Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toronto, 2004.

Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / Sarah Jane Fishback / This study examined faculty self-efficacy beliefs at the United States Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Faculty members at this military graduate degree-producing institution engaged in collaborative, student- centric, discussion teaching. The study considered how the independent variables of gender, age, ethnicity, academic title, leadership position, education level, and years of teaching experience affected faculty self-efficacy beliefs. Social cognitive theory provided the primary theoretical lens for the study. Discussion teaching and a framework for culturally responsive teaching formed part of the theoretical foundation. The goal included extending teacher self-efficacy concepts to higher education, further developing operational definitions, and providing an instrument suitable for measuring self-efficacy in higher education contexts. The study used mixed methods sequential explanatory research design with two data collection and analysis components: quantitative and qualitative. Faculty members (N = 417) received a 30-question Likert-type survey in December 2010. After quantitative data analysis concluded, in-depth interviews took place with 12 faculty members. A semi-structured interview of nine open-ended questions supported the qualitative portion of the study. Parametric analysis procedures examined the dependent variable, faculty self-efficacy beliefs, with respect to the independent variables. The results showed no significant differences in self-efficacy beliefs. Qualitative analysis using a computer-assisted program identified five themes: establishing a positive classroom environment, facilitating discussion, faculty and student preparation for discussion, questioning, and classroom sharing of combat and deployment experiences. Results of the study provided insights about faculty self-efficacy beliefs regarding facilitation of discussion that informed CGSC leadership decisions for future faculty development initiatives as well as insight for faculty to reflect on classroom best practices. The study contributed to the field of adult education by providing greater understanding of the faculty self-efficacy construct. Further research could examine faculty self-efficacy beliefs in non-military higher education contexts, among various faculty demographics and groups, and across higher education academic disciplines. Future studies could address how interventions such as faculty development or observation and feedback affect faculty self-efficacy beliefs in the classroom.

While the use of student thinking to help build mathematical understandings in a classroom has been emphasized in best teaching practices, teachers still struggle with this practice and research still lacks a full understanding of how such learning can and should occur. To help understand this complex practice, I analyzed every instance of student thinking and every teacher response to that thinking during a high school geometry teacher's whole class discussion and used these codes as evidence of alignment or misalignment with principles of effective use of student mathematical thinking. I explored the teacher's practice both in small and large grains by considering each of her responses to student thinking, and then considered the larger practice through multiple teacher responses unified under a single topic or theme in the class discussion. From these codes, I moved to an even larger grain to consider how the teacher's practice in general aligned with the principles. These combined coding schemes proved effective in providing a lens to both view and make sense of the complex practice of teachers responding to student thinking. I found that when responding to student thinking the teacher tended to not allow student thinking to be at the forefront of classroom discussion because of misinterpretation of the student thinking or only using the student thinking in a local sense to help advance the discussion as framed by the teacher's thinking. The results showed that allowing student thinking to be at the forefront of classroom discussion is one way to position students as legitimate mathematical thinkers, though this position can be weakened if the teacher makes a move to correct inaccurate or incorrect student thinking. Furthermore, when teachers respond to student thinking students are only able to be involved in sense making if the teacher turns the ideas back to the students in such a way that positions them to make sense of the mathematics. Finally, in order to allow students to collaborate a teacher must turn the mathematics to the students with time and space for them to meaningfully discuss the mathematics. I conclude that the teacher's practice that I analyzed is somewhat aligned with honoring student mathematical thinking and allowing student thinking to be at the forefront of class discussion. On the other hand, the teacher's practice was strongly misaligned with collaboration and sense making. In this teacher's class, then, students were rarely engaged in sense making or collaborating in their mathematical work.