interestingly, asking for clarification is one strategy they learned in the study. During the post-test, Mercedes wrote clarifications for why she selected specific items directly on the paper. For example, the statement “I say the main ideas over and over,” Mercedes selected always; but she wrote on the paper, “Until I learn them, and then I don’t.”

She gave the same clarification to the statement “I say the words in the story over and over.”

This reflects her vocabulary knowledge. Mercedes is still struggling to acquire English proficiency, and by repeating words and main ideas, Mercedes is using a memorization strategy to help her recall word meanings and main ideas.

Qualitative Data Analysis After observational data of normal classroom practices were collected, and the first weeks of the intervention had begun, data analysis (Strauss, 1987; Miles & Huberman, 1984) was used, along with teacher-researcher collaboration, to guide the intervention.

Data were analyzed using a constant comparative analysis with open coding used initially, followed by axial coding in which the researcher grouped the codes into the following categories: 1) unproductive instructional/learning behavior; 2) students are engaged, but RT strategies are absent; 3) behaviors demonstrating initial progress toward goal; 4) classroom behaviors demonstrating some progress toward achieving goal; and, 5) classroom activities demonstrating greatest progress toward achieving goal (see figure 2). These codes and themes guided the study toward the established pedagogical goal.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 151

The 23 codes (see Appendix B) generated from the data, when put into a chart (see Appendix C), give the reader a snapshot of student-participants’ and teacher-participants’ behavior in the classroom. The coding and analysis of qualitative data guided the study to an eventful conclusion: nearing successful attainment of the goal in classroom B and partial achievement of the goal in classroom A. This was decided based on codes that demonstrated students’ increased awareness and use of RT strategies (see Appendix C), as well as improvement in writing summaries (see Figure 4) based on the corresponding rubric (see Figure 5).

The coding of the data also demonstrated an unanticipated picture of the ELLs’ silence in the classroom. Prior to the introduction of the intervention in classroom B, the three ELLs were silent amidst a classroom of chaos; but after the intervention was introduced and modified, these three students found their voices and began to participate in classroom discussions. Based on data analysis, two generalizations of classroom instruction emerged: when RT was in place, students were engaged in RT activities that increased their time spent talking about content area material; when RT was not in place, non-participating students were often off task, while ELLs remained silent. This theme of silence emerged as the study progressed.

Changes to the Classroom Environment During the course of the intervention and subsequent adaptations to the intervention, there were no major changes to classroom A. The classroom environment remained almost the same for the duration of the study as it was during initial observations.

During the course of the intervention and iterative cycles, the environment in classroom B changed significantly. Prior to the intervention, individual students read a few sentences at a time in a rapid manner to cover large amounts of dense expository material. After the intervention was introduced, the classroom moved from round robin reading to a collaborative, small group classroom in which all students were actively engaged in reading, critical thinking, summarizing text for their peers, and being responsible for asking teacher-like questions of their peers. During the final adaptation of the intervention, students were taking on the responsibility of instruction of their peers in jigsaw fashion using RT strategies. The level of engagement of all students was markedly different.

After the study concluded, Ms. Blumenthal decided not to continue using RT strategies in small groups due to classroom management issues. However, Ms. Blumenthal might consider using the strategy during the next school year. If this method of instruction were to have continued during the school year, the researcher believed it possible that students in classroom B might have experienced a heightened sense of responsibility for teaching content material to their peers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 152

Discussion One week after the study concluded, the researcher was in an empty classroom across the hall from classroom B helping three student-participants with a science test. The question under discussion asked how to dilute hummingbird food. The Spanish word for dilute was unknown, and the definition in English did not help. The conversation that followed was surprising.

Gabriel, the student-participant with the greatest English proficiency, stated that he would prefer taking the test in Spanish. Mercedes, who was still attaining full English proficiency, responded to Gabriel’s comment with a heart-breaking statement: “Me, too! I used to be smarter. When I was little in California, we had classes in English and Spanish and I was the smartest. Now I am not.” The article by Valenzuela (2009), when a high school student from Mexico said almost verbatim what Mercedes had just admitted, was brought to mind. Opportunities for ELLs to speak in their native language are important to ensure comprehension, as well as provide an accepting environment for the cultural wealth they bring to the environment.

One interesting finding was student-participant’s spontaneous use of code switching (Gingrás, 1974) when they worked in small groups. It began when the researcher asked for a translation of a word from English to Spanish for Mercedes. Gabriel supplied the translation and Mercedes’ face lit up. She didn’t need the definition of the word; she just needed the translation to enhance understanding. The students began to use this strategy more often; and this use of code switching, or moving between English and Spanish, allowed the more-proficient ELLs to clarify content-area vocabulary words for the less-proficient ELLs in the study. Often, Mercedes would leave her group to find Gabriel and ask for the translation. Her own awareness of this strategy became quite beneficial.

Classroom B was never a silent place; on the contrary, this classroom was often a place of chaos. Yet amidst this pandemonium, three silent ELLs, the student-participants in this study, remained quiet prior to the intervention, as well as after the classroom teacher ended the use of RT strategies in spite of the progress demonstrated. Stanovich’s (1986) and Allington’s (1977) articles sprang to mind daily toward the end of the study. This classroom was not a reading class, but it was a time to focus on reading content material. When RT strategies were used in small groups, all three student-participants were engaged in reading, writing, and critical thinking. When RT strategies were not utilized, opportunities to read in class were limited, and reading aloud was an opportunity the student-participants enjoyed. This was especially true for Mercedes and Gabriel.

After the study ended, Ms. Blumenthal went back to round robin reading; and studentparticipants became, once again, silent students. This silent noise became more apparent and filled the final days of observational notes with nothingness-a wasted opportunity for students to actively engage in their learning environment. However, student-participants were aware of the difference between RT and regular classroom practices as evidenced in excerpts from their final interviews (see Appendix D).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 153

Implications Student-participants’ English proficiency levels, along with teacher-participants’ instructional style, may have impacted the intervention in both classrooms. In classroom A, Ms. Alvarado had high self-efficacy and was confident in the instructional strategies she employed.

In classroom B, Ms. Blumenthal had low self-efficacy and strictly adhered to the intervention.

English proficiency. ELDA scores may provide insight into how RT aided ELLs with different levels of English proficiency. For example, do students with ELDA scores of three benefit more than students with ELDA scores of five? One major finding in this study is related to students’ ELDA scores and their academic success after RT strategies were added to the classroom. Gabriel, who had the highest composite ELDA score, demonstrated a substantial increase in academic performance on a teacher-created test during the last iteration of the intervention. This cannot be concluded as a causal effect; but the use of metacognitive strategies in small groups, along with the responsibility of teaching content material to his peers, may have aided his own understanding of social studies content. This in turn might have increased his academic performance. Thus, information about the effectiveness of a RT intervention when working with ELLs might be generalized to students with similar ELDA scores (Firestone, 1993; Reinking & Bradley, 2008). Future studies might take into account students’ level of English proficiency.

During this study, there was a steady progress toward achieving the established goal.

This was more apparent in classroom B than classroom A. However, the realization that vocabulary was impeding student-participants’ understanding of content area material came toward the end of the study. For Mercedes and José, academic content vocabulary needed to be clarified; and this RT strategy was the least often utilized by either of the teacher-participants.

Marcos, the student-participant in classroom A, remained silent during most observations; so it is unclear how much content and academic vocabulary and terminology he might have needed clarified. His ELDA scores were unavailable due to his recent move into the U.S., and the researcher inferred that his English proficiency was probably still emerging because of his limited time in the country.

Studies on the impact vocabulary knowledge can have on comprehension (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Davis, 1968; Garcia, 1998; Thorndike, 1917) should be noted when designing similar, future studies. Future studies should focus on vocabulary acquisition, in conjunction with an increased awareness and use of metacognitive strategies. Furthermore, more of an emphasis on the clarification strategy may aid ELLs with vocabulary.

Teacher instructional style. A second major finding is related to teacher instructional style. Ms. Alvarado had complete confidence in her ability as an effective classroom teacher.

Likewise, she had multiple strategies in place that she was comfortable using in her classroom.

Ms. Blumenthal, on the other hand, questioned her ability as an effective classroom teacher

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 154

daily, as well as her own classroom management abilities; and she relied heavily on the researcher to help with the strategies. Due to these differences, Ms. Blumenthal was more willing to try new instructional techniques. Although Ms. Alvarado worked well with the researcher, quite often her instructional routine would override use of the RT strategies. She often utilized RT strategies such as asking students to generate questions, but she never seemed willing to take that next step and release more responsibility to the students. Reinking and Bradley (2008) noted that “establishing a professional, productive, and ethical relationship with a teacher is also essential but entails even more complex and delicate issues” (p. 80).

When working with both teachers, the researcher respected their opinions, knowledge of students, and input into the study. Likewise, the researcher deferred to their decision making during actual instructional time. The researcher was a guest in both classrooms, as well as a collaborator. This delicate balance between collaborator and researcher was maintained in an effort to support both classroom teachers’ efforts.

Interestingly, the researcher found that the intervention was more often utilized in a manner that had been pre-established when working with a teacher who struggled with confidence in her self-efficacy. Ms. Blumenthal may have viewed this intervention as a professional development opportunity; and her commitment to providing students with quality instruction may have influenced her decision-making. Reinking and Bradley (2008) further noted that a “teacher’s participation in the research process became a source of self-esteem” (p.

81). For Ms. Blumenthal, the researcher believe that research designed to improve instruction, experienced in a collaborative fashion, aided her self-esteem and confidence as an effective educator.

Limitations This study adds to the limited research base on English language learners and metacognitive strategy instruction, as well as studies utilizing a formative experiment with ELLs. The participating school district has a growing population of ELLs, but the participating school has a relatively small population of ELLs. Although there appears to be a link between English proficiency levels and increased awareness and use of metacognitive strategies enhancing academic performance, it has been inferred from observational data. Future studies might collect current data on students’ English proficiency levels to try and determine if levels of proficiency result in different outcomes when introducing a RT intervention. The student-participants’ ELDA scores, where available, were six months old; furthermore, based on the opinion of the researcher and numerous conversations with the students, the accuracy of the ELDA scores may not have accurately reflected students’ English proficiency levels.

Metacognitive strategy instruction with ELLs is an important area for study as the Latino population grows. English proficiency levels might be a factor in ELLs’ ability to use metacognitive strategies. Likewise, vocabulary knowledge should be considered. During this

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 155

study, the teacher-participants usually made clarifications for students. The limited class time, along with both teachers’ belief that all students needed to read every word of text, did not allow greater use of the clarification strategy. Furthermore, the collaboration between the researcher and all participants in classroom B might make generalizations to other settings difficult. Future studies might focus on clarification strategies to enhance vocabulary knowledge for ELLs. However, this population of students may not be representative of English language learners in general.

Recommendations This study illustrates the process of using formative experiments to better understand and enhance learning environments. The goal of this study was to increase ELLs’ awareness and use of metacognitive strategies, with the hopes that enhanced comprehension of expository text would occur. This study made steady progress toward the goal, with greater progress in one classroom for a variety of factors. Student-participants in this study did begin to use RT strategies; but, it was determined that English proficiency and vocabulary content knowledge were important factors to consider when teaching students metacognitive strategies.

Clarification of unknown vocabulary words was under-utilized in this study. Future studies might emphasize this strategy in a greater fashion.

Along with a focus on English proficiency, ELLs should be encouraged to search for cognates and/or speak in their native language to enhance understanding of academic content material. Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Turner, (1997) noted that multiple studies have encouraged a dual language approach to enhance acquisition of English. Using a dual language approach can enhance both languages; and in such a manner, one language is not privileged over the other. Students in classroom B spontaneously engaged in speaking in their native language toward the end of the study; but this occurred only after the student-participants had established a relationship with the researcher. Furthermore, the researcher had spontaneously engaged in searching for cognates during one lesson when attempts to define the word “location” failed.

This attempt by the researcher may have influenced student-participants’ willingness to engage in their use of native language.

Promoting a dual language approach may enhance English language acquisition, promote biliteracy and bilingualism, and enhance ELDA scores (e.g., Garcia, 1998; Jiménez, 1997; Langer et al., 1990). Higher ELDA scores, along with explicit instruction in metacognitive strategy instruction, may promote academic success in ELLs. This population of ELLs may not be representative of other similar populations of students. Nonetheless, ELLs should be able to access their native language, a component of cultural wealth (Au, 2000), to enhance academic endeavors.

This study adds to the growing research base on the needs of ELLs. The importance of metacognitive strategy instruction and the success RT has had with a diverse population of students is widely known. The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of engaging

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 156

students in the learning environment in ways that allow them to: 1) access text; 2) participate in meaningful dialogue, or perhaps conversations that increase their opportunities to use content area vocabulary; 3) practice using metacognitive strategies; and, 4) code-switch to better understand content area vocabulary.

Author Biography J. Elizabeth Casey is an Assistant Professor at Huntingdon College. She graduated from Clemson, University with a Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction, with an emphasis in reading. She is currently teaching special education courses, elementary methods in fine arts, secondary methods, and supervising internships. She taught fourth and fifth grade students, serving many English language learners in San Antonio, prior to completing her graduate degrees. Her research interests include reflective practice enhanced through technological integration; arts embedded curriculum; educating exceptional children; and supporting the needs of English language learners.

References Addams, J. (2009). The public school and the immigrant child. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed., pp. 42-44). New York: Routledge.

Allington, R. L. (1977). If they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57-61.

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp.77-117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297-319.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications, Inc. Cummins, J, (1984), Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon, Avon: Multicultural Matters, Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 499545.

Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effective dropout prevention and college attendance programs for students placed at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 159-183.

Fergus, E. (2009). Understanding Latino/a students' schooling experiences: The relevance of skin color among Mexican and Puerto Rican high school students. Teachers College Record, 111, 339-375.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 157

Firestone, W. A. (1993 ). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research, Educational Researcher, 16-23.

Franco-Fuenmayor, S. E., Kandel-Cisco, B. E., & Padrón, Y. (2008). Improving Reading Comprehension in Dual Language Programs. TABE 10(1), 129-153.

Garcia, G. E. (1998). Mexican-American bilingual students’ metacognitive reading strategies: What’s transferred, unique, problematic? In T. Shanahan, & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.) National Reading Conference Yearbook 47, 253-263.

Genzuk, M. (1999). Tapping into community funds of knowledge. In Effective Strategies for English Language Acquisition: A Curriculum Guide for the Development of Teachers, Grades Kindergarten through Eight. Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitian Project/ARCO Foundation. Los Angeles.

Gingras, R. (1974). Problems in the description of Spanish-English intra-sentential codeswitching. In G. A. Bills (ed.), Southwest areal linguistics. San Diego: Institute for Cultural Pluralism. 1967-75.

Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006) Design research from the learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17-51). London: Routledge.Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Selfregulation through transactional strategies instruction.

Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Turner, M. G. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368378.

Hacker, D., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699-718.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2007). A formative experiment investigating literacy engagement among adolescent Latino/a students just beginning to read, write, and speak English.

Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 512-545.

Jiménez, R.T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latino/a readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224-243.

Jiménez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latino/a students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles.

Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90-111.

Langer, J. A., Bartolome, L., Vasquez, O., & Lucas, T. (1990). Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427-471.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Moje, E. B. (2007). Chapter 1: Developing socially just subject-matter instruction—A review of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 158

the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 144.

Moll, L. C., & Diaz, S. (1987). Change as goal of educational research. Anthropology & Educational Research, 18, 300-311.

Moll, L. C., & Diaz, S. (1983). Bilingual communication skills in classroom contexts. (Report No. NIE-G-80-0155). University of California, San Diego: Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED234614) Morrow, L. (1985). Reading and retelling stories: Strategies for emergent readers. The Reading Teacher, 38, 870-875.

Muñoz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1 & 2), 83-97.

O, C. B., & LAND, R. (2007). A COGNITIVE STRATEGIES APPROACH TO READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN SECONDARY SCHOOL. RESEARCH IN THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH, 41, 269-303.

Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. Y., Robertson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners.

Remedial and Special Education 27(1), 53-63.

Oczkus, L. D. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. International Reading Association.

Padrón, Y. N. (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual students’ cognitive strategy use in reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (3 & 4), 35-51.

Padrón, Y. N., Knight, S. L., and Waxman, H. C. (1986). Analyzing bilingual and monolingual students’ perceptions of their reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 39, 430-433.

Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effect of ESL students’ perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. TESOL, 22(1), 146-150.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2011). How many Hispanics? Comparing new census counts with the latest census estimates. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/139.pdf Procter, C. P., Dalton, B., and Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93.

Reinking, D. & Bradley, A. B. (2008). Formative and Design Experiments: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. New York, New York: Teachers, College Press.

Rosenshine, B., and Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 159

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Thorndike, E. L. (1917). The psychology of thinking in the case of reading. Psychological Review, 24, 220-234.

Valenzuela, A. (2009). Subtractive schooling, caring relations, and social capital in the schooling of U. S.-Mexican youth. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed., pp. 336-347). New York: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waxman, H. C., & Padrón, Y. N. (1987). The effects of students’ perceptions of cognitive strategies on reading achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. Dallas, TX. Waxman, H. C. & Padrón, Y. N. (1995). Improving the quality of classroom instruction for students at risk of failure in urban schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 44-65.

Table 1 Reading Strategies Questionnaire (Padrón & Waxman, 1988) Pre-Survey results RSQ Statement 1. I read the story over again upon completion of the first reading.

2. I underline the important parts of the story.

3. I ask a friend for help if I don’t understand.

4. I keep a picture of the story in my mind.

5. I remember the interesting parts and skip others.

6. I check through the story to see if I remember all of it.

7. I look up a word I don’t know in the dictionary.

8. I ask questions about parts of the story that I

Mercedes Sometimes

José Sometimes

Gabriel Sometimes

Marcos Sometimes

Always

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Always

Never

Never

Sometimes

Always

Always

Always

Never

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Always

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

RSQ Statement don’t understand.

9. I look for things that are different in the story.

10. I imagine the story like a movie in my head.

11. I think about what I am reading.

12. I try to tell the story in my own words.

13. I read the story as fast as I can.

14. I ask myself questions about the story.

15. I say the main ideas over and over.

16. I think about what’s going to happen next in the story.

17. I say the words in the story over and over again.

18. I think of something that has happened to me which is similar to the story.

19. I read slowly and carefully.

20. I skip the parts of the story that I don’t understand.

Volume 2, Page 160

Mercedes

José

Gabriel

Marcos

Sometimes

Never

Never

Never

Sometimes

Sometimes

Always

Always

Sometimes

Sometimes

Always

Always

Always

Never

Sometimes

Always

Never

Sometimes

Never

Never

Sometimes

Always

Sometimes

Sometimes

Never

Sometimes

Sometimes

Never

Sometimes

Never

Always

Always

Sometimes

Never

Never

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Never

Sometimes

Always

Sometimes

Always

Always

Never

Sometimes

Sometimes

Never

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 161

Figure 1: English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) Scores ELDA scores Mercedes Gabriel JosĂŠ Marcos

Reading

Listening

Writing

Speaking

Comprehension Composite

4 4 3 Unavailable

4 5 5 Unavailable

3 4 3 Unavailable

5 5 5 Unavailable

4 4 3 Unavailable

3 4 3 Unavailable

Figure 2: Open Coding and Emerging Themes Theme

Unproductive Instructional/ learning behaviors

Students are engaged, but RT strategies are absent

Behaviors demonstratin g initial progress toward goal

Code

TOT-students talking/off task

Code

SNP-student silent/not paying attention SCR-student called on to respond

SO-student silent but paying attention EN-student engaged

PRA-teacher uses a prereading activity TUMSteacher uses a metacognitive strategy TMMSteacher models a metacognitive strategy RU/MSresearcher uses/models strategy

Code

Code

NPRA-no prereading activity

CRstudent/teach er is a classroom reader GR-student is a group reader

Classroom behaviors demonstrating some progress toward achieving goal

Classroom activities demonstrating greatest progress toward achieving goal STG-student STI-student summarizes text summarizes text with guidance independently QG-student generates a question(s) with guidance CG-student clarifies information with guidance

QI-student generates question(s) independently CI-student clarifies information independently

PG-student makes prediction (s)with guidance

PI-student makes prediction(s) independently

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Theme

Unproductive Instructional/ learning behaviors

Students are engaged, but RT strategies are absent

Volume 2, Page 162

Behaviors demonstratin g initial progress toward goal

CLO-teacher uses closure

Figure 3 Averaged pre and post RSQ Surveys

Classroom behaviors demonstrating some progress toward achieving goal

Classroom activities demonstrating greatest progress toward achieving goal ENRTGENRTI-students students are are engaged in a engaged in a RT RT activity activity under independently guidance

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 163

Figure 4 Selected Student Summaries of Social Studies Content Material Student/Date Chapter 7-Lesson 1 summaries December 10~B December 13th~A Both classes were taught as a wholegroup using direct instruction to teach the summarizing strategy.

January 21st Students’ summaries from group work after reading on their own from the social studies book.

February 7th/8th

Mercedes (B) “Henry Ford invented the model T car, and as a result, better roads, many jobs and travel came about.”

(3) “Movie goer often copied the hairstyles and clothes of movie stars the movies necame popular” (2) The radio was sold a lot it can let sjip talk to ships it was popular programs everyone wants on to lisen to pograms” (3) “Children were suppose to help the family now so children quick [quit] school” (2)

José (B) “The people did not get enough money” (2) “They had many sonis (?) and it was in California holliwood because it was warm.”

(1)

“Kids would quit school to help there familly get a job.”

“No money” (2)

Gabriel (B) “Henry Ford invented the model T car, and as a result, better roads, many jobs and travel came about.”

(3) “Liked to hear adventures, comedies, dramas, more,” (The second statement related to radios.)

(2)

“Many people from the U.S. graduating from high school and college could not find a job.”

(2)

1. About 125,000 1. About 125,000 Do your part p.

Marcos (A) “Henry Ford build the first car that was the model t” (2)***with help “They do more jobs like opened hotels, gas station and restaurants.”

(2)

Not available.

Marcos did not record

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Student/Date Independent jigsaw lesson-students took on responsibility for their section of text.

They had to summarize important facts and generate teacherlike questions to ask the class after they were done presenting the information to their peers.

Mercedes (B) (she highlighted this number to use for the answer to the questions later) japanes Americans lived in the United States many of them lived in the west coast and were first to live in relocation camps after the attack of Pearl harbor.

2. Even though 110,000 (also highlighted) Japanese Americans lived in the relocation camps they still wanted to serve the country.

(4)

JosĂŠ (B) Japanese Americans lived in the U.S. in 1941.

2. Japanes were forst to leave there homes 3. it febury 1942 prestent Roseldvel signd Executive oder 9066.

(4)

Figure 5 Summarizing and Question-generating Rubric Rubric 1-weak 2-average Student Summary contains Summary summaries unimportant contains one or information. two important details.

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; questiongeneration

Question can be answered with yes/no.

Questions are fact-based (literal).

Volume 2, Page 164

Gabriel (B) Marcos (A) 351 any information.

1. They had (1) scrap drives.

2. The goverment gave ration stamps to families every month.

3. Another way Americans were able to help the war was by planting victory gardens.

4. A lot of people who had never grown food before they planted victory gardens.

(4)

3-above average Summary contains three or more important details created with support.

Questions require inferencing created with support.

4-strong Summary contains three or more important details generated independently.

Questions require inferencing created independently.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 165

Appendix A Individual Students’ RSQ Surveys José

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Gabriel

Mercedes

Volume 2, Page 166

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Marcos

Volume 2, Page 167

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 168

Appendix B Explanation of Codes Code SNP

Decoded Silent, not paying attention

TOT

Talking, off-task

SCR

GR CR

Student called on to respond No pre-reading activity Silent, paying attention Group reader Class reader

EN

Engaged

TUMS

Teacher uses a metacognitive strategy Teacher models a metacognitive strategy Researcher uses/models a metacognitive strategy Pre-reading activity Closure

NPRA SP

TMMS

RU/MS

PRA CLO

Explanation Students were seen playing in their desk, playing with hair, daydreaming, drawing, resting head on desk, or some activity that when I observed it, I determined that the student was silent but not paying attention.

Students were observed talking to a neighbor, or engaging in activities that were not silent and disruptive to the learning environment. ***None of the ELLs were ever observed doing this behavior, but other students in classroom B were observed quite often in off-task behaviors.

Teacher was observed directly calling on a student for a response.

The teacher begins the lesson by having students open their books and begins reading when class starts.

Students were silent and were observed looking at their text, the smart board, or the teacher. They were not engaged in dialogue.

Student was observed reading in a small group.

Student was selected by the teacher, in classroom A, or by the computer, in classroom B, to read aloud from the text.

Student was engaged in the learning environment through reading or following along when a peer was reading, answering a teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s question, or helping a peer. The activity was not related to RT strategies.

Teacher was observed using RT strategy (ies).

Teacher was observed modeling RT strategy (ies)

Researcher used or modeled one or more RT strategies.

The teacher was observed beginning a lesson with a pre-reading activity.

Teacher closed the lesson with a summary, redirection to PRA, or

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Code

STG

Decoded

Summarizing text under guided instruction QG Generating questions under guided instruction PG Predicting under guided instruction CG Clarifying under guided instruction ENRTG Engaged in RT activites under guided instruction STI Summarizing text independently QI Generating questions independently PI Predicting independently CI Clarifying independently ENRTI Engaged in RT activities independently

Volume 2, Page 169

Explanation some other form of closure. If students were directed to close their books and line up, then there was no closure observed.

Student(s) was observed summarizing text with the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed generating questions about the text with the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed making predictions about information with the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed clarifying information with the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed engaged in RT strategies with the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed summarizing text without the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed generating questions about text without the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed making predictions about the text without the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed clarifying information about the text without the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Student(s) was observed engaged in RT strategies about content information without the assistance of a teacher or researcher.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 170

Appendix C Coding of Qualitative Data Week/Day/Cla ssroom

Mercede s

José

Gabrie Marcos Ms. l Alvar ado

One/11- 82010 B

SP

SP, EN

SP, EN

One/11- 92010 A

EN, SCR, QI

One/11-112010 B 9:35-9:52 A 10:10-10:40

SP

CR, EN

SP

Two/11-152010 B (Substitute in A)

CR, EN, SP

CR, EN, SP

SP

Two/11-162010 B (Substitute in A) Three/11-222010

CR, SP, EN

CR, SP, EN

CR, EN, SCR

SP

PRA, TUM Squesti oning NPR A

Ms. All Blument students hal in learning environ ment PRA, TOT, CR, SP, SNP TUMSquestioni ng, CLO EN, SP, SNP, TOT

NPRA

NPRA, CR TUMSsummariz ing CLO NPRA, TUMSclarificati on SP

NPR A,

SP, SNP, some chatter in classroo mB CR, SP, SNP. TOT

Technolog y in the classroom

Short video-1 ½ minutes

Clicker technology in classroom B

Clicker technology

CR, SP, SNP, TOT

Clicker technology

SP, SNP

25 minute video

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Week/Day/Cla ssroom

Mercede s

JosĂŠ

Volume 2, Page 171

Gabrie Marcos Ms. l Alvar ado

A

Five/12-10-10 B Intervention introduced

Ms. All Blument students hal in learning environ ment

Technolog y in the classroom

TUM S, SCR SCR, SP, ENRTG, ENRTI, STG, STI, PG, PI

SP, SP, ENR ENRT TG, G. PG, STG STG, , PG ENRTI, ENR STI, PI TI, STI , PI

Six/12-13-10 A Intervention introduced

PRA- ENRTG, predictio ENRTI, n TOT, RU/MS- PG, STI, predictio STG, PI n, summariz ing SP

PRAsticky note RU/ MSpredi ction, summ arizin g CLO

Seven/1-5-11 B

SP, SNP

SP, SNP

SP, SNP

NPRA RU/MSafter videosummariz ing and questioni ng

SP, SNP, TOT

Video-35 minutes long covering dense expository material. It was never stopped.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Week/Day/Cla ssroom

Mercede s

JosĂŠ

Gabrie Marcos Ms. l Alvar ado

Seven/1-6-11

Eight/ 1-21-11 B Second Iteration

Volume 2, Page 172

SP, SNP

SP, ENRTG, SG, QG, PG, ENRTI, SI,

PRA TUM Spredi ctions

SP, SP, PG, ENRT ENR G, TG, ENRTI, ENR SI, SG, TI, QG, PG SI, SG, QG

Eight/1-21-11 A

Ms. All Blument students hal in learning environ ment SP, SNP

RU/MS TUMS, TMMS

TOT, SP, SNP, ENRTG, SG, QG, PG ENRTI, SI,

PRA-tells students they will SI, QI after reading

TOT

Technolog y in the classroom

SP, RU/ ENRTI, MSQI questi oning SP PRAsticky notes

Nine/1-24-11 A Nine/1-25-11 B

SP, CR, SNP

SP, SNP

absent

Ten/2-3-11 B

SP, SNP, CR, EN

SP, SP, SNP, SNP, CR, EN, CR EN

PRAprevi ew works heet to use

Powerpoint

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Week/Day/Cla ssroom

Mercede s

JosĂŠ

Volume 2, Page 173

Gabrie Marcos Ms. l Alvar ado

Ms. All Blument students hal in learning environ ment

with ppt Eleven/2-7-11 B Third iteration

ENRTG, ENRTI, SP, QG, STI, QI, CI

Twelve/2-1511 B

SP, EN

ENR ENRT TG, G, ENR ENRTI, TI, SP, SP, QG, QG STI, STI, QI, CI QI, CI SP, SP, EN EN

TUMS, jigsaw activity TMMS

SP, TOT, EN

Technolog y in the classroom

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 174

Appendix D Excerpts from Student Interviews Mercedes’ Post Interview Researcher: “Do you wish you got to read more in social studies class?”

Mercedes: “I guess.”

Researcher: “When you were in the small group, do you feel like you got to read more?”

Mercedes: “Yes.” Researcher: “Why?” Mercedes: “When I’m in a small group, I have to read one paragraph…then someone else reads the next…then it’s my turn again.”

Researcher: “And you like that?”

Mercedes: “Yes.” Gabriel’s Post Interview Researcher: “Do you like to read in class?”

Gabriel: “Yes.” Researcher: “Do you wish you got to read more?”

Gabriel: “YES! At home I go to superteachertools.com…and I put in the names of the whole class, and then I just click until my name comes out.”

--Researcher: “If you were in a group and had to read the whole section…like all seven pages…would you like that better?”

Gabriel: “Yes.” Researcher: “Because you would get to read more?”

Gabriel: “Yes.”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 175

NOTES

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 176

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDE General Formatting: · · · · · · · · · · ·

American Psychological Association (APA) Sixth Edition Publication Guidelines Microsoft Word or compatible format Letter-size (8.5 x 11 inches) format Single-spaced text Times New Roman, 12-point font One-inch margins Two spaces following end punctuation Left justification Single column Portrait orientation Third-person

Manuscript Order: ·

· · ·

· ·

·

Manuscript Title Page o Manuscript Title o Author name - First name, Middle initial(s), and Last name (omit titles and degrees) o Education affiliation – if no institutional affiliation, list city and state of author’s residence Abstract o The abstract (250-word maximum) should effectively summarize your completed research and findings.

Keywords o List 3 or 4 keywords or key phrases for use in an online search engine.

Body of paper (sections) o Introduction o Review of Literature o Methods o Results o Discussion Author Biography o 75-100 word maximum References APA Sixth Edition) o Manuscripts should be thoroughly cited and referenced using valid sources. o References should be arranged alphabetically and strictly follow APA Sixth Edition formatting rules. o Only references cited in the manuscript are to be included.

Tables and figures o If tables and figures are deemed necessary for inclusion, they should be properly placed at the end of the text following the reference section.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 177

o

·

All tables and figures should be numbered sequentially using Arabic numerals, titled, acknowledged, and cited according to APA guidelines. o Because CSI journals are printed in black-and-white, colored graphs, charts, and figures are only accepted if they are discernible in black-and-white print. o If graphs or tables are too wide for portrait orientation, they must be resized or reoriented to be included.

Appendices (if applicable) o Must be labeled alphabetically as they appear in the manuscript. o Title centered at the top.

General Instructions: · · · ·

Headings o Strictly follow APA Sixth Edition guidelines to format headings. Five levels of headings are allowed, per APA guidelines.

Abbreviations and/or Acronyms o Abbreviations and/or acronyms should be defined at first mention and used consistently thereafter.

Footnotes/Endnotes o A reference list must be included. o Do not use footnotes or endnotes.

English Language Support o If your native language is not English, you may want to use CSI’s in-house editing service to increase the quality of your paper. o The use of these services is elective and does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 178

WHY PURCHASE OR SUBSCRIBE TO OUR JOURNALS? Continuing Education: Each of the CSI's peer-reviewed journals focuses on contemporary issues, scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practices that will elevate readers' professional development.

Germane Reference: The CSI's journals are a vital resource for students, practitioners, and professionals in the fields of education, business, and behavioral sciences interested in relevant, leading-edge, academic research.

Diversity: The CSIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s peer-reviewed journals highlight a variety of study designs, scientific approaches, experimental strategies, methodologies, and analytical processes representing diverse philosophical frameworks and global perspectives Broad Applicability: The CSI's journals provide research in the fields of education, business and behavioral sciences specialties and dozens of related sub-specialties.

Academic Advantage: The CSI's academically and scientifically meritorious journal content significantly benefits faculty and students.

Scholarship: Subscribing to the CSI's journals provides a forum for and promotes faculty research, writing, and manuscript submission.

Choice of Format: Institutions can choose to subscribe to our journals in digital or print format.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 179

LIBRARY RECOMMENDATION FORM TO: LIBRARIAN/LIBRARIAN ACQUISITION COMMITTEE FROM: ______________________________________________________________________ Position: _______________________________

Department: ________________________

Email: _________________________________

Phone: _____________________________

I recommend that our library subscribe to the following journal:

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: EDUCATION ISSN: 2330-6556. Published Quarterly Please visit www.csiresearch.com for more information.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Important uses of Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education: (JOSI: E) would include the following: q

REFERENCE: For current research articles as I find them through citations in related journals or books.

q

STUDENT READING: I plan to review the contents of new issues regularly to add to student reading lists.

q

PUBLICATION OUTLET: Research conducted at our institution requires a publication outlet in this area.

Subscribing to JOSI: E will keep faculty and staff up-to-date with its editorial direction and themes.

q

LIBRARY BENEFIT: This journal’s content and direction aligns with institutional goals. The publication is cited and/or well indexed. Including this journal in our library will help meet department, faculty, and student needs.

q

AFFILIATION & DISSEMINATION: I receive my own copy of this journal and will be recommending articles on a regular basis to administrators, students, and colleagues. The library’s support with availability is most appreciated.

The Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Highway 67, Suite #2, Granite Falls, MN 56241

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 180

JOURNAL PURCHASE FORM PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AND MAIL OR EMAIL IT TO CSI _____________________________________________________________________________________ PRINT VERSION q JOURNAL PURCHASE RATE: $50 Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education _____________________________________________________________________________________ DIGITAL VERSION q JOURNAL INSTITUTION RATE: $30 Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________ State: ________ Country: _____________ Zip Code:_______ Phone: ______________________________ Fax: _______________________________ Email: ______________________ Mail-in subscriptions may be paid by CHECK or CREDIT CARD. Credit Card (circle one):

VISA

MASTERCARD

DISCOVER

Name on Credit Card: ___________________________________________________________________________________

CC Billing Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________

Credit Card Number: ___________________________________________________________________________________

Expiration Date (month and year):_________________Security Code (3 digits on back of card): __________________

Signature: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF OUR MOST RECENT PRINTING

Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Highway 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241 www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 2, Page 181

Program Evaluation Practices of Residential Environmental-Education Centers Nicholas F. Bourke, Auburn University Montgomery Julie K. Herron, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo The Use of Dispositional Assessment in Teacher Preparation Programs as a Means of Preparing Ethically Responsible Teachers Sally A. Creasap, Capital University Bradley Conrad, Capital University Improving Preschool Family/Student Motivation and Achievement through Multicultural Teaching and Learning Bonnie Gail Sullivan, Elmore County Public Schools Gilbert Dueñas, Auburn University at Montgomery Shelly Hudson Bowden, Auburn University at Montgomery Teachers’ Actual Practices with Regard to NCTM Guidelines: A Quantitative Analysis of Teaching Practices in Urban Schools Taik Kim, New Mexico Highlands University The Impact of Student Teaching on Teacher Self-Efficacy R. Kevin Mackin, Upper Iowa University Altered Books: Creating Opportunities for Family Involvement in Education Paula Schubert J. Elizabeth Casey Homework in a Liberal Arts Math Course to Increase Student Participation and Performance Dawn Locklear A Formative Experiment to Increase English Language Learners’ Awareness and Use of Metacognitive Strategies through Reciprocal Teaching J. Elizabeth Casey

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241 855-855-8764

ISSN: 2330-6556 ISSN: 2330-6564