English language learners (ELLs) are the fastest growing student group in U.S. public schools. ELLs also consistently lag behind their native-English speaking peers in academic achievement. These facts set the stage for the study that evaluated one school district’s program to prepare their teachers to effectively educate ELLs. This program included a year-long series of six professional development courses that covered ELL-specific topics. The study’s evaluation tools included an online survey completed by teachers who took the courses, teachers’ feedback on course evaluation forms, interviews of district-level officials familiar with the program, and an examination of the homework assignments from each course. The program evaluation showed that teachers and district officials thought the courses helped prepare the teachers to instruct ELLs. However, the teachers’ feedback about the program’s influence included some specific references to teaching ELLs, but more examples from general education settings. The evaluation also found that only about 10% of the homework assignments required direct instruction of students. These evaluation results suggest that the program could be strengthened to include more opportunities for teachers to practice instructing ELLs. This additional practice could increase teachers’ confidence to serve the needs of ELLs in their classrooms.

In order to provide evidence of the worth of the Summer Institute of the National Writing Project, this study sought to determine whether participation in the professional development would increase feelings of teacher efficacy in writing. The Summer Institute professional development is consistent with recommendations of researchers in teacher efficacy and in professional development. Albert Bandura?s social cognitive theory provides a contextual framework for both teacher efficacy and the Summer Institute. The study compared the pre- and posttest scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale for Writing and Writing Orientation Scale (Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink, B. & MacArthur, C., 2001) reported by 65 teachers participating in the Summer Institute. The study investigated relationships between beliefs about writing and feelings of efficacy. Dependent samples t-tests showed statistically significantly higher posttest scores for personal teaching efficacy t(63) = -5.96, SE = 7.34, p < .001 and for general teaching efficacy t(63) = -2.96, SE = .11, p = .004. Statistically significant higher posttest scores were found in natural learning in teaching writing, t(61) = -4.87, SE = .104, p < .001. No statistically significant differences were found for correctness in teaching writing and explicit instruction in teaching writing. Correlation analysis of posttest mean scores indicated statistically significant correlations between personal teaching efficacy and explicit instruction in writing (r = .419, p = .001) and between mean scores in general teaching efficacy and correctness in writing (r = -.317, p = .012). Results suggest that participation in the Summer Institute could enhance teacher efficacy in writing and increase student performance on writing assessments. The Institute?s focus on process writing seems to be effective in changing teachers? perspectives on writing instruction. Results support a recommendation that types of professional development in which teachers have participated should be used as a source of variance in research on teacher efficacy. Other suggestions include allowing more time to pass before administration of the posttest or a third administration of the instruments to subjects after returning to classrooms and implementing the ideas.

No description available.

No description available.

The primary goal of this mixed method study is to investigate and analyze how the nature and structure of the widely accepted middle school and teaming models impact individual teacher efficacy as well as collective efficacy. I examined the implications of these models on the levels of efficacy for both teamed and non-teamed teachers. Both social cognitive theory and belonging theory informed the research study. The mixed method study was conducted at seven suburban middle schools in four districts outside of a major city in the northeastern section of the country. Each middle school utilizes the teaming model as the focal point of their philosophy. Research data were gathered from volunteer teachers through the administration of an online 37-item survey and voluntary individual follow-up interviews. In addition, principal interviews served to give background and cultural information at the building level. Themes from survey data informed the interview protocol. A review of historical documents provided additional information. The data were analyzed and themes were extracted in order to provide recommendations for these particular middle schools. Based on the collected data, teachers working at the middle school level can experience varying levels of both individual teacher and collective efficacy based on teaching position and experience. Implications for further research in the area of teacher and collective efficacy at the middle school level are noted. / Educational Administration

The current study examines predictors and outcomes of teacher stress, with the goal of creating a theoretical model depicting relations between teacher stress, self-efficacy, and use of emotion regulation strategies (e.g., cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, and behavioral regulation). Further, a range of additional school and teacher-related variables were examined including administrative support, school connectedness, teaching experience, student risk, perceived control, and challenge appraisal. Data were collected from two unique samples. First, 380 teachers participated in a pilot study to provide a preliminary understanding of relations among constructs and shed light on methodological concerns (e.g., need for increased participant recruitment). A longitudinal study was then conducted to understand relations among variables across the school year. Nearly 600 teachers from ten states completed the survey in the fall, winter, and spring of the 2018-2019 school year. Data indicated a relatively well-fitting model. Specifically, teachers who reported greater stress in the fall indicated lower self-efficacy in the spring. In addition, teachers with greater teaching experience and perceived control reported stronger teaching efficacy, whereas teachers who reported more administrative support, school connectedness, and perceived control displayed lower stress levels. A chi-square difference test was then used to examine whether use of emotion regulation strategies moderated the relation between stress and efficacy, within the context of the larger hypothesized model. Unexpectedly, emotion regulation strategies did not moderate this relation; however, when examined individually, each of the three-emotion regulation strategies was associated with stress and efficacy. That is, teachers who were more likely to use cognitive reappraisal and behavioral regulation strategies reported lower stress and greater efficacy. In contrast, expressive suppression was correlated with increased stress and poorer efficacy. Implications regarding using findings to support teachers are discussed. / School Psychology

Student literacy rates across the country are unacceptably low. Teacher preparation has emerged as a priority in both research and practice in efforts to improve the nation's literacy rates. Teacher knowledge and beliefs influence the quality of instruction teachers are able to implement. This study was designed to help educators and mentors of novice teachers understand the relationship between literacy pedagogical content knowledge and literacy teacher efficacy beliefs and changes to this relationship during the course of student teaching. Using a sample of 36 pre-service teachers assigned to student teaching in kindergarten, first or second grade classrooms, literacy pedagogical content knowledge was measured in a multiple-choice assessment that covered a variety of early literacy instructional areas including phonology, orthography, vocabulary, morphology and comprehension. Literacy teaching efficacy beliefs was measured using a self-report questionnaire. Participants completed the survey at two time points, at the beginning and end of student teaching. To determine if a literacy pedagogical content knowledge and literacy teaching efficacy beliefs demonstrated a relationship, Pearson correlations were calculated at both time points. Results of this study suggest that these constructs are not related and operate independently. Additionally this study suggested that while literacy teaching efficacy beliefs improved significantly over the course of student teaching, literacy pedagogical content knowledge did not. Results from this study can inform teacher educators, mentors of novice teaches and professional development programmers on the relationship of literacy pedagogical content knowledge and literacy teaching efficacy beliefs in pre-service teachers. / Educational Psychology

The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in the effects of teacher efficacy on student achievement in Title I and Non-Title I schools. With the exception of teacher efficacy, there have been few studies reporting a consistent and significant relationship between teacher characteristics, student behavior, and student achievement (Woolfolk and Hoy, 1990). Utilizing the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, formerly known as the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, the researcher determined the teacher efficacy levels in Title I and Non-Title I schools within an urban district. A two-way ANOVA was used to examine whether there is a statistically significant main effect between teacher efficacy and student achievement within an urban school district. The main effect of teacher efficacy on student achievement was examined by comparing the student achievement of schools on the Fourth Grade Virginia Standards of Learning Reading and Mathematic Assessment to determine if there was a significant difference in the mean score between these two groups. A t-test was used as a follow-up test of simple significant main effect and interaction effect. The correlation between all schools and overall teacher efficacy indicated a positive relationship between teacher efficacy and math scores and efficacy of instructional strategies and math scores. Moreover, the results indicated a positive relationship between overall teacher efficacy, efficacy of student engagement, and efficacy of instructional strategies and math scores. There was no relationship between efficacy levels and student achievement when just examining Non-title I Schools. The first ANOVA indicated no statistically significant interaction between efficacy level and school type, but significant main effects for efficacy level, and school type. This test indicated the presence of significant differences in reading achievement in Title I schools. The second ANOVA indicated no significant interaction between efficacy level and school type, but significant main effect for efficacy level, and no significant main effect for school type. The t-test revealed no significant differences in top quartile and bottom quartile schools in math achievement for Title I and Non-Title I schools. An independent sample t-test was used in order to determine whether there was a significant difference between the overall efficacy levels and efficacy levels in the three dimensions of teachers in Title I schools and Non-Title I schools. The test indicated there was no significant difference in the mean scores of Title I and Non-Title I teachers on the overall efficacy scale, nor in the three dimensions. Descriptive statistics and pair sample t-test were used to answer questions four and five. The test indicated that Title I and Non-title I teachers scored highest in the dimension labeled efficacy for instructional strategies. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of student engagement / instructional strategies and student engagement / classroom management in both Title I and Non-Title I teachers. High levels of teaching efficacy may serve as a necessary component for teaching students who are difficult “to reach.” Therefore it is imperative that teacher efficacy levels be considered before placing teachers in schools. It may become increasingly important for human resource to gauge a teacher's efficacy level during the hiring process and the placement of new teachers. Principals must be dedicated to finding ways to increase efficacy levels in their teachers. Longitudinal studies that examine teacher efficacy levels in various teaching environments such as urban, suburban, rural, high SES, low SES, and other similar classifications would be useful. / Ph. D.

In an attempt to staff every classroom with a highly qualified teacher, the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) mandated that only "highly qualified" teachers be hired to teach beginning in the 2005 school-year (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Highly qualified is defined by a teacher's background characteristics that include state certification, a bachelor's degree and subject area competence for secondary teachers. Researchers Palardy and Rumberger (2008), determined that a teacher's background characteristics alone are not sufficient in determining the effectiveness of a teacher but that it is the teacher's attitudes, beliefs and practices that should be considered , as these attributes have a greater impact and are most malleable. This study aimed to increase the body of research in the area of teacher effectiveness and how teachers' dispositions impact students' math achievement at the elementary level in an urban school district. Descriptive statistics were used to report the findings. The participants in this study were all full-time, general education teachers who worked with students in grades three, four and five in an urban school district. The data collected demonstrated that effective teachers in an urban school district believed it was their ability to reach students through their sense of efficacy and belief system that makes the difference in students' positive outcomes on high stakes tests. Findings revealed that effective teachers have high teaching efficacy, they are able to build personal relationships with their students and they are able to motivate their students to do well in school. This study confirms that effective urban teachers share a set of common dispositions and beliefs that make a difference in student achievement when all factors are considered. / Ed. D.

The current research utilised a modified cyclical model of tracking teachers' efficacy beliefs from their source through to their implementation in teaching strategies. Key inclusions to the model were four factors (personal efficacy, teaching efficacy, classroom management efficacy and outcome efficacy) of teacher efficacy and four contextual considerations (culture load, learning load, language load and cognitive load) in relation to teaching students who have ESL. Data were collected through three studies, ultilising both qualitative methodologies (focus groups, hypothetical teaching scenarios) and a quantitative methodology (researcher-generated survey). Results revealed a two-factor model of teacher efficacy (not a four-factor model) with the two factors being personal efficacy (general teaching abilities) and teaching efficacy (overcoming environmental factors such as home life). Culture load and language load were significant contextual considerations given to teaching students who have ESL. Results of the research suggested that specific teacher training needs to focus on how to adapt curriculum to meet the needs of a diverse group of learners, emphasising in particular why chosen strategies should be used. More training is needed which involves learning how to include parents and other community members as valuable resources in the learning processes of the classroom.