EFFECTS OF A MATH-ENHANCED CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHEMATICS: A YEAR-LONG EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN AGRICULTURAL POWER AND TECHNOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to empirically test the posit that students who participated in a contextualized, mathematics-enhanced high school agricultural power and technology curriculum and aligned instructional approach that included intensive teacher professional development would develop a deeper and more sustained understanding of selected mathematics concepts than those students who participated in the traditional curriculum and instruction. This study included teachers and students from 32 high schools in Oklahoma (16 experimental classrooms; 16 control classrooms). Students were enrolled in an agricultural power and technology course during the 2004-2005 school year. The experimental design employed was a posttest only control group; unit of analysis was the classroom. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to test the study’s null hypothesis. The level of students’ achievement as measured by a traditional test of math knowledge revealed results that held practical significance and supported the use of the experimental treatment. So, those who are charged with providing professional development for secondary agricultural education teachers are encouraged to consider introducing the seven-element approach to their students and teachers. Introduction In an era of standards-based reform in education, many believe the best way to raise student academic achievement is through improved teaching (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). To that end, Porter and Brophy (1988) maintained that student learning can be improved only if teachers’ practices are of high standard; however, they concluded many teachers are not prepared to implement practices that reflect high standards. What is more, professional development for teachers could serve to fill the gap between standards-based reform and pre-service teacher preparation (Birman et al., 2000). Unfortunately, many times the professional development provided to teachers does not adequately prepare them for the rigors of standards-based student achievement (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Hiebert, 1999; Little 1993; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). In an effort to identify effective professional development for teachers, Birman et al. surveyed a sample of more than 1000 teachers who participated in the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. These researchers identified the following six factors aligned with effective professional development: (a) Form, was the activity planned as a traditional workshop or a reform activity; (b) Duration, how many hours were devoted to professional development; (c) Participation, were participants from the same or different schools; (d) Content focus, to what extent did the professional development activity focus on improving teachers’ subject matter knowledge in mathematics or science; (e) Active learning, were teachers actively engaged in significant examination of teaching and learning; and, (f) Coherence, were teachers encouraged to continue a professional dialog after the professional development session. Results from this study indicated that effective professional development should provide activities that are longer in duration, involve collective participation, afford opportunities for active learning, encourage a deepening of teachers’ content knowledge and provide opportunities for continued coherence (Birman et al., 2000). The issue of professional development that supports school mathematics reform was addressed by Borasi and Fonzi (2002) in a monograph prepared for the National Science Foundation. The authors identified five factors that must be present in professional development programs in order for those programs to meet the needs of teachers of mathematics. Those factors are: (1) be sustained and intensive; (2) be informed by what we know about how people learn best; (3) center around the critical activities of teaching and learning rather than focus primarily on abstractions and generalities; (4) foster collaboration; and (5) offer a rich set of diverse experiences. (p. 114) Notably, a congruence of opinion exists between those who posited factors necessary for effective professional development of teachers in general (Birman et al., 2000) and those who directed their efforts specifically at teachers of mathematics (Borasi & Fonzi, 2002). The format used to deliver effective professional development for teachers of mathematics may be as important as the factors necessary; what is more, this conclusion may hold for all teachers who strive to improve student achievement in mathematics. Summer institutes, study groups of teachers who meet on a regular basis, a series of workshops held during the school day or after school, and independent work done by the teacher are examples of effective formats for delivering professional development (Borasi & Fonzi, 2002). Moreover, most successful programs use a combination of formats based on the needs of the teachers involved (Borasi & Fonzi, 2002; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Southern Region Educational Board, 2000). Once the factors necessary for effective professional development are identified and put into practice, the question still remains, “Is professional development of teachers an effective means to improve student achievement? ” To that end, Gordon (1999) found that professional development opportunities aimed at improving student achievement were prominent in successful schools. And, Kent (2004) concluded, “Therefore, linking improved teacher quality through effective professional development will ultimately lead to student success” (p. 432). Harwell, D’Amico, Stein, and Gatti (2000) found similar results in a longitudinal study conducted in school District #2 in New York City. This study, conducted from 1988 to 1998, explored a variety of factors that influenced student achievement, particularly the role of teacher professional development. During the decade of observation, the percentage of District #2 students who achieved at or above grade level in mathematics rose from 66% to 82%. The researchers concluded that the professional development activities of the teachers may have had some effect. Further, the use of intensive professional development was found to improve teacher selfefficacy years after the initial professional development session had occurred. For example, Watson (2006) found that teachers’ self-efficacy regarding their use of the Internet remained high many years after the initial series of intense professional development sessions had concluded. What is more, some researchers (Mitchell, 2002; Wenger, 1998; White, 2002) have called for the use of “communities of practice” as a cost-effective method to deliver quality professional development for teachers. Educational practitioners, researchers, and scholars (Gordon, 1999; Harwell et al., 2000; Kent, 2004) have posited that a significant relationship exists between the quality of professional development received by teachers and their future impact on student learning and achievement. However, in order to be effective, professional development must address the critical factors of form, duration, participation, content focus, active learning, and coherence (Birman et al., 2000). Accordingly, effective professional development can have a long term effect on how teachers view their self-efficacy (Watson, 2006). What is more, the use of communities of practice may be an effective way to provide valuable, sustainable, professional development for teachers, including agricultural educators who may be striving to improve their students’ achievement in mathematics. Finally, some researchers (Chalmers & Keown, 2006; Mitchell, 2002; Wenger, 1988; White, 2002) have called for the use of “communities of practice” as a cost effective method to deliver quality professional development for teachers Theoretical Framework The underlying theoretical framework for this study relies on the model of teaching and learning developed by Dunkin and Biddle (1974) (Figure 1), that was derived from concepts first espoused by Mitzel (1960). Figure 1. Model for the study of classroom teaching. (Taken from Parr, Edwards, and Leising, 2006, p. 83) Dunkin and Biddle organized the variables that contribute to teaching and learning into four general classes. The characteristics of teachers that may be observed for their effects on the teaching process are called presage variables. Professional development for teachers would be classified as a significant presage variable along with other formative experiences, teacher properties, teacher-training experiences, and any other variable that may be controlled by teacher educators or school administrators are included as presage variables. Context variables are those conditions over which a teacher has little control. Pupil formative experiences, pupil properties, school and community contexts, and classroom contexts were variables identified by Dunkin and Biddle as context variables. Process variables refer to those activities that take place in the classroom during the act of teaching. These variables include behaviors in the classroom demonstrated by the teacher and students, as well as the observable changes in pupil behavior. Finally, product variables describe the actual outcomes of teaching (i.e., student achievement in mathematics). The product variables of most interest are immediate pupil growth and long-term pupil effects (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Park and Osborne (2004) used the Dunkin and Biddle model as theoretical support from which to explore the variables necessary to improve student reading, comprehension, critical thinking and motivation to read in the context of agriscience. After completing a review of literature, the researchers grouped the related literature into themes related to presage and context variables. This grouping of literature, based on variables described by Dunkin and Biddle