Student Achievement Using the PYP Program

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

There have been mixed results on student achievement when using the PYP program. In one case, reading achievement of disadvantaged third-graders improved while in another case math achievement of fifth-grade students did not improve (Hemelt, 2014). He goes on to state that negative effects of PYP were found to have impacted third and fifth math performance in North Carolina.

The purpose of this study was to explore whether the PYP program affected third-grade students’ reading and math assessment scores. The participants in this study were third-grade students in a large public school district in the mid-Atlantic during the 2017-2018 school year.

The following research questions guided this study:

1. How do the third-grade reading and math assessment scores at PYP schools compare to third-grade reading and math assessment scores at non-PYP schools?

2. How do the third-grade subgroup (race, gender, free and reduced meals, special education) math and reading assessment scores at PYP schools compare to third-grade subgroup (race, gender, free and reduced meals, special education) math and reading scores at non-PYP schools?

3. Did participation in training for, and teaching of, the IB PYP Program influence teachers’ views regarding philosophy of education?

This chapter is devoted to reporting the findings of this study, offering recommendations for future studies, and discussing the implications this study will have on teaching and learning within the educational community.

This was a quasi-experimental study design with nonequivalent groups. Students were given a pretest for the researcher to account for pre-existing differences. In a school setting, it is very difficult to randomly assign students to either a control or experimental group. Therefore, it is necessary to use this research design to receive the advantage of minimal possible reactive arrangement effects. This study took place at two suburban elementary schools. During the time of this study, School A served students in grades kindergarten through fifth. The total student population was 608. At the time of this study, the total third grade population was 84 students. School B consisted of 774 students, with a third-grade population of 143 students.

School A (Experimental) was the IB PYP school and consisted of 84 third-grade students and School B (Control) was the traditional school and consisted of 143 third-grade students. Students were given pretests in the subject areas of reading and math.

Findings and Results

Research Question 1 How do the third-grade reading and math assessment scores at PYP schools compare to third-grade reading and math assessment scores at non-PYP schools student math benchmark scores from the first and third quarters were collected. Multiple regression was used to explore the relationship and predictive ability of two variables (Reading/math pretest scores and the condition of using the IB PYP) on students’ reading and math posttest scores. The combination of the two variables for reading was not statistically significant F (1, 213) = 2.53. The condition was not significant, t = .208, p = .835. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations for the reading posttests.

Table 1
Reading Post Test
			Reading Post Test
			Reading
Condition		M		SD
IB PYP		72.21		20.21
Non IB PYP		72.76		17.79

The combination of the two variables for math was statistically significant F (1, 213) = 4.65, p <.05. However, the condition was not significant, t = -1.802, p = .073. See Table 2 for means and standard deviations for the math posttests.

Table 2
Math Post Test
			Math Post Test
			Math
Condition		M		SD
IB PYP		74.76		25.07
Non IB PYP		68.64		23.67

Research question 2 How do the third-grade subgroup (race, gender, free and reduced meals, special education) math and reading assessment scores at PYP schools compare to third-grade subgroup (race, gender, free and reduced meals, special education) math and reading scores at non-PYP schools?, an ANCOVA was used to explore the relationship and predictive ability of (reading pretest scores, subgroup, the type of program curriculum, and the product term) on student’s reading posttest score.

The difference in math scores between the schools when the race was accounted for. The difference among the schools was significant, F (1, 205) = 10.560, p < .05, as was the difference with race, F (4, 205) = 3.906, p <.05. There was also a significant difference between the variables, F (4, 205) = 3.492, p < .05.

Table 3 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – white was accounted for.

Table 3
Math Test Scores – Race – White
		Math Scores – Race – White
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		83.12		17.71		79.81		20.38
Non-IB PYP		75.90		20.08		69.94		23.77

Table 4 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – African-American was accounted for.

Table 4
Math Test Scores – Race – AA
		Math Test Scores – Race – AA
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		53.52		27.69		59.65		31.05
Non-IB PYP		69.87		18.85		69.04		22.35

Table 5 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – Hispanic was accounted for.

Table 5
Math Test Scores – Hispanic
		Math Test Scores – Hispanic
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		63.28		21.51		77.75		27.47
Non-IB PYP		69.32		23.13		74.73		22.04

Table 6 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – Asian was accounted for.

Table 6
Math Test Scores – Asian
		Math Test Scores – Asian
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		59.50		39.04		96.67		5.16
Non-IB PYP		76.11		17.43		64.00		25.03

Table 7 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – mixed/other was accounted for.

Table 7
Math Test Scores – Mixed/Other
		Math Test Scores – Mixed/Other
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		75.69		24.50		62.44		21.77
Non-IB PYP		67.19		21.27		45.00		26.46

Tables 8 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when male gender was accounted for. Table 9 compares the difference in math scores when female gender is accounted for. When accounting for math scores and gender, the difference between the genders was not significant, F (1, 211) = .130, and there was no significant difference between the variables, F (1, 211) = 1.753. However, there was a significant difference among the schools, F (1, 211) = 5.278, p <.05.

Table 8
Math Scores – Male
		Math Scores – Male
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		67.94		26.62		73.95		26.32
Non-IB PYP		73.40		19.38		65.56		24.98

Table 9
Math Scores – Female
		Math Scores – Female
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		77.07		24.18		75.57		24.06
Non-IB PYP		73.42		19.98		70.79		22.63

Table 10 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when the condition of special education was accounted for. The difference in math scores among special education was significant, F (1, 211) = 3.959, p < .05. However, there was no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 211) = 1.926, or between the variables, F (1, 211) = .234.

Table 10
Math Scores – Special Education
		Math Scores – Special Education
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		70.31		10.67		90.00		14.14
Non-IB PYP		59.83		22.50		71.71		29.56

Table 11 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when the condition of free and reduced meals (FARMS) was accounted for. The difference among FARMS was significant, F (1, 212) = 20.526, p < .001. There was also a significant difference among the schools, F (1, 212) = 7.564, p < .05, however, there was no significant difference between the variables, F (1, 212) = 2.359.

Table 11
Math Scores – Farms
		Math Scores – FARMS
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		67.11		25.59		65.47		26.08
Non-IB PYP		60.80		21.07		48.18		23.31

The difference in reading scores between the schools when race was accounted for revealed the difference among race was not significant, F (4, 205) = 2.155. There was also no significant difference among the schools, F (1, 205) = 2.783 nor between the variables, F (4, 205) = .969

Table 12 compares the difference in reading scores between the schools when race – White was accounted for.

Table 12
Reading Test Scores – Race – White
		Reading Test Scores – Race – White
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		68.73		18.91		78.02		15.13
Non-IB PYP		70.46		17.12		75.57		17.72

Table 13 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – African-American was accounted for.

Table 13
Reading Test Scores – Race – AA
		Reading Test Scores – Race – AA
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		54.94		21.84		62.37		25.83
Non-IB PYP		66.75		17.62		72.74		15.90

Table 14 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – Hispanic was accounted for.

Table 14
Reading Test Scores – Race – Hispanic
		Reading Test Scores – Race – Hispanic
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		48.35		12.08		58.80		18.13
Non-IB PYP		61.91		24.78		59.47		20.41

Table 15 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – Asian was accounted for.

Table 15
Reading Test Scores – Race – Asian
		Reading Test Scores – Race – Asian
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		77.07				88.27		9.71
Non-IB PYP		66.10				72.81		17.38

Table 16 compares the difference in math scores between the schools when race – Mixed/Other was accounted for.

Table 16
Reading Test Scores – Race – Mixed/Other
		Reading Test Scores – Race – Mixed/Other
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		57.87		21.60		64.93		21.59
Non-IB PYP		60.55		18.32		65.21		21.19

Table 17 compares the difference in reading scores between the schools when special education was accounted for. The difference among the condition of special education was not significant, F (1, 216) = .025. There was also no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 216) = 2.925, or between the variables, F (1, 216) = 1.124.

Table 17
Reading Scores – Special Education
		Reading Scores – Special Education
		Pretest				Post Test
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		46.30		8.66		63.28		13.46
Non-IB PYP		40.94		24.51		48.30		21.56

Tables 18 and 19 compare the difference in reading scores between the schools when the gender was accounted for. The difference among the condition of gender was not significant, F (1, 216) = .038. There was also no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 216) = 2.606, or between the variables, F (1, 216) = 2.783.

Table 18
Reading Scores – Male
		Reading Scores – Male
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		61.28		21.39		69.42		19.67
Non-IB PYP		61.88		18.26		69.87		20.28

Table 19
Reading Scores – Female
		Reading Scores – Female
		Pretest				Posttest
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		65.32		19.46		75.00		20.60
Non-IB PYP		71.97		17.50		74.49		15.86

Table 20 compares the difference in reading scores between the schools when the condition of FARMS was accounted for. The difference among FARMS was significant, F (1, 216) = 7.510, p < .05. There was no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 216) = 3.406, or between the variables, F (1, 216) = .273.

Table 20
Reading Scores – FARMS
		Reading Scores – Farms
		Pretest				Post Test
Condition		M		SD		M		SD
IB PYP		49.55		18.10		58.79		18.59
Non-IB PYP		55.96		18.60		58.85		18.02

 

Research question 3 Did participation in training for, and teaching of, the IB PYP Program influence teachers’ views regarding philosophy of education?, a questionnaire was administered to the participants via electronic links and then analyzed. Questions contained within the questionnaires consisted of 23 close-ended questions, used a 4-point Likert-type scale, and were analyzed using independent samples T-tests to identify significant differences between the instructional method and their questionnaire responses. Table 21 displays the means and standard deviations for the 23 teacher survey questions. Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 had a significant difference, p < .05.

Table 21
Teachers’ Survey Responses
				Condition
		IB				Non IB
Question	M		SD		M		SD		t
5*	3.17		.514		1.72		.455		10.052
6*	2.78		.808		2.21		.412		2.78
7*	2.94		.539		2.48		.509		2.916
8*	2.50		.707		3.10		.409		-3.294
9	2.94		.539		1.79		.412		8.263
10*	3.17		.383		2.31		.471		6.81
11*	3.00		.594		3.17		.384		-1.211
12*	3.17		.618		3.21		.412		-2.68
13	3.22		.548		2.76		.435		3.211
14*	3.11		.583		2.90		.409		1.483
15*	2.83		.618		2.00		.655		4.331
16*	2.94		.639		2.93		.258		0.085
17*	2.89		.583		3.10		.618		-1.182
18	3.17		.618		3.59		.501		-2.549
19	3.00		.594		3.14		.351		-1.003
20*	2.56		.705		3.10		.310		-3.116
21*	3.17		.514		2.97		.325		1.485
22	2.72		.575		2.17		.384		3.592
23*	3.11		.471		2.93		.258		1.488
24*	2.67		.686		2.86		.516		-1.040
25*	2.67		.686		2.83		.602		-0.845
26*	3.00		.594		2.83		.384		1.211
27*	2.67		.686		2.79		.412		-0.707

* Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 had a significant difference, p < .05.

 

Summary of the Findings

Research question one examined how third-grade reading and math assessment scores at PYP schools compare to third-grade reading and math assessment scores at traditional, non-PYP schools. Multiple regression was used to explore the relationship and predictive ability of two variables on students’ math and reading posttest scores and found the combination of the three variables for math was statistically significant F (1, 213) = 4.65, p <.05. However, the condition was not significant, t = -1.802, p = .073. The combination of the two variables for reading was not statistically significant F (1, 213) = 2.53, nor was the condition significant, t = .208, p = .835.

The findings in this study with regards to students’ math posttest scores aligned with researchers Tan and Bibby, (2010), who found that IB students outperformed their non-IB peers on the International Schools’ Assessment for math. However, reading scores in this study showed there was no significant difference, which contradicts Tan and Bibby’s findings. In another reading study, Frank (2009) examined the reading performance of one PYP school compared to 16 non-PYP schools and found increases in reading achievement. The data also showed there was a considerable statistical difference that the PYP affected improvement of the reading scores of the third, fourth and fifth grade students when compared to the non PYP schools.

Research Question 2

Research question two examined how third-grade subgroup (race, gender, free and reduced meals, special education) math and reading assessment scores at PYP schools compare to third-grade subgroup (race, gender, free and reduced meals, special education) math and reading scores at non-PYP schools. The ANCOVA model was used to reduce error variance, due to the random assignment of subjects and to guard against systematic bias, and found when race was accounted for, the difference in math scores between the schools was significant, F (1, 205) = 10.560, p < .05, as was the difference with race, F (4, 205) = 3.906, p <.05. There was also a significant difference between the variables, F (4, 205) = 3.492, p < .05. A post hoc Bonferroni test showed significant differences between mixed race and Hispanics, p < .05 and mixed race and Asian, p < .05.

When considering race, the difference in reading scores between the schools was not significant, F (1, 205) = 2.783. There was also no significant difference between the variables, F (4, 205) = .969. There was, however, a slight difference among the races, F (4, 205) = 2.155, p = .07. A post hoc Bonferroni test showed a significant difference between Whites and Hispanics, p < .05 and between Hispanics and Asians, p < .05.

While this study found there was a significant difference with math scores and a slight difference in reading scores, Sillisano et al (2010) matched PYP and non-PYP schools based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, racial and ethnic makeup. They found no measureable difference in achievement for students at PYP schools when compared to students at non-PYP elementary schools.

When accounting for math scores and gender, the difference between the genders was not significant, F (1, 211) = .130. However, there was a significant difference among the schools, F (1, 211) = 5.278, p <.05. There was no significant difference between the variables, F (1, 211) = 1.753. Regarding the reading scores, the difference among the condition of gender was not significant, F (1, 211) = .001. There was also no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 211) = 2.159, or between the variables, F (1, 211) = 2.280.

The difference in math scores based on the condition of free and reduced meals (FARMS) was significant, F (1, 211) = 12.814, p < .001. There was also a significant difference between the schools, F (1, 211) = 7.494, p < .05, however, there was no significant difference between the variables, F (1, 211) = 1.445. Reading scores among FARMS was significant, F (1, 211) = 6.788, p < .05, however, there was no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 211) = 2.682, or between the variables, F (1, 211) = .164.

The difference in math scores among special education was significant, F (1, 211) = 3.959, p < .05. However, there was no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 211) = 1.926, or between the variables, F (1, 211) = .234. The difference in reading scores for the condition of special education was not significant, F (1, 211) = .041. There was also no significant difference between the schools, F (1, 211) = 2.822, or between the variables, F (1, 211) = 1.218.

Sillisano et al (2010) matched PYP and non-PYP schools based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, racial and ethnic makeup, and district membership. They found no measureable difference in achievement for students at PYP schools when compared to students at non-PYP elementary schools.

Research Question 3

Research question three examined participation in training for, and teaching of, the IB PYP Program influence on teachers’ views regarding philosophy of education. The questionnaire contained open-ended and close-ended questions. The close-ended questionnaire responses used a Likert-type scale and were all analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Teacher survey questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 had a significant difference between the schools.

The independent samples T-tests revealed a significant difference for the following questions. Question 5, Since the implementation of the IB PYP in my classroom, my teaching philosophy has become more “IB”, F (3, 16) = 6.267, p < .05, Question 6, The IB PYP has increased my confidence as a teacher F (3, 16) = 8.491, p < .05, Question 7, In the future, public schools will adopt PYP practices into their own schools, F (3, 16) = 10.067, p < .05, Question 8, International education is more important to me now than before I taught in an IB PYP classroom, F (3, 16) = 6.580, p < .05, Question 10, I see my students’ need for international understanding because I have implemented the IB PYP in my classroom, F (3, 16) = 7.867, p < .05. Question 11, As a teacher in an IB PYP classroom, I will be better prepared for the future of my profession than non-IB PYP teachers, F (3, 16) = 6.238, p < .05, Question 12, The IB PYP has increased my excitement for teaching, F (3, 16) = 6.105, p < .05, Question 14, Since implementing the IB PYP in my classroom, I feel a greater need to prepare my students for an international world, F (3, 16) = 3.810, p < .05, Question 15, I see the future of education differently because I have implemented the IB PYP in my classroom, F (3, 16) = 5.317, p < .05, Question 16, I feel like my students are learning more since I implemented the IB PYP in my classroom, F (3, 16) = 3.810, p < .05, Question 17, Since implementing the IB PYP in my classroom, I think differently about what is best for my students, F (3, 16) = 4.214, p < .05, Question 19, As a result of implementing the IB PYP in my classroom, I envision my classroom evolving more in the future than I would have otherwise, F (3, 16) = 6.893, p < .05, Question 20, My career is more fulfilling now that I teach at an IB PYP school, Question 21, My philosophy of education involves more inquiry and less rote memorization since I implemented the IB PYP in my classroom, F (3, 16) = 3.933, p < .05, Question 23, In 10 years, more teachers around the world will incorporate IB PYP practices into their own classrooms, F (3, 16) = 4.800, p < .05, Question 24, I feel like I accomplish more in my classroom now than before I implemented the IB PYP in my classroom, F (3, 16) = 9.783, p < .05, Question 25, I am more passionate about my philosophy of education now than before I implemented the IB PYP in my classroom, F (3, 16) = 10.743, p < .001, Question 26, I wish more schools in my district were offering the IB PYP to their students, F (3, 16) = 3.378, p < .05, Question 27, My work is more important to me now that I teach in an IB PYP classroom, F (3, 16) = 11.467, p < .001

Questions 28, 29, and 30, the three open ended questions, were analyzed and common themes were identified. Question 28, …

Implications and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the IB PYP program on students’ math and reading achievement scores based on standardized test scores. The results of this study have important educational implications because with today’s ever-changing student-centered classrooms, teachers are constantly considering new, innovative ways to engage students during the learning process (Garcia, 2014). The results of this study suggest that the IB PYP program had a significant effect on math achievement scores between schools, as well as with race, gender, and FARMS. However the researcher found there was no significant difference in reading achievement scores between schools.

Sillisano et al (2010) found no measureable difference in achievement for students at PYP schools when compared to students at non-PYP elementary schools. That same study found IB schools performed as well as their comparison schools in mathematics and reading achievement on standardized tests. This would suggest that the IB program does not positively or negatively impact student achievement. Although there is no consensus on the academic impact of the IB program on students’ academic success, it does appear that most of the research suggests that there is no negative correlation between participation in the IB program and student achievement (Campbell et al. 2014; Sillisano, et al., 2010).

It is recommended that this study be conducted in a longitudinal setting over the course of several school years. This could provide added understanding into the effects of the IB PYP program on math and reading achievement scores at the elementary level. Additional recommendations include repeating this study in more diverse school districts, such as a larger public elementary school, a more urban location, a greater number of schools included into a single study, or expanding the study to include science and social studies achievement scores. These results could offer a more detailed explanation of how the IB PYP program impacts students across all core subjects. This could also afford a more detailed understanding of how the IB PYP program effects students from different ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, as well as other student demographics.

Finally, in the United States, there has been a drive to construct rigorous education standards (Daggett, 2014) including the Common Core State Standards, to help students get ready for college and careers. Programs such as the transdisciplinary focus of the IB PYP might be able to help students develop such high-level skills as creativity and critical problem solving to meet the demands of college and career. However, with the IB PYP program, teachers become curriculum developers, and as such, will need tools and resources to ensure that they are successful. As of now, the IBO does not provide teachers with a standard process to follow when designing transdisciplinary units of inquiry, and this could have an effect on student achievement scores.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study is the sample size and population used. One third-grade class from an IB school and one third-grade class from a traditional school was used in this study. Future studies could include assorted grade levels and a larger sample population. While it is assumed that students completed the district assessments independently, the researcher was not able to ensure there was no teacher intervention or the student did not use any unauthorized material during the completion of the assessments. The results from this study may not generalize to other student populations due to class size, grade level, and teacher experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

About the IB. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/

Anne Arundel County Public Schools. (2012). The journey to greatness: An overview of the strategic plan for anne arundel county public schools. Retrieved from https://www.aacps.org/cms/lib/MD02215556/Centricity/Domain/156/strat_overview.pdf

Anne Arundel County Public Schools. (2017). International Baccalaureate Magnet Programs / International Baccalaureate. Retrieved from https://www.aacps.org/Page/920

Ansell, S. (2011, July 7). Achievement Gap. Issues A-Z. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/

Armstrong, R. A. (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. OPO,34 (5), 502-508.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2018). Introduction to research in education (10^th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage

ASCD. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10-16.

Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social–Emotional Factors Affecting Achievement Outcomes Among Disadvantaged Students: Closing the Achievement Gap. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197–214. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3704_1

Blake, M. L. (2012). The effects of the international baccalaureate diploma program on the student achievement of advanced scoring students Available from Dissertations & Theses Europe Full Text: Social Sciences. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1413324943

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 34(2), 161-175.

Cech, S. J. (2007). With world growing smaller, IB gets big. Education Week, 27(10), 22-24.

Chmelynski, C. (2015, January). International Baccalaureates Just Keep Growing in the U.S. The Education Digest, 70(5), 58-61.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Daggett, W. R. (2014). Achieving Academic Excellence through Rigor and Relevance. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/Achieving_Academic_Excellence_2014.pdf

Dimitrov, D. & Rumrill, P., Jr. (2013). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20, 159-165.

Donlevy, J. (2006). Teachers, technology, and training. A New Year’s resolution for 2006: Closing the achievement gap. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1) 34-37.

Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) | U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=ft

Experiments and Quasi-Experiments. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/experimentsquasi.jsp

Ferguson, R. (2016). Teachers’ Perceptions and Expectations and the Black-White Test Score Gap. Urban Education, 38(4), 460 – 507

Fox, E (2001) The Emergence of the International Baccalaureate as an Impetus for Curriculum Reform, in M C Hayden and J J Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, London: Kogan Page (pp 65-76)

Gall, M., & Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Garcia, Antero, ed. (2014). Teaching in the Connected Learning Classroom. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

Gardner, D. (2007, March). Confronting the Achievement Gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 542-546. doi:10.1177/003172170708800715

Gay, L., Mills, G. & Airasian, P. (2006) Educational research competencies for analysis and application. 8th ed. New Jersey, Pearson.

Getchell, L. A. (2010). Effects of International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme on Teacher Philosophy, Perceptions of Efficacy, And Outlook On Education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver). Denver, CO: Digital Commons.

Hargittai, E. (2015, March 20). Essay on the flaws of the PARCC tests | Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/03/20/essay-flaws-parcc-tests.

Hartas, D. (2013). Educational research and inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Continuum.

Hartman, J. (2008). A descriptive study of characteristics and practices of international baccalaureate elementary principals as perceived by principals, coordinators, and teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne) [Abstract]. (UMI No. 3338003)

Hoban, G.F. (2004). Seeking Quality in Teacher Education Design: A Four-Dimensional Approach. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 117.

Hoover, R. (2014). PARCC & Common Core. The Teacher Advocate. Retrieved from http://www.teacher-advocate.com/content/parcc-common-core

Huitema, B. E. (2011). The analysis of covariance and alternatives: Statistical methods for experiments, quasi-experiments, and single-case studies (2nd ed.). Hoboken (N.J.): Wiley.

Hussein, A. (2009). The use of Triangulation in Social Sciences Research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work, 1, 1-12.

Hutchings, G. C., Jr. (2010). Effective teaching practices and teacher efficacy beliefs of international baccalaureate middle years programme teachers Available from ProQuest Central K12. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/528023298

Hill, I., Saxton, S. (2014). The international baccalaureate (IB) programme: An international gateway to higher education and beyond. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(3), 42. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1612466698

IBO (2007). International education. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.ibo.org/

IBO (2017). Primary Years | 3 to 12 | International Baccalaureate® – International Baccalaureate®. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/programmes/primary-years-programme/

IBO. (2018). Facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/facts-and-figures/

I.B. (2016a). Facts and figures. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from http://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/facts-and-figures/

I.B. (2016b). Find an IB World School. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from http://www.ibo.org/programmes/find-an-ib-school/?SearchFields.Region=iba

Jamal, Sameena. (2016). From theory to practice: A critical review of the international baccalaureate primary years programme. The International Schools Journal, 35(2), 22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1805726907

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Keith, T. (2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (NCES 2007-039), National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind Overview: Definitions, Requirements, Criticisms, and More. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html

Lewis, B. (n.d.). NCLB – No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://k6educators.about.com/od/educationglossary/g/gnclb.htm

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McKay, L. (2007). Mobilizing for evidence-based character education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Melliger, S. R. (2008). The impact of an international baccalaureate primary year’s curriculum on intermediate grade girls and boys perceptions of their learned global citizenship attributes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 2008). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.

MSDE. (2017). Maryland Department of Education. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/Pages/default.aspx

National Science Foundation. (2016, January 19). U.S. science and technology leadership increasingly challenged by advances in Asia: China is now decisively the second-largest performer of research and development. Science Daily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160119151244.htm

NAEP – Achievement Gaps. (2015, September 22). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/

NAEP Mathematics & Reading Assessments. (2015). Retrieved September 17, 2016, from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#?grade=4

NAEP Nations Report Card – National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017, September). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

National Education Association. (2017). NEA – Students Affected by Achievement Gaps. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/20380.htm

Nau, R. (2015). Statistical forecasting: notes on regression and time series analysis.               Retrieved from http://people.duke.edu/~rnau/testing.htm.

Pacific Policy Research Center. (2010). 21st century skills for students and teachers. Research and Evaluation, 1-7.

Peterson, Alec, (1987). Schools across Frontiers: The Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Pogrow, S. (2006). Restructuring High Poverty Elementary Schools for Success: A Description of the Hi-Perform School Design In This, the Second of a Two-Part Series, Stanley Pogrow Outlines the Basic Structure of the Kind of School That Will Help the Children of Poverty Gain Ground and So Reduce the Learning Gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(3), 223.

Porter, A, (2013, January).Can the International Baccalaureate program save black students? Washington Post.

Reardon, S.F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10-16.

Rothstein, R, (2004) Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-white Achievement Gap. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Rutherford, A. (2011). Introducing Anova and Ancova a GLM approach (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Salkind, N. (2007). The logic of prediction statistics for people who hate statistics. 3^rd Edition. Sage Publication, Inc.

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2014). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Standardized Test (2015, November 12). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/standardizedtest.

Tan, L. & Bibby, Y. (2010). IB PYP and MYP student performance on the International Schools’ Assessment (ISA). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib research/pypib_isa_report_nov2011_final.pdf

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2013). Mixed Methods Research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Turner, C., & Siegel, R. (2013, July 25). Common Core Could Be Disrupted As States Drop Out Of PARCC. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=205548327

USDE. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.ed.gov/

van Oord, L. (2007). To westernize nations? An analysis of the International Baccalaureate’s philosophy of education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(3), 375-390.

Walters, J. (2017). Correlational research guidelines: conducting correlational research. North Vancouver, BC: Capilano University Press.

Wenzel, C. (2008). Academy District 20: IB and non-IB students comparison on 2007 CSAP.

Williams, S. D. (2008). 16 The Downside of International Baccalaureate. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame161-1017/pressrel45.asp

Working Together to Create a Modern Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.parcconline.org/about

 

 

Appendix C

International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program Teacher Survey

Demographic Information:

1. What is your gender? _______

2. How many years have you been teaching? _______

3. How many years have you been teaching in an IB school (Include years taught

during candidacy)? _______

4. What is your highest level of IB Training?

1. No training
2. Level 1
3. Level 2
4. Level 3

In the next section, please indicate your opinion using the following scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

5. Since the implementation of the PYP in my classroom, my teaching philosophy

has become “more IB.”

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

6. International education is more important to me now than before I taught in an

PYP classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

7. In the future, public schools will adopt PYP practices into their own schools.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

8. The PYP has increased my confidence as a teacher.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

9. The PYP has influenced my philosophy of education.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

10. I see my students need for international understanding differently because I

implemented the IBPYP in my classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

11. As a teacher in an IBPYP classroom I will be better prepared for the future of my

profession than non-IBPYP teachers.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

12. The IBPYP has increased my excitement for teaching.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

13. The changes I made in my classroom to meet the expectations of the IBPYP are

good ones.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

14. Since implementing the IBPYP in my classroom, I feel a greater need to prepare

my students for an international world.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

15. I see the future of education differently because I have implemented the IBPYP in

my classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

16. I feel like my students are learning more since I implemented the IBPYP in my

classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

17. Since implementing the International Baccalaureate PYP in my classroom, I think

differently about what is best for my students.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

18. Since implementing the IBPYP in my classroom, I am more aware of my students’

needs for cultural awareness and adaptability.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

19. As a result of implementing the International Baccalaureate PYP in my classroom, I

envision my classroom evolving more in the future than I would have otherwise.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

20. My career is more fulfilling now that I teach in an IBPYP school.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

21. My philosophy of education involves more inquiry and less rote-memorization

since I implemented IB into my classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

22. Teachers in non-IBPYP classrooms are not preparing their students for an

international world as well as I am.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

23. In 10 years, more teachers around the world will incorporate PYP practices into

their own classrooms.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

24. I feel like I accomplish more in my classroom now than before I implemented the

PYP in my classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

25. I am more passionate about my philosophy of education now than before I

implemented the PYP in my classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

26. I wish more schools in my district were offering the IBPYP to their students.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

27. My work is more important to me now that I teach in an IBPYP classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

28. In 25 words or less, do you believe that within the next 10 years more teachers around the world will incorporate PYP practices into their classrooms? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29. In 25 words or less explain how you accomplish more in your classroom than teachers in a non-PYP classroom. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30. In 25 words or less explain how your classroom philosophy differs from that of a non-PYP teacher. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Appendix D

Non-International Baccalaureate Program Teacher Survey

Demographic Information:

1. What is your gender? _______

2. How many years have you been teaching? _______

3. If you have previously taught at an IB school, how many years IB experience do you have (Include years taught during candidacy)? _______

4. What is your highest level of IB Training?

1. No training
2. Level 1
3. Level 2
4. Level 3

In the next section, please indicate your opinion using the following scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

5. Since the implementation of the PYP in the district, my teaching philosophy

has become “more IB.”

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

6. International education is more important to me now than before the district implemented the PYP classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

7. In the future, public schools will adopt PYP practices into their own schools.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

8. Being a non – PYP school has increased my confidence as a teacher.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

9. The PYP has influenced my philosophy of education.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

10. I see my students’ need for international understanding differently because my district has implemented the PYP.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

11. As a teacher in a non-PYP classroom I will be better prepared for the future of my

profession than PYP teachers.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

12. Teaching at a non-PYP school has increased my excitement for teaching.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

13. The changes I made in my classroom exceed the expectations of the PYP classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

14. Since implementing the PYP in my district, I feel a greater need to prepare

my students for an international world.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

15. I see the future of education differently because of the PYP in

my district.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

16. I feel like my students are learning more because we have not implemented the PYP in my school.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

17. Since we have not implemented the PYP in my classroom, I think differently about what is best for my students.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

18. Even though we have not implemented the PYP in my classroom, I am still aware of my students’ needs for cultural awareness and adaptability.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

19. As a result of not implementing the PYP in my classroom, I envision my classroom evolving more in the future than I would have otherwise.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

20. My career is more fulfilling because I do not teach in a PYP school.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

21. My philosophy of education involves more inquiry and less rote-memorization

than an IB PYP school.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

22. Teachers in a PYP classroom are not preparing their students for an

international world as well as I am.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

23. In 10 years, more schools in my district will be offering PYP to their students.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

24. I feel like I accomplish more in my classroom than teachers in a PYP classroom.

          1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

25. I am more passionate about my philosophy of education now than teachers in a PYP classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

26. I wish more schools in my district were offering the PYP to their students.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

27. My work is more important to me now that I teach in a non-PYP classroom.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly Agree

28. In 25 words or less, do you believe that within the next 10 years more teachers around the world will incorporate PYP practices into their classrooms? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29. In 25 words or less explain how you accomplish more in your classroom than teachers in a PYP classroom. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30. In 25 words or less explain how your classroom philosophy differs from that of a PYP teacher. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________