21
Trades and Industrial Education: The Relationship between Pre-Service Teacher Self-Efficacy and Alternatively Certified Teacher Licensure John Anthony DePace Old Dominion University

Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

  • Upload
    bizwaem

  • View
    93

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Trades and Industrial Education: The Relationship between Pre-Service Teacher Self-Efficacy and Alternatively Certified Teacher Licensure

John Anthony DePaceOld Dominion University

Page 2: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

I. Introduction

III. Methods

II. Literature Review

IV. Scholarly Significance

Page 3: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Introduction• Background• Theoretical Perspective• Problem Statement• Research Question

Page 4: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Background• Smith-Hughes Act of 1917

- Licensure based on trades being taught

• 1936 – Shift in Philosophy- Advocates of 4-year degree (only a few)

• 1993 – Smith-Hughes Tradition Prevails- 1936-shift never realized, until…

• 1996 – Oklahoma Public Schools- Four-year degree now required

Page 5: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Theoretical Perspective

• Efficacy in general terms

• Psychological perspective

-alternatively-trained, trades and industrial licensure candidates, versus traditionally educated

Page 6: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Theoretical Perspective

o Gauging potential success

• Performance•Potential failure-related efficacy expectations

Page 7: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Problem Statement

Demand for T&I program completers is increasing, but the process for becoming certified as a T&I teacher is becoming more difficult.

Page 8: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Research Question

Can replicated performance accomplishments be employed in a modeling environment to improve measures of teacher self-efficacy in alternatively certified T&I teachers?

Page 9: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Literature Review

• Conceptual Framework• Rationale

Page 10: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Conceptual Framework

• Bandura (1977)

• Bandura (1986)

Page 11: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Rationale

•Olson (1993)

•Kotoramju (2011)

Page 12: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Rationale

• Carnevale, Smith, Stone, Kotoramju, Steuernagel, & Green (2011)

Page 13: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Rationale

• Sternberg, Kaufman, and Grigorenko (2008)

Page 14: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

• Hagiwara, Maulucci, and Ramos (2011)

Rationale

Page 15: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

• Quantitative• Quasi-experimental design • Treatment condition • Control group

-to see if replicated performance accomplishments can be employed in a modeling environment to improve measures of teacher self-efficacy in alternatively certified T&I teachers.

Design

Page 16: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Measures• Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, and Hoy’s (2001), teacher self-

efficacy scale (long form) AKA – The TSES

• Based on three areas (3 DVs) – student engagement (8 questions) – instructional strategies (8 questions) – efficacy in classroom management (8 questions)

• Higher means - higher efficacy • Psychometric values between 1 and 9 (Lickert) • Ordinal data

Page 17: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Participants• Pre-service trades and industrial teachers

• Alternative track to licensure • Convenience sample

• “Snowball” sampling strategy

-to elicit a response in a TSES and/or participation in a web-based, computer-modeled environment as per Bandura (1986).

Page 18: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Procedure• Invitations emailed

• Link to the TSES sent •Half receive a second email with a link to a

web- based game (Ten 20 minute-sessions)

• All take b-form TSES following potential treatment

Page 19: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Data Analysis• t-test for dependent variables

•Compare means (SPSS 21)

•Treatment group versus control group •Before/After potential treatment

-Data will be collected using the Survey Monkey interface

Page 20: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Limitations•Replicated participant modeling

•Actual experience

•Transfer of efficacy information

•Authenticity of student-teacher interactions

Page 21: Rights, Ethics, Standards, & Duty

Scholarly Significance