Research Plan

Title: The title includes the precise identification of the problem; it contains the independent and dependent variables and target population. It must be clear, concise, and fully descriptive of the study. The recommended length is 12 words.

Differences in High School Teacher Self-Efficacy Across Subjects

Hypothesis: The null hypothesis needs to be written with words, not symbols. Every research question should have at least one corresponding null hypothesis; however, sometimes more than one is needed. The number of hypotheses should be based upon the number of variables under study and planned analysis. Well-formulated hypotheses are based on the following criteria: (a) the hypothesis stated the expected relationship/differences between variables, (b) the hypothesis is testable, (c) the hypothesis is stated simply and concisely as possible, and (d) the hypothesis is founded in the problem statement and supported by research. Like the research questions, the hypotheses in null form directly influence the statistical procedures used.

H01: There will be no significant differences in high school teacher efficacy among mathematics, science, and English teachers.

Introduction: The introduction should catch the audience’s attention by using a “hook” and convince the reader that the topic or issue is important using at least 3-4 scholarly journal articles published within the last 5 years. It provides a general overview of the topic and prepares the reader for the background section of the manuscript. The recommended length is 200–300 words.

Self-efficacy is a determinant and consistently predictable factor in students’ academic and personal achievement/s (Rogers-Haverback & Mee, 2015). Self-efficacy has been defined in many ways but each is consistent with Dr. Banduras initiation of self-efficacy as ““perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’ (p.3)” (Lightsey, 1999). A more practical way of looking at self-efficacy could be to simple see it as how you think about what you believe you can and what you believe you cannot do (Nurlu, 2015). It makes sense that self-efficacy has impact/s on the teacher and that impact then seeps into the relationship that teacher has with the students and their desired outcomes.

Teacher self-efficacy in general and specifically as it applied to mathematics, science, and English teachers “have a greater effect on their motivation, motions, and actions than what is objectively true (e.g., actual skill level)” (Lightsey, 1999). The positive effects of teacher self-efficacy as it relates to students cannot be overstated. As such, it behooves school districts’ to contribute as much as possible to promote and sustaining high self-efficacy amongst its teachers.

It has been noted that teachers with high self-efficacy tend to have higher goals for themselves and student which “has correlated with positive teacher practices and policies used in the classroom" (Rogers-Haverback & Mee, 2015). The perspective of teacher efficacy and their role of motivating students to learn is a critical aspect of students’ achievement/s (Walan & Rundgren, 2014).

Tshannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) created the Ohio State Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (OSTES). This analyzes teachers’ sense of efficacy across grade levels and content areas. The purpose of this study is to use the OSTES in assessing high school teacher efficacy among mathematics, science, and English teachers. The study will be done on students in grades 9-12 in an urban school district in upstate New York. Teachers of various times teaching, age, race, and gender will be utilized.

Participants and Setting:

Begin by describing your target population. This may include the description of a large geographical area or a school district from which the sample was drawn. Real names should never be used.

Next, describe your sample. The sample size, the type of sample, and the sampling procedures (e.g., convenience sampling, cluster sampling, etc.) must be explained. In other words, the sample selection procedures (who, what, when, where, how) need to be explained in enough detail for the study to be replicated. Include basic demographic information (number of participants, sample size, age, ethnicity, gender, etc.) described in narrative form. Since this is a proposal, plug in “place holders” (e.g., the sample consisted of 00 males and 00 females…). Quantitative literature citations must be provided for the adequate sample size (e.g. For this study, the number of participants required for an adequate sample size will be 66 students which according to Gall et al. (2007, p. 145) will the required minimum for a medium effect size with statistical power of .7 at the .05 alpha level).

Next, discuss the setting (e.g., specific course, program, online/offline environment, semester-term, and/or treatment/control group testing location, etc.). Real names for people and schools should never be used. Use pseudonyms for descriptors when necessary (e.g. high school #1, biology lab # 2). The setting, especially the treatment setting needs to be described in sufficient details so that the study could be replicated. The setting is often intertwined with the description of the sample.

After you have described the sample and setting, you need to identify and describe each group (e.g. treatment, control, etc.). Remember: correlational studies involve two or more variables and only “one group.” Explain the groups’ formations (e.g., random assignment, naturally occurring groups, etc.) and demographic information (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender, grade level, etc.) for each group. Since this is a proposal, plug in “place holders” (e.g., the treatment group consisted of 00 males and 00 females, etc.). Groups must be explained in enough detail for the study to be replicated.

The recommended length is 200-400 words.

The analysis of the target population for this study will be high school teachers of mathematics, science, and English from grades 9-12. The school district will be Cataract School District in New York State a pseudonym to protect the privacy rights of each participant. The total number of participants for this study is 300. There will be 100 mathematics teachers Mathematics teachers selected (A=100), 100 science teachers selected (B=100), and 100 English teachers, and English teachers selected (C=100) throughout the district. Because of the number of participants’ this will be considered a medium size and as such will seek a statistical power of 0.7 and an alpha level of 0.05 which will increase the probability of achieving statistical significance and simultaneously would reduce risk of Type 1 error (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).

  To insure as much validity as possible a stratified random sampling will be used to select participants. This insures that specific subgroups make up enough of the sample to be represented (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 173). The population of teachers is 1,000. The demographics of the teachers are 70% white, 20% Black, 5% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 1 Native American, and 2% were of two or more races. Males and compared to female teachers are 30% males and 70% females.

All participants will be notified electronically. Each will receive an email with a link that will take them to the study for them to login. After each participant has login and registered the researchers will then ascertain times to meet with the teachers. The researchers will meet with the teachers explain to all the participants’ making sure that all of the institutional review boards recommendations are followed. After the initial meeting and the research, particulars are explained the researchers will have the participant’s login and complete the OSTES no later than December 31 of the current year. Each participant will have 60 times minutes to complete the survey. The survey will use the Likert scale.

Instrumentation:

In the instrumentation section, the instrument(s) that are used to measure each variable need to be identified. The instruments may be tests, surveys, questionnaires, or other measurements. Only validated instruments may be used and it is not acceptable to propose to develop an instrument for the purposes of this study. A description of each instrument, its content, its appropriateness needs to be included. The exact procedures for the development for the instrument (i.e. studies to establish validity and reliability, as well as reliability statistics) must be cited. State other peer-reviewed studies where the instrument was used.

Scoring information for the composite and subscales must to be included. For example “… the instrument consisted of 30 questions and used a five-point Likert scale that ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Responses were as follows: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2, and Strongly Disagree = 1.” Include scoring information regarding the instrument for example, “… the combined possible score on the ATSF range from 20 to 200 points. A high score of 200 means that the student is… etc.” A brief overview of how the instrument should be administered should be discussed and the approximate time to complete the instrument should be reported.

Recommended length is 200–300 words.

The instrument used will be utilized for this research project is the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES). The OSTES was developed by Tshannen-Moran and Hoy in 2001. The OSTES was found to be reliable and valid. As an instrument of measurement OSTES analysis, efficacy of instructional strategies, efficacy of student engagement, and the efficacy of classroom management (Tshannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). A pilot study was done and it yielded results that show validity.

To test the null hypothesis the OSTES will be utilized because it was designed to measure full-time and in-service teaching, which encompasses high school 9-12 grades (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

There is a long and short form OSTES. For this study, each teacher will complete the long OSTES. Completing the form online, this will assure anonymity. Each participant will be given a period of 60 minutes to complete and the time frame will be monitored by computed. That is, even if the participant is not done in 60 minutes the compute will stop the test and only rate the answers done until that point. In addition, the results will be including that the survey was not completed within the allotted period.

The OSTES long form instrument consists of a 24-item, 9-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1=Nothing; 3= Very Little; 5=Some Influence; 7= Quite a Bit; and 9= A Great Deal (Tshannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The SPSS software will be utilized to measure and analyze the results and to check for fit and validity (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The scores can range from 9-216 points. Nine refers to low teacher efficacy and high teacher efficacy can reach and max at 216 points. The researchers will analyze the data to compare amongst subjects and teachers and their efficacy to ascertain what effects if any does self-efficacy have on their effectiveness’ in teaching specific subjects.

Research Design: In the design section, the research design(s) is identified. The research design needs to be specific. For example, it is not sufficient to state that a quasi-experimental study will be conducted; instead, it is better to state that a pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design will be conducted. Immediately after identifying the design, identify the independent and dependent variables and any covariates. In addition, give a rationale for why the design is most appropriate for the study. This rationale for the design needs to be supported by research literature (what is the purpose of the design? When is it used? Why is it the most appropriate choice for the present study?). Refer to educational research texts for the proper design description and use them to support your rationales. The chosen research design(s) must be consistent with the research question and hypothesis proposed as well as the procedures described. The recommended length is 100–200 words.

The study looks at high school teachers in the subjects of mathematics, science, and English. The study wants to know if there is a significant difference in the self-efficacy of those teachers that teach the above subjects. This study will use correlation design, as the study will analyze the null hypothesis. Correlation design was chosen as correlation design looks at patterns of behavior (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).

Correlation design seeks to answer the question of relatedness as opposed to causation. Correlations design is looking for a positive relationship of the independent variable, teachers teaching the subjects of mathematics, science, and English, and the dependent variable of the self-efficacy being affected by such teaching.

Procedures:

The procedure section is similar to a “cookbook.” It should contain enough detail that a reasonable person can read your procedure and conduct your study and produce the same results. This includes but is not limited to information about securing IRB approval, eliciting participants for the study, conducting a pilot study, training individuals to implement treatment, administration of the procedures, gathering the data, and recording procedures.

If the study involves the training individuals to implement a treatment and/or administration of the procedures. This should include fidelity measures of the treatment. These should measure the extent to which delivery of an intervention stays true to the original model. For example, if the study calls for the implementation of a school-wide intervention, there should be periodic assessments of teachers in the school to ensure that the intervention is being implemented appropriately. This process should be explained in detail.

A detailed description on how the data will be collected and recorded must be provided. The procedures should be described in a chronological, systematic format. Remember; describe the procedures clearly and with enough detail so that the study can be replicated.

The recommended length is 200–300 words.

First permission will be gained through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or whatever ethical procedure the school district has in place. Further, the school district will be contacted along with principals to secure their approval to conduct the study. That is, to make sure they are willing to cooperate and to get teachers willing to volunteer to participate in the study. Once approval is obtained, a general information session will be had during the districts professional development day. In addition, each teacher before signing a release will be asked if they are truly volunteering for the research or do they in any way feel compelled. The purpose of the study will be explained to everyone involved in the research as recommended (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 82).

Stratified random sampling will be the method used to select the teachers. The target population is 1000 but 300 teachers will be selected. There will be 100 selected for each subject. The population will be (N=1000) with each subject teacher being (N=100). Stratified random sampling is used because it minimized or reduces biases (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).

A pilot study will be conducted before the primary study is conducted. A sample of 25 teachers will be recruited for this study. The reason for a pilot study is to be able to familiarize everyone with the procedure and to note any complications with the intended purpose of the study (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Depending on the results of the pilot study, adjustments may be made to the study. If adjustments are made then a resubmission to the IRB will be done. For consistency, all teachers will be given the test at the same time after school in their respective libraries. The instructions for the survey will be prerecorded and simply played for everyone to hear and follow along. The moderator/s will be on hand to answer any questions concerning the survey.

The survey, OSTES will be put on the laptop in the library and each teacher will sit at a desk with laptop to complete the survey. The laptop will have a quick link that must be clicked on to start the survey once instructed to do so by the moderator. The survey should take between 45-60 minutes but extra time will be allotted if need be.

Analysis:

In the data analysis section, the type of each statistical analysis technique(s) must be identified (t-test, ANOVA, ANCOVA, etc.). A concise rationale for the type of statistical analysis must also be provided. The rationale needs to be supported via the textbook. The chosen statistical procedures must be consistent with the research questions, hypotheses, and type of data collected (in other words, why is the chosen analysis the most appropriate choice to test the hypothesis?).

For each identified statistical analysis technique ALL assumption tests and how they will be tested must be addressed. For example: “Assumption testing included examining Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances, creating scatterplots to test for linearity, etc...” The alpha level for each statistical analysis technique must also be stated. Lastly, the effect size and the convention used to report it should be explained. Example: Eta square interpreted based on Cohen’s d.

In this section, there must also be an identified statistical procedure for each hypothesis. Thus, each section should be organized according to the research hypotheses.

The recommended length is 100–200 words per hypothesis.

The stated hypothesis is that “There will be no significant differences in high school teacher efficacy among mathematics, science, and English teachers.” All the stated responses from the research with are inputted into SPSS. A box and whisker plot with be done to look for any outliers, a one sample t-test will also be done looking for a statistical significant which is set for .05. A check for normality will also be done because there are more than 50 participants, this normality check will be done by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test as recommend in Gall, Gall, & Borg (2007).

To test for normality, a Shapiro Wilk test will be completed. The alpha level will be set at .05. Also conduct a Pearson correlation to check for multicollinearity. To check for significance there are many ways. To check for a " practical significance; among them are confidence intervals, effect size measures, and measures of association (variance accounted for)" (Stevens, 1996, p. 10).

References: All of the references cited within the text must be listed in according to current APA format.

Gall, M . D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson

Lightsey, R. (1999). Albert Bandura and the Exercise of Self-Efficacy. Journal of Cognitive

Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158.

Nurlu, Ö. (2015). Investigation of Teachers' Mathematics Teaching Self-Efficacy *. International

Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1), 21.

Rogers-Haverback, H., & Mee, M. (2015). READING AND TEACHING IN AN URBAN

MIDDLE SCHOOL: Preservice Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Field-Based

Experiences. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(1), 17.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walan, S., & Rundgren, S. C. (2014). Investigating Preschool and Primary School Teachers'

Self-Efficacy and Needs in Teaching Science: A Pilot Study. CEPS Journal : Center for

Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 51.