1. Preparing to Facilitate Mathematics Professional Development: Aiming for Alignment Between the Program and the Facilitator Nanette Seago Karen Koellner Jennifer Jacobs WestEd Hunter College CU-Boulder

2. 2 Facilitating Professional Development Four elements of a professional development system (Borko, 2004) The dynamic relationship between a facilitator, the teachers and context, and the critical features of a PD program What influences the adaptations a facilitator makes and how do they play out in the PD?

3. Learning and Teaching Geometry PD NSF Funded Project ( #0732757) Built around authentic video clips (3-6 minutes) Uses “video in the middle” design: – Before and after teachers watch each clip there are activities designed to ensure that the teachers engage deeply with the mathematics content and the focal instructional components Highly-specified PD materials: – Specify in advance learning trajectory and goals – Make explicit design characteristics – Provide extensive supports and resources for facilitators (both mathematical and pedagogical)

4. 4 LTG Efficacy Study New NSF-funded project (#1503399). Explores whether the LTG PD program produces a beneficial impact on teachers’ mathematical knowledge, classroom teaching practices, and their students’ knowledge in the domain of geometry. Randomized experimental design, 140 mathematics teachers (grades 6-12) Intervention: Summer 2016—Week-long institute (30 hours of PD); 24 hours of academic year PD (2016-2017) Research questions in year one: – What is the preparation needed for a facilitator to enact a PD with fidelity? – What is the relationship between adaptions and fidelity?

5. 5 Defining Fidelity of PD Implementation The degree to which a facilitator adheres to the goals of the PD program and adapts to the participants ‘ and/or context as needed, while maintaining the integrity of the PD design (Borko, 2004; Seago, Jacobs & Koellner, 2016)

6. 6 Preparing Knowledgeable Facilitators As part of the process of learning to facilitate the LTG PD with fidelity, the facilitator participated in two phases of preparation over 8 months: Phase I (Preparation Phase): Individually studied the PD materials, session by session, and then discussed each session with the co- PIs/ PD developers Phase II (Rehearsal Phase): Rehearsal facilitation observed by co-PIs in order to document fidelity and adaptations.

7. Preparation Phase Results: Alignments & Tensions 1.Alignment with the LTG PD intent: 1.Transformations-based approach to similarity 2.Facilitating discussions using video 2.Tensions with the LTG PD intent: 1.Geometric relationships and measurements 2.Using tracing paper as a tool for problem- solving

8. Rehearsal Phase Results: Adaptations & Fidelity 1. Adaptations to the PD structure – Timing adjustments 2. Adaptations to the PD content – Made explicit mathematical connections – Introduced a specific reference (inspection method) 3. Fidelity to learning goals – Perfect fidelity of implementation scores

9. 9 Emerging Questions How should we measure fidelity of PD implementation? What are productive adaptations and how can we categorize them? How can we apply what we have learned about preparing PD facilitators to a larger scale? How can we generalize what we have learned? What are the contextual influences?