Conclusion of the further analysis

Note:

Since all of the variables in the model are categorical and the exact values of the coefficients are meaningless, we just focus on uncovering the latent trend and tried to say some interesting story behind the number and description.

About the variables;

Age-group:

Younger than 30 (reference group)

31-40

41-50

Elder than 50

Grade of teaching:

High school (reference)

Middle school

Primary school

Field of teaching

Humanity (reference)

Social science and History

Physical science

Special education

Others

Sites:

UCIF (reference)

Houston

Albuquerque

Pittsburgh

Degree of teachers

Bachelor (reference)

Master

Ph.D. or the same level

	Total	Albuquerque	Houston	Pittsburgh	UCIF
AGE-GROUP	(623)	(114)	(192)	(196)	(121)
21-30*	18.46	13.16	16.67	13.27	34.71
31-40	22.47	37.72	16.67	17.35	25.62
41-50	29.86	32.46	29.17	29.08	29.75
51+	29.21	16.67	37.50	40.31	9.92
GRADE	(625)	(114)	(194)	(184)	(133)
High*	49.44	34.21	61.34	46.74	48.87
Middle	29.92	55.26	24.74	20.65	28.57
Primary	20.64	10.53	13.92	32.61	22.56
FIELD	(567)	(106)	(188)	(190)	(83)
Humanity*	27.87	33.02	30.32	21.58	30.12
Social & history	12.52	12.26	17.02	5.79	18.07
Physical	14.64	29.25	13.30	8.95	12.05
Special	12.52	24.53	20.21	0.53	7.23
Other	32.45	0.94	19.15	63.16	32.53
DEGREE	(652)	(116)	(198)	(201)	(137)
Bachelor*	29.6	43.97	40.40	20.90	14.60
Master	45.71	44.83	44.95	55.22	33.58
Ph.D.	24.69	11.21	14.65	23.88	51.82

Note: * reference group ( ) Number, the other is percentage

Part one:

The sites are demographically distinct, which means the teachers of different institute have significant difference in age-group distribution, the grade of teaching, the subject teaching, the education background (including degree having got, the field majored as a undergraduate or graduate).

Part two

Section B. Experience in the institute

Question 12 which of the following attracted you to participate in the institute this year?

a). Opportunity to work with University faculty members.

For those teaching in primary school (Vs. High school), or elder than 50 years old (Vs younger than 30 years old), or teaching in social science (Vs humanity), they are more like to think that's an important incentive. Also, the response of teachers in Pittsburgh and Albuquerque are some similar, the same case for Houston and UCIF.

b). Opportunity to work with teachers from other schools.

The model is not significant. (It will not be listed any longer for this kind of case)

h. Possibility of increasing my control over the curriculum that I teach.

The teachers of different sites have different response and Sites are the only significant variable in the model.

i. Opportunity to increase my mastery of the subjects I teach.

For those elder than 50, this incentive is significant decreasing.

j. Opportunity to develop materials to motivate my students.

For those teaching in high school, it's significantly important incentive to be involved in the program.

K. Opportunity to exercise intellectual independence.

Teachers of the different sites have significantly different response.

m.Stipend

Teachers of the different sites have significantly different response.

Conclusion about the motivation to take participate in institute

Even the teachers may think some special incentive important or not important, the reason why they have different responses is still uncover, the demographic and other characters such as age, the field of teaching, the grade of teaching, the education background of themselves could not explain those deviation. We need more information, or, the best explanation is "personality". Everyone has his reason to take some issue as important incentive or not, no matter how old he is, whether he is a PH.D or Bachelor.

For some issue, Like stipend, the sites are the only significant factor to explain the deviation, even we controlled the demographic and other available characters by putting them in the model, which hints some systematic factors like organization behavior of the institute, the education systems in different sites might affect, although they are out of the information we could get from the data set.

Fortunately, we still could get some useful information and they look reasonable. For example, the younger teachers are more like to be involved in the program to increase the mastery of the subjects they teach. The teachers teaching in high school are more eager to develop materials by taking part in the program to motivate their students than those teaching in primary school.

For "Question 18-19"

Coordinator 150/652=76.74%

Representative 157/652=73.21%

Question 18: Are you or have you been a Teacher institute coordinator?

Some trend:

1). The teachers teaching in higher level school are more like to be a coordinator---the high school teachers are more like to be a coordinator than middle school teacher, the middle school teacher are more than the primary school teacher.

2). The teachers elder than 50 are most like to be a coordinator, but there's no significant difference among the other age-group teachers.

3). The teachers teaching in the " other field" are less like to be a coordinator than those teaching in other field.

Question 19: Are you or have you been a Teacher institute representative?

1). Those teaching in middle school are more like to be a representative

2). Those elder than 50 are more like to be than those aged 41-50.

Those aged 41-50 are more like to be than those younger than 30 years old.

Question 20: While this year's program was being planned, were you provided sufficient opportunity to contribute possible topics for seminars?

The teachers in Pittsburgh have significant more opportunity to do that.

Question 26: To what extent do you think this year's Institute talks were successful in providing the follow?

The only story is about the response to "d. intellectual stimulation".

Comparing with the high school teachers, the middle school teachers are more like to evaluate it as " small extent", which means they are more like to think the talks unsuccessful in providing intellectual stimulation.

Comparing to those teaching in Humanity field, those in social science are more like to think it's unsuccessful, however, those in "Special education" field have highest positive evaluation, the following are those in "Other" field.

Question 27: To what extent did the talks prompt you to do each of the following?

The story here is:

1) Comparing to those teaching in Humanity (reference) field, those teaching in special field are more like to think the talks prompt them to "b. discuss the topic with their students" and "c. discuss the topic with other teachers", those in social science field are less like to think that.

2). Comparing with those whose degrees are bachelors, those who own PH.D or the same level education background are more like to think the talks prompt them to " c. discuss the topic with other teachers".

Question 36: Circle one response that best applies to each of the following statement.

(Strongly agree--Agree---Disagree---Strongly disagree--- No opinion).

f. In my seminar there was a good balance between general study of the seminar subject and discussion of work-in-progress on our units.

To this issue:

1). Those teaching in middle school have lower positive evaluation than those in high school (reference) and they are more like to disagree about the above comments (there was a good balance).

2). Those elder than 50 years old have higher positive evaluation than those younger than 30 (reference).

3). Those teaching in "other" field have higher positive evaluation than those in "humanity" (reference).

4). The teachers in Pittsburgh and Houston have lower evaluation than those in UCIF (reference),

h. By participating in the seminar I gained knowledge of my subject and confidence in my ability to teach it.

1). Those in Albuquerque are more like to accept this comments than those in UCIF. Pittsburgh and Houston have no significant difference to UCIF (reference).

2). Those teaching in Physical science are more hesitate to think they gained knowledge by participating in the seminar. (That's true, Chatting in the seminar contribute nothing to math, chemistry...)

i. Participating in the seminar helped me grow professionally and intellectually.

1). Those in middle school are more like to disagree with this comments, comparing with those in High school (reference).

2). Teachers in Pittsburgh and Houston are more like to disagree with this comments than those in UCIF (reference).

3). Those teaching in "special field" and "other field", are more like to agree with that, they give higher evaluation about this issue than those teaching in Humanity (reference).

k. As a result of the seminar, I have a higher expectation of my students' ability to learn about the seminar subject.

1). The master degree teachers are more like to feel about that than the bachelor (reference).

2). Those teaching in Physical science are less like to feel that than those in Humanity (reference).

s. Unit writing deadlines occurred at the right time in relation to the school calendar.

1). Pittsburgh teachers or

2). Middle school teacher are more like to think it occurred at the right time.

3). Teachers teaching in primary school are less like to think it occurred at the right time, comparing with those in High school (reference).

4). Those teaching Physical science are less like to think it occurred at the right time.

Comments in sum:

Although the seminar do help the participants in this way or that way, the benefits definitely are different for individuals, generally, those teaching in physical science give lower evaluation to the seminar, it seems more difficult for them to grow professional and improve teaching ability by participating the seminar. Fortunately, those teaching in special field and other field seemed satisfied with the seminar in many ways.

Also, we noticed that the teachers might have some consensus comments to the institute that they are involved in about some issue, even when we controlled the demographic and other character of the participants. Given those evaluations are objective, it's easy to come to the conclusion that some institutes are better at organization of the seminar in this way than others, while may worse in other way.

Question 38: Indicate the extent to which the following are useful to you.

b. Lecture series by faculty members.

The response of teachers in Pittsburgh and Houston are significantly different to those in UCIF (reference). (Note: no this item in Albuquerque questionnaire).

Pittsburgher and Houstoner are less than UCIFer like to think it's useful.

c. My seminar leader

Those master teachers are more like to evaluate it useful than the bachelor teachers.

Those involved in Albuquerque are more like to think it is useful than those in UCIF. There's no significant difference between UCIF and Houston as well as Pittsburgh.

f. Guidelines for writing a unit

1). Just like to the above issue, those involved in Albuquerque are more like to think it is useful than those in UCIF. There's no significant difference between UCIF and Houston as well as Pittsburgh.

2). The primary school teachers are more like to think it's useful for writing a unit, comparing to those high school teachers.

3). Those teaching in "other field" are more like to think it's useful than those in humanity (reference).

g. Program schedule.

1). Just like to the above issue, those involved in Albuquerque are more like to think it is useful than those in UCIF, there's no significant difference between UCIF and Houston as well as Pittsburgh.

2). The primary school teachers are more like to think it's useful if the program schedule, comparing to those high school teachers.

h. Interaction with other fellows.

Houstoner are less like to think it's useful than UCIFer. There's no significant difference between UCIF and Houston as well as Pittsburgh.

j. The contact with faculty members.

1). The master degree teachers are more like to think it's useful to contact with faculty members than those bachelor degree teachers.

2). The teachers of Pittsburgh are less like to think it's useful.

k. Membership in the university community.

1). The teachers of Pittsburgh are less like to think it's useful.

m. The program overall.

1). Those elder than 50 are more like to think the whole program is useful,

2). Those teaching in Physical science are lest like to think it's useful--------it does fit our previous comments.

3). The teachers involved in Albuquerque are more like to think it's useful of the program overall than those in UCIF, while those in Houston are less like to think it's useful than in UCIF. There are no significant difference between Pittsburgh and UCIF (reference).

Question 60: For which of the following groups of students in your unit designed?

For advanced students: 409/652=62.73%

For averaged students: 491/652=75.31%

For least advanced students: 348/652=53.37%

Some interesting trend:

Comparing to those bachelor degree teachers, the master and PhD teachers are less like to design unit for average student or least advanced student.

For those teaching in special field, they are more like to design unit for those least advanced student.

Comparing to those high school teachers, those primary and middle school teachers are more like to design unit for least advanced students.

Comparing to those teaching in humanity, the teachers teaching in physical science are less like to design unit for advanced students.

Comparing to those in UCIF, the teachers involved in Pittsburgh and Houston institute are less like to design unit for least advanced students.

-----Teacher participation and leadership -----

About the Representative and Coordinator in the seminar.