The Relationship Between Student Achievement and Teacher Attitude: A Correlational Study

Dissertation Submitted to Northcentral University Graduate Faculty of the School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by CHERYL M. SCRIVNER Prescott Valley, Arizona February 2009

UMI Number: 3351416 Copyright 2009 by Scrivner, Cheryl M.

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3351416 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Approval

Student Achievement and Teacher Attitude as Measured by the Teacher Disposition Index: A Correlational Study by Cheryl M. Scrivner Approved by:

h A&KtJ
Chair: Melanie Shaw, Ph.D. Date Member: Robert Schultz, Ed.D.

Member: Oran Stewart, Ph.D.

Certified by

School Dean^Kgnes Parker PhD.

Date '

Abstract Student Achievement and Teacher Attitude as Measured by the Teacher Disposition Index: A Correlational Study By Cheryl M. Scrivner Northcentral University, February 2009 The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between teacher attitudes and student achievement. Specifically, this study was designed to answer the following questions (a) What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and student achievement?; (b) What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student achievement?; (c) What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student achievement?; and (d) What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI) after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience and degree? The TDI survey utilizing a Likert-scale was given to 136 classroom teachers in grades three through six teaching reading and/or math. Teachers were asked to report two years of reading and/or math achievement test scores. Six public school districts in southwest Ohio were represented by the 136 participating teachers. The study findings indicated no relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students, curriculum, or professionalism on math achievement scores. None of the predictor variables was a significant predictor of either math score. A significant positive relationship was found for a teacher's disposition for curriculum and professionalism and

iii

reading achievement. Teaching experience was a significant predictor of the 2006 reading achievement scores but not the 2007 reading achievement scores. Also, the 2006 reading achievement scores were negatively predicted by TDI student-centered score.

IV

Acknowledgements Heartfelt thanks to my committee chair Dr. Melanie Shaw who gently and wisely guided me through my research and writing.

To my committee members Dr. Robert Schultz and Dr. Oran Stewart thank you for your patience and for your intellectual leadership.

This work is dedicated with love to my husband, Jerry Scrivner. Thank you for your unwavering support and encouragement.

And also, dedicated with love to my parents, Marvin and Louise Ingram for teaching me the value of education and lifelong learning.

Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables Chapter 1: Introduction Statement of Problem Significance of the Problem Research Questions Definition of Terms Summary and Conclusion Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature High Quality and Master Teacher Teacher Quality Teacher Attitudes Teacher Attitudes and Working Conditions Attitude Study Methodologies Student Achievement Ohio Achievement Tests Conflicting Research Findings Conceptual Framework Summary and Conclusions Chapter 3: Methodology Overview Restatement of the Problem Research Questions Research Design Operational Definitions of Variables Instrumentation Pilot Testing Selection of Participants Procedures Discussion of Data Processing Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations Ethical Assurances Summary Chapter 4: Findings Results Analysis and Evaluation of Findings Summary iii v vi viii 1 3 4 6 6 9 11 11 12 15 17 19 19 20 22 25 26 29 29 29 29 30 31 32 34 37 38 38 41 43 45 46 46 57 63

vi

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations References Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A Teacher Disposition Index B Permission to Use C Informed Consent D Pilot Test Tables E District Approval to Survey

65 67 68 70 77 81 82 84 93

vn

List of Tables 1. Frequencies for Demographic Variables 2. Descriptive Statistics 3. Correlations between TDI Scales, Percent Passing Math and Reading and Demographics 4. Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent passing Math 2006 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates 5. Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent passing Math 2007 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates 6. Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent passing Reading 2006 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates 7. Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent passing Reading 2007 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates 49 50 53 55

56

58

59

vm

Chapter 1: Introduction The focus of this study was to determine the relationship between teacher attitude and student achievement. Student achievement is important topic for many public school stakeholders. Teachers, students, and families of students want success in school. Achievement statistics impact school districts and communities in Ohio, as districts are rated according to student achievement results. Professors in teacher preparation programs are interested in defining the qualities of teachers who successfully intervene with all students. Linking teacher attitudes to student achievement will help policy makers develop a more comprehensive definition of teacher quality. Teachers teaching subject areas of math, reading, science, arts, and social studies have been required to meet the standards of a highly qualified teacher as defined by federal mandates since the academic year of 2005-2006. Berliner (2005) explained: States are permitted to use teacher licensure tests to demonstrate to the federal government that their teachers are highly qualified, that is, capable, competent, skilled, trained, practiced, and so forth. The theory of action behind the policy is that if America's teachers were of sufficiently high quality, then education would improve, (p. 205) Within the state of Ohio, teachers are considered highly qualified if they have earned a Bachelor's degree, are fully licensed in the area they are teaching, and pass a state licensing examination in their content area. Federal and state definitions of the term highly qualified include teacher degree and licensure requirements. Defining teacher
quality is multifaceted and exceeds these mandated standards. Teacher quality involves

both good and effective teaching. Good teachers adhere to defined teaching standards and effective teachers improve student achievement (Berliner, 2005). Content knowledge and skills are easily assessed, but personal attributes are less easily appraised. High quality

2 teaching impacts student learning and achievement. Past and current research suggests that the teacher has the greatest impact on student achievement. Rice (2003) stated: Researchers and policy makers agree that teacher quality is a pivotal policy issue in education reform, particularly given the proportion of education dollars devoted to teacher compensation coupled with the evidence that teachers are the most important school-related factor affecting student achievement. However, considerable disagreement surrounds what specific teacher attributes indicate quality and how to better invest resources to provide quality teachers for all students, (p. 1) Marzano (2003) revealed that studies demonstrate that improving teacher quality increases student achievement at all student levels. Marzano wrote, "On the average, the most effective teachers produced gains of about 53 percentage points in student achievement over 1 year, whereas the least effective teachers produced achievement gains of about 14 percentage points over 1 year" (p. 72). Exploring the relationship between teacher attitude and student achievement is an ethical, political, and legal issue for every school district in every state. Identifying specific teacher characteristics and attitudes that positively influence student achievement is a critical conversation in education today. Attitudes are composed of past and present experiences and are not observable as such, but are evidenced in behavior (Oskamp & Schultz, 2005). Oskamp (1997) noted, "Attitudes postulate a hidden process occurring within the individual, which we call his attitude: and it uses his attitude as an explanation of the relationship between stimulus events and the individual's responses" (p. 15). Present research indicates that teacher's attitudes are connected to their actions and teacher actions are related to student achievement (Marzano, 2007).

Teacher attitudes associated with professionalism, curriculum, and students impact teacher behaviors related to these areas. Student achievement is the desired end result of teaching. Studying the impact of teacher attitudes related to the achievement of students is important for: (a) teachers as they reflect on their professional growth and practice, (b) placing quality teachers in the classroom, and (c) increasing student achievement. The researcher conducted this study in public school districts in southwest Ohio. Participating teachers responsible for reading and/or math instruction in grades three through six completed an attitude survey. The researcher obtained informed consent from each participant and collected surveys from participating teachers with three or more years of experience. Statement of Problem Teacher attitudes, practices, and beliefs have a significant impact on student achievement (Palardy & Rumberger, 2008). Current and past research indicates that the teacher is the most important element in student achievement and growth (Marzano, 2003; Marzano, 2007; Palardy & Rumberger; Rivers & Sanders, 2002; Strong, 2007). Many studies have examined teacher knowledge and quality and not the importance of teacher attitude. Pryor and Pryor (2005) added to the research of Oskamp and Schultz (2003) and defined attitudes as beliefs that can be favorable, unfavorable, or neutral. Teacher attitudes influence teacher behaviors. The intent of the study was to add to the current research related to teacher quality and student achievement by defining specific teacher attitudes that positively influence

student achievement, essential elements of which could be identified and added to the concept of teacher quality. Significance of the Problem Educators, researchers, and policymakers have a vast interest in which teacher attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors increase student achievement. Wayne and Youngs (2003) wrote: For policymakers and researchers looking for ways to improve K-12 education, one enduring approach has been to focus on teachers. Teachers are the system's principal resource. Their salaries occupy the largest share of K-12 education budgets. And both intuition and empirical research tell us that the achievement of schoolchildren depends substantially on the teachers they are assigned, (p. 89) Findings concerning the relationship between student achievement and teacher attitudes are pertinent for school districts in hiring teachers, planning professional development initiatives, and evaluating methods to improve student achievement. Presently, state policy makers are concerned with developing comprehensive definitions for teaching standards including teacher dispositions that influence student achievement (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008; Ohio Department of Education [ODE], 2007; Ohio Senate, 2007). Wasicsko (2002) wrote, "To accurately screen teachers and select those who will be most effective in the classroom procedures must exist to measure attitudes, values, and other perceptual factors that underlie and therefore predict external behavioral similarities" (p. 8). Research of the relationship connecting teacher attitudes to student achievement is an important element for school districts, university education programs, and state policy makers in developing a comprehensive definition of teacher quality.

5 Findings associated with both teacher attitudes and student achievement are significant to educational reform and research. Determining the effects of teacher attitudes on student achievement is important to those involved in education at the district, state, and national level. Schacter and Thum (2002) explained: The differential effects of teachers on student achievement are well established. What is far less understood, however, is what explains these disparities. Thus, the exhaustive search for the attributes, dispositions, knowledge, and instructional skills that define effective teachers continues because scholars want to discover the teacher silver bullets that lead to better learning, (p. 412) Findings from the study of teacher attitudes as they influence student achievement are a critical piece to the research of teacher quality. Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004) stated: The question of whether teachers differ dramatically in their effectiveness in promoting their students' academic achievement is fundamental to educational research. If differences in teacher effectiveness are large, then identification of more effective teachers and the factors that cause them to be more effective is important both for basic research and for educational reform, (p. 237) Understanding the fundamentals of what quality teachers bring to student learning is critical to educational research and reform in the 21 st century. The numerous stakeholders tied to student achievement make the issue of what quality teachers bring to the classroom significant to education globally. These stakeholders include students, parents, school districts, communities, state education agencies, and federal education agencies. The achievement of students is fundamental to individual, local, state, and national growth. Noddings (2005) stated: A productive discussion of education's aims must acknowledge that schools are established to serve both individuals and the larger society. In addition, a democratic society needs an education system that helps to sustain its democracy by developing thoughtful citizens who can make wise civic choices, (p. 11)

6 The issue of student achievement is more encompassing than the individual child or individual classroom. Achievement of our students affects our country at all levels. Research Questions The research questions guiding this study were as follows: 1. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and student achievement? 2. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student achievement? 3. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student achievement? 4. What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI) after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience and degree? Definition of Terms This researcher utilized key terms that are related to issues in public education. Many of the key terms related directly to public education in the state of Ohio. The researcher identified key Ohio terms within the definition. Achievement. Achievement represents a particular type of learning outcome, specifically performance on tests and grades achieved in courses taken (Romney, 2003). Attitude. Attitude is defined as a feeling toward some object, person, or behavior that is favorable, unfavorable, or neutral (Pryor & Pryor, 2005). Attitude is a mental set or disposition (Oskamp, 1997).

Core areas. In the state of Ohio, core subject areas include English, language arts, reading science, mathematics, music, visual arts, dance, drama, and social studies (ODE, 2008). Dispositions. A disposition is defined as a tendency to act in a certain way based on what is believed (Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackeil, 2005). Educators Standards Board (ESB). The ESB is an appointed board made up of teachers, administrators, and members from higher education who work to bring standards-reform by defining standards for teachers and principals (ODE, 2007). Highly qualified. Teachers in Ohio are considered to be highly qualified if they are (a) fully licensed in the area they teach, have earned a Bachelors degree, and have passed a content area test; or (b) fully licensed in the area they teach and hold a Master's degree (ODE, 2008). Master teacher. In the state of Ohio, a master teacher demonstrates excellence inside and outside of the classroom through consistent leadership, focused collaboration and continued professional development to maximize student learning. The master teacher demonstrates this excellence through a written narrative scored by an appointed committee (ODE, 2008). National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The NCATE is a council responsible for the professional accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. NCATE's mission is to improve teacher preparation and quality (NCATE, 2008). Ohio Academic Content Standards (OAS). These standards provide the overall theme or goal for the content area and entail specific grade level indicators for reading,

writing, math, social studies, science, foreign language, technology, and fine arts, as well as, grade level benchmarks (ODE, 2008). Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT). The OAT is a criterion referenced test that provides point in time measure of student achievement as compared to the Ohio Academic Content Standards (ODE, 2008). Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession. Ohio standards for teaching include seven standards that are organized under three subheadings of (a) The Focus of Teaching and Learning, (b) The Conditions for Teaching and Learning, and (c) Teaching as a Profession. The standards are intended to be used as a guide for teachers to improve their effectiveness as educators (ODE, 2008). Professional development. Professional development is defined as professional learning that is sustained and ongoing with a focus to increase student achievement (ODE, 2008). Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as the beliefs that provide the foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment (Pajares, 2002). Social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory is defined as thought processes about other people, ourselves, and social situations. It is intimately related to the topic of attitudes, for social perceptions, beliefs, and attributions comprise the cognitive components on which attitudes are based (Oskamp & Schultz, 2005). Teacher. A teacher is defined as an individual who has been licensed by the State Board of Education to teach or practice in Ohio schools (ODE, 2008). Teaching. Teaching is defined as an active process of interactions among the teacher, the students, and the content (Marzano, 2007).

9 Summary and Conclusion The attitudes teachers hold associated with what they teach, how they teach, and how they perceive students and student learning impact their teaching behaviors. Munck (2007) wrote, "The outcome of attitudes is the tendency to react favorably or unfavorably to situations, persons, or events. Accordingly, teacher actions are shaped by their attitudes" (p. 15). The study of teacher attitudes is an important element in student achievement and growth. Chen and Chang (2006) stated, "The ultimate goal of focusing on teacher attitudes and skill is to improve classroom practice" (p. 9). Teacher quality is a complex issue that affects the political arena, education at the state and local level, higher education, and the individual student. It is a complex issue to research as there is no one definition of quality. Researching the various aspects of teacher quality is important at all levels of education today as the ultimate goal of education is to improve the experiences and achievement of students by focusing on teacher quality (Strong, Tucker, & Hindman, 2004). Expanding the definition of teacher quality to include attitudes linked to curriculum, professionalism, and student focus will enhance present definitions of teacher quality. It is assumed that there is a relationship between the attitudes teachers hold and the achievement of students in their classroom. It is also assumed that teachers with positive attitudes related to students, curriculum issues, and matters of professionalism have a greater impact on student achievement than do those with less positive attitudes. Attitudes are not easily measured and therefore not easily researched. Difficulty in research should not undermine the act of research. It is important to the quality of education of children to continue efforts in defining which teacher attitudes affect the

10 achievement of children. This research was not intended to determine suitability for employment, but to add authentic definitions to attitudes that positively impact students. Attitude research can assist educators with understanding how attitudes impact children and the value that some attitudes bring to the classroom. It is the hope of the researcher to add to this body of research through the survey of teacher attitudes related to students, curriculum, and professionalism.

11 Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature The purpose of this section is to review the literature related to highly qualified teachers as defined by previous research, national standards, and standards from the state of Ohio. Within this section topics of (a) teacher quality, (b) teacher attitudes, (c) attitude study methodologies, (d) student achievement, (e) Ohio achievement tests, (f) conflicting research, and (g) summary and conclusions are examined. The intent of this study was to determine the relationship between teacher attitude and student achievement. High Quality and Master Teacher The state of Ohio's teacher equity plan states that high quality teachers positively impact student achievement. To be considered highly qualified in the state of Ohio a teacher must (a) possess a Bachelor's degree, (b) be licensed in the area of teaching, and (c) pass a content knowledge test or have earned a graduate degree (ODE, 2008). PorterMagee (2004) explained: The decision to focus more on content knowledge than pedagogical training was based on the growing body of research that suggest that content knowledge has a greater impact on student achievement, particularly in areas like math and science, which are critical to the emerging information economy, (p. 27) Any teacher in the state of Ohio who teaches in any core area must be highly qualified. These core areas include reading, math, science, social studies, and the arts. Senate Bill 2 mandated that the Educator Standards Board define a master teacher in a manner that can be utilized by all Ohio districts. A master teacher is defined in terms of leadership, professionalism, and collaboration with a focus on student learning and achievement (The Educator Standards Board, 2007). Master teachers must exhibit (a) consistent leadership; (b) focused collaboration; (c) a focus on students and environment;

12 (d) a focus on content, instruction, and assessment; and (e) continuous professional development and reflection. A teacher is awarded the designation of master teacher after successfully completing a written narrative explaining how they meet each of the five criteria. Labeled and referenced evidence must be submitted with the narrative. The narrative is scored by a district committee utilizing a rubric developed by the Educators Standards Board. Utilizing the scoring rubric the local committee determines if the status of master teacher will be given to the teacher candidate. The master teacher definition augments the state of Ohio's definition of a highly qualified teacher, but neither definition attends to teacher attitudes which may define the capacity and motivation to teach all children with high quality. Teacher Quality Research studies from the 1990's investigated the effects of teacher quality on student achievement from the perspective of teacher intelligence, teacher education, certification status, and experience. Utilizing data from the 1993-1994 Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Darling-Hammond (2000) examined the relationship between teacher qualifications and student achievement. Darling-Hammond wrote: The findings of both the qualitative and quantitative analyses suggest that policy investments in the quality of teachers may be related to improvements in student performance. Quantitative analyses indicate that measure of teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, both before and after controlling for student poverty and language status, (p. 1) Earlier studies predominately focused on teacher education and certification as indicators of teacher quality with limited or inconsistent findings related to teacher behaviors,

13

personality, and attitude. Darling-Hammond did report a positive relationship between the teacher's ability to display a flexible and creative attitude and student achievement. Marzano (2003) indicated that quality teacher promotes student achievement by (a) the use of best practice instructional strategies, (b) effective classroom practices, (c) positive teacher-student relationships, and (d) professional objectivity. Marzano's studies revealed that the quality teacher presents specific content to be mastered in multiple ways to engage students in brain-based learning. The quality teacher is one who believes they have the power and influence to facilitate the learning of all students through innumerable methods and strategies (Strong, 2007). Both Marzano and Strong indicate quality teachers invest time in studying and practicing instructional strategies and methods that positively impact the learning for all students. The studies point to teachers who possess attitudes toward professional learning to ensure best practice strategies for all students. Cambron-McCabe (2000) and Friere (2001) added an ethical and moral competency for teaching. Cambron-McCabe described teacher qualities that influence student learning as justice, fairness, liberty, honesty, equity, and respect. Within Friere's work, teachers who positively impact student achievement enveloped respect, tolerance, joy, and hope. In a later article, Villegas (2007) reinforced the importance of moral and ethical beliefs and behaviors for teachers. Villegas stated, "Beyond knowledge and skills, teachers who aim to make a difference in the lives of diverse students need the disposition to teach all learners equitably" (p. 372). Linking teacher quality to ethical and moral attitudes and thus, behaviors expands the definition of teacher quality. Quality

14 becomes grounded in beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors defined by moral and ethical standards of the teacher. Fenstermacher and Richardson (2005) divided teacher quality into good teaching and successful teaching. These researchers defined good teaching as sound and moral instructional practice and successful teaching as teaching that causes learning. Quality teaching is a multi-dimensional concept that may be measured from a variety of variables. Fenstermacher and Richardson explained: In our view the expression quality teaching calls for not only certain teaching practices but also a set of contextual characteristics supportive of student learning. Quality teaching is what we are most likely to obtain when there is a willingness and effort on the part of the learner, a supportive social surround, ample opportunity to learn, and good practices employed by the teacher, (p. 191) Quality teaching is defined by complex constructs that are interrelated. These constructs involve teacher qualifications, practices, characteristics, attributes, and attitudes (Goe, 2007). In another study, Ding and Sherman (2006) define teacher quality in terms of teacher effect and teacher effectiveness. Teacher effects may be defined by demographic information such as gender, experience, teaching degree, or salary. Teaching effectiveness may be operationalized in terms of specific teaching practices, individual teacher personalities, beliefs, and attitudes (Ding & Sherman). The characteristics, skills, and attitudes that teachers bring to the classroom affect teacher behavior and thus teacher effectiveness with engaging student's in learning. Teacher quality is determined by a myriad of indicators including teacher attitudes. In the studies presented, teacher quality may be measured by (a) teacher characteristics; (b) teacher behaviors; (c) teaching methods; or (d) teaching credentials,

15 and/or combinations of the above. The research clearly states that teacher quality impacts student achievement (Izumi & Evers, 2002; Marzano, 2007). With the increase in teacher accountability for student achievement, defining teacher attitudes that increase achievement is significant to teachers, school districts, state boards of education, and policy makers. Teacher Attitudes In 2007 the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) adopted to include teacher attitudes into their accreditation standards. NCATE was founded in 1954 with the mission to develop standards for teacher education programs and to accredit schools, colleges, and departments of education. The NCATE standards are updated every seven years and measure an institution's effectiveness according to the profession's expectations for high quality teacher preparation (NCATE, 2008). In 2007 attitudes were included in the definition of professional dispositions for standard one. Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs are revealed through both verbal and nonverbal teacher behaviors (NCATE). Caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice are included in defining teacher dispositions (NCATE). The idea of dispositions was introduced earlier by Katz and Raths (1986) when they defined dispositions as an attribute that delineates a teacher's behavior. Within the definition of dispositions are attitudes that cause the person to act in a certain way. Katz and Raths proposed that a teacher could possess expert skill in a content area but not possess the disposition to teach effectively. Within the construct of disposition lie the attitudes that form the disposition (Katz & Raths).

16 Teacher's attitudes are connected with instructional behavior which influences student achievement. Gourneau (2005) stated, "Effective attitudes and actions employed by teachers ultimately can make a positive difference on the lives of their students. It is known that attitudes have a profound impact on teacher practices and behaviors" (Section IV, f 1). Teaching is multi-faceted with each element of skill, attitude, and daily practice interacting together (Chen and Chang, 2005). Other research studies support the link between what individuals think and how they behave (Oskamp & Schultz, 2005; Pajares, 2002; Wasicsko, 2002). Vartuli (2005) acknowledged that instructional behaviors are influenced by what teachers think and believe. Attitudes related to instructional practice ultimately influence what or what does not occur in the teacher's classroom. Teacher attitudes that include a commitment to student learning and personal learning are connected to student achievement (Strong, 2007; Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). In an earlier study, Pryor and Pryor (2005) reported that teacher attitudes whether favorable, unfavorable, or neutral impact behavior toward an object, concept, or person. Teacher behaviors are expressions of teacher beliefs and attitudes. In his meta-analysis, Marzano (2007) explained, "A teacher's beliefs about students' chances of success in school influence the teacher's actions with students, which in turn influence students' achievement. If the teacher believes students can succeed, she tends to behave in ways that help them succeed" (p. 162). Teacher core attitudes that include the idea that all students can learn increase the probability of learning for all students. These attitudes create a positive environment for student achievement (Wasicsko, 2007). Certain values, beliefs and attitudes are critical in becoming an affective teacher (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007).

17 From the student perspective, a positive attitude and attitudes of high expectations were reported as an important characteristic for effective teachers (Thompson, Greer, & Greer, 2004). Thompson et al. reported, "It is important to catch students doing thing right rather than catching them doing something wrong. Effective teachers develop ways to remind themselves to do this, and the impact on students can last many years" (Positive attitudes section, ^|1). In an earlier study Koutsoulis (2003) reported that students listed the effective teacher as one with a friendly, understanding attitude. Other teacher attitudes listed by students as important included fairness, forgiveness, respect, compassion, and student-centeredness (Koutsoulis; Thompson et al.). Teacher attitudes are reflected in their daily practice through instructional strategies and practices, and interactions with colleagues, parents, and students. Students perceive teacher attitudes and place value on them. Teacher attitudes have the capacity to influence the academic growth of students (Marzano, 2007; Wasicsko, 2007); and is a cognitive process that is revealed through teacher words, behaviors, actions, choices, and motivation. Teacher Attitudes and Working Conditions Teacher attitudes related to school working conditions affect teacher job satisfaction and teacher retention. Teachers who are happy in their school usually stay, as opposed to those who are unhappy with their working conditions (Hirsch, Emerick, Church, & Fuller, 2006).Working conditions related to teacher empowerment and building leadership were found to be strong indicators of teacher satisfaction (Hirsch et al.).

18 Studies defined teacher working conditions as (a) professional development opportunities, (b) teacher empowerment, (c) leadership, (d) facilities and resources, (e) instructional time, and (f) community support (Hirsh et al., 2006; Hofmann, Mathieu, & Jacobs, 1990; Inman & Marlow, 2004; Quaglia, Marion, & Mclntire, 2001). Teachers indicated that feelings of control over time and instruction material were important in increasing job satisfaction (Hirsh et al.). Quaglia et al. reported that teachers with higher job satisfaction feel empowered, have a sense of self-efficacy, and feel supported by the school community. Teachers with a strong belief in their ability to influence student learning also report higher job satisfaction (Hofmann et al.; Quaglia et al.). In other studies, it is proposed that student characteristics add another dimension to teacher working conditions. Schools that have higher rates of student failure, higher percentages of racial diversity, and higher percentages of students who are economically disadvantaged have a higher attrition rate (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Hanuschek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2002; Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, 2005). Teacher attitudes associated with student characteristic impact teacher movement between schools and the equal distribution of teachers. Attrition rates of teachers affect student achievement as the end result is that some schools with high turnover rates are staffed with inexperienced or unqualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, Loeb et al.). Teacher job satisfaction is equated with how teachers feel about certain working conditions in their schools. Working conditions affect job satisfaction which, in turn affect teacher turnover and attrition. Thornton (2005) reported that 25% of teachers leave education in their first year of teaching and only 50% of new teachers are still employed in education after five years. The rate of movement of teachers in and out of schools adds

19 to the inequality of high quality teaching for all students thus affecting student achievement. The high rate of teachers leaving education after five years, just as they are gaining significant experience, also impacts student achievement. Attitude Study Methodologies Oskamp and Schultz (2005) describe five different practices for studying attitudes. These practices include (a) description, (b) measurement, (c) polls, (d) theories, and (e) experiments. Description data collection generally involves collecting opinion data held by a single group, whereas, polling usually involves data collection from a very large group of people (Oskamp & Schultz). Measurement practices include scaled survey data collection. Goe (2007) reported, "Most of the scales used for teacher evaluation or for survey research are four-point Likert scales" (p. 43). Theories attempt to explain how attitudes develop and change, but in experimental research specific variables are manipulated (Oskamp & Schultz). Student Achievement Student achievement is defined in the state of Ohio by student performance on standardized tests in reading, math, writing, social studies, and science. At the classroom level, achievement is dependent upon student performance on classroom activities, homework, formative and summative tests. Romney (2003) stated, "Achievement is usually defined in terms of a particular type of learning outcome, specifically performance on tests and grades achieved in courses taken" (p. 3). It is important to remember that achievement indicates performance at a given time in the learning process. Achievement is associated with student performance on specific tasks related to established academic indicators. A letter grade, number, or percentage is normally used

20

to represent the achievement attained by the student (O'Connor, 2002). Student achievement can be reported for individual students or groups of students in the form of classroom scores, school building scores, school district results, state results, and international comparisons. Achievement represents indications of learning and is influenced by a variety of factors, including teachers, students, school climate, and home environment (Marzano, 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Student academic achievement is one of the fundamental goals of teaching. Federal and state policy makers have attempted to define teacher quality with the hope of placing teachers in the classroom that will positively impact student achievement. Teacher quality definitions include content knowledge, pedagogical skill, and moral and ethical characteristics with limited reference to attitude. Attitude affects behavior in the selection of teaching materials and strategies, continuous learning and professionalism, and student-teacher relationships. Oskamp (1997) wrote, "An attitude can be considered the cause of a person's behavior toward another person or an object. The concept of attitude helps to explain the consistency of a person's behavior" (p. 5). Studying teacher attitudes associated with curriculum, professionalism, and student focus as they impact student achievement will enhance the current research on teacher quality. Ohio Achievement Tests The Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT) for reading and math are designed to measure the skill level expected at a specific grade (ODE, 2008). These tests are aligned with Ohio's Academic Content Standards (OAS). These standards provide the overall theme or goal for the content area and entail specific grade level indicators for reading and math, as well as, grade level benchmarks. Indicators are defined by the ODE as what

21 students should know and be able to do at a specific grade level. Benchmarks are checkpoints that measure progress toward the academic standards and occur at the end of grade level bands. For example, there are benchmark indicators for the end of (a) the kindergarten to grade three program, (b) the grade four through seven program, (c) the grade eight through ten program, and (d) the grade 11 and 12 program. The OAT is a criterion referenced test that provides a point in time measure of student achievement as compared to the OAS (ODE). Question development goes through a rigorous process involving ODE personnel, public input, and the test contractor. It takes approximately 3 years to design a test and 2 years for any new questions to be added to an existing test. Developed test items are sent from test contractor to the ODE where questions undergo review by the assessment office and curriculum office. If an item is rejected it is sent back to the contractor. Accepted test items are sent to the Fairness and Sensitivity Committee for evaluation of bias, stereotype, and insensitivity to any cultural or ethnic group. Once the test items pass this committee each item is reviewed by a content committee and any rejected test items go through the entire review process again. The ODE test personnel utilize the Rasch model to provide evidence of validity and reliability of the test items. This model provides data on (a) any test item that may over or under discriminate, (b) any item that may function differently for different groups of test takers (Differential Item Functioning [DIF]), (c) discrepancies related to the ordering of categories, and (d) estimates of item difficulty (Brief Explanation of the Rasch Model, 2008). Items that do not fit the model and may decrease the reliability and validity of the test item are rejected and sent back to the test contractor (ODE, 2008).

22

Equating in test form construction provides evidence that test scores are comparable across time. The procedure for equating was explained by the ODE (2008): The current administration difficulty values were computed and compared with the bank or reference difficulty values. The equating constant was added to each difficulty value for items on the current test so that the mean item difficulties were equal. The linked current values were compared with the bank values to identify the item with the largest absolute difference between the two values. If the absolute value of the difference is greater than 0.3 logits, the item was eliminated as an anchor item. This procedure was repeated until the largest difference between a linked current value and bank value was less than 0.3 logits. (p. 4) ODE utilized this process to ensure that test items used on the operational state-wide test were stable (ODE). Blueprints for OAT's provide information on the make-up of the tests. Information on number of items, number of points, and types of questions is outlined in the blueprint. All tests are comprised of multiple choice items, short answer, and extended response questions. Within the blueprints test items are aligned with the OAS tested. For example, the grade three Ohio Reading Achievement Test is comprised of four reading passages, two from the informational text standard and two from the literary text standard. There is a blueprint for each OAT in each grade level. Ohio Achievement Test items go through an extensive process of review and analysis before becoming an operationalized question on any test. These tests are utilized in the state of Ohio to determine the level of skill in core content areas of reading, math, writing, science, and social studies. The purpose of these tests is to measure student achievement at a point in time in grades three through eight. Conflicting Research Findings Goe (2007), presented research findings on the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement. These studies included research between the years of

23

1994 and 2007. Relative to teacher qualifications, Goe summarized, "Taking this group of studies as a whole, there appears to be strong consensus that mathematics certification matters, particularly at the secondary teaching level. However, evidence is lacking to support a similar relationship in other subjects" (p. 18). Study findings also indicated that teachers continue to grow in their teaching skills in the first five years of teaching, but there is no indication that this growth continues after five years (Goe). Teacher characteristics were measured by (a) attitudes and beliefs; (b) gender, race, and ethnicity; and (c) foreign language ability. Findings from Goe's (2007) syntheses revealed no clear consensus on the relationship between the specified teacher characteristics and student achievement. Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer (1995) reported no evidence to connect teacher characteristics and student achievement. However, other studies indicated there was a positive correlation of teacher characteristics and student achievement (Dee, 2004; Goodard, Hoy, & Hoy 2000; Leana & Pil, 2006). Goodard et al. found a link between teacher efficacy beliefs and student achievement. Dee reported a positive effect on student achievement when students were assigned a teacher of the same ethnicity. In the study by Leana and Pil findings indicated a positive relationship between a teacher's social capital and student achievement in reading and mathematics instruction. Leana and Pil defined social capital as teachers who share information, are seen as trust worthy, and have a shared vision with students and parents. These research studies presented varied results on the relationship of teacher characteristics and student achievement. However, each study researched different variables of teacher characteristics as they relate to student achievement.

24 Effectiveness among teachers may be defined by teacher qualifications, practices, or characteristics. Study findings were not consistent in defining which teacher quality or characteristic improved student learning (Goe, 2007). Studies revealed that teachers do influence student achievement, but research is limited in practical definitions and measures of effective teacher characteristics (Rivkin et al., 2005; Schacter & Thum, 2002). Rivkin et al. concluded: There has been no consensus on the importance of specific teacher factors, leading to the common conclusion that the existing empirical evidence does not find a strong role for teachers in the determination of academic achievement and future academic and labor market success. It may be that parents and students overstate the importance of teachers, but an alternative explanation is that measurable characteristics such as teacher experience, education, and even test scores of teachers explain little of the true variation in quality, (p. 4) Research studies continue to investigate the specific differences in teachers that cause some teachers to be more effective in influencing student achievement (Schacter & Thum). Research indicates that there is some positive correlation between teacher practices and student achievement but with little statistical significance (Goe, 2007). Studies did indicate some relationship between teacher practice and literacy achievement (Gallagher, 2004; Matsumura, Gamier, & Pascal, 2002; Matsumura et al., 2006). Matsumura et al. (2006) stated, "The reading comprehension assignment measure seemed to be more sensitive to instructional behaviors associated with a wider range of student outcomes" (p. 25). Research findings also reported a positive correlation between teacher practices and math achievement for students (Matsumura et al., 2006; Rowan, Chiang, & Miller, 1997). However it Gallagher reported, "Classroom effects in mathematics were

25 not statistically significant, the strength of the relationship between teacher evaluation scores and classroom effects in literacy is more remarkable" (p. 104). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for this study was taken from research on social cognitive theory. Wood and Bandura (1989) explained, "Social cognitive theory explains psychosocial functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal causation" (p. 361). In this model, behavior, cognition, and environment interact together with varying strength. Wood and Bandura stated, "In the analysis of the personal determinant in this interactional causal structure, social cognitive theory accords a central role to cognitive, vicarious, self regulatory and self-reflective processes" (p. 362). In social cognitive theory there is an interaction between thought and behavior (Bandura, 1989). Oskamp and Schultz (2005) defined social cognition as, "Thought processes about other people, ourselves, and social situations. It is intimately related to the topic of attitudes, for social perceptions, beliefs, and attributions comprise the cognitive components on which attitudes are based" (p. 19). Attitudes may occur from cognitive, affective or behavioral processes (Oskamp and Schultz). Oskamp and Schultz explained: Social cognition is the process by which we understand people and social situations, and it forms the cognitive basis of our attitudes. It begins with perception, which selects stimuli and imparts meaning to them; but, particularly in the social realm, perception can introduce error into our thinking, (p. 42) Social cognitive theory highlights the importance of cognition as a dynamic influence in a person's reality, how they process information, and form values and expectations. Social cognitive theory incorporates the concept of self-efficacy. Bandura (2001) stated:

26 Efficacy beliefs also play a key role in shaping the courses lives take by influencing the types of activities and environments people choose to get into. Any factor that influences choice behavior can profoundly affect the direction of personal development. This is because the social influences operating in selected environments continue to promote certain competencies, values, and interests long after the decisional determinant has rendered its inaugurating effect, (p. 8) Self-efficacy beliefs influence the choices people make, how they behave, their motivation, thoughts, and emotional responses (Goddard et al., 2000; Pajares, 2002). Positive teacher attitudes associated with teaching and teaching abilities are related to greater teacher efficacy (Guskey, 1984). Positive self efficacy beliefs are linked to positive teacher attitudes (Chen & Chang, 2006). Attitudes are a psychosocial function explained through social cognitive theory. Within this theory attitudes are explained by the interaction between thinking, behavior, and surroundings. Through these connections attitudes are formed and expressed (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Attitudes influence behaviors and motives (Oskamp & Schultz, 2005). Social cognitive theory underlines the internal standards that guide an individual's behavior (Wood & Bandura). Summary and Conclusions The research literature indicates that teacher's influence student achievement. Inconsistency occurs in studies when researchers attempt to specifically define which aspects of teacher quality impact student achievement. Teacher quality is defined by qualifications, experience, personal characteristics, attitudes, instructional practice, effectiveness, and moral and ethical behaviors. Goe (2007) reported: Teacher quality has been defined and measured in many ways. There is nearly universal agreement that teacher quality matters in terms of student achievement, but there has been no clear consensus on which aspects of teacher quality matter most or even what a useful definition of teacher quality might be. (p. 1)

27

The complexity of defining and measuring teacher quality leads to inconsistency in the research (Goe). Attitudes are an integral component in the actions of teachers. Social cognitive theory provides the conceptual insight of attitude as influencing behavior and motivation. Through cognitive processes attitudes are formed that influence individual beliefs, values, and behaviors (Oskamp & Schultz; Wood & Bandura, 1989). The literature review provides many examples of studies that investigate the varied components of teacher quality and its relationship to student achievement. The inconsistencies in findings reinforce the importance of continued research on the relationship of teacher quality and student achievement. As Schacter and Thum (2002) stated, scholars continue to seek to define the specific qualities and characteristics that make some teachers very successful in the academic growth and achievement of their students. Research studies and efforts at the state and federal level to identify characteristics that define teacher quality involve commonalities and differences. The importance of teacher quality related to student achievement is the impetus to continue research into teacher quality characteristics. Attitude encompasses who we are as human beings, guides our behavior and choices, and influences our interactions with others. Teacher attitude is an important piece in defining teacher quality. Dimensions of quality are complex and multifaceted. Policy makers and researchers have developed and researched definitions of quality characteristics in the attempt to connect certain characteristics with increased student achievement. Federal and state mandates are written to assert that high quality teachers positively impact

28

student achievement. Researchers have studied teacher attributes and behaviors that have shown to increase student achievement. What must be included in attributes of a quality teacher are attitudes. It is critical to understand that quality includes a synthesis of content knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). Attitudes impact teacher behaviors whether in content expertise, choice of instructional strategies, planning, professional development, and student relationships. Continued study and conversations regarding teacher attitudes and their influence on student achievement are crucial to the success of teachers and all students.

29

Chapter 3: Methodology Overview The first section is a statement of the purpose of the study followed by the research questions. The subsequent sections include information on the research design, operational definitions, instrumentation, pilot testing, and selection of participants. Procedures for completing data collection and data analysis are outlined. Methodological assumptions, limitations and delimitations of the study are presented. The chapter ends with the delineation of ethical assurances and chapter summary. Restatement of the Problem The researcher examined the relationship between teacher attitude and elementary student achievement in reading and math. The guiding research questions investigated (a) the relationship between teacher dispositions toward students, curriculum, and professionalism and student achievement; and (b) predictions related to student achievement that may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the TDI dimensions after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience, and degree. Research Questions The researcher applied a correlational research design utilizing correlations and multiple regression statistical analysis to answer the following research questions.
1. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and

student achievement? 2. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student achievement?

30 3. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student achievement? 4. What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI) after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience and degree? Gall et al. (2003) explained, "Correlational research refers to studies in which the purpose is to discover relationships between variables through the use of correlational statistics" (p. 320). This research design involves collecting data on the study variables and subjecting the variables to correlational and multiple regression analysis (Gall et al.). The researcher collected data on teacher dispositions and 2 years of student achievement results on state reading and math achievement tests for each participating teacher's classroom. The researcher defined teacher dispositions through teacher responses to survey items clustered by (a) student-centered components, and (b) professionalism and curriculum-centered components. Participating teachers provided student reading and/or math scores as a classroom percentage of those students scoring as proficient or higher on the Ohio Achievement Tests. Teacher responses on the survey were based on a five-point Likert scale. Research Design The researcher utilized a quantitative design involving survey research and multiple regression data analysis. The researcher collected data on teacher dispositions, and classroom reading and/or math scores through a survey. Gall et al. (2003) wrote,

31 "The questionnaire is more commonly used in quantitative research, because its standardized, highly structured design is compatible with this approach" (p.223). The researcher conducted correlational research utilizing both correlations and multiple regressions to address the research questions. The researcher addressed research questions 1 through 3 by computing correlations between the variables of interest. For research question 4, the researcher computed multiple regression analysis with the criterion variable being the student achievement measures as measured by the percentage passing for reading and math. The predictor variables consisted of the teacher disposition measures. Operational Definitions of Variables Achievement. Achievement represents a particular type of learning outcome, specifically performance on tests and grades achieved in courses taken (Romney, 2003). Achievement will be indicated by proficient performance on Ohio Achievement Tests. Achievement scores will be computed as percentage passing the math and reading tests for each teacher. Attitude. Attitude is defined as a feeling toward some object, person, or behavior that is favorable, unfavorable, or neutral (Pryor & Pryor, 2005). Attitude is a mental set or disposition (Oskamp, 1997). Teacher attitudes will be measured by a survey instrument utilizing the Likert scale. Proficient score. A proficient math and/or reading score is defined by a student who scores 400 or above on the Ohio Achievement Test. These scores will be reported as a classroom as a total percentage of proficient students per classroom for both math and reading tests.

32

Instrumentation The researcher collected data on teacher dispositions utilizing the Teacher Dispositions Index (TDI) developed by Schulte, Edick, Edwards, and Mackiel (2005). The TDI measures a student-centered dimension, and a professionalism and curriculumcentered dimension. The TDI was developed by university professors in conjunction with a committee of doctoral students enrolled in an applied advanced statistics class. The doctoral students included public school elementary and secondary teachers and administrators and private school teachers. The item development was based on standards from the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). Content validity was determined through a review of the TDI items and a pilot study. The review team consisted of eight professors from the College of Education, a teacher field coordinator, and four master teachers associated with the university program. None of those involved in the item review participated in the item development (Schulte et al., 2005). Through the work of the review team, 17 items were removed, 2 new items were added, and 11 items were reworded (Schulte et al.). The pilot study consisted of surveying 105 undergraduate teacher education students. Participation in the study was voluntary and responses were confidential. Statistical analyses were completed to determine the validity and reliability of the TDI. Schulte et al. 2005 stated, "We evaluated the construct validity and dimensionality of the TDI with exploratory factor analyses using a principal axis factoring method followed by a varimax rotation of the number of factors extracted" (p. 4). The reliability analysis was calculated using Cronbach's alpha for each of the TDI subscales. Schulte et al. explained:

33

The reliability estimate for the 25-item student-centered subscale was .98. The mean of the corrected item-total correlations was .84(D=.05). The reliability estimate for the 20-item professionalism, curriculum-centered subscale was .97. The mean of the corrected item-total correlations was .78 (SD = .05). (p. 11) The TDI was found to be a reliable and valid survey instrument for measuring dispositions of effective teachers. Teacher attitudes. The TDI measures teacher attitudes or dispositions from a student-centered dimension and a professionalism, curriculum-centered dimension, utilizing a five point Likert scale. A factor analysis of the survey items was completed and indicated that a two-factor solution was applicable to the data (Schulte et al., 2005). Schulte et al. explained: Using a factor loading cutoff value of .50, the factor loadings for the two-factor solution revealed that the TDI items measured a student-centered dimension and professionalism, curriculum-centered dimension. We removed 19 of the original 64 TID items that loaded on both factors so that each retained item loaded on one and only one factor, (p. 7) The student-centered and the professionalism, curriculum-centered subscales are two unique components to the TDI (Schulte et al.). Student-centered items include survey questions 1-25 and professionalism, curriculum-centered survey items include questions 26-45 (see Appendix A). Student achievement. Participating teachers provided 2 years of Ohio achievement test results for their classroom in reading and/or math. These scores represent a percentage for those students who score as proficient or higher according to Ohio academic standards. These subject area tests are based on OAS for each grade. Performance levels on these tests include limited, basic, proficient, accelerated, and advanced. To be considered proficient a student must receive a score of 400 or higher on

34

each test. Proficient students meet the established performance standard as defined by OAS for that grade (ODE, 2006). Teacher demographics. The survey included sections for teacher demographic information that include gender and grade level assignment, years of teaching experience, college education, and grade level assignment. Teachers with less than 3 years of experience were not included in the survey as there is limited or no student test results for these teachers. College education was defined as one of the following (a) bachelor's degree, (b) master's degree, or (d) doctoral degree. Pilot Testing The researcher performed a pilot test of the survey instrument with 20 teachers in grades three through six to refine possible problems with administration or scoring. The TDI has been found to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the dispositions of effective teachers and has been utilized over the past few years in the teacher education program at the University of Nebraska at Omaha (Schulte et al., 2005). The researcher asked respondents to provide feedback on (a) clarity of instruction, (b) clarity of survey questions, and (c) survey procedures. All participants indicated that instructions and survey questions were clear and easily understood. No respondent had questions related to survey instructions or survey questions. Participating teachers did suggest that the researcher reinforce the need for teachers to bring test scores to the meeting to prevent delay in completing the survey. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS vs. 15) software. Descriptive Statistics. The TDI student-centered sum is the sum of items 1-25 on the TDI. The TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered sum is the sum of TDI items 26-

35

45. The means for the student-centered and the professionalism, curriculum-centered were also computed, and are listed last (see Appendix D, Table I). Data that are normally distributed look like a bell curve in which most of the data is grouped around the mean. Gall et al. (2003) wrote, "When the distribution has more extreme scores at one end than at the other, that is, when it is skewed-the mean always will be in the direction of the extreme scores" (p. 132). Kurtosis measures whether the data are peaked or flat relative to the distribution of scores on a bell-shaped curve (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Transformations could be used to make the data more normal if the final data turn out to be more skewed (J. S. Thompson, personal communication, October 14, 2008). Correlations. Correlations were computed for research question 1. Research question 1: What is the relationship between teacher attitude and student achievement? The TDI student-centered dimension and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered dimensions are highly correlated, but the TDI scores are not significantly correlated with any of the test scores, (see Appendix D, Table II). The small sample size used in the pilot study maybe an explanation for the lack of correlation. There is a negative correlation between the TDI student-centered dimension and the 2006-2007 reading scores. As the TDI student centered scores go up, the 2006-2007 reading scores go down (J.S. Thompson, personal communication, October 13, 2008). Regression Analysis. Regression for research question 2: What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher attitudes as measured by the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI) after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience, and degree? There are four separate regressions, one for each achievement test (See Appendix D). The first regression is for

the 2006-2007 math scores. There are no significant predictors and the model is not significant overall. One problem for all four regressions is that the TDI scores are highly correlated, thus producing multicollinearity (J. S. Thompson, personal communication, October 13, 2008). Gall et al. (2003) explained: The overlap between two predictor variables, that is, the extent to which they correlate with each other, is called collinearity. If the collinearity between the predictor variables is high, only some of the predictor variables will enter the multiple regression analysis as predictors, even though all of them might predict the criterion variable to some extent, (p. 344) This does not change the significance of the model, but can make the individual regression coefficients have higher standard errors and can result in instability of the regression coefficients (J. S. Thompson, personal communication, October 13, 2008.) The regression for the 2007-2008 math scores are shown in Appendix D, Tables IX-XIV. The 2007-2008 math score regression shows no significant predictors and the model is not significant overall. Grade level and TDI student-centered scores may become significant predictors with a larger sample size (J. S. Thompson, personal communication, October 13, 2008). The regression for the 2006-2007 reading scores is shown in Appendix D, Tables XV-XX. The 2006-2007 reading score regression indicates there are no significant predictors and the model is not significant overall. The TDI student-centered score is a significant predictor and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score is close and may be found to be a significant predictor with a larger sample size. In the larger study the TDI student-centered score and the professionalism, curriculum-centered score could be added together to determine if the overall TDI score is a significant predictor (J. S.

37

Thompson, personal communication, October 13, 2008). Mean-centering of the TDI variables in the larger study may decrease multicollinearity. The regression for the 2007-2008 reading scores is shown in Appendix D, Tables XXI-XXIV. The 2007-2008 reading score regression shows no significant predictors and the model is not significant overall. A larger sample size may change the significance of the predictors. Issues with the pilot study include a small survey sample of teachers from the same district. There is limited diversity in teacher demographics and teacher response. The researcher anticipates resolving these points with the larger, proposed sample size, including diversity of districts. Selection of Participants According to the state of Ohio 2005 report on supply and demand, Ohio has approximately 152 public school districts in the southwestern section of the state. Cluster sampling was utilized in the selection of public school districts to be surveyed. Alreck and Settle (2004) wrote, "A clustered sampling design is appropriate when respondents are widely dispersed in space or time. If the population is sparsely located over a wide geographic area, the entire area can be divided into sections or clusters" (p. 44). As 152 public school districts in southwestern Ohio cover a large geographical area, cluster sampling is the most economical method for surveying teachers. The cluster sample included public school districts which were composed of approximately 179 teachers teaching in grades three through six. The researcher collected 136 completed surveys. In the research area, 6 public school districts that range from small town rural districts to moderate sized suburban districts participated in the study. These districts are

38

representative of the state of Ohio ratings which include excellent, effective, and school improvement. None of the possible participating districts was considered to be under academic watch or academic emergency, indicating little or no progress toward student achievement growth as measured by state academic achievement tests. Procedures After approval from Northcentral University's (NCU) Institutional Review Board (IRB), the researcher presented the research questions, rationale, and methodology to superintendents in the research area to gain permission to survey elementary teaching staff. The goal of the researcher was to gain permission from at least one half of the 10 superintendents in the research area. Six superintendents granted the researcher permission to survey the elementary teaching staff in grades three through six (see Appendix E). Of the approximately 179 teachers teaching in grades three through six within the 6 public school districts, 136 teachers had three or more years of experience and were surveyed. The researcher arranged meeting times with all participating public school districts to administer the survey to teachers. Participating teachers teaching in grades three through six included those responsible for instruction in the areas of (a) reading and math, (b) math only, or (c) reading only. The survey packet included written instructions and an informed consent form. The researcher explained that the surveys were anonymous and contained no teacher identifying data. The researcher collected the surveys and informed consent forms separately to ensure confidentiality of the survey data. Discussion of Data Processing

The researcher performed a multivariate analysis to discover the statistical significance of the relationships between the variables. Gall et al. (2003) explained, "Statistics are mathematical techniques for summarizing or analyzing numerical data" (p. 637). Statistical significance indicates that study findings are very likely to be found in the population beyond the study sample (Mertler & Charles, 2005). Interpretation from the statistical analysis provided the researcher with information on the relationship between teacher dispositions and student achievement. The researcher addressed the first three research questions by computing correlations between the variables of interest. For research question 1 through 3, the researcher correlated percentage passing reading and math scores with teacher disposition measures. In sum, correlation coefficients were computed to indicate the magnitude and direction of the relationships between all variables (Rudestam & Newton). Multiple regression analysis determined the degree of relationship between the criterion variable and the predictor variable for research question 4 (Mertler & Charles, 2005). The criterion variable for research question 4 included the student achievement measures as measured by the percentage passing for reading and math. The predictor variables consisted of the teacher disposition measures while controlling for teacher demographics. A multiple correlation coefficient (R) was generated to measure the relationship between the criterion variable and the predictor variables for the regression equation. The coefficient of the determination (R2) is conducted to express the amount of variance in the criterion variable that is explained by the predictor variables (Gall et al., 2003). Teacher dispositions and student achievement. Research questions 1 through 3.

40 1. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and student achievement? 2. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student achievement? 3. What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student achievement? The researcher computed correlations using the classroom percentage math scores and several disposition measures from the TDI. These disposition variables included a student-centered dimension, and a professionalism, curriculum-centered dimension. The researcher also computed correlations using percentage classroom reading scores with the same TDI variables. Student achievement predicted from teacher dispositions, controlling for teacher demographics. Research question 4 asked: What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI) after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience and degree? The researcher computed four separate multiple regression analyses using the following scores for each teacher as criterion variables, (a) the percentage passing math, and (b) the percentage passing reading. Each regression used the same predictor variables consisting of (a) the studentcentered dimension attitude measure from the TDI; (b) the professionalism, curriculumcentered dimension attitude measure from the TDI; (c) gender; (d) grade level assignment; (e) years of teaching experience; and (f) degree (dummy coded from bachelor's degree, master's degree, and doctoral degree).

41 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations Methodological assumptions of this study included a reliable and valid survey instrument. It was assumed that the data collection was both reliable and valid. For this study it was assumed that the literature review was both complete and accurate. Finally, it is an assumption that results from this study were not intended for teacher evaluation purposes. Limitations of this study included the inability of the researcher to control for student characteristics. These factors included gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, academic ability, and home environment. Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002) wrote, "Overall, the analyses showed that background variables had different effect on annual gains in achievement across classrooms, with these random effects being larger in lower grades, especially in reading, than upper grades" (p. 1533). Since students are not randomly assigned to each teacher's classroom there was no control for student characteristics. Schacter and Thum (2002) stated, "We found that student background characteristics did not impact progress in language, reading, or mathematics achievement on the Stanford 9 Achievement tests" (p. 417). It is also important to note that this study was not a study of student affects on their own learning. Certainly individual student characteristics have a role in student achievement. Ding and Sherman (2006) stated, "Teacher effectiveness is conditioned on student characteristics. Only when we recognize the importance of students' role in their own learning can we meaningfully address the issues related to teacher effectiveness and teacher effects" (p. 47). This research study did not address student characteristics of motivation, interest, determination, or commitment to academic achievement.

42

The teacher participants also posed a limitation to this study as teachers are not randomly assigned to teach specific grades. These decisions are based on a myriad of factors including teacher licensure requirements, teacher preference, or student numbers. Rowan et al. (2002) explained, "We have seen that in any given year, students are deflected upward or downward from their expected growth trajectory by virtue of the classrooms to which they are assigned" (p. 1534). Grade level assignment procedures vary among school districts. Lastly, student achievement test data is only publicly available in a percentage proficient score. Other test score scales are confidential and were not available to the researcher. To maintain student and teacher confidentiality percentage proficient scores were utilized in this study. Generalizing findings from this research study must be made with caution considering the limitations presented. The purpose of this study was to add to existing research on the relationship between teacher attitudes and student achievement. It was the hope of the researcher that the results of this study would be viewed in relationship to other findings related to the affects of teacher attitudes on student achievement. There are inherent limitations to measuring attitudes. Attitude measures can be influenced by peers, disinterest, the degree of self awareness, and the need to please the researcher (Henerson, Morris, & Fitz-Gibbon, 1987). Teacher attitude measures in this study may have been unintentionally enhanced as individuals wish to be seen in a positive manner. Collection of student test scores as reported by the classroom teacher was a delimitation of the study. The researcher collected student achievement data directly from

43

the classroom teacher to keep survey participation completely confidential. The collection of student achievement data from building administrators or supervisors would require the researcher to link survey data to a teacher name. This delimitation ensured the confidentiality of participating teachers in the research study. A second delimitation of this study was the exclusion of teachers with less than 3 years experience. The researcher asked teachers to report 2 years of achievement test data and teachers with less than 3 years experience would not have 2 years of student test data to report. Ethical Assurances The intent of the researcher was to comply with the standards for conducting research with human participants and gained approval from NCU's IRB prior to any data collection or research. Ethical considerations for this research study included (a) participant confidentiality, (b) informed consent, (c) minimal risk to the participants, and (d) utilizing a survey instrument that measured what the study intended to measure. Sufficient information was provided so that all participants could make an informed decision to participate or not participate in the study. A chosen survey instrument, as stated previously, was used in similar studies and has demonstrated reliability and validity. Informed consent (see Appendix C) was provided for the individual participant with information about the research study. Informed consent forms contained enough information about the study so the participant could make an intelligent and knowledgeable decision. Gall et al. (2003) stated: Researchers must inform each individual about what will occur during the research study, the information to be disclosed to the researchers, and the intended use of the research data that are to be collected. If adults are the participants, they must give their consent, (p. 69)

44

Participants were informed that their consent could be withdrawn at anytime and that participation was completely voluntary. Confidentiality in the collection and use of data was a significant ethical concern due to the potential emotional, social, and economic risk for the teacher. Student class achievement data that is poor or attitude data that are negative could cause harm to the teacher with respect to self-esteem, reputation, and employment. This same risk could apply to the reputation of the district and economic support from the community. No identifiers to specific districts or teachers were utilized. All data and collection instruments are being saved in a secure location for three years and then will be shredded. The ability of the researcher to generalize study findings was dependent on the reliability and validity of the study instrument. Informed decision making could only occur if the survey instrument measured what the researcher stated it would measure. Reliability and validity of the survey instrument was an important ethical consideration to this study. The amount of risk involved in the study was communicated to the participants. Rudestam and Newton (2001) explained: The two main ethical issues that pertain to using subjects in social science research are the need for fully informed consent to participate and the need to emerge from the experience unharmed. Ultimately, the value of a study is determined by balancing the potential benefits, in terms of generalizable knowledge, with the costs and potential risks, (p. 265) Minimal risk in research is defined as risk not greater than what a participant would encounter during everyday life or in routine tests (Code of Federal Regulations, 2005). Survey research generally carries minimal risk to the participant, but was a consideration for the researcher.

45

Informed, confidential, and safe participation were critical ethical concerns for this research study. Preserving the dignity and rights of all participants while utilizing a reliable and valid data collection instrument were obligations for the researcher. Significant research that adds to the field of study is dependent upon the ethical integrity of the research methods and design. Summary This quantitative study involved utilizing survey research to collect data on attitudes and demographics from teachers who teach in grades three through six in reading and math. The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between teacher attitudes and student achievement. Participating teachers had at least 3 years of teaching experience and were employed in public school districts in Ohio. Participation in the survey was voluntary and confidential. Permission from NCU's IRB was granted prior to any data collection by the researcher. Permission from district superintendents was obtained prior to contacting any teacher. Surveys were delivered to teachers with informed consent information and survey instructions. The researcher was available to answer any questions and to collect surveys as they were completed. The researcher utilized a multivariate analysis to discover the statistical significance of the relationships between the variables. The data analysis determined relationships between the criterion variables and predictor variables within the research questions. The degree of the relationship between the criterion variables and predictor variables for each research question was determined using multiple regression analysis.

46 Chapter 4: Findings The first section of this chapter contains findings from the data collection and analysis surrounding the four research questions. The primary intent of the study was to determine any correlation between a teacher's disposition toward students, curriculum, and professionalism and student achievement as measured by the Ohio Achievement Test. The TDI survey was completed by 136 classroom teachers using a Likert scale. Sections within this chapter consist of the results, an analysis and evaluation of the findings, and a summary. Results Correlation and multiple regression results are presented in narrative and table formats. Included in the results section are (a) sample characteristics, (b) TDI scale characteristics, (c) achievement score characteristics, and (d) correlations of the research questions. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and regression results are presented. Sample Characteristics. Six public school district staffs participated in the TDI survey data collection. The sample contained 136 subjects who represented regular education classroom teachers in grades three through six teaching (a) reading and math, (b) reading only, or (c) math only. These classroom teachers had a minimum of three years experience and provided two years of achievement test scores for reading and math. Table 1 presents frequencies and percentages for the sample broken down by gender, grade, and degree. The majority of the sample was female and had earned a Master's degree. Third grade teachers had the highest survey participation rate with 39 teachers taking the survey. Six grade classroom teachers represented 35 participants and were followed by grades four and five with 31 participants each.

47

Table 1 Frequencies for Demographic Variables (N'= 136) Frequency Gender Male Female Grade 3 rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade Degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Percent

19 117

14.0 86.0

39 31 31 35

28.7 22.8 22.8 25.7

24 112

17.6 82.4

TDI Scale Characteristics. TDI scales were created by summing the TDI items 1 25 to create the student-centered score and by summing items 26-45 to create the professionalism, curriculum-centered score. Descriptive statistics for the TDI scores are presented in Table 2. Skewness and kurtosis values for both scales were all within the acceptable range of-2 to +2, indicating that the variables were adequately normally distributed. Cronbach's alphas were computed for each score and both were excellent with a student-centered a = .92, and the professionalism, curriculum-centered a = .91 The Cronbach's alphas were similar to those computed originally for the TDI with a student-centered subscale a = .98, and the professionalism, curriculum-centered subscale a = .97 (Schulte et al, 2005).

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics N TDI scales TDI student-centered score TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered score Test scores 92 Percent passing math 2006 94 Percent passing math 2007 94 Percent passing reading 2006 93 Percent passing reading 2007 136 Teachers' years of experience Achievement Score Characteristics. Math and reading score descriptive statistics are also presented in Table 2. Skewness and kurtosis values for each of these scores were within the range of-2 to + 2 except for kurtosis for the reading 2006 score (kurtosis = 3.07). Transformation was utilized to make the scale more normal. Transformation consisted of squaring the scores to make them more normal, and then dividing by 1, to bring the scale back into a more comparable range after squaring. All following analyses were run on both the untransformed and transformed scores for the reading 2006 score. The significance or lack of significance for the correlations or regression coefficients was not changed by the transformation. The variables were either significant or nonsignificant with and without the transformation. As a result, the reading 2006 score was left in it 14.23 9.35 3-38 85.67 8.95 51-100 86.27 10.60 46-100 85.00 9.76 50-100 85.41 11.29 50-100 136 136 117.59 88.36 6.87 7.42 98-125 63-100 M SD Range

49 original untransformed form as the transformation did not change any conclusions that would be formed about this variable. Correlations. Bivariate Pearson correlations were run for all variables that were included in the regression analyses. Table 3 presents the correlations between all pairs of variables. Correlational analyses were used to address research questions 1-3. Research question 1 asked: What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and student achievement? Correlations were computed between the TDI student-centered score and each achievement score (a) the percent passing math achievement test in 2006, (b) the percent passing math achievement test in 2007, (c) the percent passing reading achievement test in 2006, and (d) the percent passing reading achievement test in 2007. These correlations are presented in Table 3. The first column in Table 3 reveals that the TDI student-centered score was not significantly correlated with any of the achievement test scores. Therefore, there was no relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and student achievement found from examining only the zero-order correlations. Research question 2 asked: What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student achievement? Correlations were computed between the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score and each achievement score (a) the percent passing math achievement test in 2006; (b) the percent passing math achievement test in 2007; (c) the percent passing reading achievement test in 2006; and (d) the percent passing reading achievement test in 2007. These correlations are presented in Table 3. In the second column of Table 3 shows the TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered score was not significantly correlated with either of the two math scores. The

50 results in the second column do indicate that the TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered score was significantly positively correlated with the percent passing reading 2006 score (r = .28, p< .01) and with the percent passing reading 2007 score (r = .22, p = < .05). Therefore, no relationship between a teacher's disposition toward the professionalism, curriculum-centered component of the TDI and math achievement was found for these data, but a significant positive relationship was found for a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and reading achievement. Research question 3 asked: What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student achievement? As with research question 2, this question was addressed by computing correlations between the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score and each achievement score (a) the percent passing math achievement test in 2006; (b) the percent passing math achievement test in 2007; (c) the percent passing reading achievement test in 2006; and (d) the percent passing reading achievement test in 2007. These correlations mirror the research question 2 as they were measured by the same items on the TDI and are presented in Table 3. The TDI professionalism, curriculum score was not significantly correlated with either of the two math scores, but it was significantly positively correlated with the percent passing reading 2006 score (r =.28, p = < .01) and with the percent passing reading 2007 score (r = .22, p < .05). Therefore, no relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and math achievement was found for these data, but a significant positive relationship was found for a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and reading achievement.

51

Table 3 Correlations Variables I l.TDI student 2. TDI profess.curriculum 3. M a t h 2006 4. M a t h 2007 5. Reading 2006 6. Reading 2007 7. Gender 8. Grade level 9. E x p . 10. Degree 74*** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8~ between TDI Scales, Percent Passing Math and Reading, and Demographic

.01

.10

.00 .06

.03

.66***

.28**

.55***

.29*

.05

.22*

39**

.61*=

.51 * * *

-.07

-.03 -.02

.12
-.01

.11 .09

.04 .12

.03 .18 -.23** --

.00

.08 .06

-.07 -.07

:07 .07

.15
-.09

.22* .07

.10 -.05

.06 .09

.07 .02 .19*

Note. Sample sizes range from N = 92 - 94 for correlations involving academic scores and T D I scores. Sample sizes range from iV= 5 1 - 5 2 between m a t h and reading scores. N= 136 for correlations between demographic variables and TDI scores. Gender w a s coded as 1 = M a l e and 2 = Female so that positive correlations indicate higher scores for females and negative correlations indicate higher scores for males.

*p<.05.

**p<.0l.***p<.001.

52

Multiple Regression for Predicting Achievement. Research question 4 asked: What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the Teacher Disposition Index (TDI) after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience and degree? Four separate multiple regression analyses were computed for research question 4, each predicting one of the measures of student achievement. For the first regression, the percent passing math 2006 score was regressed simultaneously on the TDI student-centered score and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score as well as the four demographic variables of (a) gender; (b) grade level; (c) experience; and (d) degree. Gender and degree are both dichotomous variables as there are only two gender categories (coded Female = 1, Male = 2) and two degree categories (coded Bachelor's degree = 1 and Master's degree = 2). No dummy coding was needed due to these dichotomous variables. Grade level is an interval level variable and experience is a ratio level variable and could be used in the regression equation in their original forms. The overall regression model was not significant, F(6, 85) = 0.60, p = .728, and the six predictors together explained only 4.1% of the variance in the percent passing math 2006 score. The results of the regression analysis are presented Table 4. None of the predictors was a significant predictor of the math 2006 score. None of the predictor variables had significant zero-order correlations with the dependent variable either (see Table 3). Therefore, no predictors were significantly able to predict the math 2006 achievement measure.

53

Table 4 Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent Passing Math 2006 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates B TDI student-centered TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered Gender Grade level Experience Degree 3.52 0.28 0.08 1.97 3.69 1.09 0.14 3.15 .11 .03 .06 .07 -0.24 SEB 0.27 0.26 B -.15 .21 R2 .041

Note. The overall model was not significant, F(6, 85) = 0.60, p = .728. The constant for the model = 72.82. Gender was coded as 1 = Male and 2 = Female so that positive regression weights indicate higher scores for females and negative regression weights indicate higher scores for males. For the second regression, the percent passing math 2007 score was regressed simultaneously on the TDI student-centered score and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score along with the four demographic variables (a) gender; (b) grade level; (c) experience; and (d) degree. The overall regression model was not significant, F(6, 87) = 0.95, p = .462, and the six predictors together explained only 6.2% of the variance in the percent passing math 2007 score. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 5. None of the predictors was a significant predictor of the math 2007 score. Again, none of the predictor variables had significant zero-order

54

correlations with the dependent variable. Therefore, no predictors were significantly able to predict the math 2007 achievement measure. Table 5 Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent Passing Math 2007 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates B TDI student-centered TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered Gender Grade level Experience Degree -0.04 0.09 3.23 1.09 0.18 -2^92 SEB 0.23 0.22 2.95 0.91 0.12 2.75 R -.03 .07 .12 .13 .16 -.11 R2 .062

Note. The overall model was not significant, F(6, 87) = 0.95, p = .462. The constant for the model = 73.86. Gender was coded as 1 = Male and 2 = Female so that positive regression weights indicate higher scores for females and negative regression weights indicate higher scores for males. The percent passing reading 2006 score was regressed simultaneously on the TDI student-centered score and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score along with the four demographic variables of (a) gender; (b) grade level; (c) experience; and (d) degree. The overall regression model was highly significant, F(6, 87) =3.97, p = .001. The six predictors together explained 21.5% of the variance in the percent passing reading 2006 score.

55

Three of the variables were significant predictors of the reading 2006 score including (a) TDI student-centered ((3 = -.38, p <.01); (b) TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered ((3 = .58, p < .001); and (c) experience ((3 = 21, p < .01). The results of this regression analysis are presented in Table 6. All of these regression coefficients were stronger, and in one case, opposite their respective zero-order correlations (see Table 3). The TDI student-centered score had a small positive nonsignificant correlation with the reading 2006 score (r = .06,/? > .05). However in the regression equation, it had a significant negative standardized regression coefficient (p = -.38, p < .01). Therefore, when holding all other variables constant, the TDI student-centered score was negatively related to reading scores, indicating that teachers with higher TDI student-center scores had a lower percentage of students who passed the reading achievement test in 2006. The TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score showed a stronger positive relationship with the percent passing reading in 2006 when holding other variables constant (P = .58, p < .001) than its zero-order correlation (r = .28, p < .01). The same result was found for experience and the percent passing reading in 2006. The relationship was stronger when holding other variables constant (P = .27, p < .01) than was the zero-order correlation (r = .22, p < .05). Therefore, when considering all of the predictors together, the percent passing reading score in 2006 was negatively predicted by the TDI student-centered score and positively predicted the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score and years of experience.

56 Table 6 Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent Passing Reading 2006 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates B TDI student-centered TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered Gender Grade level Experience Degree -0.61
0.83

SEB 0.23
0.20

(3 -.38**
.58***

R2 .215

0.47 0.77 0.30 2J59

3.40 0.91 0.11 1M_

.01 .08 .27 * * .09

Note. The overall model was significant, 7^6, 87) = 3.97, p = .001. The constant for the model = 70.98. Gender was coded as 1 = Male and 2 = Female so that positive regression weights indicate higher scores for females and negative regression weights indicate higher scores for males. **p<.01. ***p<.00\.

For the fourth regression, the percent passing reading 2007 score was regressed simultaneously on the TDI student-centered score and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score as well as the four demographic variables (a) gender; (b) grade level; (c) experience; and (d) degree. The overall regression model was almost significant, F(6, 86) = 2.17, p = .054, and the six predictors together explained 13.1% of the variance in the percent passing reading 2007 score. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 7. Only the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score was a significant predictor of the reading 2007 score (|3 = .41, p < .01). Therefore,

57 the percent passing reading in 2007 was significantly positively predicted by only the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score when holding all other variables constant, although the pattern of results for 2007 reading was similar to the pattern found for the 2006 reading scores. Table 7 Regression Analysis for Predicting Percent Passing Reading 2007 from TDI Scores with Demographics as Covariates B TDI student-centered TDI professionalism, curriculumcentered Gender Grade level Experience Degree -0.35 0.50 1.89 1.48 0.12 -1.22 SEB 0.20 0.18 3.02 0.81 0.10 2.53 p -.26 .41** .07 .19 .14 -.05 R2 .131

Note. The overall model was almost significant, F(6, 86) = 2.17, p = .054. The constant for the model = 73.18. Gender was coded as 1 = Male and 2 = Female so that positive regression weights indicate higher scores for females and negative regression weights indicate higher scores for males. **p<.01. Analysis and Evaluation of Findings The reliability analysis was calculated using Cronbach's alpha for the TDI student-centered subscale and the curriculum, professionalism subscale. Both subscales were found to be reliable and valid survey instrument for measuring dispositions of effective teachers with a student-centered a =.92 and professionalism,

58 curriculum a = .91. These results concur with the analysis initially done by Schulte et al. (2005). Schulte et al. stated, "The reliability estimate for the 25-item student-centered subscale was .98. The reliability estimate for the 20-item professionalism, curriculumcentered subscale was .97" (p. 11). Research question 1 asked: What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward students and student achievement? The TDI student-centered score was not significantly correlated with any of the achievement test scores. There was no relationship found between a teacher's dispositions toward students and math and reading achievement scores. These findings conflict with the assumptions of the researcher. The researcher assumed that there would be a relationship between a teacher's attitude toward students in their classroom and student achievement. The findings for research question 1 are consistent with some previous research. However, in the review of the literature conflicting findings related to the influence of the teacher on student achievement were noted. Findings from Goe's (2007) syntheses revealed no clear consensus on the relationship between specified teacher characteristics and student achievement. Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer (1995) reported no evidence to connect teacher characteristics and student achievement. Although, Katz and Raths (1986) proposed that a teacher could possess expert skill in a content area but not possess the disposition to teach effectively. Within the construct of disposition lie the attitudes that form the disposition (Katz & Raths). Positive teacher attitudes can positively impact students (Gourneau 2005). Other studies also indicated a positive correlation of teacher characteristics and student achievement (Dee, 2004; Goodard, Hoy, & Hoy 2000; Leana

59 & Pil, 2006). The results for research question 1 add to the inconsistencies in the research. Research question 2 asked: What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student achievement? The professionalism, curriculum-centered subscale was not significantly correlated with the 2006 or 2007 math achievement scores. However it was significantly correlated with the 2006 and 2007 reading achievement scores. The researcher believed there would be a positive correlation between a teacher's attitude toward curriculum-centered issues and student achievement in both math and reading. These findings are supported by some past research. Studies indicated some relationship between teacher practice and literacy achievement (Gallagher, 2004; Matsumura, Gamier, & Pascal, 2002; Matsumura et al., 2006). Matsumura et al. (2006) stated, "The reading comprehension assignment measure seemed to be more sensitive to instructional behaviors associated with a wider range of student outcomes" (p. 25). Gallagher reported, "Classroom effects in mathematics were not statistically significant, the strength of the relationship between teacher evaluation scores and classroom effects in literacy is more remarkable" (p. 104). However, some research findings also reported a positive correlation between teacher practices and math achievement for students (Matsumura et al., 2006; Rowan, Chiang, & Miller, 1997). The results for research question 2 are consistent with some of the previous research which indicates reading achievement may be more sensitive to teacher influence than math achievement. Research question 3 asked: What is the relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student achievement? Findings indicated no

60 relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and math achievement scores. There was a significantly positive correlation between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and both reading achievement scores. Based on past research the researcher believed there would be a positive correlation between a teacher's professional attitude and both math and reading achievement. It is unclear why teacher dispositions toward professionalism did not positively correlate with math achievement scores. Again, previous research indicates that reading achievement may be more sensitive to curriculum and professionalism in teacher behavior than math achievement (Matsumura et al., 2006). Results in the research have pointed to a positive correlation between teacher instructional practices and math (Matsumura el al, 2006; Rowan, Chiang, & Miller, 1997). However, Gallagher (2004) stated, "Teacher classroom effects in mathematics were not statistically significant" (p. 104). The results from this study related to teacher dispositions and math achievement are puzzling. Research question 4 asked: What predictions related to student achievement may be made based on teacher dispositions as measured by the TDI after controlling for teacher demographic variables such as gender, grade level, years of experience and degree? The multiple regression analyses for the percent passing math 2006 and 2007 achievement tests were not significant. None of the predictors were a significant predictor of either math scores. This is interesting as it conflicts with some past research that found teacher experience in math instruction increases math achievement for students (Goe, 2007).

61 The third regression, percent passing reading 2006 was regressed simultaneously on the TDI student-centered score and the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score as well as the four demographic variables of (a) gender; (b) grade level; (c) experience; and (d) degree. Overall the regression model was highly significant with three of the variables significant predictors of reading 2006 achievement. The TDI student-centered variable, the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered variable, and experience were significant predictors of the 2006 reading achievement test scores. The TDI student score is remarkable because it has a small positive nonsignificant correlation with the reading 2006 achievement score (r = .06, p > .05), but in the regression equation it had a significant negative standardized regression coefficient (p = .38,/? < .01). This effect is defined as suppression. Garson (2007) explained: Suppression occurs when the control variable has a positive effect on the dependent variable through one path and a negative effect through another path. Suppression is defined as a variable which increases the predictive validity of another variable or set of variables by its inclusion in a regression equation. For instance, if you are set to examine the effect of a treatment on an outcome, a suppression would mean that instead of the drop that you would see from the direct effect of the treatment on the outcome when the mediator is introduced, the opposite happens. (Section Key Concepts ^ f 8). For the reading 2006 achievement regression the standardized regression coefficient is outside the range of zero to the correlation, so the beta (standardized regression coefficient) is either stronger than the correlation or has a different sign from the correlation (J. S. Thompson, personal communication, February 5, 2009). There appears to be no actual correlation between the TDI student-centered score (r =.06) and the reading 2006 achievement score, but in the multiple regression the TDI student-centered score there is a significant relationship between the TDI student-centered score and the reading 2006 reading achievement score (|3 = -.38). This indicates the TDI student-

62 centered score is negatively related to the reading 2006 achievement scores. Garson (2007) stated, "Suppression is a contentious issue and continues to be debated in the literature. However, it was suggested recently that suppression should be viewed as adding interest to the results, rather than as a confound or problem" (Section Key Concepts f 8). The 2006 reading achievement test scores were positively predicted by the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score and years of experience and negatively predicted by the TDI student-centered score. It is not surprising that reading achievement is positively associated with curriculum, teacher's professionalism and teacher's years of experience. The review of the literature reinforces these positive findings (Gallagher, 2004; Matsumura, Gamier, & Pascal, 2002; Matsumura et al., 2006). It is surprising that the 2006 reading achievement test scores were negatively predicted by the TDI student-centered score. Previous research has found that teacher attitudes have the capacity to influence the academic growth of students (Marzano, 2007; Wasicsko, 2007). Within social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs influences the choices teachers make, how they behave, their motivation, thoughts, and emotional responses (Goddard et al., 2000; Pajares, 2002). From the student perspective, a positive attitude and attitudes of high expectations for students were reported as important for effective teachers (Thompson, Greer, & Greer, 2004). The negative prediction surrounding the TDI student-centered subscale and reading achievement presents opposite results of what is noted in the literature and caution must be used in drawing conclusions. The researcher notes it as an interesting phenomenon worthy of future exploration.

63 The percent passing the 2007 reading achievement test was regressed simultaneously on the TDI student-centered score and the TDI professionalism, curriculum score and the four demographic variables of (a) gender, (b) grade level, (c) experience, and (d) degree. Although the overall regression model was almost significant, F= (6, 86) = 2.n,p = .054, only the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score was

found to be a significant predictor of the 2007 reading achievement test scores. The pattern of results for the 2007 reading score was similar to the pattern found for the 2006 reading achievement scores. Summary The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between teacher attitudes and student achievement. In answer to research question 1, there was no correlation found between a teacher's deposition toward students and student achievement for math or reading achievement. In response to research question 2, no relationship between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and math achievement was found. However a significant positive relationship was found for a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and student reading achievement. Findings for research question 3 indicated no relationship between a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and math achievement, but a significant positive relationship found for a teacher's disposition toward professionalism and student reading achievement. Finding for research question 4 indicated none of the predictors were significant of either the 2006 math achievement scores or the 2007 math achievement scores. The 2006 reading achievement score was positively predicted by the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score and teacher experience, but negatively predicted by the TDI

student-centered score. The 2007 reading achievement scores were positive predicted by the TDI professionalism, curriculum-centered score only. It is surprising to the researcher that math achievement was not significantly positively correlated to a teacher's disposition toward students, curriculum, or professionalism. It is remarkable to report that reading achievement scores in 2006 were negatively predicted by teacher's dispositions toward students. Of the four demographic variables only experience was found to be a positive predictor and only for 2006 reading achievement scores.

65 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations The intent of this study was to determine the relationship between teacher attitude and student achievement in reading and math. The relevancy of the study was tied to issues of teacher quality and its impact on student learning. Past and current research indicates that the teacher has the greatest impact on student achievement (Marzano, 2003; Marzano 2007; & Rice, 2003). Effective teachers have four times the positive impact on student achievement than the least effective teachers (Marzano, 2003). The review of the literature found research which focused on a variety of teacher characteristics in relationship to student achievement. Researched teacher characteristics included (a) teacher intelligence, (b) teacher education and certification, (c) experience, (d) moral and ethical beliefs, (e) instructional strategies and methods, and (f) attitudes. Conflicting research surrounds the impact of specific teacher characteristics on student achievement (Goe, 2007). The importance of teacher attitudes related to student achievement gained greater recognition after NCATE introduced teacher attitudes into their accreditation standards. Earlier studies described teacher dispositions as an element to explain teacher's behaviors (Katz & Raths, 1986). Teacher attitudes connected with instructional behavior, commitment to student learning, and personal learning were found to be connected to student achievement (Gourneau, 2005; Pryor & Pryor, 2005; Strong, 2007; Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). Attitudes are a hidden process that helps to explain action and behaviors (Oskamp, 1997). Present research indicates that teacher's attitudes are connected to their actions which are related to student achievement (Marzano, 2007). It was the belief of the

66 researcher that teacher attitudes associated with students, curriculum, and professionalism would be found to positively impact the learning and achievement of students. The conceptual framework for this study was taken from research on social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory explains how behavior, cognition and environment work together to produce social action (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Oksamp and Schultz (2005) explained social cognitive theory as the basis for attitudes and understanding behavior. Social cognitive theory highlights the importance of thinking as a dynamic influence on a person's values, expectations, and behaviors. The researcher collected data on teacher dispositions, and classroom reading and/or math scores through the TDI survey. The researcher conducted correlational research utilizing both correlations and multiple regressions to address the research questions. The researcher addressed research questions 1 through 3 by computing correlations between the variables of interest. For research question 4, the researcher computed multiple regression analysis with the criterion variable being the student achievement measures as measured by the percentage passing for reading and math. The predictor variables consisted of the teacher disposition measures. Math achievement findings contradicted existing research literature. There was no correlation found between a teacher's disposition and math achievement scores. Nor was there a significant relationship between math achievement and any of the predictor variables. This conflicts with most of the existing studies that indicate teacher education, practices, skills, experience, and attitudes positively impact student achievement (Marzano, 2003; Marzano, 2007; Porter-Magee, 2004). Teacher attitudes including a commitment to student learning and personal learning were found to enhance student

67 achievement (Strong, 2007; Wilkerson & Lang, 2007). Gourneau (2005) stated, "Effective attitudes and actions employed by teachers ultimately can make a positive difference on the lives of their students" (Section IV, ]f 1). The teacher's dispositions toward curriculum and professionalism positively impacted the 2006 and 2007 reading achievement scores. Experience was positively correlated with the 2006 reading score, but not the 2007 reading score. Also, the 2006 reading score was negatively impacted by a teacher's disposition toward students. These are conflicting findings that do not mirror the existing research. Again, much of previous research indicates that a teachers experience with the curriculum, learning, and relationships with students increases student achievement (Cambron-McCabe, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Fenstermacker & Richardson, 2005; Friere, 2001). Conclusions The intent of this study was to add to the current research related to teacher quality and student achievement. The researcher believed that by identifying specific teacher attitudes that positively impact student achievement, defining elements could be added to the concept of teacher's quality. The researcher can conclude from the study results that a positive relationship exists between a teacher's disposition toward curriculum and professionalism and reading achievement. The perplexing issues related to the study findings include (a) the TDI studentcentered score negatively related to reading achievement in 2006; (b) teaching experience positively related to reading achievement in 2006, but not in 2007; and (c) the reading 2007 regression analysis having a similar pattern to the 2006 scores, but presenting only the professionalism, curriculum-centered score as positively significant. Math results

68 were puzzling in that no relationship was found between a teacher's disposition toward students, curriculum, or professionalism and math achievement. Also, none of the predictor variables were a significant predictor of either the math 2006 or math 2007 achievement scores. These results are in contrast to what most of the existing research reports. It would be with great caution that definite conclusions for educational practice be made from this study without further research. The lack of significant relationships with some of the findings should only add questions to the field of education. Adding these research findings to the body of existing research should only generate further inquiry into the study of which teacher attributes significantly impact student achievement. It is important to acknowledge inconsistencies in the research and attempt to find explanations for these inconsistencies. Recommendations It is critical, in light of the findings in this study, that further research be conducted related to teacher attitudes and student achievement. It may enhance the research to add other standardized measures of student achievement. For this study the measures were limited to the standardized state math and reading achievement tests that all participating districts utilized. As states add other common measures of student achievement it would be enlightening if more than one standardized measure of student achievement could be added to a study. Including student affects on their own learning may add information to the overall discussion of what impacts student achievement in the classroom. Student affects and student characteristics were limitations of this study and not addressed in this research.

69 Adding these variables to future studies to determine their impact on teacher's attitudes in the classroom and thus any affect on student achievement may add rigor to the research. Perhaps it is not an isolated teacher characteristic that should be researched but a system of interrelated characteristics and their impact on student achievement. Teacher interviews could add valid information to the teacher survey. Speaking directly to classroom teachers may enhance survey data and include information unobtainable from surveys. Adding a qualitative aspect to the research may augment future study findings. It is recommended that further research address the issues identified from the study findings (a) math achievement was not correlated with any of the teacher dispositions measures, (b) math achievement was not predicted by any of the variables, (c) the reading achievement 2006 score was negatively predicted by the TDI studentcentered score, and (d) teacher experience was a predictor of reading achievement only for the 2006 scores and not the 2007 scores. The questions surrounding these results need further exploration prior to making any decisions about teachers and student achievement. It is essential to continue the research related to teacher attitudes and student achievement in hopes of developing consistencies in the research. The conflicting findings from this study are useful for adding questions to the complex issue of teacher quality and increased student achievement. As previously stated, attitudes are not easily measured and therefore not easily researched. The importance of this study lies not in what the study findings tell us about practice, but in what questions they add to the existing research.

70

References Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (3rd ed.). (2004). The survey research handbook. Boston: McGraw Hill/Irwin. Bandura, A. (2001). An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 1-26. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http.V/arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/l 0.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1174-1184. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from ProQuest database. Berliner, D. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 205-213. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from the ProQuest database. Brief Explanation of the Rasch Model. (2008). Retrieved October 1, 2008, from DocuShare Web site: http://docushare.subr.edu/sudocs/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File4695/BriefExplanationo f_the_Rasch_Model.doc Cambron-McCabe, N. (2000). Schooling as an ethical endeavor. In A Fifth Discipline: Schools That Learn. New York: Doubleday. Chen, J., & Chang, C. (2006). Testing the whole teacher approach to professional development: A study of enhancing early childhood teachers' technology proficiency. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-18. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from the Early Childhood Research and Practice Website: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8nl/chen.html Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-49. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8nl Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified teachers in California. Teachers College Record, 16, 1936-1966.
Dee, T. S. (2004). The race connection: Are teachers more effective with students who

share their ethnicity? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ763248) Descriptive Statistics, (n.d.) Retrieved October 1, 2008, from American University Web site: www.american.edu/cte.docs_pdfs/training/SPSS_desstats.pdf

71 Ding, C , & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 39-49. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from ProQuest database. Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do teacher's race, gender, and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 547-561. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401247) Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record 107, 186-213. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from ProQuest database. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (7th ed.). (2003). Educational research. Boston: Pearson Education. Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn elementary's innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(A). 79-107. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ683110) Garson, G. D. (2007). Partial correlation. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from North Carolina State University Chass College of Humanities and Social Science Web site: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/statnote.htm Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from ProQuest database. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality Web site: http://www.ncctq.org/publications/LinkBetweenTQand SrudentOutcomes.pdf Gourneau, B. (2005). Five attitudes of effective teachers: Implications for teacher training. Essays in Education, 13, 1-8. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from University of South Carolina, Department of Education Web site: http://www.usca.edu/essays/voll32005/gourneau.pdf Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal,

72 27,245-259. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from http ://aer. sagepub. com/cgi/reprint/21/2/245 Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). Why public schools lose teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354. Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbons, C. T. (1987). How to measure attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hirsch, E., Emerick, S., Church, K., & Fuller, E. (2006). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions. Center for Teaching Quality. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED498770) Hofrnann, D. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Jacobs, R. (1990). A multiple group confirmatory factor analysis evaluation of teachers' work-related perceptions and reactions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 943-955. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from ProQuest database. Inman, D., & Marlow, L. (2004). Teacher retention: Why do beginning teachers remain in the profession? Education, 124, 605-614. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from ProQuest database. Izumi, L. T., & Evers, W. M. (Eds.). (2002). Teacher quality. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1986). Dispositional goals for teacher education: Problems of identification and assessment. Paper present at the 1986 World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED272470) Koutsoulis, M. (2003). The characteristics of the effective teacher in Cyprus Public High School: The students 'perspective. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478761) Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organizational Science, 17, 353-366. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.accessmylibrary.com
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L, & Luczak, J. (2005). H o w teaching conditions predict

teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 44-70. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

73 Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Matsumura, L. C , Gamier, H., & Pascal, J. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 207-229. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ761414) Matsumura, L. C , Slater, S. C , Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M. et al. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the instructional quality assessment. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED492885) Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2005). Introduction to educational research. Boston: Pearson Education. Munck, M. (2007). Science pedagogy, teacher attitudes, and student success. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(2), 13-24. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from ProQuest database. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2007). NCATE issues call for action: Defines professional dispositions as used in teacher education. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.ncate.org/public/102407.asp?ch=148 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership, 63(1), 8-13. Retrieved April, 7, 2008, from ProQuest database. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, Til'-257'. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from ProQuest database. O'Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning. Glenview, IL: Pearson Professional Development. Ohio Department of Education. (2008). May 2008 Ohio achievement tests administration: Statistical summary. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from the Ohio Department of Education Web site: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?Page=2 &TopicID=9&TopicRelationID=285

74 Ohio Department of Education. (2008). 2005 Teacher supply and demand in Ohio. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from the Ohio Department of Education Web site: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail. aspx?page=3& TopicRelationID=522&ContentID=12569&Content=40030 Ohio Department of Education. (2008). Teaching in Ohio. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from the Ohio Department of Education Web site: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDefaultPage.aspx7pa ge=l Ohio Department of Education. (2006). Ohio achievement tests grades 3-8: Performance level descriptors. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from the Ohio Department of Education Web site: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3& TopicRelationID=222&ContentID=17597&Content=50527 Ohio Educator Standards Board. (2007). Ohio master teacher program. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from the Ohio Department of Education Web site: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/gd/templates/pages/ODE/ODEGoogleSearch.aspx7pag e=221&query-Master%20teacher&start=0&OriginatingURL=/GD/Templates/Pa ges/ODE/OD Ohio Senate, (n.d.). Senate bill 2. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from The Ohio Senate Web site: http://senate.state.oh.us Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Attitudes and opinions. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Oskamp, S. (1997). Attitudes and opinions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved September 11, 2008, from the Emory University Web site: http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp.eff.html Parlardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111-140. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from ProQuest database.
Porter-Magee, K. (2004). Teacher quality, controversy, and NCLB. The Clearing House,

78(1), 26-29. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from ProQuest database. Pryor, B. W., & Pryor, C. R. (2005). The school leader's guide to understanding attitude and influencing behavior: Working with teachers, parents, students, and the community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

75 Quaglia, R., Marion, S. F., & Mclntire, W. G. (2001). The relationship of teacher satisfaction to perceptions of school organization, teacher empowerment, work conditions, and community status. Orono, Maine: University of Maine, College of Education. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from ProQuest database. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Rivers, J. C , & Sanders, W. L. Teacher quality and equity in educational opportunity: Findings and policy implications. In L. T. Izumi & W. M. Evers (Eds.), Teacher quality, (pp. 13-23). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp/pulications.htm Romney, P. (2003). Closing the achievement gap? 5 questions every school should ask. Independent School, July 2003. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.romneyassociates.com/pdf/Closing_the_Achievement_Gap.pdf Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from the ProQuest database. Rowan, B., Fang-Shen, C , & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees' performance to study the effects of teachers on students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ560201) Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2nd ed.). (2001). Surviving your dissertation. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2002). Paying for high- and low-quality teaching. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from Michigan State University Web site: https://www.msu.edu/~thum Schulte, L., Edick, N., Edwards, S., & Mackiel, D. (2005). The development and validation of the teacher dispositions index. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from the University of Nebraska at Omaha website: www.usca.edu/essays/vol 122004/schulte.pdf Strong, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

76 Strong, J. H., Tucker, P. D. & Hindman, J. L. (2004). Handbook for qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Thompson, S., Greer, J. G., & Greer, B. B. (2004). Highly qualified for successful teaching: Characteristics every teacher should possess. Essays in Education, 10, 1-9. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from University of South Carolina, Department of Education Web site: http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol 102004/thompson.pdf Thornton, B. (2005). Do future teachers choose wisely: A study of pre-service teachers' personality preference profiles? College Student Journal, 39, 489-496. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ725584) United States Department of Health & Human Services. (2005). Part 46: Protection of human subjects. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/documents/OHRPRegulations.pdf Vartuli, S. (2005). Beliefs: The heart of teaching. Young Children, 60, 76-86. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from ProQuest database. Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 370-380. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from ProQuest database. Wasicsko, M., M. (2007). The perceptual approach to teacher dispositions: The effective teacher as an effective person. In M. D. Diez & J. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in teacher education (pp. 53-91). Charlotte, MC: Information Age Publishing. Wasicsko, M., M. (2002). Assessing educator dispositions: A perceptual psychological approach. Richmond, Kentucky: Eastern Kentucky University. Retrieved August, 20, 2008, from http://www.education.eku.edu/Dean/DispositionsManual.pdf Wayne, A., J. & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from the ProQuest database. Wilkerson, J. R., & Lang, W. S. (2007). Assessing teacher dispositions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management. The academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Appendix A Teacher Disposition Index Please mark your level of agreement with each of the statements listed below using the following response scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree I believe a teacher must use a variety of instructional strategies to optimize student learning. I understand that students learn in many different ways.

12 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

I demonstrate qualities of humor, empathy, and warmth with others. 1 2 I am a thoughtful and responsive listener. I assume responsibility when working with others. 12 12

I communicate caring, concern, and a willingness to become involved with others. 12 I believe that all students can learn. I believe it is important to involve all students in learning. I believe the classroom environment a teacher creates greatly affects students' learning and development. I view teaching as an important profession. I understand that teachers' expectations impact student learning. I view teaching as a collaborative effort among educators. I understand students have certain needs that must be met before learning can take place. I am sensitive to student differences. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

12 3 4 5 Please continue on the next page

78

Please mark your level of agreement with each of the statements listed below using the following response scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

15.

I communicate caring, concern, and a willingness to become involved with others. 12 I am punctual and reliable in my attendance. I maintain a professional appearance. 12 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

16. 17. 18.

I believe it is my job to create a learning environment that is conducive to the development of students' self-confidence and competence. 12 3 4 5 I respect the cultures of all students. I honor my commitments. I treat students with dignity and respect at all times. I am willing to receive feedback and assessment of my teaching. I am patient when working with students. 12 12 12 12 12 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

I am open to adjusting and revising my plans to meet student needs. 1 2 I communicate in ways that demonstrate respect for the feelings, ideas, and contributions of others. 12 I believe it is important to learn about students and their community. 1 2 I engage in research-based teaching practices. 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

26. 27. 28.

I create connections to subject matter that are meaningful to students. 1 2 3 4 5

Please continue on the next page

79

Please mark your level of agreement with each of the statements listed below using the following response scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree 29. 30. I listen to colleagues' ideas and suggestions to improve instruction. 1 2 I take initiative to promote ethical and responsible professional practice. 31. 32. 33. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. I am successful in facilitating learning for all students. I engage in discussions about new ideas in the teaching profession. I select material that is interesting for students. I value both long term and short term planning. I stay current with the evolving nature of the teaching profession. 12 12 12 12 12 12 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

I demonstrate and encourage democratic interaction in the classroom and school. 12 I select material that is relevant for students 12 I communicate effectively with students, parents, and colleagues. I provide appropriate feedback to encourage students in their development. I accurately read the non-verbal communication of students. I work well with others in implementing a common curriculum. I stimulate students' interests. 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

12 12 12 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

39. 40. 41.

Please continue on the next page-

42. 43. 44. 45.

I uphold the laws and ethical codes governing the teaching profession. I actively seek out professional growth opportunities. I cooperate with colleagues in planning instruction. I am committed to critical reflection for my professional growth.

12 12 12 12

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5

Classroom Scores for the Ohio Achievement Test Please indicate the percentage proficient score for your classroom. (Example: 75% of my students were proficient or higher in reading) 2006-2007 reading score 2007-2008 reading score 2006-2007 math score 2007-2008 math score

Demographic Information Please check the appropriate response to each section. Gender Male Grade Level Assignment 3 4 5 6 Female

Years of Teaching Experience (Please write in number) years Highest College Degree Earned Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree

STOP End of survey. Thank you for your time.

81

Appendix B Survey Permission To Use From: Laura Schulte [lschulte@mail.unomaha.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 18,2008 4:12 PM To: mdsa_cs@SWOCA.NET Subject: Re: TDI Hi Cheryl, Thank you for your interest in the TDI. We have been using the instrument for the past few years in our Teacher Education program. The information about the instrument is located in the article you mentioned. I have attached a copy of the TDI. If you decide to use it, please cite our work. Best wishes with your research, Laura Schulte Laura E. Schulte, Ph.D. Professor College of Education University of Nebraska at Omaha Kayser Hall 314 Omaha, NE 68182-0163 (402) 554-3444

82

Appendix C Informed Consent Form Student Achievement and Teacher Attitude as Measured by the Teacher Disposition Index: A Correlational Study Purpose. You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted for a dissertation Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of teacher attitudes to student achievement on Ohio Reading and Math Achievement tests. All data is confidential. Your name will not be asked for or linked to any data that is reported. Participation requirements. Participation is voluntary. You will be asked to complete one paper and pencil survey which will take approximately 10 minutes. Research Personnel. Cheryl Scrivner 6039 Creekside Way Hamilton, Ohio 513-896-1864 gscriver@fuse.net Potential Risk/Discomfort. There are no anticipated risks in this study. It is not anticipated that by participating in this study you will experience any pain or discomfort. Potential Benefit. The potential benefits of participating in this study include your contribution to the study of teacher effects on student achievement. No incentives or financial compensation are offered. Anonymity/Confidentiality. The data collected in this study are confidential. No names are associated with any survey. Right to Withdraw. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I will be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study.

83 I have read the above description of Student Achievement and

Teacher Attitude as Measured by the Teacher Disposition Index: A Correlational Study

Participant's Name: Name: Participant's Signature: Signature: Date:

Researcher's

Researcher's

84

Appendix D Table I Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics N Statistic TDIStudentSUM 20 TDIProfSUM 20 Gr. Level 20 Exp. Math score 1 Math Score 2 Reading Score 1 Reading Score 2 TDIStudentMEA TDIProfMEAN Valid N (listwise) 20 13 13 15 15 20 20 8 Minimum Statistic 106 81 3 3 65 72 82 70 4.24 4.05 Maximum Statistic 125 99 6 35 98 100 100 100 5.00 4.95 Mean Statistic 120.40 92.25 4.75 16.65 82.77 83.77 90.80 87.87 4.8160 4.6125 Std. Statistic 5.276 6.282 1.118 10.302 12.167 8.477 5.735 9.716 .21102 .31409 Skewness Statistic -1.799 -.662 -.455 .333 -.259 .860 .148 -.583 -1.799 -.662 Std. Error .512 .512 .512 .512 .616 .616 .580 .580 .512 .512 Kurtosis Statistic 2.914 -1.251 -1.082 -1.181 -1.848 -.072 -.661 -.666 2.914 -1.251 Std. Error .992 .992 .992 .992 1.191 1.191 1.121 1.121 .992 .992

Table II Teacher Attitudes and Student Achievement

Correlations TDIStudent Reading SUM TDIProfSUM Math score 1 Math Score 2 Score 1 1 .810" .040 -.168 -.385 .000 .898 .583 .157 20 20 13 13 15 .810" 1 .041 .165 .028 .000 .894 .589 .922 20 20 13 13 15 .040 .041 1 .821* .485 .894 .012 .898 .093 8 13 13 13 13 -.168 .165 .485 1 .605 .112 .583 .589 .093 8 13 13 13 13 .821* 1 -.385 . .028 .605 .157 .922 .012 .112 15 15 15 8 8 .407 .162 .232 .867" -.155 .582 .564 .580 .132 .005 8 15 15 15 8 Reading Score 2 -.155 .582 15 .162 .564 15 .232 .580 8 .867** .005 8 .407 .132 15 1 15

TDIStudentSUM

TDIProfSUM

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Math score 1

Math Score 2

Reading Score 1 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Reading Score 2 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

85 Table III 2006-2007 Math Score Variables Entered

Variables Entered/RemovedP Variables Entered Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp. TDIProf SUM, TDISifudent SUM a- All requested variables entered, b- Dependent Variable: Math score 1 Variables Removed

Model 1

Method Enter

Enter

Table IV 2006-2007 Math Score Model Summary

Model Summary Chanqe Statistics Model 1 2
a

R R Square .267 .517a .583b .339

Adjusted R Square -.099 -.321

Std. Error of the Estimate 12.755 13.985

R Square Change .267 .072

F Change .730 .327

df1 4 2

df2 8 6

Sig. F Che

- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp.

b- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp., TDIProfSUM, TDIStudentSUM

Table V 2006-2007 Math Score ANOVA

ANOVAc Sum of Squares 474.772 1301.535 1776.308 602.841 1173.466 1776.308

Model 1

df 4 8 12 6 6 12

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 118.693 162.692 100.474 195.578

F .730

Sig. .596a

Regression Residual Total

.514

.781 b

a- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp. b. Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp., TDIProfSUM, TDIStudentSUM c- Dependent Variable: Math score 1

86 Table VI 2006-2007 Math Score Coefficients

Coefficients? Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree (Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM
a

Standardized Coefficients Beta -.273 .208 .319 .363 -.516 .162 .174 .682 -.627 .422 t 2.015 -.777 .592 .816 .901 1.321 -1.035 .352 .334 1.114 -.737 .505 Sig. .079 .460 .570 .438 .394 .235 .341 .737 .749 .308 .489 .632

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .740 .744 .600 .565 .443 .520 .407 .294 .152 .158 VIF 1.351 1.344 1.666 1.769 2.258 1.923 2.460 3.404 6.567 6.333

B 58.106 -8.854 2.407 .432 11.754 138.537 -16.722 1.876 .236 22.088 -1.255 .783

Std. Error 28.834 11.398 4.066 .529 13.042 104.887 16.154 5.331 .705 19.834 1.703 1.551

- Dependent Variable: Math score 1

Table VII 2006-2007 Math Score Excluded Variables

Excluded Variables!3

Collinearity Statistics Model 1 Beta In -.244a -.127 a t -.669 -.345 Sig. .525 .740 Partial Correlation -.245 -.129 Tolerance .737 .765 VIF 1.356 1.308 Minimum Tolerance .461 .542

TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM

a- Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp. b- Dependent Variable: Math score 1

Table VIII 2006-2007 Math Score Collinearity Diagnostics

Collinearity Diagnostics1
Variance Proportions Model 1 Dimension 1 2 3 4 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eigenvalue 4.781 .159 .032 .017 .011 6.762 .165 .034 .023 .014 .002 .000 Condition Index 1.000 5.477 12.279 16.781 21.026 1.000 6.411 14.069 17.020 22.250 56.575 172.982 (Constant^ .00 .00 .00 .12 .88 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .35 .64 Gender .00 .01 .27 .71 .01 .00 .00 .24 .10 .23 .02 .41 Gr. Level .00 .06 .42 .02 .49 .00 .03 .10 .38 .26 .08 .15 Exp. .00 .39 .33 .27 .01 .00 .28 .11 .28 .02 .04 .28 Degree .00 .00 .13 .45 .41 .00 .00 .06 .04 .42 .00 .47 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .99 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .15 .84 TDIStudent SUM TDIProfSUM

a. Dependent Variable: Math score 1

87 Table IX 2007-2008 Math Score Variables Entered

Variables Entered/RemovedP Variables Entered Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp. TDIProf SUM, TDISJudent SUM a- All requested variables entered, b. Dependent Variable: Math Score 2 Variables Removed

Model 1

Method Enter

Enter

Table X 2007-2008 Math Score Model Summary

Model Summary Chanqe Statistics Model 1 2 R 738a .855" R Square .545 .731 Adjusted R Square .317 .462 Std. Error of the Estimate 7.003 6.219 R Square Change .545 .186 F Change 2.395 2.073 df1 4 2 df2 8 6 Sig. F Change .136 .207

a- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp. b. Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp., TDIProfSUM, TDIStudentSUM

Table XI 2007-2008 Math Score ANOVA

ANOVAc Sum of Squares 469.916 392.392 862.308 630.250 232.058 862.308

Model 1

df 4 8 12 6 6 12

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 117.479 49.049 105.042 38.676

F 2.395

Sig. .136a

Regression Residual Total

2.716

.125b

a- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp. b- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp., TDIProfSUM, TDIStudentSUM c- Dependent Variable: Math Score 2

88 Table XII 2007-2008 Math Score Coefficients

Coefficients' Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree 2 (Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM B 40.571 3.417 5.837 .147 4.292 129.537 -5.583 5.048 -.094 16.173 -1.449 .957 Std. Error 15.832 6.258 2.233 .291 7.161 46.643 7.184 2.371 .314 8.820 .757 .690 -.247 .625 -.099 .716 -1.038 .740 Standardized Coefficients Beta .151 .723 .156 .190 t 2.563 .546 2.615 .507 .599 2.777 -.777 2.129 -.298 1.834 -1.913 1.388 Sig. .034 .600 .031 .626 .565 .032 .467 .077 .775 .116 .104 .214 .443 .520 .407 .294 .152 .158 2.258 1.923 2.460 3.404 6.567 6.333 Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .740 .744 .600 .565 VIF 1.351 1.344 1.666 1.769

a- Dependent Variable: Math Score 2

Table XIII 2007-2008 Math Score Excluded Variables

Excluded Variable^3

Collinearity Statistics Model 1 Beta In -.367 a -.169 a t -1.400 -.592 Sig. .204 .572 Partial Correlation -.468 -.218 Tolerance .737 .765 VIF 1.356 1.308 Minimum Tolerance .461 .542

TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM

a- Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Gender, Exp.

D

- Dependent Variable: Math Score 2

Table XIV 2007-2008 Math Score Collinearity Diagnostics

Collinearity Diagnostic^ Variance Proportions Model 1 Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eigenvalue 4.781 .159 .032 .017 .011 6.762 .165 .034 .023 .014 .002 .000 Condition Index 1.000 5.477 12.279 16.781 21.026 1.000 6.411 14.069 17.020 22.250 56.575 172.982 (Constant) .00 .00 .00 .12 .88 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .35 .64 Gender .00 .01 .27 .71 .01 .00 .00 .24 .10 .23 .02 .41 Gr. Level .00 .06 .42 .02 .49 .00 .03 .10 .38 .26 .08 .15 Exp. .00 .39 .33 .27 .01 .00 .28 .11 .28 .02 .04 .28 Degree .00 .00 .13 .45 .41 .00 .00 .06 .04 .42 .00 .47 TDIStudent SUM TDIProfSUM

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .99

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .15 .84

a. Dependent Variable: Math Score 2

89 Table XV 2006-2007 Reading Score Variables Entered

Variables Entered/Removed" Variables Entered Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., a Gender TDIStudent SUM, TDIRrof SUM
a

Model 1

Variables Removed

Method Enter

Enter

- All requested variables entered.

b- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 1

Table XVI 2006-2007 Reading Score Model Summary

Model Summary
Chanqe Statistics Model 1 2 R .232 a ,706 b R Square .054 .499 Adjusted R Square -.324 .123 Std. Error of the Estimate 6.599 5.371 R Square Change .054 .445 F Change .143 3.548 df1 4 2 df2 10 8 Sig. F Change .962 .079

a. Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender b. Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender, TDIStudentSUM, TDIProfSUM

Table XVII 2006-2007 Reading Score ANOVA

ANOVA0 Sum of Squares 24.882 435.518 460.400 229.588 230.812 460.400

Model 1

df 4 10 14 6 8 14

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 6.221 43.552 38.265 28.851

F .143

Sig. .962a

Regression Residual Total

a

1.326

.346b

- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender TDIProfSUM

b- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender, TDIStudentSUM,

c- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 1

90 Table XVIII 2006-2007 Reading Score Coefficients

Coefficients? Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree (Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM
a

Standardized Coefficients Beta .072 .114 .153 -.223 -.444 .041 -.047 .252 -1.256 1.056 t 5.304 .161 .323 .450 -.461 4.263 -1.044 .138 -.160 .562 -2.659 2.071 Sig. .000 .875 .753 .663 .655 .003 .327 .893 .877 .589 .029 .072

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .469 .758 .822 .402 .346 .711 .737 .311 .281 .241 VIF 2.133 1.319 1.216 2.487 2.888 1.407 1.356 3.215 3.560 4.147

B 94.388 1.179 .527 .077 -4.964 183.329 -7.241 .190 -.024 5.606 -1.458 .929

Std. Error 17.796 7.322 1.631 .172 10.772 43.010 6.934 1.371 .148 9.970 .548 .449

- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 1

Table XIX 2006-2007 Reading Score Excluded Variables

Excluded Variables^

Collinearity Statistics Model 1

a

TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM

Beta In -.459 a -.049 a

t -1.434 -.127

Sig. .185 .902

Partial Correlation -.431 -.042

Tolerance .836 .718

VIF 1.197 1.394

Minimum Tolerance .401 .375

Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender

b- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 1

Table XX 2006-2007 Reading Score Collinearity Diagnostics

Collinearity Diagnostics' Variance Proportions Model 1 Dimension 1 2 3 4 5
1

Eigenvalue 4.686 .246 .049 .015 .004

6.656

Condition Index 1.000 4.362 9.808 17.876 34.879

1.000

(Constant) .00 .00 .00 .28 .72

.00

Gender .00 .00 .05 .50 .45

.00

Gr. Level .00 .03 .57 .08 .31

.00

Exp. .01 .70 .26 .02 .01

.00

Degree .00 .00 .02 .02 .96

.00

TDIStudent SUM

TDIProfSUM

2 3 4 5 6 7

.263 .049 .024 .006 .001 .000

5.031 11.626 16.505 34.259 69.995 151.647

.00 .00 .00 .00 .43 .57

.00 .03 .23 .39 .12 .23

.02 .59 .14 .22 .00 .02

.63 .22 .00 .05 .03 .06

.00 .02 .00 .53 .30 .15

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.00

.00 .00 .00 .01 .03 .29 .67

a. Dependent Variable: Reading Score 1

91 Table XXI 2007-2008 Reading Score Variables Entered

Variables Entered/RemovedP Variables Entered Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., a Gender TDIStudent SUM, TDIRpf SUM
a

Model 1

Variables Removed

Method Enter

Enter

- All requested variables entered.

b- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 2

Table XXII 2007-2008 Reading Score Model Summary

Model Summary
Chanqe Statistics Model 1 2 R ,623 a .664 b R Square .388 .440 Adjusted R Square .144 .021 Std. Error of the Estimate 8.991 9.616 R Square Change .388 .052 F Change 1.588 .371 df1 4 2 df2 10 8 Sig. F Change .252 .701

a. Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender t>- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender, TDIStudentSUM, TDIProfSUM

Table XXIII 2007-2008 Reading Score ANOVA

ANOVAc Sum of Squares 513.336 808.398 1321.733 581.970 739.763 1321.733

Model 1

df 4 10 14 6 8 14

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 128.334 80.840 96.995 92.470

F 1.588

Sig. .252a

Regression Residual Total

1.049

.461 b

a- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender b- Predictors: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender, TDIStudentSUM, TDIProfSUM c Dependent Variable: Reading Score 2

92 Table XIV 2007-2008 Reading Score Coefficients

Coefficients?
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 92.524 24.246 15.356 2.222 .110 -23.540 154.907 12.499 2.312 .037 -20.431 -.692 .230 9.975 2.222 .234 14.676 76.999 12.413 2.454 .265 17.849 .982 .803 Standardized Coefficients Beta .556 .284 .128 -.626 .453 .296 .043 -.543 -.352 .154 Collinearity Statistics t 3.816 1.539 1.000 .471 -1.604 2.012 1.007 .942 .141 -1.145 -.705 .287 Sig. .003 .155 .341 .648 .140 .079 .343 .374 .891 .285 .501 .782 Tolerance .469 .758 .822 .402 .346 .711 .737 .311 .281 .241 VIF 2.133 1.319 1.216 2.487 2.888 1.407 1.356 3.215 3.560 4.147

Model 1

(Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree

(Constant) Gender Gr. Level Exp. Degree TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM

a

- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 2

Table XXV 2007-2008 Reading Score Excluded Variables

Excluded Variables'3

Model 1
a

TDIStudentSUM TDIProfSUM

Beta In -.235 a -.155a

t -.857 -.510

Sig. .414 .622

Partial Correlation -.275 -.168

Collinearity Statistics Minimum Tolerance VIF Tolerance 1.197 .401 .836 .718 1.394 .375

- Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Degree, Gr. Level, Exp., Gender

b- Dependent Variable: Reading Score 2

Table XXVI 2007-2008 Reading Score Collinearity Diagnostics

Collinearity Diagnostics'
Variance Proportions Model 1 Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eigenvalue 4.686 .246 .049 .015 .004 6.656 .263 .049 .024 .006 .001 .000 Condition Index 1.000 4.362 9.808 17.876 34.879 1.000 5.031 11.626 16.505 34.259 69.995 151.647 (Constant) .00 .00 .00 .28 .72 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .43 .57 Gender .00 .00 .05 .50 .45 .00 .00 .03 .23 .39 .12 .23 Gr. Level .00 .03 .57 .08 .31 .00 .02 .59 .14 .22 .00 .02 Exp. .01 .70 .26 .02 .01 .00 .63 .22 .00 .05 .03 .06 Degree .00 .00 .02 .02 .96 .00 .00 .02 .00 .53 .30 .15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03 .29 .67 TDIStudent SUM TDIProfSUM

a. Dependent Variable: Reading Score 2

93 Appendix E Name of School District Approval Form Student Achievement and Teacher Attitude as Measured by the Teacher Disposition Index: A Correlational Study Purpose. You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted for a dissertation Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of teacher attitudes to student achievement on Ohio Reading and Math Achievement tests. All data is confidential. Your school district name or individual teacher names will not be asked for or linked to any data that is reported. Participation requirements. Participation is voluntary. Teachers will be asked to complete one paper and pencil survey which will take approximately 10 minutes. Research Personnel. Cheryl Scrivner 6039 Creekside Way Hamilton, Ohio 513-896-1864 gscriver@fuse.net Potential Risk/Discomfort. There are no anticipated risks in this study. It is not anticipated that by participating in this study teachers will experience any pain or discomfort. Potential Benefit. The potential benefits of participating in this study include the teacher's contribution to the study of teacher effects on student achievement. No incentives or financial compensation are offered. Anonymity/Confidentiality. The data collected in this study are confidential. No district or teacher names are associated with any survey.

94 Right to Withdraw. Your district has the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I will be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study. I have read the above description of Student Achievement and

Teacher Attitude as Measured by the Teacher Disposition Index: A Correlational Study

Participating District Name and Address

Superintendent's Signature: Researcher's Name: Cheryl Scrivner Researcher's Signature: Date: