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

Authors

Mary C. Moler, University of Nebraska at LincolnFollow

Date of this Version

July 2008

Document Type

Article

Comments

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
Copyright © 2008 Mary C. Moler

Abstract

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.