University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Public Access Theses and Dissertations from Education and Human Sciences, College of
the College of Education and Human Sciences (CEHS)

July 2008

The Relationship between the Curriculum, Instruction, and

Assessment Provided by Wyoming High School Mathematics
Teachers and the Performance of Wyoming 11th Grade Students
on the Adequate Yearly Progress of Wyoming Schools
Mary C. Moler
University of Nebraska at Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss

Part of the Education Commons

Moler, Mary C., "The Relationship between the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Provided by
Wyoming High School Mathematics Teachers and the Performance of Wyoming 11th Grade Students on
the Adequate Yearly Progress of Wyoming Schools" (2008). Public Access Theses and Dissertations from
the College of Education and Human Sciences. 24.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/24

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Education and Human Sciences, College of (CEHS) at
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Access Theses and
Dissertations from the College of Education and Human Sciences by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND
ASSESSMENT PROVIDED BY WYOMING HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
TEACHERS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF WYOMING 11TH GRADE STUDENTS
ON THE ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS OF WYOMING SCHOOLS

by

Mary C. Moler

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Educational Studies

(Teaching, Curriculum, & Learning)

Under the Supervision of Professor David Fowler

Lincoln, Nebraska

August 2008
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND
ASSESSMENT PROVIDED BY WYOMING HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
TEACHERS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF WYOMING 11TH GRADE STUDENTS
ON THE ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS OF WYOMING SCHOOLS
Mary C. Moler, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, 2008
Advisor: David Fowler

This research study investigated the mathematics teachers’ classroom practices in

curriculum, instruction, and assessments by a self-reporting questionnaire. The
questionnaire was sent to all 295 Wyoming high school mathematics teachers in February
of 2007. There were 164 questionnaires completed by 67 out of the 75 schools contacted.
It also investigated how those practices related to the mathematics portion of
school’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on state standards with the federally mandated
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The researcher calculated scaled average scores on
13 variables related to a 32-question questionnaire. The groups analyzed were sorted into
three levels based on the mathematical content of a selected target course that the
teachers taught and two different school groups based on the school’s adequate yearly
progress calculated from the 2006 PAWS statewide test. The statistical tests performed
were ANOVA, a t significance test, and Cohen’s D calculation of effect size.
The results showed a mean difference in the instruction questions between the
lowest and highest level of courses; in the instruction questions between the middle and
highest levels of courses; and in the assessment questions between the lowest and highest
level of courses. There were two variables which had a large effect size between the
lowest and highest level of courses. The two variables were related to instruction and
assessment questions. One variable dealt with time preparation for testing and the other
with the teacher’s perceived readiness to teach various mathematics topics. There were
eight moderate effect sizes between the levels of courses. The majority of the effects
were related to instruction questions. There were three moderate effect sizes between
schools that made AYP and schools that did not make AYP related to instruction and
curriculum questions.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am so grateful to Dr. David Fowler, my advisor, as he agreed to be my advisor

and guide me through this doctoral program. He was patient with me when I would drop
out of contact due to my teaching commitments, helped me overcome the distance
learning challenges, and guided me through the university process while on campus. I
offer him my deepest thanks, praise, and gratitude.
A heartfelt thank you to Dr. Del Harnish. Without his guidance, help, and insight
I would not have been able to move forward with the analysis of my dissertation.
Thank you also to my supervisory committee members, Dr. Jim Walter, Dr. Ron
Joekel, and Dr. Gordon Woodward. They helped, supported, and guided me through the
many aspects of this journey. Many thanks to all the UNL community that had a caring
hand in making my journey a challenging, but pleasant experience.
I am very thankful for the Kelly Walsh Mathematics Department, administrators,
teachers, staff, students, and all of the KW community. They were my cheerleaders,
supporters, and helpers with any challenge that came along the way. I am also thankful
for the support and help from the Natrona County School District administration,
colleagues, and staff.
A very special thank you to my friend and former colleague, Diane Teefey. She
was invaluable at reading my draft and offering assistance in saying what I meant to say
in this dissertation.
Without the prayers, support, and encouragement of my parents, my brother and
his family, math teacher colleagues, and friends, I could not have completed this degree.
I am blessed to be surrounded by so many angels on earth.
 iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Significance of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Curriculum Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Standards Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Instructional Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Teacher Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Proficiency and Achievement by Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Assessment Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Adequate Yearly Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Sampling Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Pilot Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 v
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Response Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Variables Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Effect Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

ANOVA Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

t-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Questionnaire Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

APPENDIX

A Institutional Board Review Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

B Superintendent Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

C Principal Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

D Teacher Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

E Follow-up Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

F SPSS Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

 vi
TABLE

4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Scaled Response for Level Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.2 Descriptive Statistics for Scaled Response for AYP Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.3 Effects Sizes for Level Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.4 Effects Sizes for AYP Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

FIGURE

4.1 Ordered Bar Graph for All Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.2 Ordered Bar Graph for Level 1 Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.3 Ordered Bar Graph for Level 2 Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.4 Ordered Bar Graph for Level 3 Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.5 Comparison of Means by All Teachers and Level Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.6 Comparison of Means by All Teachers and AYP Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.7 Ordered Bar Graph for Schools Making AYP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.8 Ordered Bar Graph for Schools Not Making AYP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

During the 1980s and 1990s, the content, instruction, and assessment of

mathematics education changed dramatically as did the mathematics knowledge, process

skills, and the results that these high school students had demonstrated. These changes

occurred due to the national standards movement, technology advances, and a desire for

higher student achievement levels on international and national assessments. The

culmination of these changes came following the United States government mandated No

Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.

Significance of the Problem

Before the 1990s, a teacher’s classroom accountability was based mainly on the

number of students passing the mathematics class. That record was part of the school’s

state accreditation report. Currently, classroom and state assessments are accountability

records for the teacher’s classroom grades, for student graduation requirements, and for

the school’s achievement of adequate yearly progress, AYP.

According to the mandates of NCLB, teachers are also accountable for how much

mathematics knowledge and how many mathematics skills students can demonstrate on

PAWS, Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students, the state-mandated test.

Presently, accountability is demanded not only at the state level with accreditation, but

also on a national level with the National Report Card. A school’s student achievement

level on a statewide assessment system is the main part of the school’s AYP. The

determination of AYP, adequate yearly progress, is derived from both student

participation rates and performance scores on the PAWS, Performance Assessment of

 2
Wyoming Students. In addition, if any one of the nine subgroups of students reported

from a school’s PAWS scores does not reach the state determined target score, then the

school has not made AYP. The nine subgroups are “all students,” “free/reduced lunch,”

“Native American,” “Hispanic,” “Asian,” “African American,” “White,” “Individual

Education Plan (IEP),” and “Limited English Proficiency (LEP)” (US Department of

Education, 2005, p. 21). If a school does not meet the State’s definition for AYP for

“two or more consecutive years,” the school is then given three years of interventions

labeled “school improvement,” “corrective action,” and “restructuring” (NCLB Annual

Report, 2005, p. 10-11).

It is important to know the critical factors of Wyoming high school students’

mathematics education that must be present in order for students to be proficient as

defined in NCLB. Teachers must be aware of what the students already know and what

skills they need to learn in order to be proficient. These factors are embedded within the

Wyoming State statues Title 21, called the Wyoming Education Code of 1969, (Title 21,

2006). Under the NCLB Act, the state determines which schools make AYP based on

students’ proficiency scores on a statewide assessment of the state standards. Schools

have yearly increasing AYP targets that all student subgroups in a school must achieve.

By 2014, all students in all subgroups must be 100% proficient (NCLB Annual Report,

2005, p. 1).

Purpose Statement

Accountability of teachers has moved from the classroom level to the national

level. The accountability measure on the standards for schools has become the AYP,

adequate yearly progress. Did the school make AYP or not make AYP? The important
 3
question is what teachers’ practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment are

related to the schools making AYP. In Wyoming high school mathematics courses, are

teacher practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessments related to their schools’

making AYP? The purpose of this study is to determine and to highlight key findings of

these relationships for consideration by Wyoming school districts and teachers while they

are striving to improve the teaching of mathematics and student learning of mathematics

in the state’s high schools. Higher performance by students taking the grade 11

mathematics portion of PAWS, Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students, assists

the school to make AYP. It is, therefore, imperative to know what critical parts in

curriculum, instruction, and assessment should be in place in order for students to

demonstrate proficiency on PAWS and for the schools to make AYP. The school should

be on target toward achieving the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 as outlined in the

NCLB Act.

Between 2000 and 2006, two dissertations had surveyed Wyoming elementary

teachers in grades two through four. One dissertation looked at instructional issues and

achievement on the mathematics portion of the statewide assessments. The other focused

on the leadership skills of the principal and the achievement on the mathematics portion

of the statewide assessments. No dissertation on record had surveyed high school

mathematics teachers before the 2006-2007 school year. A self-reporting survey of high

school mathematics teachers in the state of Wyoming was conducted in the 2006-2007

school year.
 4
Research Questions

A survey was given to the high school mathematics teachers in Wyoming. The

survey was designed and created to answer the questions, “Are mathematics teachers’

practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment related to their schools making

adequate yearly progress, AYP?” and “Does the mathematics course level affect the

practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment?” AYP is the accountability measure

in the NCLB Act used to determine if the school is achieving proficiency on the state

standards. The course level deals with the mathematical content for a targeted class. The

teachers’ responses were stratified into three levels based on the target class chosen. If

the target class covered curriculum below Algebra 1 topics, then this teacher was

assigned to level one, a lower level. If the curriculum for the target was accelerated from

the normal progression as deemed by the teacher, then the teacher was assigned to level

three, an honors level. The remaining teachers were assigned to level two, a regular

level.

The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the relationship between a school’s chosen mathematics curriculum and

the school’s making AYP, adequate yearly progress, in Grade 11 mathematics as

measured by PAWS, Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students?

2. What is the relationship between the type of mathematics instruction given and

the school’s making AYP in Grade 11 mathematics as measured by PAWS?

3. What is the relationship between the type of classroom assessments given and the

school’s making AYP in Grade 11 mathematics as measured by PAWS?

 5
4. How did the responses compare on mathematics curriculum questions from the

teachers of the three levels of mathematics courses?

5. How did the responses compare on mathematical instructional questions from the

teachers of the three levels of mathematics courses?

6. How did the responses compare on mathematical assessment questions from the

teachers of the three levels of mathematics courses?

 6
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter will review research available on the reforms in education that have

resulted from the standards movement and the effects of the standards movement on the

content, instruction, and assessment that Wyoming students might experience in high

school. The term “standards” usually refers to the content, including knowledge,

processes, and performance level in a subject area that students are to learn in school.

The standards movement is a label for all of the actions taken in the attempt to set

benchmarks in the content areas. The first part of the chapter will highlight the literature

of factors that brought about both the standards movement and an increase in

accountability. The second part will highlight research on reforms in instruction and the

professional development needed to implement these reforms. The third part will

highlight investigations of school and classroom assessments and the adequate yearly

progress (AYP) requirements resulting from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

Even with high standards, exemplary textbooks, and powerful assessments, what

really matters for mathematics learning are the interactions that take place in

classrooms. The literature on mathematics education, perhaps surprisingly,

contains little reliable data about those interactions. (National Research Council,

2001, p. 45)

Curriculum Changes

Background

Inkeles (1977) listed the following factors that provided an environment

hospitable to the idea of comparative, international surveys: strong criticism of

 7
the American school system during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the launching

of the first earth satellite by the Soviet Union, and widespread concern in the

industrialized countries about the ever-escalating costs of providing free,

universal public education. (Robitaille & Travers, 1992, p. 687)

The significant forces in society that contributed to the change in mathematics education

after 1950 included technological advances, student achievement on national and

international assessments, and the needs of business and industry. The Standards

movement called for reforms in curriculum, instruction, and assessments. The demand

for increased accountability for public schools was a major factor in the passage of the

NCLB Act.

Technology has become a part of everyday life at home and at work. Advances in

technology have led to smaller, more powerful technological tools that are accessible to

everyone. Beginning with the October 4, 1957, launch of Sputnik, the first space satellite,

technology continued to advance with the 1975 personal computer revolution exemplified

in the release of the MITS Altair 8800 and advancing in 1977 with the Apple II (World

Almanac and Book of Facts, 2002, p. 628). In the classroom, the availability of the

computer and the graphing calculator have encouraged major influences in content and

instruction. “Moses (2001) argues that those who are technologically literate will have

access to jobs and economic enfranchisement, while those without such skills will not”

(Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 13).

The first international mathematics study, “carried out in the early 1960s,”

(Robitaille & Travers, 1992, p. 701) involved 12 participating countries. The second

study, which included 20 countries, was done “in the early 1980s” (Robitaille & Travers,
 8
1992, p. 701). The media usually reported the ranking of the countries, but the main

purpose of evaluating these international students was “trying to determine the effects of

particular variables on teaching and learning” (Robitaille & Travers, 1992, p. 688).

Information from both the first and second studies, which was often overlooked by the

media, indicated that “the highest ability students from almost all systems perform at

about the same level on topics which they all have studied” (Robitaille & Travers, 1992,

p. 689). Differences in achievement appear, therefore, to be “a function of opportunity to

learn” (Robitaille & Travers, 1992, p. 689).

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was offered

in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007. In a 1998 press release, the United States secondary

students ranked below the international average in relationship to the 21 participating

countries in the TIMSS twelfth-grade study (Math and Science Achievement, 1999, p.

205). “TIMSS is based on a model of curriculum that has three components: the

intended curriculum, the implemented curriculum, and the achievement curriculum”

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2006, FAQType=2, para. 1). “TIMSS is

closely linked to the curricula of the participating countries, providing an indication of

the degree to which students have learned concepts in mathematics and science they have

encountered in school” (Gonzales et al., 2004, p. 1). The students answer the “same

assessment and questionnaire items, albeit in the language of instruction. . . . [making it]

possible to compare the performance of students in the United States on mathematics and

science items to that of their peers around the world” (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2006, FAQType=2, para. 5). The questionnaires gather data regarding the
 9
students, teachers, principals, and school issues relating to learning, teaching, and types

of behavior.

In the early to mid-1950s, businesses and the military attacked the public school

systems “for graduating young adults who lacked basic computational skills” (Kilpatrick,

1992, p. 24). Colleges attacked the school systems for “failing to equip their entrants

with a knowledge of mathematics adequate for college work” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 24).

The public attacked the school systems “for having watered down the curriculum”

(Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 24).

“By the end of the 1950s, widening discontinuities between the mathematics

taught in universities and that taught in the lower schools” and the declining enrollments

in university mathematics courses gave rise to “a flood of curriculum reform projects in

various countries that collectively became known as ‘the new math’” (Kilpatrick, 1992,

p. 23). Higher academic achievement and more rigorous courses in math and science

were demanded for students. Congress responded by passing the “1958 National Defense

Education Act, which provided fellowships, grants, and loans for students in higher

education to study mathematics” (Ratvich, 2000, p. 362). One response to reform

demands was “New Math.” Its change in instruction was “to meet the new demands

made by science, industry, and government” (Adler, 1972, p. 217). The new math

emphasized the teaching of different bases other than base 10, set theory, functions, and

diagram drawings. Set theory was to be introduced early in the curriculum. “In the

United States, 21 research and development centers and 20 regional educational

laboratories were established between 1965 and 1967 as a consequence of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 26). Parents and teachers
 10
complained that this curriculum took time away from the basics. The “New Math” fell

out of favor before the end of decade, though it continued to be taught for years thereafter

in some school districts.

In 1968, Edward G. Begle reported “on the National Longitudinal Study of

Mathematical Abilities (NLSMA) he was directing . . . . [whose] purpose was to ascertain

the effects of the new-math curriculum revision efforts” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 29).

“Subsequent surveys of mathematical attainment were undertaken not to compare

curricula but to describe and contrast levels of performance. These included the

mathematics assessment conducted in the United States every 4 or 5 years since 1972-

1973 by the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p.

29). NAEP has tracked United States public school students’ progress in “reading,

mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts” (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2006, NAEP Overview, para. 1). NAEP measures both

public school and non-public school achievement in the listed subjects for students in

grades 4, 8, and 12. Two reports given by NAEP relate to national trends and to students’

progress in their state toward national educational goals.

The state of Wyoming participates in NAEP “to serve as an external reference

point when viewing a (sic) state’s academic testing program. Results from this year’s

[2005] NAEP in Wyoming continued to track in roughly the same pattern as past

WyCAS scores” (Wyoming Department of Education, 2005, para. 19). Both TIMSS and

NAEP results indicate the general average scores in mathematics. NAEP “allows the

development of proficiency benchmarks – what students should know by the end of

eighth grade – against which to compare what students actually know at the end of eighth
 11
grade” (Gonzales et al., 2004, p. 101). TIMSS allows comparisons of student

populations with similar numbers of years of schooling. NAEP and TIMSS track the

progress of the nation’s students with a single value for achievement.

Achievement levels on national and international tests and the level of student

preparedness for continued academic achievement or for a job were indicators of the need

for a change in the mathematics curriculum. “The reform curriculum, in contrast, calls

for instruction that provides all students with the mathematical background for

quantitative literacy for the workplace and for study at the college level” (Holloway,

2004, p. 85).

Before 1970 major issues relating to mathematics education in North America

involved curriculum and instruction (Jones & Coxford, 1970, p. 2). “Throughout the

decade of the seventies, the mathematics education community seemed to be groping for

a clearer focus and sense of direction” (Hill, 1983, p. 1). The National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) spoke to the shift from an industrialized society to an

informational society. NCTM responded with a position paper, Agenda for Action, which

recommended eight responsible actions to be addressed to change the direction of

mathematics education (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980, p. 1).

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation

at Risk, a call for major educational reform. This report was written in lay terms and

discussed the mediocre level of student achievement and the lack of student preparedness

for further education (A Nation at Risk, 1983, p. 1; Ratvich, 2000, p. 411). The report

looked at the numbers of students taking remedial and advanced classes. Unfortunately,

Holloway (2004) found the situation had changed little for minorities. In “1997, 33 of
 12
th
every 1,000 white 12 graders enrolled in this course [Advanced Placement Calculus],

but only 7 of every 1,000 black students and 12 of every 1,000 Hispanic students took on

this challenge” (p. 84). “The opportunity for all students to learn mathematics has been

heralded as the new ‘civil right’” (Boaler, 2006, p. 364). “The evidence indicates that the

traditional curriculum and instructional methods in the United States are not serving our

students well” (Hiebert, 1999, p. 13). The National Research Council adds more

evidence to the growing amount of literature that “demands substantial changes”

(National Research Council, 2001, p. 407) in school mathematics programs and that all

students have the opportunity to learn mathematics.

Standards Movement

In 1986, NCTM Board of Directors created a Commission on Standards for

School Mathematics whose purpose was to “help improve the quality of school

mathematics” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, p. v). Standards

were adopted to ensure quality, to indicate goals, and to promote change (National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, p. 2). Professional mathematics educators

responded with two major reports in 1989. The first was Everybody Counts from the

Mathematical Science Education Board (MSEB), and the second was the NCTM

Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics.

As a nation, we must encourage all students to take a quality mathematics

curriculum in order to be contributing members of society. The new social goals include

“(1) mathematically literate workers, (2) lifelong learning, (3) opportunity for all, and (4)

an informed electorate” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, p. 3). The

document sets new goals for all students in order to achieve mathematical literacy or
 13
“mathematical power.” In a world “teeming with data,” (Baker & Leak, 2006, para. 10)

the “mathematical modeling of humanity promises to be one of the great undertakings of

the 21st century” (Baker & Leak, 2006, para. 11). “Math will be involved in students’

everyday lives more than ever before, and this means students must become familiar with

it to succeed” (Franklin, 2006b, p. 12). “Many security-related jobs – from data analysis

to cryptography – increasingly require the kinds of advanced math skills that American

students aren’t learning” (Franklin, 2006, p. 11). School mathematics should not be “set

in stone” (National Research Council, 2001, p. 407). Students need to be able “to deal

with mathematics on a higher level than they did just 20 years ago” (National Research

Council, 2001, p. 407). Managers and entrepreneurs “still must understand enough about

math to question the assumptions behind the numbers” (Baker & Leak, 2006, para. 36).

“The country must breed more top-notch mathematicians at home, . . . [and] must

cultivate greater math savvy among the broader population” (Baker & Leak, 2006, para.

32). People have different views of mathematics, and “these diverse views of the nature

of mathematics also have a pronounced impact on the ways in which our society

conceives of mathematics and reacts to its ever-widening influence on our daily lives”

(Dossey, 1992, p. 39).

The profession responded through the next 12 years with more reform documents

that focused, not just on curriculum as in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for

School Mathematics (1989). The professional also responded to classroom instruction in

the Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (1991) and the classroom

assessments in the Assessment Standards for School Mathematics (1995). The final

document, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), from NCTM,
 14
revisited all these areas, in an effort to improve mathematics education, and placed all

the reforms in one resource guide for the stakeholders. Schoenfeld (2002) states that the

NCTM’s Principles and Standards calls for “equity . . .; coherent curricula . . .; teacher

professionalism, . . . ; and the effective use of assessment and technology in the service of

mathematics learning” (p. 15).

Changed was required in mathematics education due to technological advances,

student achievement on TIMSS and NAEP, and the economic demands of a global

economy. The National Research Council (2001) stated that “experiences, discussions,

and review of the literature have convinced us that school mathematics demands

substantial change” (p. 407). “The impact of curriculum as a variable must be recognized

and taken into account” (Robitaille & Travers, 1992, p. 689). Cohen (1995) found that

“systemic reform has had significant effects” (p. 11). “Prevailing patterns of curriculum,

teaching, and assessment in school mathematics are shaped by a combination of

traditional practices, experience-based judgments by teachers, advisory standards from

professional organizations, and guidelines based on theoretical and empirical research in

mathematics education and cognate disciplines (including psychology, anthropology, and

sociology)” (NCTM Research Committee, 2006, p. 76). Thus, it is likely that as these

patterns continue, more significant effects will appear.

Accountability

A new assessment approach is evolving which “assumes that high public

expectations can be set that every student can strive for and achieve, that different

performances can and will meet agreed-on expectations, and that teachers can be fair and

consistent judges of diverse student performances” (National Council of Teachers of

 15
Mathematics, 1995, p. 1). NCTM called for reforms in curriculum, instruction, and

assessments. At the same time, education is viewed “as an industry, with an increasing

interest in applying principles of accountability to the field of education” (Robitaille &

Travers, 1992, p. 688). The required reforms needed to involve all stakeholders

including students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, state agencies,

businesses and industries, and public policy people. Teachers “teach in a system that

currently works against improvement. Unless other important players get involved, our

country cannot implement a program that allows teachers to improve teaching” (Stigler &

Hiebert, 1999, p. xii). “Teaching, as a cultural activity, fits within a variety of social,

economic, and political forces in our society” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997, para. 37).

History of School Accountability

In 1845 “Horace Mann, Secretary of the State Board of Education in

Massachusetts, to show that the schools were doing the job the state expected of them in

view of generous financial appropriations, undertook a comprehensive school survey”

(Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 14). The ranking of schools, of evaluating “how much a student had

learned”, and of judging “the effectiveness of a school’s program” all began with this

survey (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 14). The “written short-answer tests became the medium of

choice” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 14). In 1892 Joseph Mayer Rice investigated various large

city public school systems. Rice examined “factors that might account for the differences

between the schools in arithmetic achievement” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 15). His method

and inspection of “characteristics of high- and low-scoring schools, did not allow him to

estimate the strength or shape of the relationship between some hypothesized factor and
 16
the level of achievement” (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 15). Rice summarized that schools

should set “standards” in order to get the desired results (Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 15).

Over the next century, accountability was generally based on the achievement of

students taking national tests.

Romberg describes a variety of forms of achievement testing, including norm-

referenced standardized test, whose purpose is to identify a respondent’s position

in a group; profile achievement tests, whose purpose is to give a variety of scores

for groups of students; and objective-referenced tests, whose purpose is to

compare scores on specific objectives to an a priori criterion. (Webb, 1992, p.

664)

“Stakeholders in the educational system have to understand the great variability inherent

in testing” (Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 23).

Presently, assessment involves several accountability purposes used by students,

teachers, schools, and the nation. For all student and their teachers, assessment provides

comprehensive “evidence and feedback on what students know and are able to do” on the

standards, and it provides information for “decision makers” and about the “effectiveness

of the educational system as a whole” (Webb, 1992, p. 663; see also Lefkowits & Miller,

2006, p. 406).

National Accountability – NCLB

There was a higher lever of accountability after December 18, 2001, when

Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. “Three days after taking office in January

2001 as the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush announced No Child Left

Behind, his framework for bipartisan education reform” (NCLB Overview, 2006, para.
 17
2). According to the NCLB Act of 2001, under Section 1111(h)(5) of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Secretary of Education is “required to transmit

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report that

provides State-level data for each State receiving assistance under Title I of ESEA”

(NCLB Annual Report, 2005, p. 1). States, however, must determine if districts and

schools – even those that do not receive Title I funds – makes AYP. Each state

establishes its own definition of AYP for each year. This illustrates that while local

education control is still a sensitive issue, the state must establish proficiency goals,

statewide, based on assessment data from the 2001-2002 school year. These goals must

increase progressively to reflect 100 percent proficiency for all students by 2013-2014

school year. NCLB “significantly raises expectations for States, local educational

agencies, and schools . . . by the 2013-2014 school year” (NCLB Annual Report, 2005, p.

1). Every state is required to submit state-level assessment data disaggregated by

poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, migrant students, gender, and limited English

proficiency. Wyoming is in compliance with NCLB with the state statue Chapter 2,

Article 3, #21-2-304 (b)(xiv), to “establish improvement goals for public schools for

assessment of student progress based upon the national assessment of education progress

testing program and the statewide assessment system established under paragraph (a) (v)

of this section” (Title 21, 2006).

States must “describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all

students, achieve academic proficiency” (NCLB Annual Report, 2005, p. 10).

“Monitoring student progress and the impact of these curricula on the mathematics
 18
performance . . . is consistent with the recommendations offered in . . . No Child Left

Behind (2002)” (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 6). Test-based accountability “is

the only tool our education system has to reassure the public that it is spending resources

wisely and making progress on student achievement” (Lewis, 2006, p. 339). “The real

blame . . . in response to testing lies not with teachers but with state and national policy

makers who create accountability systems centered on ever-higher test scores (AYP) with

little regard for how these scores relate to better learning” (Lederman & Burnstein, 2006,

p. 430). “Because NCLB requires tracking substantial amounts of student performance

data, teachers often find themselves stretched to handle both the various data-recording

responsibilities that are required by law and their regular duties of preparing lessons and

grading homework” (Franklin, 2006a, p. 6).

State of Wyoming

In 1990, the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) released the Wyoming

Standards of Excellence for Mathematics Education. This document called for

“modification in the curriculum” (Wyoming Department of Education, 1990, p. 1).

Its purposes are

(1) to assess current programs;

(2) to suggest ways of strengthening current programs;

(3) to plan and develop programs acceptable to the education profession and the

public which reflect recent trends and technology; and

(4) to stimulate communication among educators (p. 1).

The 9-12 grade recommendations were very concise and appeared on one single

page beginning with the “dual purpose of the 9-12 mathematics program is preparation
 19
for college entrance and job entry skills for students who do not continue formal study”

(Wyoming Department of Education, 1990, p. 8). In Wyoming, during the 10 years

following 1990, state accreditation was the driving force behind the reform and the

creation of a standards based curriculum. “As of 1999, 49 states reported having content

standards in mathematics. . . . These standards (sometimes called curriculum

frameworks) describe what students should know and be able to do in mathematics”

(National Research Council, 2001, p. 34). “Virtually every state in the nation . . . . [has] a

growing commitment to the idea that clear and shared goals for student learning must

provide a foundation on which to improve education and achievement” (Stigler &

Hiebert, 1999, p. 1).

The state of Wyoming complied with the requirements set forth with the passage

of NCLB. The Wyoming State Board of Education passed a state curriculum and

clarified the mathematics requirements for high school graduation in the state statues

called the “Wyoming Education Code of 1969” (Title 21, 2006, p. 1). The school

districts have aligned their curriculum with the State Standards. The five Mathematics

Content Standards for 9-12 grade students in the State of Wyoming are

(1) students use numbers, number sense, and number relationships in a problem-

solving situation,

(2) students apply geometric concepts, properties, and relationships in a

problem-solving situation,

(3) students use a variety of tools and techniques of measurement in a problem-

solving situation,
 20
(4) students use algebraic methods to investigate, model, and interpret

patterns and functions involving numbers, shapes, data, and graphs in a

problem-solving situation,

(5) students use data analysis and probability to analyze given situations and the

results of experiments (Wyoming Department of Education, 2003, pp. 7-16).

Curriculum Summary

“Outfitting students with the right quantitative skills is a crucial test facing school

boards and education ministries worldwide” (Baker & Leak, 2006, para. 31). “The

school mathematics curriculum needs to be organized within and across grades to

support, in a coordinated fashion, all strands of mathematical proficiency” (National

Research Council, 2001, p. 12). Systemic reform “attempts to align all parts of the

educational system – curriculum, instruction, assessment, teacher preparation, and state

and local policies such as graduation requirements – to promote change in the classroom

and, ultimately, improve student performance (Smith and O’Day, 1991)” (Klein,

Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. 1).

Instructional Changes

Instructional changes involve the teachers’ knowledge, background, beliefs, and

actions. The actions discussed in this section are the expectations of the teacher about

how students learn, the use of the textbook, the instructional strategies, the achievement

of students, and the professional development required. Awareness of “research on

teaching” and “on learning” (Koehler & Grouws, 1992, p. 117) is necessary.

What a teacher considers to be desirable goals of the mathematics program, his or

her own role in teaching, the students’ role, appropriate classroom activities,
 21
desirable instructional approaches and emphases, legitimate mathematical

procedures, and acceptable outcomes of instruction are all part of the teacher’s

conception of mathematics teaching. (Thompson, 1992, p. 135)

Schools need to refrain from filtering out students from mathematics, because “it not only

filters students out of careers, but frequently out of school itself” (National Research

Council, 1989, p. 7).

Teacher Knowledge, Background, and Beliefs

What is mathematics all about? Mathematics includes using rules to solve

problems, being skillful in performing these rules, identifying basic concepts, considering

competing theories, or discussing abstract and formal spheres of knowledge.

Constructing alternate ways to conceptualize “the nature of mathematics” has implication

for mathematics education (Dossey, 1992, p. 42). “Correlational techniques were often

used to assess the relationships between teacher knowledge and student performance so

that little is known about the directionality of any existing relationships” (Fennema &

Franke, 1992, p. 149). “Studies investigating the role of teachers in mathematics

classrooms commonly focus on the actions and instructional methods of teachers rather

than on the mathematics being taught or the methods by which that mathematics is being

learned” (Dossey, 1992, p. 43).

Teachers determine what content is taught in the classroom and how it is taught.

They adjust the content or methods used as determined by the students’ understanding of

the content and their performance of skills (Dossey, 1992, p. 44; Fennema & Franke,

1992, p. 158). Stigler and Hiebert (1999) state that teaching is “a complex cultural

activity that is highly determined by beliefs and habits that work partly outside the realm
 22
of consciousness” (p. 103; see also Nickson, 1992, p. 102). For effective reforms in

curriculum and instruction, “these reforms must ultimately be adopted by teachers and

must take hold in the classroom (Tyack and Cuban, 1995)” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey,

Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. 3; see also National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics, 1991, p. 2).

The way a teacher understands the interrelationships and concepts of mathematics

influences the instructional practices in the classroom (Dossey, 1992, p. 42; Fennema &

Franke, 1992, p. 152; Koehler & Grouws, 1992, p. 124; Nickson, 1992, p. 103;

Thompson, 1992, p. 128). “The vast majority of today’s American mathematics teachers

learned the traditional mathematics curriculum in the traditional way” (Schoenfeld, 2002,

p. 20; see also National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991, p. 2). The way in

which teachers were taught is often the methods of instruction they use in their classroom

as they become the next generation of teachers (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992, p. 90; Reys,

Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 5; Stigler & Hiebert, 1997, para. 6; Wainwright, Morrell,

Flick, & Schepige, 2004, p. 322).

Expert and novice teachers consider mathematical concepts differently. The

teachers’ knowledge is continually developing and changing (Fennema & Franke, 1992,

p. 161). Expert teachers organize in a “hierarchical structure” with “detailed conceptual

and procedural knowledge,” which has an impact: “(1) on agendas, . . . richer mental

plans . . . ; (2) on scripts, . . . more representations and richer explanations; and (3) on

teachers’ response to students’ comments and questions during instruction (Leinhardt et

al., 1991)“ (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 161).

 23
Teacher Practices

The actions of the teacher determine what happens in the classroom, the learning

that occurs, and, ultimately, the achievement level of the students. “Teachers are the key

to closing the gap” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. xii). “If we do not understand these

processes [that lead to learning in the classroom], we have little chance of improving

them” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997, para. 5). “Analysis of classroom practice plays several

important roles. . . . Attempts to implement reform without analysis of practice are not

likely to succeed” (Stigler and Hiebert, 2004, p. 16).

Knowledge of mathematics teaching includes knowledge of pedagogy, as well as

understanding the underlying processes of the mathematical concepts, knowing

the relationship between different aspects of mathematical knowledge, being able

to interpret that knowledge for teaching, knowing and understanding students’

thinking, and being able to assess student knowledge to make instructional

decisions. (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 161)

Instruction can have more characteristics of traditional methods or reform

strategies. Methods classified as traditional are usually “mathematical concepts and

procedures [that] can either be simply stated by the teacher or be developed through

examples, demonstrations, and discussions” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997, para. 25). The

reform teaching practices may be learner-focused, content-focused with an emphasis on

conceptual understanding, content-focused with an emphasis on performance, or

classroom-focused (Thompson, 1992, p. 136). “Likewise, the instructional approach

suggested by the materials often influences teachers’ pedagogical strategies” (Reys, Reys,

Lapan, Holliday, & Wasman, 2003, p. 75). Most decisions made by teachers occur
 24
“during the preactive or planning phase,” (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 156) which

greatly affect instruction. While the majority of teachers report that they are aware of and

are using reform instructional methods, when the teachers were observed, the

observations showed “that many secondary students are not being given the opportunity

to learn through reform-based practices” (Wainwright, Morrell, Flick, & Schepige, 2004,

p. 322; see also Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 12).

“Education in the United States is marked by a diverse, mobile population of

students and teachers, a variety of organizational structures, and minimal centralized

control over policies and practices” (National Research Council, 2001, p. 32). The

teacher must have knowledge about mathematics and since the United States is becoming

multicultural, “he or she must understand the cultural diversity of the students” (Fennema

& Franke, 1992, p. 147). “I would suggest that teachers need to develop not only such a

profound understanding of mathematics but also a corresponding understanding of how

children learn” (Marshall, 2006, p. 359).

Classroom Environment

“Efforts to improve student learning succeed or fail inside the classroom, a fact

that has too often been ignored by would-be reformers” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997, para.

4). The reform-minded teacher must set up “cognitively demanding tasks, plan the lesson

by elaborating the mathematics that the students are to learn through those tasks, and

allocate sufficient time for the students to engage in and spend time on the tasks”

(National Research Council, 2001, p. 9) in order to create an environment that encourages

students to engage in the learning of mathematics.

 25
Effective teachers develop a community of learners with the students.

“Students must be informed active partners in this endeavor” and “need explicit guidance

in how to engage in complex tasks” (Flick & Lederman, 2005, p. 114). The teacher,

using reform methods, actively involves the students in valuable learning activities using

reflective inquiry, spends more time explaining and demonstrating materials, asks

probing questions of the students when they are sharing their results and justifications of

their inquiry methods. The students are also responsible for creating this community of

learners by becoming good listeners and staying on task (Boaler, 2002, pp. 247-253;

Boaler, 2006, pp. 365-367; Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 151; Hiebert et al., 1996, pp. 16-

17; Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004, p. 113; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey,

Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. 3; McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari,

& Robyn, 2001, pp. 494-495; National Research Council, 2001, p. 9; Secada, 1992, p.

649). Teachers, encouraging this open communication with students, facilitate students’

“mathematical thinking as well as the students’ understanding” (Boaler, 2002, p. 249).

“Teaching mathematics with understanding means creating experiences in which these

interconnections can be made because, without them, there would be a real danger that

questions put in isolation would make the learning process rather piecemeal and

incoherent” (Marshall, 2006, p. 358). “The benefits of reflective inquiry lie . . . in the new

relationships that are uncovered, the new aspects of the situation that are understood more

deeply” (Hiebert et al., 1996, p. 15). Students need “to know what these things mean,

where they come from, and how they fit into the grand scheme of things we call

mathematics, one of mankind’s great intellectual achievements” (Marshall, 2006, p. 357).

 26
“Skilled teachers are now challenged to develop ways to convey to students

what it means to abstract and then generalize” (Flick & Lederman, 2005, p. 115).

Successful classrooms are places “where students show[ed] a lot of satisfaction and

enthusiasm for problem solving, and viewed themselves as autonomous learners”

(McLeod, 1992, p. 589).

Opportunity to Learn

“The current mathematics curriculum reform movement . . . emphasizes the use of

problem contexts to develop meaning” (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992, p. 81). It is

important in the way teachers provide situations and explore problems to help students

learn worthwhile mathematical content in order to reach the new standards (Boaler, 2002,

p. 249; National Research Council, 2001, p. 10; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 2). This is

“consistent with the conception of mathematics teaching . . . reflected in . . . the

Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989), and Everybody Counts (National Research

Council, 1989)” (Thompson, 1992, p. 128). These reforms of using open-ended problems

rather than direct instruction are “more difficult for a high school teacher than for an

early elementary school teacher” (Schoen, Cebulla, Finn, & Fi, 2003, p. 231). Teachers

need to allow students to “learn by creating mathematics through their own investigations

of problematic situations” (Riordan & Noyce, 2001, p. 369; see also Koehler & Grouws,

1992, p. 119).

“Tyson-Bernstein and Woodward (1991) describe the role of textbooks . . . as a

prominent, if not dominant, part of determining what children have an opportunity to

learn” (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 5). “The greatest growth [in achievement]
 27
seems to be associated with exposure to new content” (Secada, 1992, p. 645). Minority

students or students taking “low-track mathematics courses” need to be exposed to more

content with the teachers “expecting more, not less” student engagement (Davis, 1992, p.

730; Secada, 1992, pp. 646-47). “Students using the NSF mathematics curricula that

were taught by teachers using standards-based instruction were the highest performing

students” (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 4). “Two groups of students from

Michigan [in 1999] participated in TIMSS-R. . . . indicating the positive effect of

Standards-based reform efforts within these schools (Mullis et al., 2001)” (Reys, Reys,

Lapan, Holliday, & Wasman, 2003, p. 76).

Constructivism

“Research in learning shows that students actually construct their own

understanding based on new experiences that enlarge the intellectual framework in which

ideas can be created” (National Research Council, 1989, p. 6). This implies that “each

student’s knowledge of mathematics is uniquely personal” (National Council of Teachers

of Mathematics, 1991, p. 2; see also Dossey, 1992, p. 44). The common phrase used is

for students to become ‘constructivist’ of their learning by internally integrating the new

knowledge with their prior mathematics relationships (Dossey, 1992, p. 45; Hiebert &

Carpenter, 1992, p. 66; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000,

p. 14; Koehler & Grouws, 1992, p. 119; McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari,

& Robyn, 2001, p. 494; Schifter, 1996; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 91).

The traditional method of procedural knowledge is “a sequence of actions,” while

the conceptual knowledge has a connected network “that is rich in relationships (Hiebert

& Lefevre, 1986)” (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992, p. 78). “When students develop methods
 28
for constructing new procedures they are integrating their conceptual knowledge with

their procedural skill” (Hiebert et al., 1996, p. 17). With conceptual knowledge and

understanding, students are able to “apply them to each new situation they meet”

(Marshall, 2006, p. 358; see also Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992, p. 74). “Research has shown

that things our brain does not understand are more likely to be forgotten” (Marshall,

2006, p. 362).

Proper feedback helps students focus on the task rather than the answer, and

personally guides students to eliminate gaps in their mathematics learning. “In teaching

for understanding,” students need to experience a concept through the use of “real-world

situations and concrete or pictorial representations” before the abstract ideas or

symbolisms (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 154; Marshall, 2006, p. 359). “One has to

counteract the very common misunderstanding that in mathematics students have to

master skills before using them for applications and problem solving” (Schoenfeld, 2002,

p. 23). When exploring and solving a problem, students have questions, experience

confusion and frustrations before their understanding is reorganized into “more richly

connected, cohesive networks” (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992, p. 69).

Communicating with students and parents is vital if the reforms are to succeed.

Parents need to be informed “about the broad spectrum of mathematical understandings

that is appropriate for students to learn – for example that problem solving, reasoning,

and communication are essential goals for the curriculum, and that they need to be

assessed” (Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 23). Parents are open and willing “to accept poor

performance in school mathematics, but they are not so willing to accept poor

performance in other subjects” (McLeod, 1992, p. 575). “The improvement of

 29
mathematics education will require changes in the affective responses of both children

and adults” (McLeod, 1992, p. 575).

Teaching

Teaching is a system, which works “like a machine, with the parts operating

together and reinforcing one another, driving the vehicle forward” (Stigler & Hiebert,

1999, p. 75). Each country has a system that looks “similar from lesson to lesson”

(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 77). According to Stigler and Hiebert (1999) in the TIMSS

videotapes, the German teachers are “developing advanced procedures;” the Japanese

teachers are developing “structured problem solving,” and the United States teachers

have students “learning terms and practicing procedures” (p. 27).

“Although most U.S. teachers report trying to improve their teaching with current

reform recommendations in mind, the videos show little evidence that change is

occurring” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 12). “Over the past decade, numerous studies

have investigated teachers’ attempt to change their mathematics instruction in light of the

goals of reform. . . . in particular, the importance of providing opportunities for teachers

to learn about student thinking (Fennema et al., 1996)” (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, &

Sherin, 2004, pp. 81-82). “The evidence is beginning to accumulate to support the idea

that when a teacher has a conceptual understanding of mathematics, it influences

classroom instruction in a positive way” (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 151). The results

of a three-year research project, Reys, Reys, Tarr and Chavez (2006) investigation of “the

use of mathematics curriculum materials (textbooks) in the middle grades and their

impact on student learning,” showed that “teachers using the NSF supported mathematics
 30
curricula were most likely to use standards-based teaching” than those who used other

types of textbooks (p. 3).

Textbooks

Few facts stand undisputed in educational research, but [two such facts are] the

dependence of teachers on textbooks and of students on tests. . . . [E]specially in

mathematics, teachers teach only what is in the textbook and students learn only

what will be on the test. (National Research Council, 1989, p. 45)

“Robitalle and Travers (1992) argue, ‘Teachers decide what to teach, how to teach it, and

what sorts of exercises to assign to their students largely on the basis of what is contained

in the textbook authorized for their course’“ (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 5).

“Curriculum materials (e.g., textbooks) provide guidance and structure to teachers as

they enact the intended school mathematics curriculum” (Reys, Reys, Lapan, Holliday, &

Wasman, 2003, p. 75).

Selecting a mathematics textbook is important and has consequences for students’

achievement. It has been said, “U.S. mathematics textbooks cover more topics, but more

superficially, than their counterparts in other countries do” (National Research Council,

2001, p. 4). The National Science Foundation has funded “13 curriculum projects” to

produce materials for “elementary, middle, or high school that embodied the ideas

expressed in the standards documents (National Research Council, 2001, p. 34). The

middle school project found that about “half of the teachers” use the order of the textbook

to determine what is taught and when it is taught (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p.

9). “The other half of the teachers reported that their state or curriculum framework and

mandated assessments are strong influences on what mathematics is presented” (Reys,

 31
Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 9). Both groups of teachers cover about “60-70% of

the textbook lessons” (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 9).

“Changes can affect classrooms on a large scale, particularly if passage through

the steps can also be supported by reform-based curriculum materials (Ball & Cohen,

1996)” (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004, p. 82). “Riodan and Noyce (2001). . . .

indicated that students using Standards-based curriculum materials as their primary

textbook performed significantly better on the state-mandated mathematics assessment

than did students in schools using traditional textbooks” (Reys, Reys, Lapan, Holliday, &

Wasman, 2003, pp. 75-76).

Proficiency and Achievement by Students

We assume that “understanding is the goal of mathematics instruction” (Hiebert et

al., 1996, p. 15). Teaching is designed “specifically to facilitate students’ learning”

(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, para. 41). Teaching has the goal of “steady improvement in the

mathematics learning of students” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997, p. 6). “Research on teaching

has often been restricted . . . rather than examining continued interactions among the

teacher, the students, and the mathematical content.” (National Research Council, 2001,

p. 9)

Students in classrooms exposed to reform instruction of “Standards-Based

Learning Environment” have “outperformed students whose instruction emphasized

procedures and memorization” (McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari, &

Robyn, 2001, p. 495; Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 11; Schoen, Cebulla, Finn, &

Fi, 2003, p. 232). “The relationships between student achievement and teachers’ use of

instructional practices supported by the SI reforms tend to be positive but small,

 32
particularly in comparison with relationships between achievement and student

background characteristics such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity (Klein, Hamilton,

McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. 37).

With systemic reform, which “attempts to align” all parts: “curriculum,

instruction, assessment, teacher preparation, and state and local policies such as

graduation requirement” – the classroom changes are promoted and, ultimately, improve

student performance (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000,

p. 1; see also Cohen, 1995, p. 11). Success is measured by students’ achieving

proficiency on state-mandated tests. “He [Begle (1979)] found that there was little

correlation between the many teacher characteristics and variables identified and the

effectiveness of teaching mathematics as measured by higher pupil achievement”

(Nickson, 1992, p. 106). Higher achievement levels were found in classrooms with

teachers who knew their students, “what their backgrounds are, and what they know”

(National Research Council, 2001, p. 424; see also Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 156).

When teachers know their students, the teachers can intervene to reduce frustrations,

reduce some of the “hidden social messages” and convey positive student “expectations”

to help students become successful (McLeod, 1992, p. 590; Nickson, 1992, p. 110-111).

There is an association between high student achievement and the implementation of

Standards-based materials and reform instructional practices that support student learning

(Reys, Reys, Lapan, Holliday, & Wasman, 2003, p. 87; Riodan & Noyce, 2001, p. 392;

Schoen, Cebulla, Finn, & Fi, 2003, p. 229). Boaler (2006) found that “departmental

collaboration, heterogeneous grouping, grouping worthy problems, block scheduling, and

student responsibility” were “critical to the success of the students” (p. 369).
 33
Some national studies found increased student achievement “while others do

not” (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 110). Schoenfeld (2002) found these results from

large-scale implementation of curricula

(1) on “tests of basic skills,” there was “no significant performance differences

between students who learn from traditional or reform curricula,” and

(2) on conceptual and problem solving tests, “students who learn from reform

curricula consistently out-perform students who learn from traditional

curricula by a wide margin” (p. 16).

“Curriculum type (NSF-funded vs. publisher-developed) was ultimately not a significant

predictor of student achievement” (Reys, Reys, Tarr, & Chavez, 2006, p. 11).

“Two of the most powerful predictors of student achievement . . . have been

increased time on mathematics and the taking of advanced coursework” (Secada, 1992, p.

645). Students who “complete higher-level mathematics courses usually earn bachelor’s

degrees and, as a result, increase their earnings after college” (Franklin, 2006b, p. 12).

“Research has shown, for example, that an extra course in algebra or geometry can

increase a student’s earnings by 6.3 percent (Rose & Betts, 2001)” (Franklin, 2006b, p.

12). The more mathematics a person knows, as when students “take higher level”

mathematics classes, “the greater are his or her opportunities,” and this is an important

variable in accounting for differences in achievement among students from different

countries (Hawkins, Stancavage, & Dossey, 1998, pp. 62-63; see also Robitaille &

Travers, 1992, pp. 688-689).

 34
Professional Development

“Professional development and the promotion of good instructional practices are

critical to the success of the initiatives” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn &

Burroughs, 2000, p. 5) especially when “implementing Standards-based mathematics

curricula” (Reys, Reys, Lapan, Holliday, & Wasman, 2003, p. 80). Professional

development includes the support of changes by teachers and principals, time to learn

about the needed changes, and collaboration with colleagues. Collaboration allows

teachers to reflect on what is working and to share the wisdom of experience.

“Advancing awareness of the particular learning practices that are required to

make reform-oriented approaches accessible to all students” (Boaler, 2002, p. 254) is

important. In Japan the collaborative study, observation, and refinement of lessons and

curricula which take place in “lesson study” – are part of the teacher’s ongoing

responsibilities (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 110; see also Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 20). In the

United States, professional development is not as organized.

The principal must maintain a “long-term commitment” and “adequate resources”

to the process of “improving teaching” which is a “most critical part of the school’s

development” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991, pp. 2-3; Stigler &

Hiebert, 1999, p. 157). After returning from summer or intensive workshops, teachers

need critical support and “considerable” (Boaler, 2002, p. 244) understanding in

“realizing those possibilities in day-to-day instruction” (Schifter, 1996, para. 79).

Regularly scheduled time is “an essential requirement” for professional

development of teacher groups to “make measurable progress in their efforts to improve

lessons,” digest recommendations, and “develop their teaching proficiency” (National

 35
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991, pp. 2-3; National Research Council, 2001,

p. 12; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 162). Stigler and Hiebert (1999) call these sessions

“lesson study,” which is “the ideal context in which teachers develop deeper and broader

capabilities” (p. 152).

Understanding the changes required for reform to succeed “requires a focus on the

practices of teaching and learning” (Boaler, 2002, p. 244). Since change is difficult,

networking, collaborating, and sharing with the mathematics department is “critical to the

teachers’ morale and work” (Boaler, 2006, p. 369; Schifter, 1996, para. 84; Wainwright,

Morrell, Flick, & Schepige, 2004, p. 327). A pivotal part of change in improving

instruction is developing a “habit of reflecting” (Schifter, 1996, para. 93; Thompson,

1992, p. 139).

Instructional Summary

“Standards set the course, and assessments provide the benchmarks, but it is

teaching that must be improved to push us along the path to success” (Stigler & Hiebert,

1999, p. 2). To ensure sustained improvements in mathematics instruction, schools must

provide “a high-quality curriculum; a stable, knowledgeable, and professional teaching

community; high-quality assessment aligned with the curriculum” (Holloway, 2004, p.

84; Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 13).

“No state [policymakers] that we know of regularly collects and uses data” to see

if a program when implemented, is effective “in promoting student learning. If we wish

to make wise decisions, we need to know what is going on in typical classrooms” (Stigler

& Hiebert, 1999, p. 8).

 36
Assessment Changes

Due to the Standards movement, assessment issues are just as important as

curriculum and instructional issues. The NCLB Act has increased student and school

accountability.

Classroom Assessments

The NCTM standards “provide criteria for judging the quality of mathematics

assessments” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1995, p. 9). “Assessment is

the process of gathering evidence about a student’s knowledge of, ability to use, and

disposition toward, mathematics and of making inferences from that evidence for a

variety of purposes” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1995, p. 3).

Teachers, now, reflect on the inter-connections of curriculum, instruction and

assessment when planning, presenting, and assessing a day’s or unit’s lessons.

“Conceiving of assessment as a process that is integral to instruction implies approaches

to both assessment and instruction” (Webb, 1993, p. 2). “Because mathematical thinking

is complex and has many aspects, the assessment of this thinking requires the use of

different sources of information to ascertain students’ development in this thinking”

(Webb, 1993, p. 2). Over a period of time, teachers must measure the students’ range of

knowledge of mathematical content, the connections among the many ideas, and the

application of mathematics. This requires a variety of assessments. Teachers should be

aware that there is an “appropriateness of the form of assessment for the intended purpose

of the assessment” (Porter, 1995, para. 9).

 37
Any assessment “has five common features . . . . [which] provide a framework

for discussing . . . and for reflecting on the form of the assessment” (Webb, 1993, p. 3).

The features are

(1) the assessment situation, task, or question;

(2) the response,

(3) the interpretation of the student’s response by the teacher or student (if a self-

assessment),

(4) the assignment of some meaning to the response, and

(5) the reporting and recording of the results from the assessment (Webb, 1993,

pp. 3-4).

These features are interactive and the “distinctions between them is blurred” (National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1995, p. 4). “Assessment is reported as one of the

most complex and important tasks of teachers (Stiggins, Conklin, & Bridgeford, 1986)”

(Webb, 1992, p. 677; see also Stiggins, 2001, pp. 25-26).

Assessments embedded in the curriculum materials are “an integral part of

instruction,” and allow teachers to “optimize both quantity and quality of their

assessment and their instruction and thereby optimize the learning of students”

(Chambers, 1993, p. 25; Lederman & Burnstein, 2006, p. 431; Schoen, Cebulla, Finn, &

Fi, 2003, p. 233; Turley, 2006, p. 441). These assessments occur through the teacher’s

“observing and listening to students” during explorations, discussions and justifications

of methods, and solutions to the problem situations (Schoen, Cebulla, Finn, & Fi, 2003,

p. 233). Integrating assessment “is not easy and requires teachers to have training to use

assessment to inform their instructional decisions” (Webb, 1992, p. 678).

 38
Overall, there are two types of assessments – summative and formative. A

summative assessment, at the end of a course, should evaluate the majority of all the past

knowledge and skills learned. A formative assessment evaluates some or all the

knowledge, processes, and interconnections in a unit (Lederman & Burnstein, 2006, p.

431). The formative assessments could be very brief or could cover the entire unit,

depending on the purpose of the assessment.

Both of these assessments could use either a selected-response or a performance-

based assessment. Selected-response formats are multiple choice, matching, and true-

false questions. This format usually contains a single correct answer and assesses

knowledge and skills rather than critical thinking or real-world problem (McTighe &

Ferrara, 1994, p. 14; Porter, 1995, para. 18; Webb, 1992, p. 677). Performance-based

assessment refers to “assessment activities that directly assess students’ understanding”

(McTighe & Ferrara, 1994, p. 15) and proficiency, “performance skills, and product

development capabilities” (Stiggins, 2001, p. 183). These assessments include

constructed response forms, creating a product, performing, or understanding the

cognitive processes used by the students (McTighe & Ferrara, 1994, p. 13; Stiggins,

2001, p. 185). “Performance-base assessment, portfolios, student-designed assessments,

etc., are . . . more reflective of new curricular goals and methods of instruction” (Porter,

1995, para. 4).

Stiggins (1988) stated that “teachers may spend as much as 20 to 30% of their

professional time directly involved in assessment-related activities” (Webb, 1992, p.

676). “Little up-to-date information is available on how U.S. teachers conduct internal

assessments in mathematics, particularly those activities such as classroom questioning,

 39
quizzes, projects, and informal observations” in the classroom (National Research

Council, 2001, p. 40; see also Webb, 1992, p. 677).

What “teachers teach” and prepare students for is greatly influenced by the

content of the “large-scale” assessments especially for “the high-profile NCLB-mandated

exams” (Lederman & Burnstein, 2006, p. 430; Toch, 2006, p. 5; Webb, 1992, p. 678).

“Students are taking many more tests as a result of NCLB” (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p.

111; see also Toch, 2006, p. 5).

Using reform curricula and appropriate assessments; asking “thoughtful,

reflective questions” with enough wait time for students to respond; giving specific and

informative feedback on homework or activities which helps the learning of students

“especially low-achieving students, including students with learning disabilities,” and

“Whites and underrepresented minorities;” help narrow the students’ achievement gap

(Black & Wiliam, 1998 para. 16, 18, 45; Boston, 2002, para. 8, 12; Schoenfeld, 2002, p.

16). Bracey (2006) states “NCLB has not helped the nation and states significantly

narrow the achievement gap. . . .” (p. 153) while Jennings and Rentner (2006) state that

the achievement gaps on the NCLB tests are “generally narrowing or staying the same”

(p. 110). Each state gets to determine its own criteria for the barrier of achievement. By

having the NCLB barriers in place, some students are jumping over the barrier, but “they

don’t tell you how high the successful jumpers jumped. Worst, they can mask a

widening achievement gap” (Bracey, 2006, p. 159). These comments reflect some

concerns with the implementation of NCLB.

 40
Adequate Yearly Progress

“The NCLB mandates for AYP (adequate yearly progress) and public reporting of

results put enormous pressure on students, teachers, principals, and superintendents to

raise test scores” (Lederman & Burnstein, 2006, p. 430). “NCLB poses the greatest

challenge for those schools with many subgroups, because failure of a single subgroup to

meet proficiency requirements can cause the entire school to be identified for

improvement” (Sunderman, 2006, p. 121). “An even greater problem is that the states

that are maintaining higher demands on students, such as South Carolina and Wyoming,

have created problems for their schools” in making AYP (Lewis, 2006, p. 339).

Challenges have occurred at the researcher’s school and the pressure to make AYP has

been a constant for several years.

School districts and schools that fail to make AYP towards state proficiency goals

will be subjected to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring to meet state

standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP or close achievement gaps will be eligible

for State Academic Achievement Awards.

To make AYP, a school must demonstrate that it has met the State’s target for

proficiency in reading/language arts and mathematics for the school as a whole

and for each of its subgroups of students, ensure that at least 95 percent of all

students and each subgroup of participated in the State’s . . . assessments, and that

the school has met the State’s target for an additional academic indicator. At the

high school level, this additional academic indicator must be the graduation rate

(NCLB Annual Report, 2005, pp. 10-11).

 41
If a school does not meet the State’s definition for AYP for “two or more consecutive

years”, the school is then given three years of interventions labeled “school

improvement,” “corrective action,” and “restructuring” (NCLB Annual Report, 2005, p.

10).

Schools identified as needing “improvement” under NCLB “enroll a

disproportionately larger percentage of minority, low-income, and limited-English-

proficient students, on average, than schools making AYP,” because each subgroup must

reach a target score (Sunderman, 2006, p. 120). In schools that have not made AYP for

two years, there is “greater alignment of curriculum and instruction with standards and

assessments,” more use of test data in decisions on “instruction” and “professional

development for teachers, and the provision of more intensive instruction to low-

achieving students” (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 111). “Programs that focused on

individual student remediation but were not coordinated with the regular classroom

curriculum were less successful” (Sunderman, 2006, p. 122).

With the adoption of NCLB, several negative trends are that high-stakes testing

has not reduced “achievement gaps among students of different ethnicity;” and the AYP

model used in NCLB “may not identify schools that are doing a good job of helping low

performing students grow” (Cronin, Kingsbury, McCall, & Bowe, 2005, p. 11). Positive

trends have also emerged. State-level tests tended to “improve observed achievement”

and “improved student achievement” (Cronin, Kingsbury, McCall, & Bowe, 2005, p. 60).
 42
Assessment Summary

If the “magnitude” in the achievement gap continues, “it won’t bring schools

close to the requirement of 100% proficiency by 2014” and students in ethnic groups may

“grow less than comparable European-American students” (Cronin, Kingsbury, McCall,

& Bowe, 2005, p. 60).

Summary

The reforms of curriculum, instruction, and assessment suggested by the

Standards movement can make a measurable difference in student achievement. These

and other listed concerns need to be addressed in the reauthorization of NCLB for the

goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 to be possible. If the reforms are implemented fully,

then the schools could achieve the goal of NCLB of 100% proficiency.
 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Background

Wyoming, with a “population density of 5.2” per square mile, is the least-

populated state in the United States and “ranks 10th in total area of 97,814” square miles

(World Almanac and Book of Facts 2006, 2006, p. 451). Even though the state is rural,

the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires that by 2014, 100% of the

Wyoming students will be proficient on the state standards as measured by a statewide

assessment system (No Child Left Behind Act 2001, 2002). “To be effective, these

reforms must ultimately be adopted by teachers and must take hold in the classroom

(Tyack and Cuban, 1995)” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs,

2000, p. 3). Since the Wyoming school districts and teachers reside in this rural

environment, the sharing of information on how schools are achieving proficiency in

Wyoming is vital in order for this national goal to be achieved. The purpose of this

research study was to provide key findings to consider for the 48 Wyoming school

districts and for the nearly 300 high school mathematics teachers when trying to improve

the teaching of and student learning of mathematics at the high school level.

Population

Every Wyoming 11th grade public school student is required to take PAWS,

Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students, according to the Wyoming Education

Code. The students’ performance on PAWS and the schools’ progress on the indicators of

AYP, adequate yearly progress, affect every teacher in grades 9-12 (Title 21, 2006,

article 3, #21-2-304, (a) (iii)). The target population was the group of Wyoming high

school (grades 9-12) mathematics teachers who teach at a school that has an 11th grade
 44
Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students, PAWS, score for 2006 in

mathematics. AYP, adequate yearly progress, accountability data was gleaned from the

Wyoming Department of Education website. There were 83 high schools in 48 school

districts identified. The teachers’ responses were stratified into two groups, based on the

schools’ AYP mathematics results. One group that made AYP in 2006 was comprised of

57 schools with 250 teachers. The second group that did not make AYP in 2006 had 8

schools with 87 teachers (Wyoming Department of Education, 2006, 2005-2006 AYP

Results). For ease of tracking, the names of the groups were “making AYP” and “not

making AYP,” respectively. The survey was sent to all high school mathematics teachers

in the state of Wyoming.

Wyoming’s AYP is based on several indicators. The first indicator includes the

test participation rate and the number of students scoring “proficient” and “above

proficient” for language arts. The second indicator is the test participation rate and

students scoring “proficient” or “above proficient” for mathematics. The third indicator

for Wyoming is the school’s graduation rate. If any one of these indicators is not met,

then the school has not met AYP. For this study, only the indicators for mathematics

were used to determine making or not making AYP.

Besides the participation rate and proficiency level of students, each school must

disaggregate the data into nine subgroups. If any of the nine subgroups in a school fail to

meet the stated AYP participation rate or the percent needed as proficient and advanced

for that school year, then the school does not make AYP. The nine subgroups in

Wyoming include “all students,” “free/reduced lunch,” “Native American,” “Hispanic,”

 45
“Asian,” “African American,” “White,” “Individual Education Plan (IEP),” and

“Limited English Proficiency (LEP)” (US Department of Education, 2005, p. 21).

The teachers were also stratified into three groups based on the target class

chosen. If the target class covered curriculum below Algebra 1 topics, then this teacher

was assigned to level one, a lower level. If the curriculum for the target was accelerated

from the normal progression as deemed by the teacher, then the teacher was assigned to

level three, an honors level. The remaining teachers were assigned to level two, a regular

level.

Sampling Techniques

Surveys have been used in education to gather information about the schools since

1817 (Creswell, 2005, p. 354). This self-reporting survey focused on the performance of

high school students and their high school classroom experiences as viewed through the

eyes of high school mathematics teachers. In order to include as many educators as

possible, a mail survey was designed.

A questionnaire is “a cost-effective and efficient technique for collecting large

amounts of data from many respondents, but its limitations are well known” (Robitaille &

Travers, 1992, p. 708). Biased answers and the number of non-responses are some

limitations that must be taken into account. Another limitation is the validity of the

responses. For example, do the frequencies and types of activities that the teacher reports

on the survey really reflect what is happening in the classroom (Robitaille & Travers,

1992, p. 708)? Observing the frequency and type of instruction students receive over the

course is a limitation of this research project. The teacher’s busy schedule and lack of

time to respond may contribute to a low response rate (Chval, Reyes, Reys, Tarr, &
 46
Chavez, 2006, p. 161). The timing of the mailing of the sample was critical. If the

survey was sent near a major vacation or at the end of a semester, then the response rate

would have decreased. From the beginning of January to the end of March, no state

testing for 11th graders taking the PAWS during the 2006-2007 school year was given.

During this time frame, most schools were in the early to middle part of the third quarter

of the school year. Each teacher’s workload should have been as ‘normal’ as possible.

The month of February was chosen to send the survey.

Further support of a mail survey to Wyoming teachers came from an on-line

study. The University of Wyoming Professor, Dr. Alan Moore, conducted an on-line

survey through the University of Wyoming’s Department of Educational Leadership with

support from the Wyoming Department of Education. This study - “Instructionally

Supportive Assessment: The implementation and effects of the new state assessment

system in Wyoming” - based on 16 randomly selected districts, had a low response rate

from teachers (no percentage was given). Dr. Moore’s survey letter was dated February

16, 2006. The superintendents and district curriculum coordinators had the highest

response rate; then the building administrators; and finally the teachers (Moore, A. D.,

personal communications, July 14, 2006).

In February 2007, this research study’s design had three components: (1) a

measure of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices, and (2) the relationship

between these teachers’ practices and the different content level of the target class, and

(3) the relationship between these teachers’ practices and the schools’ making AYP

(Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. xi). The questions

on the survey were slightly modified from the teacher questionnaires written by Horizon
 47
Research, Incorporated. Horizon Research, Incorporated was the subcontractor for

several National Science Foundation grants that dealt with curriculum, instructional and

assessment issues, and teacher preparation across the country (Chval, Grouws, Smith,

Weiss, & Ziebarth, 2006, p. 1-2; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn &

Burroughs, 2000, p. xi-xii; Horizon Research, 2000). “Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI),

under a subcontract from RAND, had primary responsibility for designing and validating

this questionnaire” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p.

xii). Permission to use teacher questionnaire questions from various National Science

Foundation contracts was received from Iris Weiss of Horizon Research, Inc.; Brian

Stecher of RAND, and Barbara Reys of University of Missouri on October 11-12, 2006.

Pilot Survey

A pilot survey was given to five mathematics teachers from three public schools

in Casper, Wyoming, during the week of October 11-18, 2006. The first teacher was a

retired high school mathematics teacher. The second was currently working as a junior

high school mathematics instructor. The third and fourth pilot survey participants were

former junior high mathematics teachers who have switched from teaching mathematics.

One was teaching computer applications and the other was the school’s mathematics

instructional facilitator. A fifth teacher, who holds an endorsement for middle-school

mathematics, was currently teaching 6th grade mathematics. These participants suggested

a few minor modifications in wording and the elimination of a repeated question. The

suggestions were incorporated into the final questionnaire sent to the Institutional Board

Review Panel in early November 2006. See Appendix A for approvals.

 48
Permissions for Surveying Teachers

After the Institutional Board Review approved the project, permission from the

superintendents was needed. See Appendix A for the approvals. The names of the high

school mathematics teachers were acquired and they were sent the surveys by February 5,

2007.

Forty-six of the 48 superintendents were sent a letter requesting permission for the

high school mathematics teachers to be surveyed. (The two school districts not contacted

have no high schools.) The superintendents’ permission was forwarded to the

Institutional Board Review in Lincoln, Nebraska. Forty-four of the 46 superintendents

gave permission to conduct a research study with their high school mathematics teachers.

Two of the smaller school districts did not give permission to send the surveys. See

Appendix B for a copy of the letter, the permission letter, and a list of participating

school districts. Immediately upon providing permission, the principals of all the high

schools in each district were sent a letter requesting the names and email addresses for

their 9-12 grade mathematics teachers. Telephone calls were made to principals to elicit

this information when not provided by the requested deadlines. See Appendix C for the

principal letter and name request. There were 295 teachers in 75 schools that were

contacted by mail. See Appendix D for a copy of the teacher’s letter, the teacher’s

instructions, and the questionnaire. The teacher questionnaire had 32 questions requiring

about 30 minutes to complete.

The teachers received the questionnaire at their school addresses during the first

full week of February. Teachers had three to four weeks to complete the questionnaire,

and return it in self-addressed stamped envelope. The teachers were assigned a tracking
 49
number when follow-up was needed to get completed surveys returned. The tracking

number helped the researcher note the questionnaires not returned. A week before the

deadline, an email to the school address was sent to those teachers who have not returned

the survey. See Appendix E for the email reminder.

Through a random drawing, participating teachers were given the chance to win

one of three VISA Gift cards as incentive to return the completed surveys by the stated

deadline. The deadline for entry was one month following the surveys’ arrival at each

school. Once the teachers completed and returned their surveys before the deadline, the

bottom portion of the last page with the teachers’ names and telephone numbers was

separated from the surveys. The tracking numbers were eliminated and the separated slips

were placed in a random drawing. This process was followed to ensure response

anonymity of the teachers, schools, and school districts. The drawing took place several

days after the deadline to allow any remaining mail to be received. The first name drawn

received a $100 VISA Gift card; the second receive a $75 card, and the third received a

$50 card.

The names of the schools, teachers, and tracking numbers were kept in a secure

data file. The responses were separated into the two groups based the school making or

not making AYP. The responses were also separated into the three levels based on the

target class taught. Schools making AYP were designated with a 1 and schools not

making AYP with a 0. The level of the target class taught had a designation of 1 for

content below Algebra 1 topics; a 2 for content of Algebra 1 and above; and a 3 for the

content the teacher deemed as honors or accelerated to the normal progression.

 50
Questionnaire

The questions on the questionnaire probed curriculum, instructional, and

assessment issues that teachers dealt with throughout the school year. Systemic reform

“attempts to align all parts of the educational system – curriculum, instruction,

assessment, teacher preparation, and state and local policies such as graduation

requirements – to promote change in the classroom and, ultimately, improve student

performance” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. 1).

The Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum conducted a cross-site study for

three school districts and are using the results in the same manner as proposed in this

study (Chval, Grouws, Smith, Weiss, & Ziebarth, 2006, p. 2).

Time constraints required that the data be limited in scope for analysis. The

curriculum issues were addressed in questions 1, 2, 4, and 21.

• 1 - the use of state standards in lesson planning

• 2 - using PAWS results

• 4 - collaborating with colleagues

• 21 - using the textbook from the target class in planning lessons.

More schools have aligned the “curriculum and instruction with standards and

assessments, [and making] more use of test data to modify instruction” (Jennings &

Rentner, 2006 p. 111). The statistics used for analysis on each question was a single

average. All of the subparts for each question, which used a Likert scale, were combined

to create the single value. The more frequent the use of the topic, the higher the scale

value given. If there was no response, then a value was not included in the average for

the question. Analysis was done by combining the separate subparts of each question
 51
into a single average. For example, if a teacher’s response for question 1 – state

standards - was “Often” for 1a – a scaled value of 4 was assigned; “Rarely” for 1b – a

scaled value of 2 was assigned; and “Sometimes” for 1c – a scaled value of 3 was

assigned; then the single average for the teacher on question 1 – state standards - was a 3.

This value was calculated from (4 + 2 + 3) / 3 equaling 9 / 3 which gave question 1 a

value of 3.

Each curriculum question was averaged to a single value. Each question on

curriculum for all three levels of courses taught was averaged. Finally, each question on

curriculum for the two groups of schools “making AYP” or “not making AYP” was

averaged. If the curriculum did not affect the course the teachers were teaching or did

not affect the schools’ making AYP, then the levels and groups should have had the same

average as well as a small effect size and no significant difference between the levels of

courses and groups of schools.

The instruction issues were the questions number 2, 4, 5 through 7, 14, 22 and 23.

• 2 - using PAWS results in planning

• 4 - collaborating with colleagues

• 5 - teacher readiness to teach a variety of mathematical content

• 6 - teaching the NCTM Curriculum Standards

• 7 - participating in a variety of professional development opportunities

• 22 - which was split into three variables,

• instructional strategies used in the classroom (subpart a, b, c, d, f, j, o, and q)

• creating a student centered learning environment (subpart e, g, h, i, k, m, and n)

• teacher management issues classroom (subpart l, p, r, and s)

 52
• 23 - amount of instructional time spent on mathematics instruction in the target

class

The specific background knowledge about the NCTM content and process

standards for grades 9-12 was asked in questions 5 and 6 (NCTM, 2000, pp. 287-364).

The teachers’ instructional strategies or methods are “influenced significantly by their

knowledge and beliefs” (Koehler & Grouws, 1992, p. 118; Thompson, 1992, p. 128).

Professional development is paramount and a major requirement of NCLB, especially for

schools not making AYP (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 111). Question 7 - professional

development opportunities - range from content knowledge, instructional strategies,

assessment strategies, collaboration times and methods of collaboration, professional

meetings, and national board certification. School schedules rarely allow regular

collaborate time for teachers to discuss curriculum, instruction, and assessment issues. If

the teachers do want to collaborate regularly, the time is scheduled before or after normal

school hours. “Professional development and the promotion of good instructional

practices are critical to the success of the initiatives” (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey,

Stecher, Robyn & Burroughs, 2000, p. 5). Each question for the teachers’ responses on

instruction was averaged together to a single value. Each instruction question for all the

three levels of courses taught was averaged. Finally each instruction question for the two

groups for schools making AYP or not making AYP were averaged. If the instruction did

not affect the course the teachers were teaching or does not affect the schools’ making

AYP, then the levels and groups should have had the same average as well as a small

effect size and no significant difference between the levels of courses and groups of

schools.
 53
Jennings and Rentner (2006) found that “students are taking a lot more tests”

(p. 111). Classroom assessments are addressed in questions 3, 4, and 24.

ƒ 3- was related to instructional time devoted to test preparation whether the test was a

district, state, or national mandated test.

ƒ 4 - collaborating with colleagues on creating and scoring assessments

ƒ 24 - the type of classroom assessments given to students.

Each question for all the teachers’ responses on assessment was averaged together to a

single value. Each assessment question for all the three levels of courses taught was

averaged. Finally, each assessment question for the two groups for schools “making

AYP” or “not AYP” was averaged. If the assessment used did not affect the course the

teachers were teaching or did not affect the schools’ making AYP, then the levels and

groups should have had the same average as well as a small effect size and no significant

difference between the levels of courses and groups of schools.

The remaining questions of 8 through 21 and 25 through 31 were demographics

about the teacher or the school. The topics covered the number of classes taught and the

target class information relating to classroom time and textbook used. Questions also

focused on the students in the target class and the school configuration. Finally,

information on the years of experience of the teacher at the school and in the school

district and the highest degree achieved by the teacher was gathered. Information about

the target class placed the teacher’s responses in the appropriate course level for analysis.

Information about the school placed the teacher’s responses in the appropriate “making

AYP” group for analysis.

 54
The questionnaire contained possible responses from both four- and five-point

Likert scales.

• Question 1 – using standards

• Question 2 - using PAWS results

• Question 4 – teacher collaboration

• Question 21 – textbook driven

• Question 22 – instructional strategies

• Question 22 - student centered learning

• Question 22 - teacher management

• Question 24 – assessment all used the same five-point Likert scale responses.

The scaled responses were 1 for “Never”; 2 for “Rarely”; 3 for “Sometimes”; 4 for

“Often”; and 5 for “Always.”

ƒ Question 3- time preparation for testing, used the scaled numbers of 1 for “Does Not

Apply,” 2 for “Decreased,” 3 for “Remained the Same,” and 4 for “Increased.”

ƒ Questions 5 - teacher readiness and

ƒ Question 6 – teaching NCTM Standards used the scaled responses of 1 for “Not

Adequately Prepared,” 2 for “Somewhat Prepared,” 3 for “Fairly Well Prepared,”

and 4 for “Very Well Prepared.”

ƒ Question 7 - teacher professional development the scaled responses were 0 for “Does

Not Apply,” 1 for “Not Interested,” 2 for “Somewhat Interested,” and 3 for “Very

Interested.”

ƒ Question 23 – The scaled responses for instructional time were 1 for “0-15%,” 2 for

“16-30%,” 3 for “31-45%,” 4 for “46-60%,” 5 for “61-75%,” 6 for “76-100%.”

 55
Research Questions

The questionnaire was designed to answer the questions, “Does the course level

taught by the mathematics teacher affect the practices in curriculum, instruction, and

assessment?” and “Are mathematics teachers’ practices in curriculum, instruction, and

assessment related to their schools of making adequate yearly progress, AYP?” AYP is

the accountability measure in the NCLB Act used to determine if the school is achieving

proficiency on the state standards. The course level deals with the mathematical content

for a targeted class. The teachers’ responses were stratified into three levels based on the

target class chosen. If the target class covered curriculum below Algebra 1 topics, then

this teacher was assigned to level one, a lower level. If the curriculum for the target was

accelerated from the normal progression as deemed by the teacher, then the teacher was

assigned to level three, an honors level. The remaining teachers were assigned to level

two, a regular level.

These questions led to the following research questions:

1. What is the relationship between a school’s chosen mathematics curriculum and

the school’s making AYP, adequate yearly progress, in Grade 11 mathematics as

measured by PAWS, Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students?

2. What is the relationship between the type of mathematics instruction given and

the school’s making AYP in Grade 11 mathematics as measured by PAWS?

3. What is the relationship between the type of classroom assessments given and the

school’s making AYP in Grade 11 mathematics as measured by PAWS?

4. How did the responses compare on mathematics curriculum questions from the

teachers of the three levels of mathematics courses?

 56
5. How did the responses compare on mathematical instructional questions from

the teachers of the three levels of mathematics courses?

6. How did the responses compare on mathematical assessment questions from the

teachers of the three levels of mathematics courses?

Data Analysis

The variables were the questions on the curriculum, instruction, and assessment

issues. There were 13 different questions analyzed.

The first step was to place all of the teachers’ responses together to figure the

mean and standard deviation of the entire population of Wyoming high school

mathematics teachers.

The second step was to sort the teachers’ responses by level of the target class

chosen. The mean and standard deviations were calculated for each of the three levels.

An effect size was figured for each of the three possible groupings between the lower

level course and the regular level; between the lower level and between the honors level;

and the regular level and honors level. An ANOVA test of independent groups was

calculated at the 0.05 significance level in order to determine any relationship between

the curriculum, instruction, and assessment questions among the three levels of

mathematical courses.

The third step was to sort the teachers’ responses by the school’s performance on

the 2006 statewide test by making AYP or not making AYP. The mean and standard

deviations were calculated for each of the two groups. An effect size was figured for

each of the two possible groupings between making AYP and not making AYP. A

significance t-test of independent groups was also done at the 0.05 significance level to
 57
determine any relationship between the curriculum, instruction, and assessment

questions between these two groups of schools.

 58
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Response Rate

By the end of the 2006-2007 school year, 164 questionnaires out of the 295

surveys were completed and returned. This was a 55.78% return response rate. One of

the 295 teachers contacted me stating that she was a music teacher. She was eliminated

from the original list of mathematics teachers to be analyzed. The three randomly

selected teachers who received a VISA Gift card due to returning their questionnaire by

the deadline were teachers from Horizon High School in Evanston, Jackson Hole High

School in Jackson, and Saratoga High School in Saratoga. Of the 75 schools contacted

67 schools had a teacher respond. This included seven of the eight Wyoming schools that

did not make AYP and 60 Wyoming schools that did make AYP for the 2006-2007

school year based on the 2006 statewide testing.

Reliability

The coefficient of reliability on the questionnaire was done using Cronbach’s

Alpha. This alpha number can range from 0 to 1 with higher numbers meaning that the

teachers’ responses are more consistent in measuring the same content (SPSS FAQ, para.

5). The reliability on the 13 variables was 0.896 using SPSS. See Appendix F for the

statistics.

Validity

Validity in research studies can be categorized in a variety of ways. William M.

K. Tochim, professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell

University, has described two types of “translation validity” and four types of “criterion-

related validity” (Trochim, 2006, para. 4). The translation validities “focus on whether
 59
the operationalization is a good reflect of the construct” (Trochim, 2006, para. 4). The

translation validities are:

• Face validity – “subjective judgment” (para. 6) based on the researcher’s opinion

• Content validity – “checklist” based on relevant “criteria” (para. 7)

The four criterion-related validities will “usually make a prediction about how the

operationalization will perform based on . . . . the criteria they use as the standard for

judgment” (Trochim, 2006, para. 8). The criterion-related validities are:

• Predictive validity – researcher predicts outcome based on interactions of

variables

• Concurrent validity – researcher is able to “distinguish between groups” (para. 10)

based on measure instrument

• Convergent validity – researcher bases outcome on how well an instrument

correlates with outcome from a similar study

• Discriminant validity - researcher bases outcome on how well an instrument

correlates with outcome from contrasting study

This research study shows evidence of convergent validity. The study compares how

similar the overall teachers’ means are to the three levels of mathematics courses taught

(1, 2, or 3), and how similar the overall teachers’ means are to the two AYP school

determination (making or not making).

Variables Analyzed

Time constraints required that the data be limited in scope for analysis. Analysis

was done by combining the separate subparts of each question into a single average.
 60
From the 32-question survey, 11 questions were analyzed. Since one question’s

subparts dealt with three issues, the responses were split into separate parts. This gave a

total of 13 independent variables. The dependent variable was the combined average of

the teacher’s responses.

The other questions related to demographics and information about the targeted

class are not reported in this dissertation. The variables are listed next to the question

number on the questionnaire. A short descriptive name about the question is also

provided.

All Teachers

The descriptive statistics for all the teachers’ responses and three levels of

mathematics courses are given in Table 4.1. The number respondents, the mean, and

standard deviation for all are also included in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics for Scaled Responses for Level Courses
Question Total Sample For Level 1 For Level 2 For Level 3
Num Name n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD
1 Use Standards 163 3.54 .94 29 3.54 .93 109 3.50 .97 25 3.69 .82
2 PAWS Results 163 2.34 1.07 29 2.37 1.24 108 2.36 1.04 26 2.21 1.04
3 Time Prep Test 163 2.99 .79 29 2.64 .94 108 3.00 .73 26 3.35 .75
4 Tchr Collab 164 2.93 .93 29 2.80 .84 109 2.89 .95 26 3.22 .90
5 Tchr Readiness 164 3.31 .48 29 3.08 .56 109 3.33 .45 26 3.48 .41
6 Tch NCTM Stds 164 3.32 .54 29 3.35 .49 109 3.26 .57 26 3.51 .45
7 Profess Develop 164 2.34 .38 29 2.27 .40 109 2.34 .38 26 2.40 .33
21 Textbk Driven 161 3.51 .40 27 3.47 .39 109 3.51 .41 25 3.56 .34
22 Instr Strategies 164 3.52 .36 29 3.57 .35 109 3.46 .34 26 3.69 .43
22 Std Ctrd Learn 164 3.62 .54 29 3.51 .52 109 3.61 .54 26 3.78 .53
22 Tch Mangmt 164 3.47 .46 29 3.44 .37 109 3.44 .46 26 3.64 .54
23 Instr Time 164 2.19 .56 29 2.16 .53 109 2.18 .53 26 2.27 .70
 61
24 Assessmt Used 164 2.43 .52 29 2.50 .57 109 2.42 .50 26 2.39 .53
For all the questions, the range of values of the means spanned 3.62 to 2.19. The

value of 3.62 meant the teacher chose “Sometimes” (scale of 3) to “Often” (scale of 4).

The value of 2.19 meant the teacher chose “16-30%” (scale of 2) to “31-45%” (scale of

3). The range of the standard deviations for the 13 questions spanned 1.07 to 0.36. The

majority of standard deviations are smaller than the ‘standard normal’ distribution

indicating that there is little variation in responses among the teachers. The top five

means in numerical order are:

• 22 - student centered learning (3.62);

• 1 - using standards (3.54);
• 22 - instructional strategies (3.52);
• 21 - textbook driven (3.51); and
• 22 - teacher management (3.47).
These topics reflected that the top issues that concerned teachers were instructional and

curriculum issues. See Figure 4.1 for the ordered bar graph with all the topics.

Scaled Means for All Questions by All Teach

February 2007

4 3.62 3.54 3.52 3.51 3.47

3.5 3.32 3.31
2.99 2.93
3
2.43 2.34 2.34
2.5 2.19
2 All Tchs
1.5

0.5

0
t
s

n
t
en

ds

ts

e
d
n

s
s

en
en

es

ti n

tio
ie
rd

im
se
ar

ul
ar
iv
eg

m
m

in
da
Le

U
ra
s

es

lT
r

nd

Te
D

op
e
at

bo

t
an

R
a
ag

na
er

en
ta
k

Re
tr

el
r

S
lla
St

oo
nt

an

fo
S

tio
lS

sm

ev
W
Co
Ce

r
tb

M
M
ng

ep

uc
PA
he

D
na

es
CT
ex

tr
si

Pr

of
nt

ac
ti o

ss
he

he

g
N
-T
U

ns
Pr
in
de

Te

-A
e
uc
1-

ac
21

ng

-I
m

s
ea
tu

r
5-

24

U
tr

Te

23
he
Ti
hi
-T

2-
-S

ns

3-
ac

4-

ac
22
22

-I

Te

Te
22

6-

7-

Question Number and Description Na

Figure 4.1. This is an ordered bar graph of the mean of 13 questions for all teachers on
the scaled averages for each question from the Wyoming High School Mathematics
 62
Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007. n = 164 (9 questions); n = 163 (3
questions); n = 161 (1 question).
Course Level 1

For the course level 1 questions, the range of values of the means spanned 3.57 to

2.16. The range of the standard deviations for level 1 was from 1.24 to 0.35. The value

of 3.57 for question 22 - instructional strategies meant the teacher chose “Sometimes”

(scale of 3) to “Often” (scale of 4). The value of 2.16 for question 23 - instructional time

meant the teacher chose “16-30%” (scale of 2) to “31-45%” (scale of 3). The top five

means for level 1 were:

• question 22 - instructional strategies (3.57);

• question 1 - using standards (3.54);
• question 22 - student centered learning (3.51);
• question 21 - textbook driven (3.47); and
• question 22 - teacher management (3.44).
These topics reflected that the top issues of concern to teachers were instructional and

curriculum issues. See Figure 4.2 for the ordered bar graph with all the questions.

Scaled Means for All Questions by Level 1 Teachers

February 2007

4.00
3.57 3.54 3.51 3.47
3.44 3.35
3.50
3.08
3.00 2.80
2.64
2.50
2.37 2.27
2.50 2.16
2.00 Level 1 Tchs
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
t
n
t

ng
n

ds

lts

e
ed
rn
s

ds

en
en

es

tio
ve
ie

im
r
a

su
r

s
st
eg

da

m
em

in
da

i
Le

U
ra

lT
r

Te

Re
D

ad

op
at

an

bo

t
an

ag

na
er

en
ok

Re
tr

el
r
St

S
lla
St

nt

an

fo

tio
lS

ev
W
bo

Co
Ce

r
M

s
M
ng

ep

uc
PA
he

D
na

es
CT
ex

er

tr
si

Pr
r

of
t

ac
io

ss
he

ng
en

N
-T
U

ns
ch

Pr
ct

Te

-A
e
1-

ac
d

si
ng
21

-I
m
ru

ea
tu

r
5-

24

U
Te

23
he
Ti
hi
st

2-
-T
-S

3-
ac
n

4-

ac
22
22
-I

Te

Te
22

6-

7-

Question Number and Description Name

Figure 4.2. This is an ordered bar graph of the mean of 13 questions for the teachers
 63
teaching a level 1 course on the scaled averages for each question from the Wyoming
High School Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007. n = 29 (12
questions); n = 27 (1 question).

Course Level 2

For the course level 2 questions, the range of values of the means spanned 3.61 to

2.18. The range of the standard deviations for level 2 was from 1.04 to 0.34. The top

five means for level 2 were:

• question 22 - student centered learning (3.61);

• question 21 - textbook driven (3.51);
• question 1 - using standards (3.50);
• question 22 - instructional strategies (3.46); and
• question 22 - teacher management (3.44).
The value of 3.61 for question 22 - student centered learning meant the teacher chose

“Sometimes” (scale of 3) to “Often” (scale of 4). The value of 2.18 for question 23 -

instructional time meant the teacher chose “16-30%” (scale of 2) to “31-45%” (scale of

3). See Figure 4.3 for the ordered bar graph with all the questions.

Scaled Means for All Questions by Level 2 Teachers

February 2007

4.00 3.61 3.51 3.50 3.46

3.44 3.33
3.50 3.26
3.00 2.89
3.00
2.42 2.36 2.34
2.50 2.18
2.00 Level 2 Tchs
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
an ss

n
t

t
en

op s
s

ed

e
at s
n

en

en
rd

lt
io
tin
ie
d

im
ar

ne
iv

su
ar

s
at
eg

da
em

m
Le

U
es

lT
r

di
nd

Re
r
D

bo

t
T
CT e a
ag

na
er

en
tio S t a
k

tr

el
r
St

S
la
oo

R
nt

an

fo

tio
lS

sm

ev
W
ol
ng her
Ce

M
tb

ep

PA

uc
na

D
C

es
n
ex

er
i

tr
r
Pr

of
ac
nt

ns Us

ss
he

ac ing
N
-T

ns
ch

Pr
e

Te

-A
e
uc
1-

ac
ud

21

-I
s
m
ea

r
5-

24

7- 2-U
tr

Te

23
he
t

Ti
hi
-T
-S

3-
ac

4-
22
22

-I

Te

Te
22

6-

Question Number and Description Name

Figure 4.3. This is an ordered bar graph of the mean of 13 questions for the teachers
teaching a level 2 course on the scaled averages for each question from the Wyoming
 64
High School Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007. n = 109
(11 questions); n = 108 (2 questions).

Course Level 3

For the course level 3 questions, the range of values of the means spanned 3.78 to

2.21. The range of the standard deviations for level 3 were 1.04 to 0.33. The top five

means for level 3 were:

• question 22 - student centered learning (3.78);

• question 1 - using standards (3.69);
• question 22 - instructional strategies (3.69);
• question 22 - teacher management (3.64); and
• question 21 - textbook driven (3.56).
The value of 3.78 for question 22 - student centered learning meant the teacher chose

“Sometimes” (scale of 3) to “Often” (scale of 4). The value of 2.21 for question 2 - using

PAWS results meant the teacher chose “Decreased” (scale of 2) to “Remaining the

Same” (scale of 3). See Figure 4.4 for the ordered bar graph with all the questions.

Scaled Means for All Questions by Level 3 Teachers

February 2007

4.00 3.78 3.69 3.69 3.64 3.56 3.51 3.48

3.50 3.35
3.22
3.00
2.40 2.39
2.50 2.27 2.21
2.00 Level 3 Tchs
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
t

en

ss

t
s

n
g

lts
es
n

e
en

en
rd

tio
tin
rd

im
se
ar

ne
riv
gi

su
da
em

m
da
Le

U
ra
s

lT
te

Te

Re
D

ad

op
an

bo
an

t
ra

ag

na
r

en
k

Re
te

el
St

S
lla
St
St

oo
an

fo

io
sm
ev
en

W
Co
r

ct
tb

M
al

M
ng

PA
he

D
C

es
CT

u
re
ex
on

er
si

tr
r

of
nt

ac

ss
he
P

ng
N
-T
U

ns
ch

Pr
t
de

Te

-A
e
uc
1-

ac

si
21

ng

-I
m
ea
tu

r
5-

24

U
tr

Te

he

23
Ti
hi
-T

2-
-S

ns

3-
ac

4-

ac
22
22

-I

Te

Te
22

6-

7-

Question Number and Description Name

 65
Figure 4.4. This is an ordered bar graph of the mean of 13 questions for the teachers
teaching a level 3 course on the scaled averages for each question from the Wyoming
High School Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007. n = 26 (11
questions); n = 25 (2 questions).

The means for all the questions and levels for the target level course followed a

somewhat consistent pattern as shown in Figure 4.5. There appeared some variation in

questions 3, 4, 5, and all parts of 22.

Scaled Means for All Questions

by Teacher and Course Level
February 2007

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50 All Teachers,

n~164
2.00
Level 1 Tchs,
1.50 n~29
Level 2 Tchs,
1.00 n~109
Level 3 Tchs,
0.50 n~26
0.00
i
st

ev

t
ds

en
S

e
ds

rn

d
ad

m
ra
lla

m
W

se
Te

D
St

L
St

riv

ng
Re

St

Ti
Co
PA

U
tr
of
ep

M
M
se

Cn

ct
tr

t
hr

Pr

m
ng

hr

CT
Pr

bk

ns

r
U

tr
Tc

ch

ss
Tc
1-

hr

d
si

ns
N

xt

-I
e

tu
5-

-A
-T
U

4-
m

Tc

22

-I
h

-T
2-

-S

22
Tc

24
Ti

23
7-

21

22
3-

6=

Question Number and Description Name

Figure 4.5. The means of the 13 questions for all teachers’ responses and the means of
the questions for the three levels of target classes from the Wyoming High School
Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007.
 66

AYP Groups

The complete list of descriptive statistics for the schools making AYP designation

are in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Descriptive Statistics for Scaled Responses for AYP Schools

Question Total Sample For Made AYP For Not AYP

Number Name n M SD n M SD n M SD
1 Using Standards 163 3.54 .94 127 3.59 .95 36 3.35 .90

2 Using PAWS Results 163 2.34 1.07 128 2.35 1.09 35 2.28 1.01

3 Time Prep for Testing 163 2.99 .79 128 2.95 .84 35 3.14 .55

4 Teacher Collaboration 164 2.93 .93 128 2.88 .91 36 3.08 .97

5 Teacher Readiness 164 3.31 .48 128 3.36 .46 36 3.13 .49

6 Teach NCTM Standards 164 3.32 .54 128 3.38 .50 36 3.07 .64

7 Professional Development 164 2.34 .38 128 2.35 .38 36 2.29 .38

21 Textbook Driven 161 3.51 .40 127 3.55 .35 34 3.37 .53

22 Instructional Strategies 164 3.52 .36 128 3.50 .36 36 3.57 .37

22 Student Centered Learning 164 3.62 .54 128 3.63 .54 36 3.56 .52

22 Teacher Management 164 3.47 .46 128 3.49 .47 36 3.40 .45

23 Instructional Time 164 2.19 .56 128 2.19 .57 36 2.19 .53

24 Assessment Used 164 2.43 .52 128 2.45 .52 36 2.35 .49
 67

The means for the questions with the schools making AYP and not making AYP also
followed a somewhat consistent pattern. See Figure 4.6. There appeared a small
variation in questions 5, 6, and 21.

Scaled Means for All Questions

by Teachers and Schools AYP Designation
February 2007

3.5

2.5
All Teachers,
2 n~164

1.5 Sch Made AYP,

n~128
1
Sch Not Make
0.5 AYP, n~36

0
b

t
i

ev
st

ds
S

en

d
n
ds

ad

m
ra
lla

se
W

Lr
Te

D
St
St

riv

ng
Re

St

Ti
Co
PA

U
tr
of
p

M
M
se

Cn

ct

t
tr
e

Pr

m
ng

hr

CT
ch
Pr

bk

r
ns
U

tr
ch

ss
Tc
1-

d
hr
si

ns
T

-I
e

tu
5-

Tx

-T

-A
U

4-
m

Tc

22

-I
h
2-

-S

22
Tc

24
-
Ti

23
7-

21

22
3-

6=

Question Number and Description Name Name

Figure 4.6. The means of the 13 questions for all teachers’ responses and the means of
the questions for the two groups of school’s AYP designation from the Wyoming High
School Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007.

Schools Making AYP

For schools making AYP questions, the range of values of the means spanned

3.63 to 2.19. The range of the standard deviations for the making AYP group were 1.09

to 0.35. The top five means for schools making AYP were:

• question 22 - student centered learning (3.63);

• question 1 - using standards (3.59);
• question 21 - textbook driven (3.55);
• question 22 - instructional strategies (3.50); and
 68
• question 22 - teacher management (3.49).

See Figure 4.7 for the ordered bar graph with all the questions. The value of 3.63 for
question 22 - student centered learning meant the teacher chose “Sometimes” (scale
of 3) to “Often” (scale of 4). The value of 2.19 for question 23 - instructional time
meant the teacher chose “16-30%” (scale of 2) to “31-45%” (scale of 3).

Scaled Means for All Questions

by Teachers in Schools that Made AYP
February 2007

4.00 3.63 3.59 3.55 3.50 3.49 3.38 3.36

3.50
2.95 2.88
3.00
2.45 2.35 2.35
2.50 2.19
2.00 Made AYP
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
s

t
s
t

n
en

l ts
s

e
d
s
n

en
en

es
rd

tio
tin
ie
rd

im
se
ar

iv

su
eg

da

m
in
em
da
Le

U
es

lT
r

Re
or
ad
D

op
at

an
an

t
T
ag

na
r

en
b
ok

Re
tr
e

el
St

S
la
St
nt

an

fo

tio
lS

sm

ev
W
o

ol
r
Ce

M
tb
ng

PA
ep

uc
he

D
na

es
CT
ex

er
si

tr
Pr

of
ac
t

tio

ss

g
he
en

N
-T
U

ns
ch

Pr
in
Te

-A
e
uc
1-

ac
d

ng
21

-I
s
m
ea
tu

r
5-

24

U
tr

he
Te

23
Ti
hi

2-
-T
-S

ns

3-
ac

4-

ac
22
22

-I

Te

Te
22

6-

7-

Question Number and Description Name

Figure 4.7. This is an ordered bar graph of the mean of 13 questions for the teachers
teaching in a school which made AYP on the scaled averages for each question from the
Wyoming High School Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February 2007. n =
128 (11 questions); n = 127 (2 questions).

Schools Not Making AYP

For the schools not making AYP questions, the range of values of the means

spanned 3.57 to 2.19. The range of the standard deviations for the not making AYP

group were 1.01 to 0.37. The top five means for the schools not making AYP were:

• question 22 - instructional strategies (3.57);

• question 22 - student centered learning (3.56);
• question 22 - teacher management (3.40);
• question 21 - textbook driven (3.37); and
 69
• question 1 - using standards (3.35).
See Figure 4.8 for the ordered bar graph with all the questions. The value of 3.57 for

question 22 - instructional strategies meant the teacher chose “Sometimes” (scale of 3) to

“Often” (scale of 4). The value of 2.19 for question 23 - instructional time meant the

teacher chose “16-30%” (scale of 2) to “31-45%” (scale of 3).

Scaled Means for All Questions

by Teachers in Schools that Did Not Make AYP
February 2007

4.00
3.57 3.56
3.40 3.37 3.35
3.50 3.14 3.13 3.08 3.07
3.00
2.35 2.29 2.28
2.50 2.19
2.00 Not Md AYP
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
n

t
s
t

s
g
en

lts
s

e
ds

en
en

rd
es

tio
tin
ie

im
se
ar

riv

su
ar
eg

da

m
em

in
Le

ra

U
es

lT
d

Re
D

ad

op
at

an
bo
an

t
T
ag

na
er

en
k

Re
tr

el
St
r

S
lla
St
oo
nt

an

fo

tio
lS

sm

ev

W
Co
Ce

M
tb
M

PA
ep

uc
he

D
na

es
n

CT
ex
er

si

tr
r
Pr

of
nt

ac
tio

ss
he

ng
N
-T

ns
ch

Pr
de

Te

-A
e
uc

1-

ac

si
ng
21

-I
m
ea
tu

r
5-

24

U
tr

Te

he

23
Ti

hi

2-
-T
-S
ns

3-

ac
4-

ac
22
22
-I

Te

Te
22

6-

7-

Question Number and Description Name

Figure 4.8. This is an ordered bar graph of the mean of 13 questions for the teachers
teaching in a school which did not make AYP on the scaled averages for each question
from the Wyoming High School Mathematics Teacher Questionnaire given in February
2007. n = 36 (10 questions); n = 35 (2 questions); n = 34 (1 question).

Effect Size

Effect size is the value when the means of two groups are compared

“independent” of their sample sizes. In significance tests, sample sizes are required in

those calculations. If sample sizes are large enough, significances test can give

significant results when there really are no significant differences between the groups.

Thus, the use of effect sizes has become a more common measure when comparing

groups. Cohen “hesitantly defined effect sizes as “small, d = .2,” “median, d = .5,” and
 70
“large, d = .8” (Becker, 1998, Lecture, para. 13). Using the values in table 1 and the

website calculator, the values for effect sizes were calculated for the levels of target

courses (Becker, 1998, Calculator). See Table 4.3.

Table 4.3

Effect Size for Levels Courses

Question ES for 1 & 2 ES for 1 & 3 ES for 2 & 3

Number Name Cohen’s D Cohen’s D Cohen’s D
a
1 Using Standards .04 -.17 -.21
2 Using PAWS Results .01 .14 .14
3 Time Prep for Testing -.43b -.83c -.47b
4 Teacher Collaboration -.10 -.48b -.36
5 Teacher Readiness -.49b -.82c -.35
6 Teach NCTM Standards .17 -.34 -.49b
7 Professional Development -.18 -.35 -.17
21 Textbook Driven -.10 -.25 -.13
22 Instructional Strategies .32 -.31 -.59b
22 Student Centered Learning -.19 -.51b -.32
22 Teacher Management 0 -.43b -.40
23 Instructional Time -.04 -.18 -.14
24 Assessment Used .15 .20 .06
Note. apositive value means the effect between groups is in the direction favoring the
lower coded math level; b means there is a moderate effect between groups; c means
there is a strong effect between groups.

Out of the 39 possible comparisons between the three levels of mathematics

courses, only 10 had a moderate or strong effect between the teacher levels. The

majority, 29, of the effects was negative. There were only two questions which had a

large effect size according to Cohen’s descriptions. The large effect came from teachers

in the same levels. They were from teachers in level 1 and level 3.
 71

The questions were:

• question 3 - time preparation for testing (-0.83) and

• question 5 - teacher readiness (-0.82).

Since both values are negative, however, the teachers teaching a lower level courses

(teachers teaching a class with content below Algebra 1) appeared do more test

preparation time with students than those teachers teaching an honors level class. Also,

the teachers teaching a lower level classes felt more prepared to teach a wider variety of

mathematical topics than those teachers teaching honors level classes.

There were seven variables between the groups with a moderate negative effect

size, which had values close to -0.5. The questions were:

• question 3 - time preparation for testing with level 1 and 2 (-0.43) and

• question 3 – time preparation for testing with level 2 and 3 (-0.47);

• question 4 - teacher collaboration with level 1 and 3 (-0.48);

• question 5 - teacher readiness with level 1 and 2 (-0.49);

• question 6 - teaching NCTM Standards with level 2 and 3 (-0.49);

• question 22 - instructional strategies with level 2 and 3 (-0.59);

• question 22 - student centered learning with level 1 and 3 (-0.51); and

• question 22 - teacher management with level 1 and 3 (-0.43).

All three levels had moderate to strong effect on question 3 - time preparation for

testing. This indicates that teachers instructing lower level classes do more test

preparation work with students than teachers teaching regular level and honors level.
 72
Even teachers instructing regular level do more test preparation work with students

than the teachers instructing the honors level class.

There were three questions with moderate effect size between the schools that

made AYP and the schools which did not make AYP. See Table 4.4. All three had a

positive effect size. The questions were:

• question 5 - teacher readiness;

• question 6 - teaching NCTM Standards; and

• question 21 - textbook driven.

The teachers in schools, which made AYP, appeared to feel more prepared to teach a

variety of mathematics concepts, teach more NCTM Standard, and follow the topics in

the textbook than those teachers in school which did not make AYP.

Table 4.4

Effect Size for Schools

Question ES for Making & Not

Number Name Cohen’s D
1 Using Standards .26a
2 Using PAWS Results .04
3 Time Prep for Testing -.27
4 Teacher Collaboration -.21
5 Teacher Readiness .48b
6 Teach NCTM Standards .54b
7 Professional Development .16
21 Textbook Driven .40b
22 Instructional Strategies -.19
22 Student Centered Learning .13
22 Teacher Management .20
23 Instructional Time 0
 73
24 Assessment Used .20
Note. apositive value means the effect between schools making AYP scoring higher than
schools not making AYP; b means there is a moderate effect between groups.
ANOVA

To tell if there was any relationship between the curriculum, instruction, or

assessment questions, an ANOVA test was calculated. The significance level was 0.05,

so any p-value that is less than 0.05 was significant. For the three levels of target courses

the ANOVA test have significant results in the areas of instruction and assessment. See

Appendix F for the statistical tables. The results were:

• for curriculum F(2, 160) = 1.03, p = 0.359;

• for instruction F(2,160) = 5.64, p = 0.004; and

• for assessment F(2,160) = 4.19, p = 0.017.

Since there were significances found for instruction and assessment questions, SPSS

calculated a Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test. This Post Hoc test results were on level 1

teachers’ and level 3 teachers’ instruction questions. Level 2 teachers and level 3

teachers had a significant difference in their means. On the assessment questions only

level 1 teachers and level 3 teachers had a significant difference in their means.

t-Test

When there are only two groups of teachers’ responses to compare like those in

schools making AYP and those in schools not making AYP, the t-test of significance is

calculated instead of ANOVA. None of the t-test values were significant at the 0.05

level. See Appendix F for the statistical results. There was no significant difference

between the teachers’ responses in schools making AYP and the teachers’ responses in

schools not making AYP in the areas of curriculum, instruction, or assessment.

74
 75
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

This chapter will summarize the results from the teacher’s questionnaire for the

Wyoming high school mathematics teachers and school districts. Suggestions will be

given for future studies. A caution, however, is “educational research . . . . provides

general direction that must be interpreted by individual districts, schools, and teachers in

terms of their unique circumstances” (Marzona, 2007, p. 5).

Questionnaire Limitations

The questionnaire is “a cost-effective and efficient technique for collecting large

amounts of data from many respondents, but its limitations are well known” (Robitaille &

Travers, 1992, p. 708). The limitation of biased responses brings cautions when “the data

were collected by self-report, and . . . were responding to a brief, written questionnaire”

(Hawkins, Stancavage, & Dossey, 1998, p. 5; see also Chval, Grouws, Smith, Weiss, &

Ziebarth, 2006, p. 47). Even though this instrument had high reliability (0.896), and

many questions had been tested with teachers, “respondents [are] working in different

contexts or . . . may have interpreted some of the questions differently” (Hawkins,

Stancavage, & Dossey, 1998, p. 5). When you have simple Likert scale words, there is

an intrinsic variation with the respondents. The interpretation of the response “Often” by

one person is different from the interpretation of the next person. This is true even when

the survey participants are from the same school or in the same town. There will be

variation of data. Data are not always as clear and as clean as expected. Personality and

experiences also influences choices on the instrument. Using a different method of

gathering data rather than a self-reporting questionnaire may show additional variation
 76
between the levels of courses or between the schools that did not shown any

significance with this research method and data.

The timing of the survey and offer of an incentive promoted a very good response

rate (55.87%). A suggestion for improvement would be to get more of the teachers who

were non-responses to complete the questionnaire by additional follow-up.

Results

Background

It is important to know the critical factors that must be present in order for

students to be proficient as defined in NCLB. These factors are embedded within the

Wyoming State statues Title 21, called the Wyoming Education Code of 1969, (Title 21,

2006). Teachers must be aware of what the Wyoming high school students’ mathematics

already know and what skills they need to learn in order to be proficient on the PAWS,

Performance Assessment of Wyoming Students. School districts provide the teachers

with assessment scores from students in their classroom. The results for each school’s

latest scores regarding the AYP status and the district’s results in regard to NCLB are

also shared with teachers. Another suggestion for improvement would be an onsite visit.

During onsite visits, observers should ask teachers how they specifically use the supplied

data to make changes in their classroom instruction and assessments.

The questionnaire was created to answer the questions, “Are mathematics

teachers’ practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment related to their schools

making adequate yearly progress, AYP?” and “Does the mathematics course level affect

the practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment?”

 77
Curriculum

There were no significant differences found in the curriculum questions for any

level of teacher’s courses or any school’s AYP designation. The ANOVA results for the

three levels of courses showed no significant differences. The t-test for the schools that

made AYP and schools that did not make AYP showed no significant differences. The

data from this questionnaire adds more evidence to support the conclusion that the

“schools make little difference” in test scores, but “an individual teacher can have a

powerful effect” on student’s achievement (Marzona, Pickering, & Pollack, 2001, p. 2).

Because some of the curriculum questions had higher mean scaled scored than

instructional or assessment questions, curriculum issues clearly did have an influence on

the teachers’ responses on the questionnaire. When planning lessons, it appears that

teachers do stay focused on the curriculum topics of the using standards (question 1) or

the curriculum presented in the textbook (question 21).

The curriculum questions for all teachers’ responses were:

• question 1 – using standards (3.54),

• question 2 – using PAWS results (2.34),

• question 4 – teacher collaboration (2.93), and

• question 21 – textbook driven (3.51).

Two of these four questions were in the top five means for all teachers.

The curriculum questions for the level 1 teachers’ responses were:

• question 1 – using standards (3.54) and

• question 21 – textbook driven (3.47).

 78
These two questions were in the top five means for level 1 teachers.

The curriculum questions for the level 2 teachers’ responses were:

• question 1 using standards (3.50) and

• question 21 – textbook driven (3.51).

These two questions were in the top three means for level 2 teachers.

The curriculum questions for the level 3 teachers’ responses were:

• question 1 – using standards (3.69) and

• question 21 – textbook driven (3.56).

These were in the top five means for level 3 teachers.

The curriculum questions for the schools making AYP were:

• question 1 – using standards (3.59) and

• question 21 – textbook driven (3.55).

There were in the top three means for the schools making AYP.

The curriculum questions for the schools not making AYP were:

• question 1 – using standards (3.35) and

• question 21 – textbook driven (3.37).

These were in the top five means for the schools not making AYP.

Because national and state tests like NAEP and PAWS follow the curriculum

content of the NCTM Standards, districts have aligned the curriculum to these standards

(NAEP, 2007, para. 4). It is expected that the teachers to teach toward these standards

(Hawkins, Stancavage, & Dossey, 1998, p. 47). The curriculum should be designed for

100% of the students to reach the proficient level by 2014.

 79
Instruction

There were significant differences in the means of the instruction questions for

two out of the three levels of courses. The ANOVA results showing significance was

followed by a Tukey HSD comparison test. There was differences in the means (0.004)

between teachers teaching the level 1 and 3 courses and differences in means (0.015)

between teachers teaching the level 2 and 3 courses. This implies a difference in the

instruction responses between teachers teaching courses which contain content below

Algebra 1 topics (level 1) and the teachers teaching course which teach an honors or

accelerated course (level 3). There were differences in the instruction responses between

teachers teaching courses which contain regular course content (level 2) and the teachers

teaching course which teach an honors or accelerated course (level 3).

Do the frequencies and types of activities that the teacher reports on the survey

really reflect what is happening in the classroom (Robitaille & Travers, 1992, p. 708;

Chval, Grouws, Smith, Weiss, & Ziebarth, 2006, p. 47)? While the majority of teachers

report that they are aware of and are using reform instructional methods, when the

teachers were observed, the observations showed “that many secondary students are not

being given the opportunity to learn through reform-based practices” (Wainwright,

Morrell, Flick, & Schepige, 2004, p. 322; see also Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, p. 12). Not

observing the frequency and type of instruction students receive over the course is a

definite limitation of this research project.

The t-test for the mean differences in the schools that made AYP and schools

that did not make AYP showed no significant differences between the schools.
 80
Instruction questions analyzed on the questionnaire were:

• question 2 – PAWS results (2.34),

• question 4 – teacher collaboration (2.93),

• question 5 – teacher readiness (3.31),

• question 6 – teaching NCTM Standards (3.32),

• question 7 – professional development (2.34),

• question 22 – student centered learning (3.62),

• question 22 – instructional strategies (3.52),

• question 22 – teacher management (3.47), and

• question 23 – instructional time (2.19).

The three parts of question 22 were in top five means for all the teachers.

In instruction, question 22 – student centered learning had the highest means for:

• all the teachers (3.62),

• level 2 (3.61), and

• level 3 (3.78).

• level 1 (3.51) had the second highest mean.

Researchers found that “an emphasis on student-centered instruction actually

increased the differences in science achievement between boys and girls” (Marzano,

Pickering, & Pollack, 2001, p. 9). Instruction issues were the other large influence on the

teachers’ responses on the questionnaire. This implies that Wyoming high school

mathematics teachers care about the delivery of instruction they give and have instruction

focused on the students. Teachers care about aligning instruction to the standards

(Hawkins, Stancavage, & Dossey, 1998, p. 47).

 81
Teachers do care whether the instruction is providing the opportunity for every

student to learn the curriculum topic in an optimal manner.

For the level 1 teachers, the top instruction means were:

• question 22 – instructional strategies (3.57),

• question 22 – student centered learning (3.51), and

• question 22 – teacher management (3.44).

The three parts of question 22 finished in the top five means for level 1 teachers.

For the level 2 teachers, the top instruction means were:

• question 22 – instructional strategies (3.46),

• question 22 – student centered learning (3.61), and

• question 22 – teacher management (3.44).

The three parts of question 22 finished in the top five means for level 2 teachers.

For level 3 teachers, the top instruction means were:

• question 22 – instructional strategies (3.69),

• question 22 – student centered learning (3.78), and

• question 22 – teacher management (3.64).

The three parts of question 22 finished in the top four means for level 3 teachers.

For the schools making AYP, the top instruction means were:

• question 22 – instructional strategies (3.50),

• question 22 – student centered learning (3.63), and

• question 22 – teacher management (3.49).

The three parts of question 22 finished in top five means for schools making AYP.

For the schools not making AYP, the top instruction means were:
 82
• question 22 - instructional strategies (3.57),

• question 22 – student centered learning (3.56),

• question 22 – teacher management (3.40).

The three parts of question 22 finished in the top three means for schools not making

AYP. The individual teacher still chooses what to teach and when to teach. Even if

teachers are in the same school and are “using the same textbook, they still make

independent decisions about what to teach . . . . and depth of instruction” (Paek, 2008, p.

9).

Assessment

The ANOVA results indicated one significant difference in the means (0.015) of

the assessment questions between the level 1 and level 3 courses. The t-test for the

schools that made AYP and schools that did not make AYP showed no significant

differences in the means between the schools. “Because of the complexity of the context

in which learning takes place, examining a single variable at a time and its sole

relationship to student achievement may not necessarily reveal the true underlying

relationships between background factors and students’ cognitive performance”

(Hawkins, Stancavage, & Dossey, 1998, p. 5). “In addition, the reader should remember

that statistically significant differences may be differences that are not considered

educationally significant” (Hawkins, E.F., Stancavage, F.B., Dossey, J.A., 1998, p. 5).

None of the assessment questions had means in the top five for any of the levels of course

or school AYP designation.

The assessment questions results for all teachers were:

• question 3 – time preparation for testing (2.99),

 83
• question 4 – teacher collaborating (2.93), and

• question 24 – assessment used (2.45).

For the level 1 the means were:

• question 3 – time preparation for testing (2.64),

• question 4 – teacher collaborating (2.80), and

• question 24 – assessment used (2.50).

For the level 2 the means were:

• question 3 – time preparation for testing (3.00),

• question 4 – teacher collaborating (2.89), and

• question 24 – assessment used (2.42).

For level 3 the means were:

• question 3 – time preparation for testing (3.35),

• question 4 – teacher collaborating (3.22), and

• question 24 – assessment used (2.39).

For the schools making AYP the means were:

• question 3 – time preparation for testing (2.95),

• question 4 – teacher collaborating (2.88), and

• question 24 – assessment used (2.45).

For the schools not making AYP the means were:

• question 3 – time preparation for testing (3.14),

• question 4 – teacher collaborating (3.08), and

• question 24 – assessment used (2.35).

 84

Effect Size

What accounts for the effect size in the differences of the means between level 1

and level 3 on question 3 - time preparation for testing (-0.83) and question 5 – teacher

readiness (-0.82)? “Effective teachers appear to be effective with students of all

achievement levels,” so the if the teacher is effective, the level of class taught should not

make a difference (Marzona, Pickering, & Pollack, 2001, p. 3). The data reveals that

there is a difference in the means. Question 3 – time preparation for testing had a mean,

which was:

• largest (-0.83) between the lower level (1) and honors (3) teachers;

• moderate (-0.47) between the regular level (2) and the honors (3) teachers; and

• moderate (-0.43) between the lower level (1) and the regular level (2) teachers.

Question 5 - teacher readiness had a mean, which was:

• large (-0.82) between the lower level (1) and the honors level (3) teachers; and

• moderate (-0.49) between the lower level (1) and regular level (2) teachers.

The remaining moderate effect sizes were:

• question 22 - instructional strategies (-0.59) between level 2 and 3 teachers;

• question 22 - student centered learning (-0.51) between level 1 and 3 teachers;

• question 6 - teaching NCTM Standards (-0.49) between level 2 and 3 teachers;

• question 4 - teacher collaboration (-0.48) between level 1 and 3 teachers;

• question 22 - teacher management (-0.43) between level 1 and 3 teachers.

There were only moderate effect size for schools making AYP and those schools,

which did not make AYP, were positive. The effect sizes were:
 85
• question 6 – teaching NCTM standards (0.54);

• question 5 – teacher readiness (0.48); and

• question 21 – textbook driven (0.40).

Suggestions for Further Research

The results showed differences between some topics and some levels of courses.

The differences cannot be answered by the statistical analysis done. Some questions a

researcher should consider to uncover the reasons are:

• Do honors level teachers incorporate test preparation within the normal lessons

throughout the school year and not count this time as test preparation time?

• How do the teachers teaching different level courses prepare and present a

lesson?

• Do the teachers change the lessons, activities, quizzes, and tests from year to

year for a particular level of course?

• How do the teachers pace the curriculum material throughout the entire course?

• Why do the teachers in schools which make AYP feel more prepared to teach the

broad five NCTM Standards than the teachers in schools which did not make

AYP?

• Do the level 3 teachers only want to focus on a limited amount of mathematics

content in order to “become experts” at that content level?

• This study included 29 lower level teachers and 26 honors level teachers. Is a

larger sample size needed?

If classroom and school visits did occur, the researcher needs to:

• Talk to the teachers by asking probing questions.

 86
• Listen to how they prepare and present a lesson or plan a unit.

• Note any insights about the similarities that teachers do whether they teach level

1, level 2, or level 3 classes.

• View the pacing of the lessons, activities, and assessments.

• Determine the teachers’ personal demographics – age, gender, degrees held.

• Determine the professional demographics for the teacher’s teaching level 1, level

2 and level 3 courses.

• Determine the personal and professional demographics for the teachers in schools

that have made AYP and schools that have not made AYP.

Under the NCLB Act, schools have yearly increasing AYP targets that all student

subgroups in a school must achieve. By 2014, all students in all subgroups must be 100%

proficient (NCLB Annual Report, 2005, p. 1). With this goal fast approaching, teachers

do not have much time to insure all the key factors of curriculum, instruction, and

assessment are in place to insure success for all the students in Wyoming. Further study

is needed to observe and document specific instructional strategies and assessment that

occur. Researchers need to observe what effective teachers at whichever level of course

or in whatever AYP designated school do to help students be successful at achieving

proficiency in mathematics.
 86
REFERENCES

A nation at risk. (1983, April). Retrieved on July 14, 2006 from

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Adler, I. (1972). Appendix II: The changes taking place in mathematics. The new

mathematics (195-218). New York: NY: The John Day Company.

Baker, S. & Leak, B. (2006, January 23). Math {will rock your world}. Business World,

3968. Retrieved on September 25, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.

Becker, L. A. (1998, 1999). Calculator Retrieved on June 12, 2008 from

http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/escalc3.htm

Becker, L. A. (1998, 1999). Lecture Notes Retrieved on June 12, 2008 from

http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/es.htm

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box: Raising standards through

classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved on June 17, 2002 from

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

Boaler, J. (2002, July). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between

reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,

33(4), 239-258.

Boaler, J. (2006, January). Urban success: A multidimensional mathematics approach

with equitable outcomes. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 364-369.

Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practice Assessment, Research

& Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved on July 28, 2006 from

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9
 87
th
Bracey, G. W. (2006, October). The 16 Bracey report on the condition of public

education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 151-166.

Chambers, D. L. (1993). Integrating assessment and instruction. In N. L. Webb

(Yearbook Ed.) & A. F. Coxford (Gen. Yearbook Ed.), Assessment in the

mathematics classroom (pp. 17-25). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

Chval, K., Grouws, D, Smith, M., Weiss, I, Ziebarth, S. (2006, June 1). Understanding

the use of curriculum materials: A cross-site research study report. Center of the

Study of Mathematics Curriculum. Retrieved on August 4, 2006 from

http://www.mathcurriculumcenter.org/CrossSiteFull.pdf

Chval, K. B., Reys, R., Reys, B. J., Tarr, J. E., & Chavez, O. (2006, May). Pressure to

improve student performance: A context that both urges and impedes school-

based research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 158-166.

Cohen, D. K. (1995, December). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational

Researcher, 24(9), 11-17,31.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Cronin, J., Kinsbury, G. G., McCall, M. S., & Bowe, B. (2005, April). The impact of the

no child left behind act on student achievement and growth: 2005 edition.

Retrieved on November 9, 2006 from

http://www.nwea.org/research/nclbstudy.asp
 88
Davis, R. B. (1992). Reflections on where mathematics education now stands and on

where it may be going. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on

mathematics and learning (pp. 724-734). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dossey, J. A. (1992). The nature of mathematics: Its role and its influence. In D. A.

Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and learning (pp. 39-48).

New York, NY: Macmillan.

Fennema, E. & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A.

Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and learning (pp. 147-164).

New York, NY: Macmillan.

Flick, L. B. & Lederman, N. G. (2005, March). (Un)covering curriculum. School Science

and Mathematics, 105(3), 113-115.

Franklin, J. (2006a, July). A new lesson hits home how testing and standards are

changing homework for students and teachers. Education Update, 48(7), 3,6.

Franklin, J. (2006b, September). The n3w3st trend? Education Update, 48(9), 11-12.

Grissom, R. J. & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect size for research: a broad practical approach.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gonzales, P., Guzman, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., et al.

(2004). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and science study

(TIMSS) 2003. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES 2005-005). Retrieved on July 23, 2006 from

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results03.asp
 89
Hawkins, E. F., Stancavage, F. B., & Dossey, J. A. (1998, August). School policies

affecting instruction in mathematics.(NCES 98-495). Washington, DC: National

Center for Educational Statistics.

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3-19.

Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A.

Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and learning (pp. 65-97).

New York, NY: Macmillan.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A.,

& Wearne, D. (1996, May). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum

and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.

Hill, S. (1983). An agenda for action: Status and impact. In G. Shufelt (Yearbook Ed.) &

J. R. Smart (Gen. Ed.), The agenda in action: Recommendations for school

mathematics of the 1980s (pp. 1-7). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

Holloway, J. H. (2004, February). Closing the minority achievement gap in math.

Educational Leadership, 61(5), 84-86.

Horizon Research, Inc. (2000). 2000 national survey of science and mathematics

education. Retrieved on October 11, 2006 from http://2000survey.horizon-

research.com/instruments/math_teacher.pdf

Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004, March). Describing levels and

components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81-116.

 90
Jennings, J. & Rentner, D. S. (2006, October). Ten big effects of the no child left

behind act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.

Jones, P. S. & Coxford, A. F. (1970). The goals of history: Issues and forces. In P. S.

Jones (Ed.) & A. F. Coxford (Assoc. Ed.), A history of mathematics education in

the United States and Canada (pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics.

Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws

(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and learning (pp. 3-38). New York,

NY: Macmillan.

Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., Stecher, B., Robyn, A., & Burroughs, D. (2000).

Teaching practices and student achievment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Koehler, M. S. & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their

effects. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and

learning (pp. 115-126). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Lederman, L. M. & Burnstein, R. A. (2006, February). Alternative approaches to high-

stakes testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 429-432.

Lefkowits, L. & Miller, K. (2006, January). Fulfilling the promise of the standards

movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 403-407.

Lewis, A. C. (2006, January). Washington commentary, whither assessment. Phi Delta

Kappan, 87(5), 339-340.

Marshall, J. (2006, January). Math wars 2: It’s the teaching, stupid! Phi Delta Kappan,

87(5), 356-363.

Math and science achievement. (1999, August-September). Congressional Digest, 205.

 91
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework

for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J, Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that

works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A.

(2001, November). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and

student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 493-517.

McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A

reconceptulatization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on

mathematics and learning (pp. 575-596). New York, NY: Macmillan.

McTighe, J. & Ferrara, S. (1994, November). A report from professional standards and

practice assessing learning in the classroom. Washington, DC: National

Education Association.

NAEP - what does the NAEP mathematics assessment measure? (2007, September).

Retrieved on June 21, 2008 from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/whatmeasure.asp

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). Frequently asked questions about the

assessment. Retrieved on July 21, 2006 from

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/FAQ.asp?FAQType=
 92
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). NAEP Overview the nation’s report

card. Retrieved on July 21, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Reston, VA:

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989, March). Curriculum and evaluation

standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991, March). Professional standards for

teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995, May). Assessment standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the

future of mathematical education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J.

Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

NCLB overview executive summary. (2006). Retrieved on July 23, 2006 from

www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
 93
NCTM Research Committee: Heid, M. K., Middleton, J. A., Larson, M., Gutstein, E.,

Fey, J. T., King, K., Strutchens, M. E., & Tunis, H. (2006, March). The challenge

of linking research and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,

37(2), 76-86.

Nickson, M. (1992). The culture of the mathematics classroom: An unknown quantity? In

D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and learning (pp.

101-114). New York, NY: Macmillan.

[NCLB annual report] No child left behind act of 2001 annual report to congress. (2005,

February). Retrieved on July 23, 2006 from

www.ed.gov/print/about/reports/annual/nclbrpts.html

Paek, P. L. (2008, Spring). Practices worth of attention: Improving secondary

mathematics teaching and learning. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education

Leadership, 10(1), 9-14.

Porter, A. (1995). Critical issue: Integrating assessment and instruction in ways that

support learning. Retrieved on July 28, 2006 from

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as500.htm

Ravitch, Diane. (2000). Left back: a century of failed school reforms. New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster.

Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003, January). Assessing

the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on

student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74-

95.
 94
Reys, R., Reys, B., Tarr, J., & Chavez, O. (2006 March). Assessing the impact of

standards-based middle school mathematics curricula on student achievement and

the classroom learning environment. Retrieved on August 4, 2006 from

http://mathcurriculumcenter.org/MS2_report.pdf

Riordan, J. E. & Noyce, R. E. (2001, July). The impact of two standards-based

mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4). (pp. 368-398). Retrieved on

November 23, 2003 from Academic Search Premier.

Robitaille, D. F. & Travers, K. J. (1992). International studies of achievement in

mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and

learning (pp. 687-709). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Schifter, D. (1996, March). On teaching and learning mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan,

77(7). Retrieved on September 4, 2006 from Academic Search Premier.

Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003, May). Teacher variables that

relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3), 228-259.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002, January/February). Making mathematics work for all children:

Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.

Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in

mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and

learning (pp. 623-660). New York, NY: Macmillan.

SPSS FAQ. What does Cronbach’s alpha mean? Retrieved on June 16, 2008 from

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/alpha.html
 95
rd
Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment. (3 Ed.) Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1997, September). Understanding and improving classroom

mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta

Kappan, 79(1). Retrieved on Septembert 13, 2006 from Wilson Omnifile Full

Text Select.

Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s

teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free

Press.

Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (2004, February). Improving mathematics teaching.

Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-17.

Sunderman, G. L. (2006, October). Do supplemental educational services increase

opportunities for minority students. Phi Delta Kappa, 88(2), 117-122.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research.

In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and learning (pp.

127-146). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Title 21 education. (2006). Retrieved on August 4, 2006 from

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/dlstatutes.htm

Toch, T. (2006). Margins of error: The education testing industry in the no child left

behind era. Retrieved on November 9, 2006 from

http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Margins_of_Error.pdf

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Measurement validity types. Retrieved on July 11, 2008 from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measval.php
 96
Turley, E. D. (2006, February). Textural perceptions of school time and assessment.

Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 438-442,447.

US Department of Education. (2005, April 1). State of Wyoming consolidated state

application accountability workbook (2004-2005 revisions). Retrieved on July 14,

2006 from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/wycsa.doc

Wainwright, C., Morrell, P. D., Flick, L., & Schepige, A. (2004, November). Observation

of reform teaching in undergraduate level mathematics and science courses.

School Science and Mathematics, 104(7), 322-335.

Webb, N. L. (1992). Assessment of students’ knowledge of mathematics: Steps toward a

theory. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics and

learning (pp. 661-683). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Webb, N. L. (1993). Assessment for the mathematics classroom. In N. L. Webb

(Yearbook Ed.) & A. F. Coxford (Gen. Yearbook Ed.), Assessment in the

mathematics classroom (pp. 1-6). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

World almanac and book of facts 2002. (2002). New York, NY: World Almanac

Education Group.

World almanac and book of facts 2006. (2006). New York, NY: World Almanac Books.

Wyoming Department of Education. (2006, September 14). Wyoming 2005-2006 AYP

results – schools and districts release. Retrieved on October 12, 2006 from

http://www.k12.wy.us/SAA/ayp/Ayp06.pdf

Wyoming Department of Education. (1990). Wyoming standards of excellence for

mathematics education. Cheyenne, WY: Author.

 97
Wyoming Department of Education. (2003, July 7) Wyoming mathematics content and

performance standards. Retrieved on July 21, 2006 from

http://www.k12.wy.us/SAA/standards/math.pdf

Wyoming Department of Education. (2005, October 19). 2005 Wyoming NAEP scores

released. Retrieved on July 23, 2006 from

http://www.k12.wy.us/A/2005_pr/NAEP.pdf
 98

APPENDIX A

INSTITUTIONAL BOARD REVIEW APPROVALS

99
100
 101

APPENDIX B

SUPERINTENDENT REQUESTS
102
103
 104
Superintendent’s Name Participating District Name City
Brian Recht Albany County School District #1 Laramie
Kevin Mitchell Big Horn County School District #1 Cowley
Dan Coe Big Horn County School District #2 Lovell
Craig Sorensen Big Horn County School District #3 Greybull
Ray Yoder Big Horn County School District #4 Basin
Richard Strahorn Campbell County School District #1 Gillette
Peggy Sanders Carbon County School District #1 Rawlins
Robert Gates Carbon County School District #2 Saratoga
Dan Espeland Converse County School District #1 Douglas
Lon Streib Crook County School District #1 Sundance
Paige Fenton-Hughes Fremont County School District #1 Lander
Susan Kinneman Fremont County School District #2 Dubois
Diana Clapp Fremont County School District #6 Pavillion
Michelle Hoffman Fremont County School District #14 Ethete
Tammy Cox Fremont County School District #24 Shoshoni
Craig Beck Fremont County School District #25 Riverton
Ray Schulte Goshen County School District #1 Torrington
John Balow Hot Springs County School District #1 Thermopolis
Rod Kessler Johnson County School District #1 Buffalo
Dan Stephan Laramie County School District #1 Cheyenne
Margie Simineo Laramie County School District #2 Pine Bluffs
Gene Carmody Lincoln County School District #1 Diamondville
Jon Abrams Lincoln County School District #2 Afton
Jim Lowham Natrona County School District #1 Casper
Richard Luchsinger Niobrara County School District #1 Lusk
Jerry Maurer Park County School District #1 Powell
Bryan Monteith Park County School District #6 Cody
Stuart Nelson Platte County School District #1 Wheatland
David Barker Platte County School District #2 Guernsey
Sue Belish Sheridan County School District #1 Ranchester
Craig Dougherty Sheridan County School District #2 Sheridan
John Baule Sheridan County School District #3 Clearmont
Doris Woodbury Sublette County School District #1 Pinedale
Weldon Shelley Sublette County School District #9 Big Piney
Paul Grube Sweetwater County School District #1 Rock Springs
Barb Arnold Van Matre Sweetwater County School District #2 Green River
Sean Shockley Teton County School District #1 Jackson
Dennis Wilson Unita County School District #1 Evanston
Jack Cozort Unita County School District #4 Mountain View
Randy Hillstead Unita County School District #6 Lyman
Michael Hejtmanek Washakie County School District #1 Worland
Jerry Erdahl Washakie County School District #2 Ten Sleep
Brad LaCroix Weston County School District #1 Newcastle
Troy Claycomb Weston County School District #7 Upton
 105

APPENDIX C

PRINCIPAL REQUESTS
106
107
 108

APPENDIX D

TEACHER REQUESTS
109
 110
WYOMING HIGH SCHOOL
MATHEMATICS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
UNL IRB #2006-11-119 EP

How to Complete the Questionnaire

Most of the questions instruct you to “circle one” or “darken one.” For a few questions, you are
asked to write in your answer on the line provided. Please use a #2 pencil or black or blue pen to
complete this questionnaire. Be sure to erase or white out completely any stray marks.

Target Class

Part of the questionnaire asks you to provide information about a particular “target” class. Please
consider your second period or block mathematics class as the target class. If this is your
planning time, please use your first mathematics class as the target class. If your schedule varies
by day, use today’s schedule or the most recent school day. If you are not teaching math at this
time, please think back to a class you taught last semester or last year.

If You Have Questions

If you have questions about the study or any items in this questionnaire, please contact me at
Kelly Walsh High School – 307-233-2000 or 307-234-6354 (home) or email at
[email protected] or [email protected] (home).

Drawing Deadline

If you return your completed questionnaire before Monday, March 5, 2007, your name and phone
number will be separated from the questionnaire and entered into a drawing for one of three
VISA Gift cards. The first name drawn will receive a $100 VISA Gift card. A $75 VISA Gift
card will be awarded to the second name drawn. A $50 VISA Gift card will be awarded to the
third name drawn. The VISA Gift cards should be accepted anywhere VISA is accepted and can
be used for a tank of gas, a dinner at your favorite restaurant, or a special gift for you – your
choice. (You may wish to date and copy your completed questionnaire, if there is a question
about returning it prior to March 5th.)

Thank you very much. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Please return the completed
questionnaire in the postage-paid envelope.

Mary Moler
Teacher Survey
1625 Holly Street
Casper, WY 82604-3227
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
 118

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP REQUEST
 119

To: teacher’s email address

From: [email protected]
Date: February 24, 2007

Dear Mathematics Teacher,

Several weeks ago, you were sent a teacher survey in the US mail. The survey asked
questions about standards, PAWS results, your mathematical and pedagogical
background, professional development, a target mathematics class, and the
textbook/program, the instruction used, and the assessments given to the target class. To
the best of my knowledge, your survey has not been returned. (If you have just sent it,
please ignore this reminder.) Remember your answers will be completely confidential.
No information identifying specific teachers, schools, or districts will be released or
published.

The data from the teachers who have already responded is useful, but it does not give a
complete picture without your unique perspective of what you do in your math
classroom.

Remember, I need to have the survey completed and returned prior to March 5, 2007, in
order for you to be entered into the drawing. Your opportunity to be entered to win a
$100, $75, or $50 VISA Gift card is fast approaching.

I hope that you will complete and return the survey. If you have any questions or
comments about this study, I would be happy to talk with you. The telephone number at
Kelly Walsh High School is 233-2000 or 234-6354 at my home. You may e-mail me at
[email protected] or [email protected]. Also, if you have questions or
concerns about research participants’ rights, you may call the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln Institution Review Board at (402) 472-6965.

Thank you for assisting with this important survey. Have a great day!

Sincerely,
Mary Moler☺
Mathematics Teacher
Kelly Walsh High School
307-233-2000
[email protected]
1625 Holly Street
Casper, WY 82604-3227
307-234-6354
[email protected]
 120

APPENDIX F

SPSS RESULTS
 121
Reliability

Warnings

The space saver method is used. That is, the covariance matrix is not calculated or used in the
analysis.

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 132 80.5
Excluded(a) 32 19.5
Total 164 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.896 87
 122
Oneway

Descriptives

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

curric 1 29 3.1313 .45839 .08512 2.9570 3.3057 2.06 4.00

2 109 3.1781 .43164 .04134 3.0961 3.2600 2.06 4.29

3 25 3.2952 .42572 .08514 3.1195 3.4709 2.56 4.28

Total 163 3.1877 .43565 .03412 3.1203 3.2551 2.06 4.29

instruct 1 29 3.0068 .27449 .05097 2.9023 3.1112 2.37 3.42

2 109 3.0777 .27930 .02675 3.0246 3.1307 2.39 3.75

3 25 3.2526 .28311 .05662 3.1357 3.3694 2.65 3.72

Total 163 3.0919 .28692 .02247 3.0475 3.1362 2.37 3.75

assess 1 29 2.4473 .41073 .07627 2.2911 2.6036 1.71 3.50

2 109 2.5623 .44333 .04246 2.4781 2.6464 1.64 3.86

3 25 2.7943 .51521 .10304 2.5816 3.0070 1.79 3.79

Total 163 2.5774 .45820 .03589 2.5065 2.6483 1.64 3.86

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

curric Between Groups .391 2 .196 1.031 .359

Within Groups 30.355 160 .190

Total 30.746 162

instruct Between Groups .878 2 .439 5.636 .004

Within Groups 12.459 160 .078

Total 13.336 162

assess Between Groups 1.692 2 .846 4.187 .017

Within Groups 32.320 160 .202

Total 34.012 162

 123
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Tukey HSD

Dependent Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

Variable (I) level (J) level (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

instruct 1 2 -.07090 .05830 .445 -.2088 .0670

3 -.24581* .07616 .004 -.4260 -.0656

2 1 .07090 .05830 .445 -.0670 .2088

3 -.17492* .06188 .015 -.3213 -.0285

3 1 .24581* .07616 .004 .0656 .4260

2 .17492* .06188 .015 .0285 .3213

assess 1 2 -.11493 .09391 .441 -.3371 .1072

3 -.34696* .12266 .015 -.6371 -.0568

2 1 .11493 .09391 .441 -.1072 .3371

3 -.23203 .09967 .055 -.4678 .0038

3 1 .34696* .12266 .015 .0568 .6371

2 .23203 .09967 .055 -.0038 .4678

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 124
T-Test

Group Statistics

ayp N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

curric 0 36 3.0994 .46181 .07697

1 128 3.2064 .43087 .03808

instruct 0 36 3.0208 .30169 .05028

1 128 3.1081 .28289 .02500

assess 0 36 2.6542 .41571 .06928

1 128 2.5552 .46698 .04128

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

curric Equal variances

.192 .662 -1.295 162 .197 -.10698 .08258 -.27005 .05610
assumed

Equal variances
-1.246 53.355 .218 -.10698 .08587 -.27919 .06524
not assumed

instru Equal variances

1.846 .176 -1.612 162 .109 -.08729 .05415 -.19423 .01965
ct assumed

Equal variances
-1.554 53.549 .126 -.08729 .05616 -.19989 .02532
not assumed

assess Equal variances

.275 .601 1.149 162 .252 .09895 .08610 -.07107 .26897
assumed