Survey Objectives The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reports that West Virginias 2005 math scores

are well below the national average. In 2007, the NAEP reported a slight increase in scores for West Virginias fourth and eighth graders, but both groups still performed below the national average. The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) approved a revision to the 12th grade version of the test to better reflect college and highly skilled job requirements such as more complex algebraic concepts and a stronger emphasis on mathematical reasoning further documenting the need for effective mathematics instruction. (Cavanaugh, 2006b, as cited in Childress Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program Proposal). Standards-based math instruction was designed to provide teachers with the skills, concepts and knowledge that should be mastered by students at a specific grade level. Teachers should understand the rationale for using standards and know how to effectively implement them into their course planning and instruction. Regular and special education teachers in Raleigh County participated in standards-based math training through a one-week summer institute, and will participate in two follow-up training sessions. Onsite visits to participant classrooms will be conducted during the school year. In addition, Raleigh Countys Middle School Math Coach will conduct classroom observations and support. During the institute, the teachers were required to develop and implement an instructional unit using the content knowledge and instructional strategies. They were also required to share the summer institute concepts and strategies with other teachers in

their schools. During the two follow-up sessions, any problems or challenges will be identified and addresses. Pre/post surveys were administered to each participant to evaluate the perception of Raleigh County elementary and middle level teachers knowledge of math content standards and objectives (CSOs) and to understand their perceptions of their ability to teach the CSOs in their classrooms. Study Design This study uses an experimental longitudinal design with self-controls. All of the teachers who participated in the Standard-Based Math Institute took a pre/post survey. The pre and post surveys were identical and contained only questions that are pertinent to the surveys objectives to improve the reliability and validity of the study. Participation in this study was voluntary and participants identities remained anonymous. Instrument Development Our team created a survey that identified the teachers current position and years of teaching experience. The ten math content areas chosen were the students weakest areas in the Raleigh County 2007 WESTEST scores. Teachers were given a nominal scale that rated their perception of their current knowledge and teaching ability in each of these ten math areas. Validation Study Graduate students in an EDF 711 course validated this study. Suggestions from the group provided opportunities to improve the quality of the survey. For example, one suggestion resulted in the elimination of a question that asked the teachers to indicate

their major of study was in college. On reflection, this question did not directly relate to the major objectives of our study. Findings and Conclusions The results of this study show significant increases in teachers perceived content knowledge and perceived teaching ability of specific content standards because of participation in the professional development workshop (Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively). Table 1 shows the standard deviation and p value for each survey item. There is also a significant correlation between the teachers perceived content knowledge and their perceived teaching ability overall both before and after participation in the workshop (Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively).

Figure 1: Teachers percieved pre and post-workshop content knowledge. The mean preworkshop and mean post workshop survey responses were compared. Statistically signigificant differences were detected in items 1 (p= 0.018 ), 2 (p= 0.013), 3 (p= 0.049), 6(p=0.036 ), 8 (p=0.008 ), and 10 (p=0.004 ).

Figure 2: Teachers perceived pre and post workshop teaching ability: The mean preworkshop and mean post-workshop percieved teaching abilities were compared. Statistically significant differences were detectsed in items 1 (p= 0.025), 2 (p=0.031), 6 (p=0.008), 8 (p=0.0007), 9 (p=0.032), and 10 (p=0.0004).

Figure 3: Teachers pre-workshop percieved content knowledge compared to their preworkshop percieved teaching ability. R2 = 0.6876.

Figure 4: Teachers post-workshop perceived content knowledge compared to their perceived teaching ability. R2= 0.8573.

Table 1: Teachers perceived pre and post workshop content knowledge and teaching abilities. Perceived Content Knowledge pSurvey Item 1. Add fractions using models 2. Solve word problems 3. Identify patterns 4. Order of operations 5. Subtract monomials 6. Find the greatest common factor (GCF) 7. Subtract polynomials 8. Interpret graphs 9. Calculate the volume of a rectangle value 0.018 0.013 0.049 0.219 0.096 0.036 0.088 0.008 0.106 Standard Deviation 0.85 0.777 0.735 0.831 0.869 0.822 0.919 0.59 0.59

10.Specify relationships using coordinate geometry 0.004 0.9 Perceived Teaching Ability Survey Item p-value Standard Deviation 1. Add fractions using models 2. Solve word problems 3. Identify patterns 4. Order of operations 5. Subtract monomials 6. Find the greatest common factor (GCF) 7. Subtract polynomials 8. Interpret graphs 9. Calculate the volume of a rectangle 10.Specify relationships using coordinate geometry 0.0004 0.902 0.025 0.031 0.089 0.144 0.139 0.008 0.081 0.0007 0.032 0.824 1.04 0.767 0.783 1.03 0.751 0.988 0.714 0.417

Reflections and Recommendations for Change Several participants did not answer the section pertaining to years of experience. This section could have been made clearer or possibly moved to another section. One recommendation would be to have the participants take an actual pre and post mathematics content test, so their actual knowledge would be compared rather than their perceived knowledge.