Cronbach's Alpha: .859 -- 17 items
|
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
|
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
|
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
|
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
|
How much students-Compare information from different sources before completing a task or assignment?
|
38.17
|
96.245
|
.467
|
.851
|
How much students-Evaluate the credibility and relevance of online resources?
|
38.76
|
96.432
|
.539
|
.848
|
How much students-Analyze competing arguments, perspectives or solutions to a problem?
|
38.11
|
96.054
|
.468
|
.851
|
How much students-Hold a debate and argue for a particular point of view which may not be their own?
|
38.77
|
96.401
|
.510
|
.850
|
How much students-Use technology to analyze information (e.g., databases, spreadsheets, graphic programs, etc.)?
|
38.47
|
95.582
|
.458
|
.852
|
How much students-Invent a solution to a complex, open-ended question or problem?
|
38.25
|
92.962
|
.603
|
.845
|
How much students-Try to solve complex problems or answer questions that have no single correct solution or answer?
|
38.13
|
94.550
|
.571
|
.847
|
How much students-Structure data for use in written products or oral presentations (e.g., creating charts, tables or graphs)?
|
38.41
|
97.556
|
.430
|
.853
|
How much students-Make a product that will be used by someone else?
|
38.81
|
96.731
|
.510
|
.850
|
How much students-Decide how they will present their work or demonstrate their learning?
|
38.58
|
98.015
|
.408
|
.854
|
How much students -Work with other students to set goals and create a plan for their team?
|
38.34
|
97.754
|
.436
|
.853
|
How much students-Work as a team to incorporate feedback on group tasks or products?
|
37.95
|
100.082
|
.304
|
.859
|
How much students-Monitor their own progress towards completion of a complex task and modify their work accordingly?
|
37.91
|
96.338
|
.457
|
.852
|
How much students-Analyze how different stakeholder groups or community members view an issue?
|
38.81
|
99.233
|
.400
|
.854
|
How much students-Investigate topics or issues that are relevant to their family or community?
|
38.22
|
94.718
|
.567
|
.847
|
How much students-Apply what they are learning to local situations, issues or problems?
|
38.24
|
96.237
|
.463
|
.852
|
How much students?-Choose for themselves what examples to study or resources to use?
|
38.29
|
96.363
|
.478
|
.851
|
Table 3. STEM subscales list (PCA 1)
For section 2 (PCA2) (see Table 4), except for questions 2 and 10 that have moderate correlation values which means that these items display a moderate positive relationship to the total and have a good reliability, the remaining items have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.779) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.
Cronbach's Alpha: .779 -- 12 items
|
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
|
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
|
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
|
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
|
How much do students - Draw their own conclusions based on analysis of numbers, facts, or relevant information?
|
32.57
|
45.253
|
.349
|
.771
|
How much do students - Test out different ideas and work to improve them?
|
33.02
|
43.332
|
.520
|
.753
|
How much do students - Use idea creation techniques such as brainstorming or concept mapping?
|
32.81
|
44.013
|
.429
|
.763
|
How much do students - Take initiative when confronted with a difficult problem or question?
|
32.84
|
44.966
|
.441
|
.762
|
How much do students - Summarize or create their own interpretation of what they have read or been taught?
|
32.38
|
44.781
|
.447
|
.761
|
How much do students - Create an original product or performance to express their ideas?
|
33.22
|
45.559
|
.365
|
.769
|
How much do students - Create joint products using contributions from each student?
|
32.92
|
44.632
|
.379
|
.768
|
How much do students - Plan the steps they will take to accomplish a complex task?
|
33.16
|
45.277
|
.379
|
.768
|
How much do students - Use peer, teacher or expert feedback to revise their work?
|
32.55
|
45.578
|
.361
|
.770
|
How much do students - Talk to one or more members of the community about a class project or activity?
|
33.53
|
42.066
|
.504
|
.754
|
How much do students - Choose their own topics of learning or questions to pursue?
|
33.27
|
44.409
|
.406
|
.765
|
How much do students - Respond to a question or task in a way that weighs the concerns of different community members or groups?
|
33.17
|
44.065
|
.431
|
.762
|
Table 4. STEM subscales list (PCA 2)
For section 3 (PCA3) (see Table 5), except for question 5 that have a moderate correlation value which means that this item display a moderate positive relationship to the total and have a good reliability, the remaining items have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.728) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.
Cronbach's Alpha: .728 -- 7 items
|
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
|
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
|
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
|
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
|
Teachers ask students to explain how they get their answers.
|
17.87
|
6.808
|
.445
|
.697
|
Teachers can provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused.
|
17.77
|
6.813
|
.366
|
.714
|
Teachers see their main role as being a facilitator of students’ own inquiry.
|
18.20
|
6.193
|
.467
|
.690
|
Teachers are comfortable being a "co-inquirer" with their students.
|
18.32
|
6.323
|
.418
|
.704
|
Teachers create lessons/activities that tie their content with other things students are learning
|
18.07
|
6.201
|
.511
|
.679
|
Most teachers are able to adjust lessons to the proper level for individual students.
|
17.92
|
6.600
|
.433
|
.698
|
Teachers know how to include activities to foster student creativity.
|
18.18
|
6.629
|
.452
|
.694
|
Table 5. STEM subscales list (PCA 3)
For section 4 (PCA4) (see Table 6), all the items under this section have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.728) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.
Cronbach's Alpha: .626 -- 6 items
|
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
|
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
|
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
|
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
|
Teachers and staff provide parents/guardians with useful information about student learning.
|
15.49
|
4.593
|
.362
|
.581
|
Teachers and staff are able to assist families in helping their children do well in school.
|
15.51
|
4.637
|
.307
|
.603
|
Teachers anticipate students' likely misperceptions or misunderstandings
|
15.43
|
4.730
|
.355
|
.584
|
Teachers can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.
|
15.54
|
4.351
|
.394
|
.568
|
Teachers construct student-centered activities.
|
15.51
|
4.291
|
.368
|
.580
|
Teachers locate resources for preparing lessons/activities that address/incorporate real-world examples.
|
15.33
|
4.780
|
.370
|
.580
|
Table 6. STEM subscales list (PCA 4)
Next, I identified where most schools answered the Effective Learning Teacher Survey and the Effective Learning Leader Survey “Almost never” or “Almost daily.” The table below shows the items with responses “Almost never” or “Almost daily” cross-tabulated with their responses. Questions are on the Columns and the two targeted responses are on the Rows.
Table 7. Survey items with responses of “Almost Daily” and “Almost Never”
Whereas certain questions received “Almost never” responses (e.g.: Q52_4, Q52_7, Q52_15), only Elijah McCoy stood out in terms of variability (see Table 8). The table above was obtained after sorting the Teacher survey data by Schools in which a teacher is teaching. Standard deviation was used as a measure of variability for questions Q13_1 to Q66_14 with respect to each school.
It is therefore evident from the above table that Elijah McCoy school teachers have the highest variability in responses to the teacher survey questionnaire, closely followed by Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson.
School
|
Number of Teachers
|
Standard deviation of Responses (Q13_1 to Q66_14)
|
Elijah McCoy
|
14
|
3.684
|
Mae Jemisson
|
9
|
3.625
|
Benjamin Banneker
|
27
|
3.389
|
Shirley Jackson
|
7
|
2.957
|
Aprille Ericsson
|
17
|
3.365
|
Annie Easley
|
21
|
3.635
|
Richard Spikes
|
10
|
3.617
|
Total
|
105
|
Table 8. Variability among teachers
The following interpretations can be made from the correlation matrix in the Effective Learning Leader Survey, with respect to the correlation between the questions asked (see Technical report for full correlation matrix):
· The item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with other schools in the district” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.665) with the item “My school has a sufficient number of non-licensed staff to operate efficiently and effectively.” The correlation is significant (p=0.026<0.05).
· The item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs” is highly positively correlated (r=0.724) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with other schools in the district.” The correlation is significant (p=0.012<0.05).
· The item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members” is highly positively correlated (r=0.753) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.007<0.05).
· The item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members” is highly positively correlated (r=0.742) with the item “My school is provided sufficient data and information to make informed decisions.” The correlation is significant (p=0.009<0.05).
· The item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community” is highly positively correlated (r=0.767) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.006<0.05).
· The item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.881) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).
· The item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.646) with the item “My school is provided sufficient data and information to make informed decisions.” The correlation is significant (p=0.032<0.05).
· The item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community” is highly positively correlated (r=0.935) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).
· The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.821) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.002<0.05).
· The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.711) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.014<0.05).
· The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.890) with the item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.846) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.627) with the item “Community organizations are working effectively in this school to improve learning outcomes.” The correlation is significant (p=0.039<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.624) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.040<0.05).
· The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.807) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.03<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.843) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.01<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.723) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.012<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.851) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).
· The item “The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of my school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.826) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.003<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.851) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.826) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.003<0.05).
· The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.648) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.031<0.05).
· The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.645) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.044<0.05).
· The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.677) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.022<0.05).
· The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.624) with the item “The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of my school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.040<0.05)
· Discuss these areas NOT found in 7 elementary schools: values, Collaboration and planning, Curriculum and instruction, Professional learning, Communication.
Interpretation of anova results. When cross-examining the survey questions, including the Student Perception Survey (SPS) with the LEAP Framework for Effective Teaching (e.g.: variables I, LE, P1-P6), there are some significant differences between schools.
For variable (I): Instruction. Since p-value = 0.000 < 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE): Learning environment. Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (P1-P6): Indicators on teacher evaluation rubric for professionalism. Since p-value = 0.000 < 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (SPS): Student perception survey. Since p-value = 0.102 > 0.05, there is no significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are not significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE1): Demonstrates knowledge of, interest in and respect for diverse students’ communities and cultures in a manner that increases equity. Since p-value = 0.003< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE2): Fosters a motivational and respectful classroom environment. Since p-value = 0.004< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE3): Implements high, clear expectations for students’ behavior and routines. Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (LE4): Classroom resources and physical environment support students and their learning. Since p-value = 0.031< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I1): Clearly communicates the standards-based content-language objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s). Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I2): Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success. Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I3): Intentionally uses instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I4): Ensures all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language. Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I5): Checks for understanding of content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I6): Provides differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I7): Provides students with academically-focused descriptive feedback aligned to content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
For variable (I8): Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources. Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.
In running a Post-Hoc test for this study, I wanted to know which elementary schools are significantly different from each other after the ANOVA test declared all the schools different in their responses. For the variable (Instruction), the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test, based on responses of the teachers for the different schools Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson indicated that Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, and Shirley Jackson differ since their respective p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes, Annie Easley, and Benjamin Banneker differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and Richard Spikes differ pair wisely since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their p-value< 0.05 but Shirley Jackson do not differ from the remaining schools. College View and Benjamin Banneker) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For the “Learning Environment” (LE), the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test, based on responses of the teachers for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Shirley Jackson since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
For the Professionalism rubric variables (P1-P6), the results of the pairwise comparison based on the responses of teachers for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Schools Aprille Ericsson’, Annie Easley, Elijah McCoy, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson differ since there p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For “Positive Classroom Culture and Climate” (LE1 and 2), the results of the pairwise comparison, Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Based on responses of the teachers (LE2) for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Shirley Jackson since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley differ since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
When analyzing “Effective Classroom Management (LE3-LE4), based on the teacher responses for Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson, Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes differ from Annie Easley since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. When specifically looking at “Classroom resources and the physical environment” (LE4) for the different schools Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
When examining “Masterful Content Delivery” (I1-4) the results are as follows for “Clearly communicates the standards-based content-language objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s)”:
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes) differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Benjamin Banneker) differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
Analyzing “Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success (I2) show the following results:
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes) differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Richard Spikes differ from Annie Easley since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· School Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For teachers “Intentionally use[ing] instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objective(s) (I3):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
When analyzing whether teachers ensure “all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language (I4):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and (Richard Spikes) differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
· Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
From the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test for “High-Impact Instructional Moves” (I5-8), specifically with “Checks for understanding of content-language objective(s) (I5), based on responses of the teachers for the different schools, Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Richard Spikes differ from Benjamin Banneker differ since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker, Richard Spikes and Shirley Jackson all differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson differ from Benjamin Banneker since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.
As teachers “Provide differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objectives” (I6), the analysis of the pairwise comparison indicate that Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson) differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.
For “Provides students with academically-focused descriptive feedback aligned to content-language objective(s)” (I7):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Richard Spikes and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
Finally, for “Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources” (I8):
· Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Richard Spikes differ from Benjamin Banneker since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
· Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.
· Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.
These Post-hoc tests indicate that there is no significant difference between the responses of the teachers for the schools involved in the Effective Learning Teacher Survey, the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS), and the Student Perception Survey (SPS).