Teacher Collaboration and Student Achievements - Research Paper Example

?Educational Research Laura Johnson CNSL5163 Chapter IV Analysis of Data and Findings Introduction The data gathered through the research instrumentsare presented in this chapter. These data are structured in tabular forms and have been analyzed and interpreted to enable the researcher to formulate a valid conclusion. The survey given by the researcher to the teachers from Grades 6 to 8 is simply indicated in the question: “During a typical week in Clifton, how often do you interact with other teachers in the following way?” Or stated more clearly, in the following interpersonal relationship scenarios, do you believe that teacher collaboration through these variables would effectively improve the performance of students? The respondents were asked to rate their response using Likert Scale as follows: strongly agree (1), agree (2), disagree (3), and strongly disagree (4). The following variables were used to identify the responses of teachers, to the questions posed above: (1) Informal Conversation; (2) One-on-One Assistance; (3) Routine Sharing of Materials, Methods, Ideas; (4) Routine Team Analyzing Data; and (5) Joint work. Analysis of Data and Interpretation Table 1 The Total Number of Respondents (Teachers) Per Grade Level and Department (Subjects) Grade Level Math Science Social studies Language Arts Total Number of Teachers 6 4 2 2 4 12 7 3 2 2 4 11 8 3 2 2 4 11 From the table, it is deduced that there are more teachers in the Grade 6 level with 35% or 12 out of 34 respondents in that grade level. Overall, there are a total of 34 teachers who responded on the survey aiming to investigate the impacts of teacher collaboration vis-a-vis non-collaboration on student academic achievement. Table 2 Results indicating Respondents View on the Variables of Informal Conversation, One-on-One Assistance, Routine Sharing, Routine Team and Joint Work Per Subject Math Science Social Studies Lg. Arts Informal Conversation 10agree 6 strongly agree 2 agree 4 disagree 10 agree 2 disagree One-on-One Assistance 10 agree 6 strongly agree 6 disagree 12 disagree Routine Sharing of Material Methods, Ideas 8 agree 2 disagree 6 strongly agree 6 agree 10 agree 2 disagree Routine Team Analyzing Data 8 agree 6 strongly agree 3 agree 3 strongly disagree 6 agree 6 disagree Joint Work 10 agree 6 agree 3 agree 3 strongly disagree 6 agree 6 disagree The respondents’ view of the five variables indicated in the table would determine their perceived importance to thereby manifest the extent of teacher collaboration, by favoring its relevance or not. Those who strongly agreed perceived these variables as of utmost importance, in contrast to those who disagreed. From the table above, the results are summarized below: Informal Conversation: Out of 34 respondents, 6 or 18% strongly agreed; 65% agreed, while also 18% disagreed. It can be deduced that majority are in favor of informal conversation increasing teacher collaboration. One-on-One Assistance: From the total respondents, majority or 53% disagreed versus 47% who agreed that one-on-one assistance is a variable that increased teacher collaboration. Routine Sharing of Materials, Methods, Ideas: A total of 88%, or 30 teachers agreed that routine sharing of materials, methods and ideas are effective means to increase teacher collaboration. Only 4 respondents or 12% disagreed. Routine Team Analyzing Data: From among those who responded, 74% or 25 teachers acknowledged that routine team analyzing data is contributory to teacher collaboration. Joint work: Finally, a parallel percentage of respondents viewed joint effort as crucial to teacher collaboration where 74% agreed (6 of whom strongly agreed) and the rest of the 26% disagreed. On a per subject basis, the following results are hereby presented: Math: The total number of respondents who agreed that all the variables are crucial to manifest teacher collaboration for the subject of Math is 46 out of 48 (where only 2 disagreed). The results indicate the acknowledgement of Math teachers requiring collaborative efforts manifested through informal conversation, one-on-one sharing and joint efforts equally. The two respondents who disagreed perceived routine sharing of materials are least important for teacher collaboration. Science: For the subjects of Science, all respondents, or 100% strongly agreed on all variables manifesting and acknowledging their importance for teacher collaboration. Social Studies: A total of 16 respondents or 53% signified disagreement on all four variables except routine sharing of materials. Language Arts: An antithetical pattern of percentages were manifested by respondents for language arts as 47% disagreed that these variables are contributory to teacher collaboration for this particular subject. Still more than half, or 53% agreed that these variables are significant and manifested in teacher collaboration. Table 3 Interim Test Results Summary of Findings Percentage of Students with Highest Percentile per Grade Level per Subject Grade Interim PERCENTAGE OF HIGHEST PERCENTILE Level Test Math Science Soc. Stud. Lg. Arts ------- -------- ------- --------- ------------ ------------- Grade 6 1st 5% 18% 0.6% 7% 2nd 24 27 0.3 0 3rd 0 2 30 30 Grade 7 1st 3 25 0.5 13 2nd 20 8 7 26 3rd 2 19 3 3 Grade 8 1st 16 2 0 0.1 2nd 32 32 32 16 The results of data were sourced from HISD Interim Test results given in three different time periods: September 2010, December 2010, and February 2011. As can be deduced, greater percentages of students generated higher grades in the highest percentile during the 2nd HISD Interim tests given on December 2010 with majority of the students with high grades in Math subjects with the greatest percentage being generated from Grade 8 students during the 2nd interim tests. The number of students who scored per grade percentile and per grade levels and subjects are found as Appendices A to H of the research. The outcome can be linked from the results in Table 2 which manifests those teachers in Math subjects have agreed and believed that relevant variables enhance teacher collaboration and thereby only 4% of the respondents disagreed on the value of teacher collaboration. In this regard, the scores of their students revealed that as teachers were supported and assisted in collaboration efforts, the performance of their students as shown in interim tests are enhanced. On the subjects of social studies and language arts, where the results from teachers were ambivalent or in the middle of acknowledging the importance of identified variables, the performances of their students in these subjects were the lowest for all grade levels and for the average results of the three interim tests. Results of Observation The researcher has been observing the subject teams within their department planning time for 8 months. Each team collaborates for 1 hour and 30 minutes at specific time during the school day. The highlights of the results of the observation method are as follows: All subject teams are well organized with an AP and department chair leading the teams. The AP are the instructional leaders who would meet with the PLC every meeting. When planning, math and science teams break into their individual subjects (example 6 grade teachers) to discuss how effective their lesson was, share best practices for the lesson, write lesson plans for the next session to be taught and always analyze data from their own create test, school benchmarks, and district interim test. After they analyzed their data, if results did not met the requirement, the group sets the teams to decide who to re-teach their lesson. These teachers would meet after school, during lunch and before school if they did not complete their goals during their planning time. Some members of the math teams would pretend that they were going to do what the team said but actually, they would do something different. When that happens, the appointed instructional leader would call the member in. Social studies were the most dysfunctional team that always complained about writing lesson plans and looking at data. Their PLC was what Rick Dufour called PLC light (pretending to collaborate). So their time always ran out for planning. This team rarely planned after school or before school unless the principal made them. The 7th grade and 8th grade team of the Language Arts department always meet in the collaborating effort but sometimes did not share information with one another or they would agree to an idea but when they would go to their rooms would do something else. The 6th grade team did PLC light. Science and math instructional leaders always gave the individual grade teams’ and teachers one on one assistance when the department meets. Teams truly collaborated only if their appointed instructional leader understood the method for collaboration among teachers and if there is a common goal and agenda for the team and if each team member was held accountable for their actions. Appendix A HISD Interim Test 1 (Given Sept. 2010) Sixth Grade total number of students 328 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 15 100 60 100 2 100 22 100 6 90 15 96 5 93 10 90 100 80 5 95 10 90 15 85 10 85 20 80 3 85 45 78 5 86 7 82 3 72 98 63 80 78 95 83 40 50 10 50 100 75 100 85 10 55 10 42 50 65 4 86 90 54 9 35 20 40 1 79 100 59 1 28 10 35 1 75 12 40 3 10 20 30 20 60 8 30 2 25 0 61 15 29 16 62 20 10 5 55 1 Appendix B HISD Interim Test 2 given (Given Dec. 2010) Six grade total number of students 328 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 80 100 90 100 1 100 0 100 5 94 25 90 8 85 5 96 3 96 40 80 20 76 10 95 10 81 60 85 20 69 100 80 15 73 16 79 20 65 35 78 100 72 25 75 75 63 52 76 45 71 15 73 40 62 60 72 80 70 30 71 100 55 26 60 15 63 40 62 50 54 30 50 10 60 10 55 30 53 20 41 10 50 25 41 10 40 20 40 7 40 20 30 15 35 25 39 12 25 10 25 4 35 10 25 Appendix C HISD Interim Test 3 (Given Feb. 2011) Six grade total number of students 328 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 0 100 8 86 100 61 100 89 10 91 2 85 50 60 35 88 86 85 100 81 20 55 10 87 89 84 40 80 20 51 10 75 90 83 45 78 20 50 10 73 50 61 46 75 25 45 10 71 50 60 50 74 95 41 10 68 9 50 50 73 25 40 41 65 20 70 50 39 32 55 20 69 3 38 59 50 20 52 Appendix D HISD Interim Test 1 (Given Sept. 2010) Seventh grade total number of students 378 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 10 100 98 100 2 68 50 100 100 85 17 94 30 67 10 80 25 81 100 86 90 66 10 76 20 80 15 85 89 63 50 75 75 79 30 84 76 50 10 74 40 78 40 79 85 40 8 73 20 75 20 75 7 72 9 73 20 74 100 69 89 72 20 73 69 65 10 72 54 66 10 20 Appendix E HISD Interim Test 2 (Given Dec. 2010) Seventh grade total number of students 378 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 75 78 30 100 25 100 100 100 20 77 78 83 10 90 60 80 20 76 78 82 2 89 40 76 20 74 25 81 3 75 100 74 100 73 100 80 3 60 25 69 9 69 40 76 200 59 25 65 10 68 40 74 10 58 20 66 50 62 5 70 10 56 2 30 4 51 5 50 8 55 55 50 1 45 5 41 1 20 84 40 Appendix F HISD Interim Test 3 (Given Feb. 2011) Seventh grade total number of students 378 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 8 100 73 100 10 100 10 100 20 90 50 98 5 89 95 92 50 89 50 97 10 80 10 90 50 75 40 96 50 70 50 80 50 70 15 95 10 71 100 85 200 71 25 80 50 72 13 70 150 70 23 40 100 76 220 50 Appendix G HISD Interim Test 1 Eighth grade total number of students 310 Math Science Social Studies Language Arts Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade Number of students who scored the grade of: Grade 50 100 5 100 0 100 3 100 20 89 100 90 10 90 5 90 20 80 2 80 0 80 22 85 20 79 100 70 0 70 34 84 110 78 2 60 0 60 2 70 50 75 50 50 200 50 10 69 30 74 50 40 100 40 60 68 10 73 0 30 0 30 42 67 0 72 1 20 0 20 12 50 0 60 0 10 0 59 Appendix H HISD Interim Test 2 Eighth grade total number of students 310 Chapter V Summary of Investigation, Major Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Further Research Summary of Investigation This chapter summarized the results and findings of the study as presented in the previous chapter on the basis of which conclusions and recommendations are proffered. To reiterate the study was conducted to determine the impacts of teacher collaboration vis-a-vis non-collaboration on student academic achievement. The Clifton Middle School was the school that approved the researcher’s proposal to conduct a survey through observation and comparative analysis method using the HISD interim test results conducted in September 2010, December 2010 and February 2011. The observation method as undertaken by the researcher on subject teams within their respective department planning times for 8 months. Each team collaborates for 1 hour and 30 minutes at specific time during the school day. Both results on the interim tests, response from the teachers on perceptions of variables contributory to teacher collaboration, and the outcome of the observation have assisted in presenting the major findings, conclusions and recommendations. Major Findings The results of the investigation indicated that teachers in Math subjects who responded to have agreed and believed that relevant variables of informal conversation, one-on-one assistance, routine sharing of materials, methods, ideas, routine team analyzing data, and joint work, improved teacher collaboration and thereby the scores of their students revealed that as teachers were supported and assisted in collaboration efforts, the performance of their students as shown in interim tests were enhanced. On the subjects of social studies and language arts, where the results from teachers were ambivalent or in the middle of acknowledging the importance of identified variables, the performances of their students in these subjects were the lowest for all grade levels and for the average results of the three interim tests. These corroborated the results of the observation where math and science teams exhibited the most collaborative efforts to ensure that the lessons that they planned are effective through sharing of best practices, preparing for lesson plans for the next session, analyzing data from their own create test, school benchmarks, and district interim test, among other activities. The most dysfunction group observed was teachers for social studies where they were observed to be pretending to collaborate. Thereby, the results from students’ interim scores across identified grade levels and interim tests were generally lower compared to math and science subjects. The findings supported the hypothesis that there will be significant impact of teacher collaboration on student academic achievement as compared to the impact of non-collaboration of teachers on student academic achievement, as validated from the results of the students’ interim test grades from three indicated periods of study. Conclusions The research proved credence that if and when teachers view that there are variables that enhance and encourage teacher collaboration, their own views, perceptions and values have significant impact on the academic performance of students manifested in the grades from their interim tests. Teachers who are committed to share information, instructional methods and team efforts provide more positive effect and impact on the academic performance of their students. Recommendations for Further Research The research was conducted only in one school, the Clifton Middle school located in Houston, Texas, where the number of teachers who responded on the initial survey was only 34. The student population for grade level six was 328, grade seven was 378 and grade 8 was 310. To increase the validity and credibility of the results and determine the extent of the outcome’s applicability in other schools, future research could be conducted in other schools located in other states. Read More