Descriptive Statistics of the Data from the Mathematics. and Science Teacher Survey of Texas Educational. Regions 1 and 20

Transcription

1 Descriptive Statistics of the Data from the Mathematics and Science Teacher Survey of Texas Educational Regions 1 and 20 Survey Authors Dr. Lowell Bethel, University of Texas - Austin Mr. David T. Garza, University of Texas - Austin Dr. Olga M. Ramirez, University of Texas - Pan American Dr. John E. Bernard, University of Texas - Pan American Editorial Assistance: Dr. Kathleen Mittag, University of Texas San Antonio Dr. Carol Fletcher, University of Texas - Austin Survey Data Analysts: Walter Leite and Rick Sperling (University of Texas - Austin Doctoral Students) Made possible by NSF Developmental Planning Grant Award No. ESI , Co-directors: Dr. Olga M. Ramirez (oram@panam.edu) Mr. David T. Garza (garzadavidt@mail.utexas.edu) 1

2 Table of Contents Sample Demographic statistics 4 Teachers Education 5 Certification 7 Information about Previous Professional Development Activities 9 Teacher s Preparation to Work with Diverse Students 17 School support to teachers 23 Teaching Practices 26 Perceptions of competency 31 Teachers Willingness to Participate in Professional Development Activities 43 2

3 Introduction The South Texas Science and Mathematics Center for Learning and Teaching (ST*SM*CLT), representing a collaboration between the National Science Foundation, institutes of higher education, independent school districts and mathematics and science educators, was specifically developed to reach out to the traditionally, underserved, and disadvantaged population living in Education Service Center Regions 1 and 20 of Texas. The goal of the ST*SM*CLT is to improve the teaching and learning of science and mathematics in grades 4-8 through professional development, research, and infrastructure support. Institutional partners include the University of Texas - Austin, the University of Texas Pan American, the University of Texas San Antonio, and Our Lady of the Lake University. In order to inform the proposal of this CLT, a survey was conducted of the mathematics and science teachers of Texas educational regions 1 and 20. This document presents descriptive statistics of the data collected through the survey. The mathematics and science teacher survey explores teacher s professional development history, their self-perceptions of competence, their use of active learning, and their willingness to pursue additional professional development opportunities. This report shows only descriptive statistics. However, it provides pertinent information about Region 1 and 20 teachers that can be used to guide decisions regarding the CLT. 3

4 Sample Demographic statistics According to the Texas Education Agency (AEIS, 2001), there are 5233 mathematics and 4490 science teachers in the Independent School Districts (ISDs) of region 1 and 20. From this population, a random sample of 128 mathematics and 109 science teachers was surveyed. The mathematics teacher sample includes 53 teachers from region 1 and 75 from region 20. The science teacher sample consists of 42 teachers from region 1 and 66 from region 20. This sample of mathematics teachers allows parameter estimates about the population with a confidence interval of approximately 8.5%. The sample of science teachers allows estimates with a confidence interval of 9%. The gender and ethnicity distributions of the sample of mathematics and science teachers is shown below: Teacher s gender Percent of teachers Male 30.5% 41.5% 22.7% Female 68.8% 58.5% 76.0% Did not 0.8% 0.0% 1.3% Teacher s gender Percent of teachers Male 33.9% 42.9% 27.3% Female 64.2% 54.9% 71.2% Did not 1.8% 2.4% 1.5% 4

5 Teacher s Ethnicity Percentage of Teachers African American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Asian American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Caucasian American 47.7% 26.4% 62.7% Hispanic American 47.7% 67.9% 33.3% Native American 3.1% 0.0% 5.3% Other 3.9% 5.7% 2.7% Did not % 1.3% Teacher s Ethnicity Percentage of Teachers African American 2.8% 0% 4.5% Asian American 3.7% 7.1% 1.5% Caucasian American 52.3% 21.4% 72.7% Hispanic American 39.4% 71.4% 18.2% Native American 1.8% 0% 3% Other 0.9% 0% 1.5% Did not 0.9% 2.4% 0% Teachers Education The education attainment of the teachers in our sample is indicated below: Highest degree obtained Associates 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bachelor s 71.1% 77.4% 66.7% Master s 24.2% 18.9% 28.0% Doctorate 0.8% 0.0% 1.3% Did not 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% Highest degree obtained Associates 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bachelor s 63.3% 76.2% 54.5% Master s 34.9% 23.8% 42.4% Doctorate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Did not 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5

6 The type of undergraduate degree obtained by the mathematics teachers in this study is indicated below: Teacher s academic majors and minors Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Education 53.1% 14.1% 41.5% 18.9% 56.0% 10.7% Mathematics 28.9% 18.0% 54.7% 15.1% 20.0% 20.0% Liberal arts 13.3% 21.1% 11.3% 15.1% 14.7% 25.3% Engineering 3.9% 0.8% 7.5% 1.9% 1.3% 0.0% Physical sciences 3.9% 7.0% 1.9% 13.2% 0.0% 2.7% Life sciences 3.1% 5.5% 0.0% 3.8% 5.3% 6.7% Fine arts 2.3% 1.6% 1.9% 0.0% 2.7% 2.7% Business Adm. 2.3% 4.7% 5.7% 9.4% 0.0% 1.3% Did not 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% Teacher s academic majors and minors Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Education 41.3% 12.8% 38.1% 16.7% 43.9% 10.6% Life sciences 42.2% 13.8% 47.6% 11.9% 39.4% 15.2% Liberal arts 10.1% 16.5% 2.4% 11.9% 13.6% 19.7% Physical sciences 5.5% 24.8% 4.8% 28.6% 6.1% 22.7% Math 1.8% 3.7% 2.4% 2.4% 1.5% 4.5% Business Admin. 1.8% 1.8% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% Fine arts 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 3.0% Engineering 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Did not 0.9% 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 0.0% 1.5% Respondents indicated how many classes they took in college that dealt strictly with mathematics or science, and also teaching methods classes. The median is reported instead of the mean to control for the influence of outliers. Overall median Median - Region 1 Median - Region 20 Mathematics classes Mathematics teaching methods Science classes Science teaching methods

7 In addition to these accomplishments, some teachers are currently pursuing graduate degrees: Percent of teachers that are currently a graduate student Master s student 7.8% 5.7% 9.3% Doctoral student 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Did not 7.0% 3.8% 9.3% Percent of teachers that are currently a graduate student Master s student 10.1% 11.9% 9.1% Doctoral student 0.9% 0.0% 1.5% Did not 4.6% 4.8% 4.5% Have you ever taken a graduate mathematics course? Yes 25.8% 26.4% 25.3% No 71.1% 71.7% 70.7% Did not 3.1% 1.9% 4.0% Have you ever taken a graduate science course? Yes 25.7% 23.8% 27.3% No 69.7% 71.4% 68.2% Did not 4.6% 4.8% 4.5% Certification Respondents were asked whether the teacher is certified to teach all classes he/she is currently teaching. Percent of teachers certified to teach all classes that they are currently teaching Certified 91.4% 92.5% 90.7% Not certified 7.8% 7.5% 8% Did not 0.8% 0.0% 1.3% 7

8 Percent of teachers certified to teach all classes that they are currently teaching Certified 92.7% 90.5% 95.5% Not certified 7.3% 9.5% 4.5% Did not 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% The teachers in our sample also provided information about what grades they are certified to teach: Grades in which science teachers are certified to teach Grade Band Percent of teachers K % 35.8% 52.0% % 32.1% 29.3% PK-4 1.6% 0.0% 2.7% % 1.9% 8.0% % 30.2% 18.7% None of these 6.3% 9.4% 4.0% Grades in which science teachers are certified to teach Grade Band Percent of teachers K % 33.3% 50.0% % 35.7% 25.8% PK-4 2.8% 7.1% 0.0% % 4.8% 3.0% % 23.8% 24.2% None of these 3.7% 2.4% 3.0% The classes that the teachers in our sample currently teach are presented below: Grades in which the sample of science teachers is currently teaching Grade Percent of teachers 4 th 5.5% 0.0% 9.3% 5 th 5.5% 1.9% 8.0% 6 th 21.1% 24.5% 18.7% 7 th 18.0% 7.5% 25.3% 8

9 8 th 21.1% 17.0% 24.0% 9 th 26.6% 35.8% 20.0% 10 th 26.6% 34.0% 21.3% 11 th 28.1% 30.2% 26.7% 12 th 21.9% 22.6% 21.3% Did not 1.6% 1.9% 1.3% Grades in which the sample of science teachers is currently teaching Grade Percent of teachers 4 th 5.5% 7.1% 4.5% 5 th 7.3% 14.3% 3% 6 th 22.9% 11.9% 30.3% 7 th 14.7% 11.9% 15.2% 8 th 13.8% 11.9% 13.6% 9 th 20.2% 21.4% 19.7% 10 th 29.4% 33.3% 27.3% 11 th 30.3% 33.3% 28.8% 12 th 30.3% 33.3% 28.8% Did not 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total number of years teaching mathematics Median Mean Standard Minimum Maximum Deviation Region Region Overall Total number of years teaching science Median Mean Standard Minimum Maximum Deviation Region Region Overall Information about Previous Professional Development Activities The survey also explored teachers experiences with and attitudes toward professional development. The vast majority of teachers participated in some form of professional development activity during the past three years. The table below shows all 9

10 the professional development (workshops, college courses, summer institutes, conferences) that the teachers have been involved within the past three years. Professional development activity Percent of math teachers Mathematics teaching methods 82% 86.8% 78.7% TAAS test-taking 64.1% 62.3% 65.3% Cooperative learning 60.9% 60.4% 61.3% Student assessment methods 57% 47.2% 64.0% TAKS test-taking 53.9% 53.9% 62.7% Questioning 48.4% 45.3% 50.7% Participation 28.1% 28.3% 28.0% Mathematics language integration 18.8% 17.0% 20.0% None of the above 3.1% 1.9% 4.0% Professional development activity Percent of science teachers Science teaching methods 73.4% 71.4% 75.8% Student assessment 56.9% 45.2% 63.6% TAKS 52.3% 47.6% 54.5% Cooperative learning 51.4% 47.6% 54.5% Questioning 45.0% 33.3% 51.5% TAAS 42.2% 28.6% 50.0% Participation 25.7% 23.8% 27.3% None 7.3% 14.3% 3.0% It is interesting to note that the item TAAS test-taking was endorsed more frequently than all other items with the exception of teaching methods and student assessment. The survey also collected additional information about the content areas in which teachers received training within the past three years. 10

11 Areas Percent of math teachers Algebra 62.5% 66.0% 60.0% Numbers and operations 54.7% 54.7% 47.3% Geometry 48.4% 50.9% 46.7% Measurement 35.2% 30.2% 38.7% Statistics and probability 34.4% 34.0% 34.7% None of the above 12.5% 11.3% 12.5% Did not 1.6% 1.9% 1.3% Areas Percent of science teachers Physical sciences 34.9% 38.1% 33.3% Chemistry 33.0% 40.5% 28.8% Earth science 33.0% 28.6% 36.4% Life sciences 32.1% 31.0% 33.3% Biology 30.3% 35.7% 27.3% Physics 24.8% 23.8% 25.8% Astronomy 11.9% 14.3% 10.6% Geology 11.9% 11.9% 12.1% Meteorology 3.7% 0.0% 6.1% None 21.1% 16.7% 22.7% The trainings tended to be approximately six hours long, but some teachers reported much longer sessions. These outliers positively biased the mean, making it too high. In this case, the median gives an appropriate estimate of the typical duration of the professional development activities. Clock hours of training provided by last professional development activity Math teachers Median Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Region Region Overall Clock hours of training provided by last professional development activity Science teachers Median Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Region Region Overall

12 Mathematics Teachers Number of teachers Number of clock hours of last professional development activity 7 1 Science teachers Number of teachers Number of clock hours of last professional development activity

13 Teachers attitudes toward professional development activities may also be influenced by their perceptions of the administrative and institutional support they received. As you can see, many teachers were provided with professional growth credits, kits and materials, and /or release time. Types of support for last mathematics-related professional development activity Type of support Percentage of teachers that received it Professional growth credits 51.6% 50.9% 52.0% Release time from teaching 47.7% 49.1% 46.7% Mathematics kits/activity materials 38.3% 41.5% 36.0% Tuition/fees paid 29.7% 32.1% 28.0% Stipend 24.2% 24.5% 24.0% Travel expenses 16.4% 20.8% 13.3% Books paid 7.0% 13.2% 2.75 Graduate credit hours 3.9% 7.5% 1.3% Mentoring 3.9% 5.7% 2.7% Other 3.1% 5.7% 1.3% None 1.6% 1.9% 1.3% Did not 4.7% 3.8% 5.3% Not applicable 11.7% 9.4% 13.3% Types of support for last science-related professional development activity Type of support Percentage of teachers that received it Professional growth credits 45.0% 40.5% 48.5% Release time 33.9% 47.6% 12.1% Tuition/fees paid 30.3% 35.7% 27.3% Science kits activity materials 26.6% 33.3% 22.7% Travel expenses 17.4% 23.8% 13.6% Stipend 11.9% 16.7% 9.1% Books paid 10.1% 16.7% 6.1% Mentoring 2.8% 0.0% 4.5% Graduate credit hours 2.8% 0.0% 4.5% Other 1.8% 2.4% 1.5% None 9.2% 7.1% 10.6% 13

14 From the group of teachers that received support during their professional development activity, more than 50% of them reported that they were satisfied with the support received. Where you satisfied with the support you received? Yes 64.8% 66.0% 64.0% No 15.6% 18.9% 13.3% Not applicable 12.5% 3.8% 5.3% Did not 7% 11.3% 13.3% Where you satisfied with the support you received? Yes 57.8 % 57.1% 59.1% No 8.3% 14.3% 4.5% Not applicable 24.8% 19.0% 27.3% Did not 9.2% 9.5% 9.1% Teachers reported the types of aid they would have preferred to have received but did not. Among the possible types, teachers were most likely to say that they would prefer to receive a stipend. Respondents were allowed to select more than one option. Type of support Percentage of teachers that would like to have received it Stipend 32% 37.7% 28% Mathematics kits/activity 25% 26.4% 24.0% materials Travel expenses 18.8% 18.9% 18.7% Graduate credit hours 18.8% 17% 20% Release time from teaching 12.5% 17% 9.3% Tuition/fees paid 10.2% 9.4% 10.7% Books paid 10.2% 11.3% 9.3% Professional growth credits 8.6% 11.3% 6.7% Mentoring 5.5% 0.0% 9.3% None 7.8% 11.3% 5.3% Other 4.7% 1.9% 8% Not applicable 11.7% 9.4% 13.3% Did not 10.9% 7.5% 13.3% 14

15 Type of support Percentage of teachers that would like to have received it Stipend 31.2% 38.1% 27.3% Science kits activity materials 26.6% 33.3% 22.7% Graduate credit hours 20.2% 33.3% 12.1% Travel expenses 18.3% 19.0% 18.2% Release time 12.8% 14.3% 12.1% Tuition/fees paid 12.8% 16.7% 10.6% Books paid 12.8% 14.3% 12.1% Professional growth credits 11.0% 14.3% 9.1% Mentoring 3.7% 7.1% 1.5% Other 4.6% 7.1% 3.0% None 6.4% 2.4% 9.1% The next item assesses the extent to which teachers changed their classroom practices as a result of participating in these activities. Regions 1 & 20 - Teacher s evaluation of last math-related professional development activity A great deal Some A little Not at all Not applicable Did not Amount of new information in 12.5% 47.7% 22.7% 1.6% 11.7% 3.9% professional development activity Extent to which teaching practices 7.8% 36.7% 28.9% 10.9% 11.7% 3.9% were changed Amount of additional training after the professional development activity the teacher received 2.3% 19.5% 11.7% 47.7% 11.7% 7.0% Region 1 - Teacher s evaluation of last math-related professional development activity A great deal Some A little Not at all Not applicable Did not Amount of new information in 9.4% 56.6% 22.6% 0.0% 9.4% 1.9% professional development activity Extent to which teaching practices 7.5% 35.8% 34.0% 11.3% 9.4% 1.9% were changed Amount of additional training after the professional development activity the teacher received 3.8% 17.0% 9.4% 52.8% 9.4% 7.5% 15

16 Region 20 - Teacher s evaluation of last math-related professional development activity A great deal Some A little Not at all Not applicable Did not Amount of new information in 14.7% 41.3% 22.7% 2.7% 13.3% 5.3% professional development activity Extent to which teaching practices 8.0% 37.3% 25.3% 10.7% 13.3% 5.3% were changed Amount of additional training after the professional development activity the teacher received 1.3% 21.3% 13.3% 44.0% 13.3% 6.7% Regions 1 & 20 - Teacher s evaluation of last science-related professional development activity A great Not at Not Did not Some A little deal all applicable Amount of new information in professional development activity 15.6% 44.0% 9.2% 4.6% 11.7% 3.9% Extent to which teaching practices were changed 11.9% 40.4% 12.8% 8.3% 21.1% 5.5% Amount of additional training after the professional development activity the teacher received 3.7% 11.9% 22.9% 33.0% 21.1% 7.3% Region 1 - Evaluation of last science-related professional development activity A great Not at Not Did not Some A little deal all applicable Amount of new information in professional development activity 21.4% 45.2% 7.1% 2.4% 16.7% 7.1% Extent to which teaching practices were changed 16.7% 45.2% 7.1% 7.1% 16.7% 7.1% Amount of additional training after the professional development activity the teacher received 9.5% 11.9% 21.4% 31.0% 16.7% 9.5% Region 20 - Evaluation of last science-related professional development activity A great Not at Not Did not Some A little deal all applicable Amount of new information in professional development activity 12.1% 43.9% 10.6% 6.1% 22.7% 4.5% Extent to which teaching practices were changed 9.1% 37.9% 16.7% 9.1% 22.7% 4.5% Amount of additional training after the professional development activity the teacher received 0.0% 12.1% 24.2% 34.8% 22.7% 6.1% 16

17 Teacher s Preparation to Work with Diverse Students Language issues often affect classroom behavior as teachers are expected to adapt their pedagogies in the interests of LEP students. The following percentages give a picture of the LEP representation in this sample of teachers classes. What percentage of the students in your current class(es) are LEP? Overall Region1 Region 20 None 33.9% 24.5% 41.3% 1 to 10% 36.2% 26.4% 42.7% 10-25% 15.7% 22.6% 10.7% 26-50% 7.1% 15.1% 1.3% More than 50% 6.3% 11.3% 2.7% Did not 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% What percentage of the students in your current class(es) are LEP? Overall Region1 Region 20 None 24.8% 9.5% 33.3% 1 to 10% 40.4% 38.1% 42.4% 10-25% 18.3% 31.0% 10.6% 26-50% 5.5% 9.5% 3.0% More than 50% 9.2% 9.5% 7.6% Did not 1.8% 2.4% 1.5% Have you ever taken a workshops or courses about how to teach LEP students? Yes 33.6% 37.7% 30.7% No 64.1% 62.3% 65.3% Did not 2.3% 0.0% 4.0% 17

18 Have you ever taken a workshops or courses about how to teach LEP students? Yes 38.5% 40.5% 40.3% No 55.0% 52.4% 59.7% Did not 6.4% 7.1% 6.1% The survey addressed the barriers that make teaching LEP students more difficult for the teachers. From these data, it is possible to notice the problems associated with standardized testing within this population. Region 1 & 20 - Perceived barriers in teaching LEP students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Not applicable Limitations of 10.9% 14.8% 15.6% 23.4% 0.8% 34.4% mathematics textbooks Language barriers in the 19.5% 19.5% 14.8% 10.9% 1.6% 33.6% communicating concepts Language barriers in 18.8% 25.0% 10.2% 11.7% 0.8% 33.6% classroom assessment Preparation for the TAAS and TAKS 25.0% 19.5% 15.6% 6.3% 0.8% 32.8% *Note: Not applicable refers to teachers that do not teach LEP students. Region 1 - Perceived barriers in teaching LEP students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Not applicable Limitations of 13.2% 9.4% 22.6% 28.3% 1.9% 24.5% mathematics textbooks Language barriers in the 24.5% 17.0% 18.9% 13.2% 1.9% 24.5% communication of concepts Language barriers in 24.5% 24.5% 11.3% 13.2% 1.9% 24.5% classroom assessment Preparation for TAAS and TAKS 30.2% 17% 22.6% 5.7% 1.9% 22.6% 18

19 Region 20 - Perceived barriers in teaching LEP students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Not applicable Limitations of 9.3% 18.7% 10.7% 20.0% 0.0% 41.3% mathematics textbooks Language barriers in 16% 21.3% 12% 9.3% 1.3% 40% communicatingconcepts Language barriers in 14.7% 25.3% 9.3% 10.7% 0.0% 40.0% classroom assessment Preparation for TAAS and TAKS 21.3% 21.3% 10.7% 6.7% 0.0% 40.0% Region 1 & 20 - Perceived barriers in teaching LEP students Limitations of science textbooks Language barriers in communicating concepts Language barriers in classroom assessment Preparation for TAAS and TAAKS Region 1 - Perceived barriers in teaching LEP students Limitations of science textbooks Language barriers in communicating concepts Language barriers in classroom assessment Preparation for TAAS and TAAKS A great Some A little Not at all Not Did not deal applicable 19.3% 27.5% 11.9% 11.9% 24.8% 4.6% 35.8% 24.8% 7.3% 5.5% 24.8% 1.8% 31.2% 24.8% 8.3% 7.3% 24.8% 3.7% 29.4% 22.9% 8.3% 8.3% 24.8% 6.4% A great Some A little Not at all Not Did not deal applicable 23.8% 28.6% 14.3% 16.7% 9.5% 7.1% 31.0% 40.5% 7.1% 9.5% 9.5% 2.4% 31.0% 40.5% 7.1% 9.5% 9.5% 2.4% 26.2% 26.2% 11.9% 14.3% 78.6% 9.5% 19

20 Region 20 - Perceived barriers in teaching LEP students Limitations of science textbooks Language barriers in communicating concepts Language barriers in classroom assessment Preparation for TAAS and TAAKS A great Some A little Not at all Not Did not deal applicable 15.2% 19.7% 19.7% 25.8% 25.0% 4.6% 28.8% 13.6% 21.2% 19.7% 25.0% 1.9% 21.2% 18.2% 18.2% 24.2% 25.0% 3.7% 18.2% 24.2% 22.7% 18.2% 25.0% 6.5% Bilingual students differ from LEP students because they are fluent in English as well as another language. This type of student poses unique challenges to the teacher. The survey data show that 23.4% of the mathematics teachers and 23.9% of the science teachers have participated in at least on course or workshop designed to provide training on effectively teaching bilingual students. Furthermore, 20.3% of the mathematics teachers and 14.3% of the science teachers indicated that they have a bilingual teaching certificate or ESL certificate. Have you ever completed any workshops or courses about how to teach bilingual students? Yes 23.4% 24.5% 22.7% No 75.8% 73.6% 77.3% Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Did not 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% Have you ever completed any workshops or courses about how to teach bilingual students? Yes 23.9% 33.3% 18.2% No 48.6% 52.4% 45.5% Not applicable 24.8% 9.5% 34.8% Did not 2.8% 4.8% 1.5% 20

21 Do you have a Bilingual Teaching Certificate or English as a Second Language Certificate? Yes 20.3% 28.3% 14.7% No 78.1% 69.8% 84% Did not 1.6% 1.9% 1.3% Do you have a Bilingual Teaching Certificate or English as a Second Language Certificate? Yes 14.7% 19.0% 12.1% No 83.5% 78.6% 86.4% Did not 1.8% 2.4% 1.5% The teachers were asked about the barriers that make teaching bilingual students more difficult for them. The results are displayed below: Region 1 & 20 Perceived barriers in teaching bilingual students Regions 1 & 20 - Barriers in teaching bilingual students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Limitations of mathematics textbooks 5.5% 20.3% 18.8% 38.3% 17.2% Language barriers in the communication 8.6% 23.4% 25.0% 28.1% 14.8% of concepts Language barriers in classroom 7.0% 19.5% 32.89% 25.0% 15.6% assessment (e.g., test questions) Preparation for the mathematics TAAS/TAKS 10.9% 27.3% 25.8% 20.3% 15.6% Region 1 Perceived barriers in teaching bilingual students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Limitations of mathematics textbooks 1.9% 15.1% 22.6% 41.5% 18.9% Language barriers in the communication 3.8% 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% 17.0% of concepts Language barriers in classroom 7.5% 24.5% 30.2% 20.8% 17.0% assessment (e.g., test questions) Preparation for the mathematics TAAS/TAKS 7.5% 26.4% 30.2% 18.9% 17.0% 21

22 Region 20 Perceived barriers in teaching bilingual students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Limitations of mathematics textbooks 8.0% 24.0% 16.0% 36.0% 16.% Language barriers in the communication 12.0% 21.3% 24.0% 29.3% 13.3% of concepts Language barriers in classroom 6.7% 16.0% 34.7% 28.0% 14.7% assessment (e.g., test questions) Preparation for the mathematics TAAS/TAKS 13.3% 28.0% 22.7% 21.3% 14.7% Region 1 & 20 Perceived barriers in teaching bilingual students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Science textbooks 15.6% 20.2% 21.1% 26.6% 16.5% Language barriers in communicating concepts 26.6% 19.3% 22.9% 17.4% 13.8% Language barriers in assessment 18.3% 26.6% 21.1% 18.3% 15.6% Preparation for TAAS and TAAKS 16.5% 29.4% 23.9% 15.6% 14.7% Region 1 - Perceived barriers in teaching bilingual students Science textbooks A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not 14.3% 21.4% 21.4% 28.6% 11.9% Language barriers in communicating concepts 21.4% 28.6% 23.8% 14.3% 9.5% Language barriers in assessment 11.9% 38.1% 26.2% 9.5% 11.9% Preparation for TAAS and TAAKS 11.9% 35.7% 26.2% 11.9% 11.9% Region 20 - Perceived barriers in teaching bilingual students A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Science textbooks 16.7% 25.8% 10.6% 9.1% 3.0% Language barriers in communicating concepts 37.9% 15.2% 7.6% 3.0% 1.5% Language barriers in assessment 30.3% 22.7% 7.6% 3.0% 1.5% Preparation for TAAS and TAAKS 31.8% 19.7% 6.1% 4.5% 3.0% 22

23 School support to teachers Having access to adequate resources is an important condition for teachers to maximize student achievement. The data below indicate that less than half of the teachers surveyed are provided with sufficient teaching supplies, and even fewer have been provided with other materials and considerations. Region 1 & 20 - Support teachers receive from school administrators for teaching math A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Teaching supplies 46.1% 36.7% 14.8% 1.6% 0.8% Release time 32.8% 38.3% 19.5% 7.0% 2.3% Funding for professional 29.7% 35.2% 21.1% 11.7% 2.3% development activities Classroom observations 15.6% 36.7% 34.4% 11.7% 1.6% Region 1 - Support teachers receive from school administrators for teaching math A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Teaching supplies 45.3% 37.7% 15.1% 0.0% 1.9% Release time 39.6% 34.0% 11.3% 9.4% 5.7% Funding for professional 37.7% 37.7% 13.2% 7.5% 3.8% development activities Classroom observations 22.6% 39.6% 24.5% 11.3% 1.9% Region 20 - Support teachers receive from school administrators for teaching math A great deal Some A little Not at all Did not Teaching supplies 48.0% 36.0% 13.3% 2.7% 0.0% Release time 28.0% 41.3% 25.3% 5.3% 0.0% Funding for professional 24.0% 33.3% 28.0% 13.3% 1.3% development activities Classroom observations 10.7% 34.7% 40.0% 13.3% 1.3% 23

24 Region 1 & 20 - Support teachers receive from school administrators for teaching science A great deal Some Very little None Did not Teaching supplies 41.3% 33.9% 16.5% 4.6% 3.7% Release time 22.9% 35.8% 25.7% 11.9% 3.7% Funding for professional development activities Classroom observations 21.1% 28.4% 36.7% 9.2% 4.6% 15.6% 35.8% 26.6% 15.6% 6.4% Region 1 - Support teachers receive from school administrators for teaching science A great deal Some Very little None Did not Teaching supplies 33.3% 35.7% 23.8% 4.8% 2.4% Release time 26.2% 38.1% 23.8% 9.5% 2.4% Funding for professional development 28.6% 21.4% 40.5% 7.1% 2.4% activities Classroom observations 19.0% 35.7% 23.8% 16.7% 4.8% Region 20 - Support teachers receive from school administrators for teaching science A great deal Some Very little None Did not Teaching supplies 47.0% 31.8% 12.1% 4.5% 4.5% Release time 21.2% 33.3% 27.3% 13.6% 4.5% Funding for professional development 15.2% 33.3% 34.8% 10.6% 6.1% activities Classroom observations 13.6% 34.8% 28.8% 15.2% 7.6% 24

25 Teachers were also asked whether they have access to manipulatives, a computer lab, or a computer for personal use. The results are reported below: Do you have access to manipulatives for use in your math class? Yes 89.8% 94.3% 86.7% No 9.4% 3.8% 13.3% Did not 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% Do you have access to manipulatives for use in your science class? Yes 87.2% 88.1% 86.4% No 9.2% 9.5% 9.1% Did not 3.7% 2.4% 4.5% Do you have access to a computer lab for teaching your students? Yes 77.3% 62.3% 88% No 21.1% 34% 12% Did not 1.6% 3.8% 0.0% Do you have access to a computer lab for teaching your students? Yes 68.8% 57.1% 75.8% No 27.5% 40.5% 19.7% Did not 3.7% 2.4% 4.5% Does the school provide a computer for your personal use? Yes 85.2% 79.2% 89.3% No 14.1% 15.1% 10.7% Did not 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% Does the school provide a computer for your personal use? Yes 82.6% 78.6% 84.8% No 13.8% 19.0% 10.6% Did not 3.7% 2.4% 4.5% 25

26 Teaching Practices In order to obtain a more informed understanding of teachers classroom practices, the survey gathered information about the frequency of various teaching activities/materials. Region 1 & 20 - Frequency of activities use in mathematics class In every class week month semester Never Did not Homework 61.7% 25% 3.1% 0.8% 7.0% 2.3% Quizzes 21.1% 58.6% 14.1% 0.0% 4.7% 1.6% Manipulatives 30.5% 38.3% 20.3% 7.0% 0.8% 3.1% Calculators 46.9% 18.8% 10.9% 9.4% 13.3% 0.8% Computers 20.3% 21.1% 21.9% 10.9% 21.9% 3.9% Internet 4.7% 14.8% 17.2% 17.2% 40.6% 5.5% Math videos and movies 0.8% 3.1% 10.9% 28.1% 53.1% 3.9% Field trips 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 18.8% 75.8% 3.9% Group projects 2.3% 17.2% 28.9% 33.6% 14.8% 3.1% Student presentations 1.6% 11.7% 27.3% 36.7% 19.5% 3.1% Region 1 - Frequency of activities use in mathematics class In every class week month semester Never Did not Homework 62.3% 24.5% 3.8% 0.0% 5.7% 3.8% Quizzes 26.4% 56.6% 9.4% 0.0% 5.7% 1.9% Manipulatives 32.1% 37.7% 22.6% 1.9% 1.9% 3.8% Calculators 43.4% 17.0% 13.2% 9.4% 15.1% 1.9% Computers 18.9% 17.0% 20.8% 9.4% 28.3% 5.7% Internet 3.8% 11.3% 15.1% 18.9% 47.2% 3.8% Math videos and movies 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 26.4% 64.2% 5.7% Field trips 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.8% 73.6% 5.7% Group projects 0.0% 11.3% 22.6% 41.5% 18.9% 5.7% Student presentations 0.0% 3.8% 24.5% 37.7% 28.3% 5.7% 26

27 Region 20 - Frequency of activities use in mathematics class In every class week month semester Never Did not Homework 61.3% 25.3% 2.7% 1.3% 8.0% 1.3% Quizzes 17.3% 60.0% 17.3% 0.0% 4.0% 1.3% Manipulatives 29.3% 38.7% 18.7% 10.7% 0.0% 2.7% Calculators 49.3% 20.0% 9.3% 9.3% 12.0% 0.0% Computers 21.3% 24.0% 22.7% 12.0% 17.3% 2.7% Internet 5.3% 17.3% 18.7% 16.0% 36.0% 6.7% Math videos and movies 2.7% 4.0% 17.3% 29.3% 44.0% 2.7% Field trips 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 17.3% 77.3% 2.7% Group projects 4.0% 21.3% 33.3% 28.0% 12.0% 1.3% Student presentations 2.7% 17.3% 29.3% 36.0% 13.3% 1.3% Frequency of activities use in science class In every class week month semester Never Did not Homework 28.4% 45.0% 13.8% 0.9% 5.5% 6.4% Quizzes 11.9% 44.0% 22.0% 2.8% 5.5% 13.8% Manipulatives 31.2% 40.4% 14.7% 0.0% 2.8% 11.0% Science lab 19.3% 45.0% 11.0% 3.7% 11.9% 9.2% Computer 10.1% 25.7% 23.9% 15.6% 13.8% 11.0% Internet 7.3% 23.9% 21.1% 21.1% 16.5% 10.1% Science 3.7% 19.3% 45.0% 20.2% 4.6% 7.3% movies Field trips 0.9% 0.0% 2.8% 44.0% 44.0% 8.3% Group projects 6.4% 14.7% 43.1% 20.2% 7.3% 8.3% Student presentations 3.7% 6.4% 31.2% 42.2% 9.2% 7.3% Region 1 - Frequency of activities use in science class In every class week month semester Never Did not Homework 28.6% 47.6% 14.3% 0.0% 4.8% 4.8% Quizzes 16.7% 52.4% 19.0% 0.0% 7.1% 4.8% Manipulatives 35.7% 42.9% 11.9% 0.0% 4.8% 4.8% Science lab 23.8% 35.7% 11.9% 4.8% 16.7% 4.8% Computer 14.3% 31.0% 19.0% 14.3% 14.3% 7.1% Internet 9.5% 26.2% 19.0% 26.2% 14.3% 4.8% Science 2.4% 11.9% 42.9% 28.6% 9.5% 4.8% movies Field trips 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 40.5% 54.8% 2.4% Group projects 11.9% 14.3% 31.0% 31.0% 7.1% 4.8% Student presentations % 7.1% 33.3% 40.5% 9.5% 4.8%

28 Region 20 - Frequency of activities use in science class In every class week month semester Never Did not Homework 28.8% 43.9% 13.6% 1.5% 6.1% 6.1% Quizzes 9.1% 39.4% 24.2% 4.5% % Manipulatives 28.8% 39.4% 16.7% 0.0% 1.5% 13.6% Science lab 16.7% 51.5% 10.6% 1.5% 9.1% 10.6% Computer 7.6% 22.7% 27.3% 16.7% 13.6% 12.1% Internet 6.1% 22.7% 22.7% 18.2% 18.2% 12.1% Science movies 4.5% 24.2% 47.0% 15.2% 1.5% 7.6% Field trips 1.5% 0.0% 3.0% 47.0% 37.9% 10.6% Group projects 3.0% 15.2% 51.5% 13.6% 7.6% 9.1% Student presentations 3.0% 6.1% 30.3% 43.9% 9.1% 7.6% The survey also collected information pertaining to mathematics teachers use of various teaching. The frequencies of use of each strategy are reported below: Region 1 & 20 - Frequency of use of teaching In every class week month semester Never Did not Share beliefs about a concept 46.1% 29.7% 9.4% 6.3% 3.9% 4.7% Discuss the relevance of a 54.7% 30.5% 6.3% 3.2% 2.4% 3.1% math concept Paraphrase the definition of 63.3% 24.2% 4.7% 2.3% 2.3% 3.1% a math concept Discuss how a math concept 60.9% 23.4% 9.4% 1.6% 0.8% 3.9% is used in different situations Use diagrams to show connections among concepts 46.1% 32.0% 7.8% 4.7% 6.3% 3.1% Region 1 - Frequency of use of teaching In every class week month semester Never Did not Share beliefs about a concept 43.4% 28.3% 13.2% 3.8% 3.8% 7.5% Discuss the relevance of a 52.8% 32.1% 7.5% 1.9% 1.9% 3.8% math concept Paraphrase the definition of 62.3% 22.6% 5,7% 1.9% 3.8% 3.8% a math concept Discuss how a math concept 64.2% 17.0% 11.3% 1.9% 0.0% 5.7% is used in different situations Use diagrams to show connections among concepts 50.9% 26.4% 5.7% 7.5% 5.7% 3.8% 28

29 Region 20 - Frequency of use of teaching In every class week month semester Never Did not Share beliefs about a concept 48.0% 30.7% 6.7% 8.0% 4.0% 1.3% Discuss the relevance of a 56.0% 29.3% 5.3% 4.0% 2.7% 2.7% math concept Paraphrase the definition of 64.0% 25.3% 4.0% 2.7% 1.3% 2.7% a math concept Discuss how a math concept 58.7% 28.0% 8.0% 1.3% 1.3% 2.7% is used in different situations Use diagrams to show connections among concepts 42.7% 36.0% 9.3% 2.7% 6.7% 2.7% Region 1 & 20 Frequency of use of teaching In every class week month Share beliefs about a semester Never Did not 43.1% 36.7% 9.2% 0.9% 4.6% 5.5% concept Discuss relevance 58.7% 22.0% 11.0% 1.8% 1.8% 4.6% Paraphrase definitions 53.2% 33.0% 5.5% 0.0% 2.8% 5.5% Application of concepts 43.1% 45.9% 7.3% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% Use diagrams 36.7% 41.3% 11.0% 0.9% 3.7% 6.4% Region 1 - Frequency of use of teaching In every class week Share beliefs about a month semester Never Did not 42.9% 33.3% 9.5% 2.4% 4.8% 7.1% concept Discuss elevance 59.5% 21.4% 11.9% 2.4% 0.0% 4.8% Paraphrase definitions 42.9% 35.7% 9.5% 0.0% 4.8% 7.1% Application of concepts 35.7% 45.2% 14.3% 2.4% 0.0% 2.4% Use diagrams 21.4% 50.0% 14.3% 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% Region 20 - Frequency of use of teaching In every class week Share beliefs about a month semester Never Did not 43.9% 37.9% 9.1% % 4.5% concept Discuss relevance 59.1% 21.2% 10.6% 1.5% 3.0% 4.5% Paraphrase definitions 60.6% 30.3% 3.0% 0.0% 1.5% 4.5% Application of concepts 48.5% 5.5% 3.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% Use diagrams 47% 34.8% 9.1% 1.5% 1.5% 6.1% 29

30 colleagues. Most of the teachers indicated that they share instructional ideas with their Do you share instructional ideas with your colleagues? Yes 91.4% 90.6% 92.0% No 7.0% 7.5% 6.7% Did not 1.6% 1.9% 1.3% Do you share instructional ideas with your colleagues? Yes 94.5% 95.2% 92.4% No 3.7% 4.8% 4.5% Did not 1.8% 0.0% 3.0% The teachers reported that the standardized tests used by the state of Texas have a strong influence in their teaching. Extent to which TAAS/TAKS influences teaching In every class 39.1% 39.6% 38.7% Most of the time 27.3% 26.4% 28.0% Half of the time 7.8% 7.5% 8.0% Less than half of the time 18.8% 20.8% 17.3% Not at all 4.7% 3.8% 5.3% Did not 2.3% 1.9% 2.7% Extent to which TAAS/TAKS influences teaching In every class 33.9% 40.5% 28.8% Most of the time 25.7% 40.5% 18.2% Half of the time 11.9% 4.8% 16.7% Less than half of the time 22.0% 11.9% 27.3% Not at all 2.8% 2.4% 3.0% Did not 3.7% 0.0% 6.1% 30

31 Perceptions of competency The survey asked teachers to report which subject they felt best qualified to teach, regardless of whether he/she was currently teaching that subject. It also asked teachers to report their perceived satisfaction, success, and anxieties when teaching their classes. Subject that mathematics teachers feel best qualified to teach Subject Percent of teachers Math 63.3% 64.2% 62.7% General elementary 7.8% 9.4% 6.7% Special education 4.7% 3.8% 5.3% Reading 3.9% 0.0% 6.7% Social studies 3.1% 1.9% 4.0% Science 2.3% 1.9% 2.7% Fine Arts 1.6% 0.0% 2.7% English/Writing 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% Vocational 0.8% 0.0% 1.3% Did not 11.7% 17.0% 8.0% Subject that science teachers feel best qualified to teach Subject Percent of teachers Science 59.6% 59.5% 60.6% Math 8.3% 11.9% 6.1% English/Writing 4.6% 2.4% 6.1% Reading 4.6% 7.1% 3.0% Social studies 3.7% 2.4% 4.5% General elem. 5.5% 4.8% 6.1% Vocational 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Special education 2.8% 0.0% 3.0% Fine Arts 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Did not 11.0% 11.9% 10.6% 31

32 Region 1 & 20 - How often do you experience the following situations: Less than Most of the Half of the Always half of the time time time Enjoy teaching a math class Feel prepared to teach a math class Feel insecure when teaching Succeed in motivating students Succeed in having students learn content Not at all Did not 50.8% 43.0% 3.1% 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% 54.7% 40.6% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 2.3% 1.6% 1.6% 17.2% 75.8% 1.6% 10.9% 66.4% 14.8% 5.5% 0.8% 1.6% 17.2% 64.8% 14.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% Region 1 - How often do you experience the following situations: Enjoy teaching a math class Feel prepared to teach a math class Feel insecure when teaching Succeed in motivating students Succeed in having students learn content Always Most of the time Half of the time Less than half of the time Not at all Did not 62.3% 32.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 66.0% 30.2% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.8% 1.9% 0.0% 13.2% 79.2% 1.9% 15.1% 69.8% 7.5% 5.7% 0.0% 1.9% 17.0% 73.6% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 32

33 Region 20 - How often do you experience the following situations: Enjoy teaching a math class Feel prepared to teach a math class Feel insecure when teaching Succeed in motivating students Succeed in having students learn content Always Most of the time Half of the time Less than half of the time Not at all Did not 42.7% 50.7% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 46.7% 48.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 2.7% 20.0% 73.3% 1.3% 8.0% 64.0% 20.0% 5.3% 1.3% 1.3% 17.3% 58.7% 20.0% 1.3% % Region 1 & 20 - How often do you experience the following situations: Less than Most of the Half of the Always half of the time time time Enjoy teaching a science class Feel prepared to teach a science class Feel insecure when teaching Succeed in motivating students Succeed in having students learn content Not at all Did not 45.9% 41.3% 9.2% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 45.9% 38.5% 6.4% 4.6% 1.8% 2.8% 1.8% 9.2% 6.4% 18.3% 60.6% 3.7% 20.2% 58.7% 15.6% 2.8% 0.0% 2.8% 9.2% 71.6% 12.8% 2.8% 0.0% 3.7% 33

34 Region 1 - How often do you experience the following situations: Enjoy teaching a science class Feel prepared to teach a science class Feel insecure when teaching Succeed in motivating students Succeed in having students learn content Always Most of the time Half of the time Less than half of the time Not at all Did not 50% 35.7% 11.9% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 50% 38.1% 2.4% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 7.1% 7.1% 16.7% 64.3% 2.4% 19% 64.3% 14.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 71.4% 16.7% 4.8% 0.0% 2.4% Region 20 - How often do you experience the following situations: Enjoy teaching a science class Feel prepared to teach a science class Feel insecure when teaching Succeed in motivating students Succeed in having students learn content Always Most of the time Half of the time Less than half of the time Not at all Did not 43.9% 45.5% 6.1% 1.5% 0.0% 3.0% 43.9% 39.4% 9.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 10.6% 6.1% 18.2% 59.1% 4.5% 19.7% 57.6% 15.2% 3.0% 0.0% 4.5% 12.1% 71.2% 10.6% 1.5% 0.0% 4.5% 34

35 The teachers indicated their familiarity with state and national content standards. They are familiar with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. However, mathematics teachers were not familiar with the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and science teachers were not familiar with the National Science Education Standards (NSES). Familiarity with Familiarity with NCTM TEKS Overall percent of teachers Very familiar 55.5% 19.5% Somewhat 39.1% 33.6% Not much 3.1% 31.3% Not at all 0.0% 13.3% Did not 2.3% 2.3% Familiarity with Familiarity with NCTM TEKS Percent of teachers in Region 1 Very familiar 54.7% 17.0% Somewhat 37.7% 37.7% Not much 5.7% 34.0% Not at all 0.0% 9.4% Did not 1.9% 1.9% Familiarity with Familiarity with NCTM TEKS Percent of teachers in Region 20 Very familiar 56.0% 21.3% Somewhat 40.0% 30.7% Not much 1.3% 29.3% Not at all 0.0% 16.0% Did not 2.7% 2.7% 35

36 Familiarity Familiarity with NSES with TEKS Overall percent of teachers Very familiar 54.1% 11.0% Somewhat 37.6% 47.7% Not much 3.7% 22.9% Not at all 1.8% 15.6% Did not 2.8% 2.8% Familiarity Familiarity with NSES with TEKS Percent of teachers in Region 1 Very familiar 50% 2.4% Somewhat 38.1% 38.1% Not much 7.1% 35.7% Not at all 2.4% 21.4% Did not 2.4% 2.4% Familiarity Familiarity with NSES with TEKS Percent of teachers in Region 20 Very familiar 16.7% 16.7% Somewhat 54.5% 54.5% Not much 15.2% 15.2% Not at all 3.6% 10.6% Did not 3.0% 3% The teachers in this sample were asked to rate from 1 to 6 their knowledge in many areas of mathematics or science. Since this survey is a self-report instrument, there is no basis to determine whether these ratings correspond to reality. The only way to obtain objective information about the teachers knowledge of mathematics or science is to test them. 36

37 Mean knowledge rating (scale from 1 to 6) Numbers and operations Algebra Geometry Measurement Statistics and probability Region Region Overall Mean rating of knowledge (scale from 1 to 6) Physical sciences Physics Chemistry Life sciences Biology Earth sciences Region Region Overall The teachers were also asked to what extent they perceive that they need additional training in different areas of mathematics or science. The results are displayed below: Region 1 & 20 - Extent to which teachers perceive they need additional training Very Much Somewhat A little Not at all Did not Numbers and 0.8% 14.8% 25.8% 54.7% 3.9% operations Algebra 12.5% 20.3% 27.3% 36.7% 3.1% Geometry 7.8% 32.0% 33.6% 22.7% 3.9% Measurement 4.7% 25.8% 32.8% 32.8% 3.9% Stats and probability Math teaching methods Student assessment methods Cooperative learning Participation Questioning 13.3% 38.3% 28.9% 16.4% 3.1% 12.5% 30.5% 39.8% 13.3% 3.9% 10.2% 41.4% 30.5% 15.6% 2.3% 7.8% 26.6% 33.6% 27.3% 4.7% 10.9% 35.2% 31.3% 18.0% 4.7% 13.3% 27.3% 39.8% 15.6% 3.9% 37

38 Mathematics language integration TAKS test taking Teaching LEP students Teaching bilingual students Teaching culturally diverse students 18.8% 31.3% 33.6% 13.3% 3.1% 26.6% 28.9% 22.7% 18.8% 3.1% 24.2% 35.2% 21.9% 14.1% 4.7% 25.0% 35.2% 19.5% 16.4% 3.9% 21.9% 34.4% 23.4% 17.2% 3.1% Region 1 - Extent to which teachers perceive they need additional training Very Much Somewhat A little Not at all Did not Numbers and 1.9% 7.5% 30.2% 56.6% 3.8% operations Algebra 13.2% 18.9% 26.4% 37.7% 3.8% Geometry 7.5% 26.4% 37.7% 24.5% 3.8% Measurement 3.8% 18.9% 39.6% 34.0% 3.8% Stats and probability Math teaching methods Student assessment methods Cooperative learning Participation Questioning Mathematics language integration TAKS test taking Teaching LEP students Teaching bilingual students Teaching culturally diverse students % 37.7% 28.3% 17.0% 3.8% 13.2% 30.2% 39.6% 11.3% 5.7% 11.3% 41.5% 32.1% 13.2% 1.9% 7.5% 26.4% 34.0% 26.4% 94.3% 11.3% 37.7% 32.1% 13.2% 5.7% 9.4% 30.2% 37.7% 17.0% 5.7% 17.0% 35.8% 32.1% 11.3% 3.8% 34.0% 30.2% 17.0% 15.1% 3.8% 26.4% 34.0% 20.8% 13.2% 5.7% 26.4% 30.2% 24.5% 13.2% 5.7% 30.2% 32.1% 18.9% 15.1% 3.8%

39 Region 20 - Extent to which teachers perceive they need additional training Very Much Somewhat A little Not at all Did not Numbers and 0.0% 20.0% 22.7% 53.3% 4.0% operations Algebra 12.0% 21.3% 28.0% 36.0% 2.7% Geometry 8.0% 36.0% 30.7% 21.3% 4.0% Measurement 5.3% 30.7% 28.0% 32.0% 4.0% Stats and probability Math teaching methods Student assessment methods Cooperative learning Participation Questioning Mathematics language integration TAKS test taking Teaching LEP students Teaching bilingual students Teaching culturally diverse students 13.3% 38.7% 29.3% 16.0% 2.7% 12.0% 30.7% 40.0% 14.7% 2.7% 9.3% 41.3% 29.3% 17.3% 2.7% 8.0% 26.7% 33.3% 28.0% 4.0% 10.7% 33.3% 30.7% 21.3% 4.0% 16.0% 25.3% 41.3% 14.7% 2.7% 20.0% 28.0% 34.7% 14.7% 2.7% 21.3% 28.0% 26.7% 21.3% 2.7% 22.7% 36.0% 22.7% 14.7% 4.0% 24.0% 38.7% 16.0% 18.7% 2.7% 16.0% 36.0% 26.7% 18.7% 2.7% 39

40 Region 1 & 20 - Extent to which teachers perceive they need additional training Very Much Somewhat A little Not at all Did not Physical sciences 17.4% 42.2% 28.4% 4.6% 7.3% Physics 34.9% 41.3% 11.9% 4.6% 7.3% Chemistry 23.9% 41.3% 22.0% 6.4% 6.4% Life sciences 11.0% 32.1% 33.0% 13.8% 10.1% Biology 13.8% 37.6% 25.7% 14.7% 8.3% Astronomy 37.6% 31.2% 14.7% 6.4% 10.1% Geology 32.1% 33.9% 18.3% 8.3% 7.3% Meteorology 40.4% 28.4% % 6.4% Science teaching methods 21.1% 32.1% 30.3% 10.1% 5.5% Science assessment methods 24.8% 33.0% 26.6% 11.0% 4.6% Scientific research methods 24.8% 31.2% 25.7% 11.9% 6.4% Cooperative learning 9.2% 19.3% 41.3% 21.1% 9.2% Participation 9.2% 29.4% 35.8% 19.3% 6.4% Questioning 12.8% 33.0% 33.9% 14.7% TAKS test taking 26.6% 26.6% 30.3% 11.0% Teaching LEP students 29.4% 34.9% 22.0% 8.3% 5.5% Teaching bilingual students 28.4% 36.7% 21.1% 9.2% 4.6% Teaching culturally diverse students 22.0% 27.5% 31.2% 13.8% 5.5% 40

41 Region 1 - Extent to which teachers perceive they need additional training Very Much Somewhat A little Not at all Did not Physical sciences 16.7% 50% 19% 2.4% 9.5% Physics 31% 50% 9.5% 2.4% 7.1% Chemistry 21.4% 50% 19% 4.8% 4.8% Life sciences 9.5% 38.1% 31% 9.5% 11.9% Biology 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 7.1% 7.1% Astronomy 35.7% 35.7% 9.5% 7.1% 11.9% Geology 35.7% 35.7% 14.3% 7.1% 7.1% Meteorology 45.2% 31% 7.1% 4.8% 11.9% Science teaching methods Science assessment methods Scientific research methods Cooperative learning Participation Questioning TAKS test taking Teaching LEP students Teaching bilingual students Teaching culturally diverse students 31% 38.1% 21.4% 4.8% 4.8% 35.7% 35.7% 19% 4.8% 4.8% 35.7% 38.1% 11.9% 7.1% 7.1% 14.3% 23.8% 35.7% 16.7% 9.5% 14.3% 35.7% 23.8% 16.7% 9.5% 16.7% 40.5% 19% 16.7% 7.1% 42.9% 16.7% 26.2% 9.5% 4.8% 35.7% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 7.1% 35.7% 28.6% 11.9% 16.7% 7.1% 33.3% 21.4% 16.7% 21.4% 7.1% 41

42 Region 20 - Extent to which teachers perceive they need additional training Very Much Somewhat A little Not at all Did not Physical sciences 15.2% 37.9% 34.8% 6.1% 6.1% Physics 36.4% 36.4% 13.6% 6.1% 7.6% Chemistry 24.2% 36.4% 24.2% 7.6% 7.6% Life sciences 10.6% 28.8% 34.8% 16.6% 9.1% Biology 12.1% 34.8% 24.2% 19.7% 9.1% Astronomy 37.9% 28.8% 16.7% 7.6% 9.1% Geology 28.8% 33.3% 19.7% 10.6% 7.6% Meteorology 36.4% 27.3% 19.7% 7.6% 9.1% Science teaching 13.6% 13.6% 28.8% 37.9% methods 6.1% Science assessment methods 16.7% 31.8% 30.3% 16.7% 4.5% Scientific research methods 16.7% 27.3% 33.3% 16.7% 6.1% Cooperative learning 4.5% 16.7% 45.5% 24.2% 9.1% Participation 4.5% 25.8% 43.9% 21.2% 4.5% Questioning 9.1% 28.8% 43.9% 13.6% 4.5% TAKS test taking 15.2% 33.3% 31.8% 13.6% 6.1% Teaching LEP students 24.2% 39.4% 27.3% 4.5% 4.5% Teaching bilingual students 22.7% 42.4% 27.3% 4.5% 3.0% Teaching culturally diverse students 13.6% 31.8% 40.9% 9.1% 4.5% 42

43 Teachers Willingness to Participate in Professional Development Activities Teachers indicated which professional development activities in mathematics, science or teaching methods they would be willing to attend. They also reported their preference about length of training. Regions 1 & 20 - Professional development activities teachers would be willing to attend Summer College Workshop Not Institute (2-3 course (1-3 days) interested weeks) Did not Numbers and 2.3% 5.5% 39.8% 39.1% 13.3% operations Algebra 3.9% 15.6% 46.9% 20.3% 13.3% Geometry 3.9% 14.8% 48.4% 18.0% 14.8% Measurement 3.1% 9.4% 54.7% 21.1% 11.7% Stats and probability Math teaching methods Student assessment method Cooperative learning Participation Questioning Mathematics language integration TAKS test taking 5.5% 15.6% 57.0% 9.4% 12.5% 7.0% 18.0% 55.5% 7.0% 12.5% 5.5% 14.8% 53.9% 14.1% 11.7% 3.1% 10.9% 54.7% 21.9% 9.4% 3.9% 9.4% 57.0% 18.8% 10.2% 7.0% 7.8% 59.4% 14.1% 11.7% 5.5% 13.3% 54.7% 12.5% 14.1% 2.3% 16.4% 59.4% 11.7% 10.2% 43

44 Regions 1 - Professional development activities teachers would be willing to attend Summer College Workshop Not Institute (2-3 course (1-3 days) interested weeks) Did not Numbers and 1.9% 3.8% 36.7% 41.5% 15.1% operations Algebra 3.8% 15.1% 41.5% 22.6% 17.0% Geometry 3.8% 13.2% 45.3% 20.8% 17.0% Measurement Stats and probability Math teaching methods Student assessment method Cooperative learning Participation Questioning Mathematics language integration TAKS test taking 3.8% 9.4% 49.1% 20.8% 17.0% 9.4% 17.0% 43.4% 13.2% 17.0% 5.7% 18.9% 45.3% 11.3% 18.9% 3.8% 13.2% 52.8% 13.2% 17.0% 7.5% 54.7% 22.6% 84.9% 15.1% 1.9% 7.5% 54.7% 18.9% 17.0% 3.8% 7.5% 56.6% 15.1% 17.0% 1.9% 17.0% 54.7% 9.4% 17.0% 1.9% 17.0% 58.5% 7.5% 15.1% 44

45 Regions 20 - Professional development activities teachers would be willing to attend Summer College Workshop Not Institute (2-3 course (1-3 days) interested weeks) Did not Numbers and 2.7% 6.7% 42.7% 36.0% 12.0% operations Algebra 4.0% 16.0% 52.0% 17.3% 10.7% Geometry 4.0% 16.0% 52.0% 14.7% Measurement 2.7% 9.3% 60.0% 20.0% 8.0% Stats and probability Math teaching methods Student assessment method Cooperative learning Participation Questioning Mathematics language integration TAKS test taking 2.7% 14.7% 66.7% 6.7% 9.3% 8.0% 17.3% 62.7% 4.0% 8.0% 6.7% 16.0% 54.7% 14.7% 8.0% 5.3% 13.3% 54.7% 21.3% 5.3% 5.3% 10.7% 58.7% 18.7% 6.7% 9.3% 8.0% 61.3% 13.3% 8.0% 8.0% 10.7% 54.7% 14.7% 12.0% 2.7% 16.0% 60.0% 14.7% 6.7% 45