1. Examining Teachers’ Efficacy in Mathematics Teaching: A Pilot Study Natalie A. Tran 1, David Drew 2, Mark Ellis 1, Ruth Yopp-Edwards 1, Mike Matsuda 3, and Martin Bonsangue 1 1 California State University, Fullerton 2 Claremont Graduate University 3 Anaheim Union High School District NSF Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Conference May 25, 2012 Washington, D.C.

2. Agenda MT2 Overview Partner Selection Research & Findings Questions

3. The Partners

4. The MT2 Program Funded in 2010 for six years Targets Foundational-Level Mathematics – English Learners – Technology 10 Master Teaching Fellows Two Cohorts of 10 Teaching Fellows

5. Master Teaching Fellows Recruitment and Selection Training – Summer Institutes and other professional learning experiences – National Board Certification Expectations – Work with CSUF teacher candidates – Open their classrooms – Provide leadership – Collaborate

6. Teaching Fellows Recruitment and Selection Preparation – FLM credential program – M.S. in Secondary Education program Expectations – Complete credential requirements – Complete graduate program requirements – Teach in high-need district – Collaborate

7. Partner Selection Common Vision National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Districts’ Demographics History of Collaboration

8. Districts’ Demographics

9. Students Scoring at Proficient & Advanced in 2010-2011 Subject District A CountyDistrict BCountyState Mathematics 36%60%46%48%50% Language Arts 50%63%52%51%54% Science 44%55%31%36%43% Social Science 49%59%41%44%48%

10. History of Collaboration University Perspectives - Establish long-term partnership with districts - District needs inform university programs District Perspectives

11. Research Data Collection Sample Instrumentation Analysis Preliminary Findings

12. Data Collection Collaborated with district leaders & department chairs to disseminate paper survey Master Teaching Fellows distributed survey to colleagues Collected survey via site visits 58 of 95 (61%) teachers responded to the survey

13. Participants: MT2 = 9 NonMT2 = 49

16. Years of teaching in current grade MT2Non-MT2

17. Characteristics of Teachers in the Sample (N = 58) NPercentMeanStandard Deviation MinimumMaximum Number of years teaching current grade level 56--8.556.217132 Current grade level taught Grade 65814%-- Grade 75826%-- Grade 85831%-- Grade 95843%-- Grade 105848%-- Grade 115848%-- Grade 125848%-- Highest degree Associate's degree570%-- Bachelor’s degree5732%-- Master’s degree5765%-- Ph.D., Ed.D., or other professional degree 573%--

18. Characteristics of Teachers in the Sample (N = 58) NPercentMeanStandard Deviation MinimumMaximum Gender Female5754%-- Male5746%-- Ethnicity American Indian582%-- Asian5824%-- Black585%-- Latino/a5819% Pacific Islander580%-- White5848%-- Other582%--

19. Instrumentation Construct s#ItemsCronbach’s Alpha Outcome Expectancy “When a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort.” 8.792 Teacher Efficacy “I am typically able to answer students' questions.” 6.711 Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology “Technology makes calculations and graphing quicker and easier.” 8.885 Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology “There is not enough teacher time to investigate the potential of using technology.” 5.696 Teacher Using Technology “Basic calculator, graphing calculator, movie clips, computer software programs, applets, hand-held media device” 5.669 Student Using Technology “Basic calculator, graphing calculator, movie clips, computer software programs, applets, hand-held media device” 4.658 Teacher Support “The adequacy of your prior training for teaching math to today's students.” 11.661 Job Satisfaction “If you could go back to your college days and start over again, would you become a teacher or not?” 8.738

20. Descriptive Statistics for Various Constructs VariablesMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation Outcome Expectancy 1.754.633.360.57 Teacher Efficacy 3.175.004.530.43 Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology 2.005.003.960.57 Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology 1.404.202.920.61 Teacher Using Technology 1.004.801.680.78 Student Using Technology 1.003.751.280.54 Teacher Support 1.453.822.870.43 Teacher Satisfaction 2.385.003.820.57

21. Comparison of Various Outcomes

31. Correlations Between Various Constructs Outcome Expectancy Teacher Efficacy Attitudes Toward Advantages of Using Technology Attitudes Toward Disadvantages of Using Technology Teacher Using Technology Student Using Technology Teacher Support Teacher Efficacy -0.02 Attitudes Toward Advantage of Using Technology 0.230.30* Attitudes Toward Disadvantage of Using Technology -0.19 -0.53** Teacher Using Technology 0.010.29*0.53**-0.27 Student Using Technology 0.010.170.40**-0.39**0.76** Teacher Support 0.060.34*0.07-0.150.040.08 Teacher Satisfaction 0.160.29*0.52**-0.35**0.210.220.20 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

32. Correlations Advantage of technology Use technology Disadvantage of technology Use technology Efficacy in teaching mathematics Job Satisfaction Teacher support Job Satisfaction Sig. effect

33. Mediational Model Teachers’ attitudes toward advantage of technology Teachers using technology in the classroom Teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching mathematics 0.68*** (.16) 0.19* (.09) 0.22* (.10) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

34. References Enochs, L.G. Smith, P. L. & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing Factorial Validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 194-202. Goos, M. & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20 (3), 102-130. National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Schools and Staffing Survey. U.S. Department of Education. Last accessed March, 7, 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/questionnaire.asp

35. Questions?

36. More Information MT2 Program: http://mt2.fullerton.eduhttp://mt2.fullerton.edu Martin Bonsangue, CSUF: mbonsangue@fullerton.edumbonsangue@fullerton.edu National Board Certification: www.nbpts.orgwww.nbpts.org