Scribd
Upload
6 views5 pages

Pages 25

Uploaded by

Ouin Nerr
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views5 pages

Pages 25

Uploaded by

Ouin Nerr
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

109

comparison with the study sample, teachers in the Midwest and West regions are

adequately represented while those in the South are slightly overrepresented and teachers

in the Northeast are slightly underrepresented.

Table 15

Region o f the United States

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid Northeast 23 12.5 12.8 12.8
Midwest 40 21.7 22.2 35.0
South 87 47.3 48.3 83.3
West 30 16.3 16.7 100.0
Total 180 97.8 100.0
Missing 4 2.2
Total 184 100.0

Findings for Research Questions

Research Question One

Which o f the following seven lesson planning elements do teachers perceive as

having the greatest impact on student achievement: Clear Lesson and Learning

Objectives, Creating Quality Assignments, Logically Structured Lessons, Instructional

Strategies, Timing, Learning Differences, and Developing Age and Content Appropriate

Lessons?

Stronge’s (2007) review of qualities of effective teachers and, more specifically,

the general quality of Planning for Instruction detailed many Elements of Lesson

Planning that may impact student achievement. The Elements of Lesson Planning

identified in the research were: (a) Clear Lesson and Learning Objectives, (b) Creating
110

Quality Assignments, (c) Logically Structured Lessons, (d) Timing, (e) Instructional

Strategies, (f) Learning Differences, and (g) Developing Age and Content Appropriate

Lessons. K-12 classroom and core area teachers were asked to rank these lesson planning

elements from 1-7 in the order in which they impact student achievement. A rank of 1

represented the least important quality and the rank of 7 represented the most important

quality. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each quality, including mean and

standard deviation. Mean rankings shown in Table 16 show that the teachers ranked

Creating Quality Assignments as having the most impact on student achievement and

Logically Structured Lessons has having the least impact.

While the term assignment seems ambiguous the operational definition for the

purposes of this study is: Assignments are comprised of activities that students work on

independently after teaching has taken place. Students complete assignments in the

classroom (see Chapter 1). Teachers were not directly provided with this definition;

however, the panel of practioners and experts were given this information as they

reviewed the survey instrument. Not providing participants with the definition limits the

generalizability of the study because the wording chosen may have affected participants’

perceptions and rankings.

Interestingly, participants in the study were somewhat polarized on their views of

Clear Lesson and Learning Objectives as this element was given the ranking of 1 and 7

more than any other element. The other elements received rankings that were fairly

evenly spread. Creating Quality Assignments was boosted by the number of respondents

marking it a 6 or 7, but as Table 16 shows, many participants also gave it a 2 ranking,


Ill

thus, bringing the mean down. Table 16 provides further descriptive statistics for the

rankings of the Elements of Lesson Planning including the frequency that each element

was ranked, the percentage of teachers giving the element that ranking, the median rank,

the mean ranking, and the standard deviation.

After examining the means and standard deviations for the seven Elements of

Lesson Planning shown in Table 16, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the

mean Elements of Lesson Planning. The ANOVA indicated no significant differences in

the teacher’s perception of which element impacted students the most, F (6,1098) =

0.568, p = 0.76. Table 17 shows the repeated-measures ANOVA results. On the whole,

teachers seemed to rank all the Elements of Lesson Planning equally since no significant

findings were present.


112

Table 16
Rankings o f Lesson Planning Elements

Frequency o f Ordered Percentage o f Teacher


Teacher Standard
Responses Teachers M ean
M ean Deviation
N =184 N=184 Rank
#1 =23 #1 = 12.5% 4.23 1 2.10
#2 = 31 #2 = 16.8%
Creating #3 = 20 #3 = 10.9%
Quality #4 = 20 #4 = 10.9%
Assignments #5 = 20 #5 = 10.9%
#6 = 37 #6 = 20.1%
#7 = 33 #7 = 17.9%
#1 =21 #1 = 11.4% 4.07 2 1.87
#2 = 23 #2 = 12.5%
#3= 26 # 3= 14.1%
Instructional
#4 = 36 #4 = 19.6%
Strategies #5 = 30 #5 = 16.3%
#6 = 26 # 6= 14.1%
#7 = 22 #7 = 12.0%
#1 =25 #1 = 13.6% 4.02 3 2.02
#2 = 24 #2 = 13.0%
#3 = 33 #3 = 17.9%
Timing #4 = 26 # 4= 14.1%
#5 = 24 #5 = 13.0%
#6 = 20 #6 = 10.9%
#7 = 32 #7 = 17.4%
#1 =24 #1 = 13.0% 3.96 4 1.88
Developing #2 = 23 #2 = 12.5%
Age and #3 = 30 #3 = 16.3%
Content #4 = 31 #4 = 16.8%
Appropriate #5 = 30 #5 = 16.3%
Lessons #6 = 27 #6 = 14.7%
# 7= 19 #7 = 10.3%
#1 =26 #1 = 14.1% 3.92 5 1.90
#2 = 27 #2 = 14.7%
#3 = 25 #3 = 13.6%
Learning
#4 = 24 #4 = 13.0%
Differences #5 = 37 #5 = 20.1%
#6 = 29 #6 = 15.8%
#7= 16 #7 = 8.7%
#1 =44 #1 = 23.9% 3.91 6 2.40
#2 = 32 #2 = 17.4%
Clear Lesson #3= 15 #3 = 8.2%
and Learning #4= 13 #4 = 7.1%
Objectives #5= 12 #5 = 6.5%
#6 = 21 #6= 11.4%
#7 = 47 #7 = 25.5%
#1 =21 #1 = 11.4% 3.88 7 1.78
#2 = 24 #2 = 13.0%
Logically #3 = 35 #3 = 19.0%
Structured #4 = 34 #4 = 18.5%
Lessons #5 = 31 #5 = 16.8%
#6 = 24 #6 = 13.0%
#7= 15 #7 = 8.2%
113

Table 17

ANOVA fo r the Seven Elements o f Lesson Planning

Type in Sum Mean


Source df F Sig.
of Squares Square
LessonPlanning
Sphericity Assumed 15.946 6 2.658 .568 .756
Greenhouse-Geisser 15.946 5.297 3.011 .568 .734
Huynh-Feldt 15.946 5.473 2.913 .568 .740
Lower-bound 15.946 1.000 15.946 .568 .452
Error(LessonPlanning)
Sphericity Assumed 5136.054 1098 4.678
Greenhouse-Geisser 5136.054 969.291 5.299
Huynh-Feldt 5136.054 1001.577 5.128
Lower-bound
5136.054 183.000 28.066

Research Question Two

Which o f thefollowing seven lesson planning elements are reported by teachers

as being used and with what level o f relative importance: Clear Lesson and Learning

Objectives, Creating Quality Assignments, Logically Structured Lessons, Instructional

Strategies, Timing, Learning Differences, and Developing Age and Content Appropriate

Lessons?

Stronge (2007) noted in his research of effective teacher’s planning that effective

teachers were found to use Clear Lesson and Learning Objectives, Creating Quality

Assignments, Logically Structured Lessons, Instructional Strategies, Timing, Learning

Differences, and Developing Age and Content Appropriate Lessons when creating lesson

plans. Teachers were asked in the survey to note which Elements of Lesson Planning

they had used in creating their lesson plans in the past week. Each teacher, through use

of a multiple choice question, had the opportunity to select as few or as many of the

You might also like