Mathematics education has experienced numerous reforms, including New Math of the 1960s, Back-to-Basics Math of the 1970s, and Standards-Based Math of the 1980s (Herrera & Owens, 2001; Osborne & Crosswhite, 1970). After the nationwide implementation of standards throughout the 1990s (Knight, 2007), Virginia developed high-stakes testing at all grade levels. One response to this increased testing was the development of mathematics instructional coaches (MICs) who have various roles within the school. To determine which roles teachers perceive are the most impactful on instruction—relationship, curriculum, or pedagogy—a standard multiple regression was conducted on the data gathered with the Teacher Perspective and Impact Survey. Convenience sampling of 200 K-12 math teachers in one rural county in southwest Virginia yielded a 15.5% (n = 31) response rate. Results indicated all three independent variables were statistically significant at p < .01. Curriculum (r = .78, p < .01) and pedagogy (r = .73, p < .01) had a high correlation with teacher perception of impact, while relationship (r = .50, p < .01) was quite lower. The linear combination of the independent variables accounted for 64% of the variation (adjusted R2 = .64) in teacher perception of impact. The model was statistically significant, F(3, 27) = 18.64, p < .01; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The resultant unstandardized regression equation for predicting teacher perception of MIC impact on instruction, including all three unstandardized coefficients, w Y’ = 1.26x1 + 1.01x2 + .65x3 - 48.26, where Y’ = predicted teacher perception of MIC impact on instruction, x1 = knowledge of curriculum resources, x2 = facilitator of pedagogy, and x3 = professional relationships with teachers. The MIC roles of curriculum (B = .49, p < .01) and pedagogy (B = .35, p = .04) were found to significantly impact teacher perception of MIC impact on instruction. Interestingly, while Kowal and Steiner (2007) espoused interpersonal capabilities (relationship) higher in importance, this study found it not statistically significant (B = .09, p = .52). While this study has limited generalizability, several implications for administrators, MICs, and teachers emerged.
|Advisor:||Grooms, Linda D.|
|Commitee:||Hanes, John C., Simmons, Tera D., Kreassig, Kurt|
|Department:||School of Education|
|School Location:||United States -- Virginia|
|Source:||DAI-A 82/9(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Mathematics education, Educational leadership, Education|
|Keywords:||Pedagogy, Mathematics Instructional Coaching, Virginia|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be