UMI Project: Comparison Teachers

Five hundred sixty five students ranging from grade 7 to grade 11 took part in this study. All students enrolled in an

Prior to the conduction of this study, the researcher sought the approval of the Institutional Review Board with the Protection of Human Subjects in research. The researcher completed re-certification with the Institutional Review Board training on May 29, 2014 (See Appendix C). The researcher provided IRB with information such as research protocol, interview protocol, Demographic Questionnaire, researcher’s background information, consent form, and investigator’s assurance. Upon IRB approval, the research contacted the contacted the Superintendent of each school district for their permission to conduct the study in their districts. Next the principals of the schools were contacted for their permission to interview teachers in their building. At this point, the research was able to contact the participants for an interview. The Principals, after permission was given for the study, were asked to provide the participants e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

The sequence of data was used so that in=dept information are able to be retrieved from the participants and also be able to confirm or disapprove some of the claim retrieved from the first method used. Interview creates an opportunity to collect data on the view of beginner teachers on their experiences on their practices in the classroom. Observation and document analysis was on the actual classroom practices. Each school was visited 4 times where the first visit focused n the introduction of the study to the school.

African Americans are not the only ethnicity group to be singled out with behavior. Racial and ethnic minority students report experiencing low teacher expectations, having less access to educational resources, being placed on lower educational tracks, and being steered toward low-paying employment (Kozol, 1991; Olsen, 2008).This low expectation is causing

The primary purpose of this instrument is to collect data on school-wide teacher instruction. The hope is that this data will be analyzed in multiple forms: weekly to drive the instructional conversation, monthly, to recognize an immediate need for professional development at the district level, and ultimately, to analyze the data to identify differentiated professional development needs for next school year. Training will

A two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data. There were some instruments that were not administered in this study therefore bias and error was not eliminated. For example, there were limitations to the study, as stated in the text, there was no control for teacher expectancies and how this would influence student setting their goals. The second limitation was that only one subject area was used in the study. The scores on the measures of this research are both valid and reliable because the researcher has attended to potential threats of validity

Results and the 2015 ODHE Performance Report (SSA exhibits: Preservice Teacher Survey Results 2014-2016.xlsx and ODHE Performance Report Final 2015.pdf provides data related to these two instruments. The EPP provided data on the Preservice Teacher Survey instrument, three cycles of the entire instrument and alignment to the strands and one cycle of data by program. The Preservice Teacher Survey strand data is not disaggregated by program. The EPP did not provide a copy of the Preservice Teacher Survey instrument. The EPP did not provide an analysis of the data and assess how this data is used for program improvement or candidate development.

The quantitative method for this study is being used because of the statistical, arithmetical, or a numerical study of facts gathered through surveys, and questionnaires (Babbie, 2010). The quantitative will allow to measure before and after. This quantitative research is significant because it will statistically show the number of teachers that improve with a before and after test design. The methodology will be a Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Pre-Post Test Design.

Using a multiple baseline design collected accurate and reliable data. The teacher was the primary data collector and conducted all sessions. Data was collected on independent and prompted responses. Data was also collected on incorrect responses, which consisted of multiple types of errors: non-waiting, waiting, incomplete-response, and duration-interval errors. Throughout 50% of all the sessions, a second classroom paraprofessional collected data on treatment integrity and on student responses. Across all sessions, treatment integrity ranged from 98.2% to 100%, with a mean of 99.7%. In this study the IOA was calculated for each session by comparing the number of correct and incorrect student responses that were recorded separately by the teacher and the paraprofessional on a trial-by-trial basis. An agreement was defined as the two observers recording the same number od independent, prompted, and incorrect responses in a given trial. During all sessions, agreement was

The needs assessment conducted by the administrator, demonstrated that teachers and administrators alike possessed low levels of knowledge regarding inquiry based instruction, how it should be evaluated and supported (Spaulding, 2014). “The overall purpose of the math program that

Out of the seven surveys that were sent out, six were completed. Of the six teachers, none were male, and none were minority. The teachers ranged in experience from seven years to 40 years. Three of the teachers (T1, T2, and T5) have master’s degrees, and three of the teachers have bachelor’s degrees. T5 and T6 teach at the junior high level. Copies of the surveys were printed and placed them in the teacher’s mailboxes. Attached to the survey was a questionnaire that asked for years of service and education information. The surveys were submitted anonymously.

They used a sample of 10 suburban Florida schools within one district. These schools were selected due to accessibility and ability to obtain permission from principals and school boards. The researchers also believed that using schools from one district would decrease variability that might exist due to local policies. There were 100 teachers given samples with 38% returning valid responses. It was noted that the limited sample was problematic. The sample represented teachers teaching 1st to 5th grade, with 1 to 10 years of experience (with an average of 7.6 years), and educational backgrounds including all with undergraduate degrees in education, twelve with masters degrees, 2 with additional specialists degrees, and one participant with a doctoral degree.

The findings from this study suggest that frequent experiences in learning mathematics for conceptual understanding through particular strategies is related to an increase in PSTs’ knowledge about teaching mathematics. In particular, more opportunities that allow PSTs to learn to show why a procedure works was significantly related to the average PSTs’ increase in content knowledge between the teacher preparation programs in the United States. Similarly, within the Polish generalist, United States specialist, and Russian teacher preparation programs the relationships between the OTL to show why procedures work and

Recruited teachers will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Participants in the first condition will receive continued coaching on embedded instruction. Teachers in this condition will receive training by their coach for one hour per week, be observed by their coach one hour per week, and will receive feedback through email or phone call. Teachers in the second condition will attend two six-hour long workshops on embedded instruction and will not have continued contact with an embedded instruction coach. Finally, teachers in the third condition will not receive training on embedded instruction and will serve as a control group. Data will be collected from these teachers at four time points. (T1) Data will be collected for the first time point four-weeks after school begins to provide teachers with time to become familiar with their students’ behaviors so that they can identify target children with challenging behaviors. T1 will serve as a baseline measure, as no teachers will have received embedded instruction coaching or training. (T2) Next, data will be collected before students leave for winter break, preferably two-weeks before break begins to avoid data collection too close to the holidays which could lead to distractions. (T3) Data will be collected again in early spring approximately two to three weeks after students return from holiday break. (T4) Finally, data will be collected at the end of the school year about two weeks before school ends. The

Math for Elementary Teachers II is the second part in a two part series. The mathematical concepts that were focused on throughout the second part of Math for Elementary Teachers were on measurement, geometry, probability, and data analysis. Just like part one of Math for Elementary Teachers, part two also address the relationship of the course concepts to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards for K-8 instruction.