Page 128 - Children’s mathematical development and learning needs in perspective of teachers’ use of dynamic math interviews
P. 128

126
Chapter 4
teaching self-efficacy and mathematical knowledge for teaching – to compare differences between timepoints (baseline T1, T2, T3 and T3- T4, before and after the intervention). The Bonferroni correction was applied. The data and descriptive statistics for these measures were screened at the outset for potential errors and outliers. We discovered two outliers when checking for normality. One was found on the ‘Safe and stimulating learning climate’ scale at timepoint 3 and another was found on the ‘Clarity of instruction’ scale at timepoint 4. These datapoints were winsorized, but the resulting transformation did not impact the results. Therefore, the original data were used for data analyses.
Next, post hoc analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between teacher factors after checking sphericity using Mauchly’s test. Finally, a paired sample t-test was conducted to compare the differences between T3 and T4 (before and after the intervention) and the differences between T1-T3 (baseline), controlled for multi-testing.
Results
Effect of teacher professional development program
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics. To answer the first research question, regarding the effects, paired samples t-tests were run. We found that the professional development program had the following effects on dynamic math interviews (Table 1): during the post-test math interview, teachers asked significantly more questions about children’s mathematics experiences, asked more questions about children’s reasoning and problem-solving processes, created a safer and more stimulating climate and summarized their children’s educational needs more often. The posttest dynamic math interviews focused on more aspects of children’s mathematical development than the pretest interviews did.
The results showed that the teacher professional development program had a less effect on other qualitative aspects of dynamic math interviews. For example, teachers did not ask significantly more questions designed to identify a child’s specific needs and were not
 


























































































   126   127   128   129   130