Comparing Distance Learning to Face-to-Face Teacher Modeling in Professional Development Instruction

Autor/in	Hengesbach, Jeffrey T.
Titel	Comparing Distance Learning to Face-to-Face Teacher Modeling in Professional Development Instruction
Quelle	(2019), (239 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit Ph.D. Dissertation, Grand Canyon University
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
ISBN	978-0-4389-4928-7
Schlagwörter	Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Distance Education; Modeling (Psychology); Self Efficacy; Pedagogical Content Knowledge; Faculty Development; Teacher Evaluation + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Thesis; Dissertations; Academic thesis; Distance study; Distance learning; Fernunterricht; Modeling; Modelling; Modellierung; Self-efficacy; Selbstwirksamkeit; Pädagogische Kompetenz; Teacher appraisal; Lehrerbeurteilung
Abstract	This causal comparative study examined differences between Modeling Instruction delivered through distance learning (DL) versus face-to-face (FTF) in terms of teachers' performance on professional development evaluation tools for content knowledge and self-efficacy. The theoretical foundation of this study included elements of professional development, instruction, self-determination, distributed learning and teacher change theories. The analysis was performed on archival data provided by the American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA). The dependent measures included professional development workshop exit assessments of teachers' content knowledge collected with the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA) and assessments of teachers' self-efficacy using the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI). The results of Mann-Whitney U non-parametric tests showed no statistically significant differences between participants in DL and FTF Modeling Instruction workshops in terms of content knowledge assessed with BEMA, U = 206, p = 0.32 (medians: 23 and 20, respectively), or in terms of self-efficacy assessed with STEBI, U = 176, p = 0.88 (medians: 89 and 86, respectively). The empirical evidence generated in this study was not sufficient to justify the rejection of the null hypotheses. The study was limited, among other things, by the small sample size available in the AMTA archive and the DL participants' prior experience in face-to-face training. The differences in medians justify further research in this problem area using larger samples. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01