NSF funded teachers of Grade 5-8

NSF funded teachers of Grade 5-8
Local fundraising supported teachers of Grades k-4 and 9-12 and the project eventually included IHE faculty as participants alongside classroom teachers. THE IMPACT OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Patty Lofgren, Mathematics Education Collaborative Bernadette Mullins, Birmingham-Southern College Rachel Cochran, Center for Educational Accountability Jason Fulmore, Center for Educational Accountability John Mayer, University of Alabama at Birmingham The Greater Birmingham Mathematics Partnership is funded by NSF awards DUE and DUE The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the NSF.

Does Professional Development Matter?
90 grade 6-8 teachers have taken a second course One of our core beliefs is that teachers need opportunities to learn for themselves in ways that fully model what we want for students in classrooms in order for them to teach in these ways. The old adage “we teach in the ways that we learned ourselves” so until teachers have authentic opportunities to learn for themselves in these ways, it is difficult for them to integrate these methodologies into their own practice. If this is true, then can we see significant growth in both the teaching practice and student learning in classrooms where teachers have had these opportunities to learn?

Professional Development
Challenging nine-day mathematics content courses Inquiry-based Expandable tasks Whole class processing Menu Multiple representations Group tasks Portfolios A core feature of our project are the intensive 9-day mathematics contents courses offered each summer. Bullets Note on Expandable tasks: We wanted to model meeting a range of learner needs, so the courses are structured to include kindergarten through 12th grade teachers (and beginning with this project, IHE faculty as well. The prerequisite course to all the others is our Patterns course, where we not only teach content, but also spend a great deal of time modeling best practices and making those practices transparent to the participants through their own experiences.

Challenging Mathematics Courses
Big mathematical ideas Productive disposition Inquiry and reflection Communication As a component of the NSF project, worked to consensus on our definition of Challenging Courses and Curricula. (National Academies). The goal - develop a doc that would identify common characteristics of ch. courses that would support course development and instructional decision-making at every level of the educational system from primary classrooms through university-level courses. Provides a framework for the work with teachers and administrators. -Teach for understanding. This refers to helping students achieve “an integrated and functional grasp of mathematical ideas.”([NRC]) This includes developing conceptual understanding, strategic competence, and procedural fluency, mathematical idea in context, coherent problems organized around a BMI, multiple representations of a mathematical idea. -Engage st. in inquiry,math as sense making process, justify their think, reflect, think critically about mathematical ideas/solutions, embrace dvrse ways o think -Help students develop perseverance, resourcefulness and confidence, become autonomous learners, create a safe, respectful learning environment. -Promote the development of mathematical language, value written commun. by asking students to explain their ideas in writing, value verbal commun. by asking individuals and groups to articulate their thinking, value the role of commun. in developing intellectual community in the classroom. Establish clear expectations for mathematical assignments.

Sample Task: Tile Stacks
“Use the tiles to build another step.” “Then write a description of what you “see” happening with the pattern.” (Collect descriptions of WIS – add name and record language on OHT) “In small groups, write a description of the 100th step that would let us know how many tiles we would need to build that step.” (Have several groups read) “In small groups, try to come up with an algebraic expression for XXX’s way of seeing” (rows of 4 and 2 on top – collect expressions) (Intro WIS Table, record stages and work to expression, then test) “Work together to make a WIS table and find an expression that represents the other ways of seeing” Collect expressions and reduce to show they are equivalent.

Whole Class Processing
Work to bring out multiple solution paths 90 grade 6-8 teachers have taken a second course Whole class processing helps participants see that there can be many different ways to solve a problem and by considering the relationships among the various solution paths, they can often understand the underlying relationships more deeply.

Menu A coherent collection of tasks
Organized around a big mathematical idea (e.g. linear patterns) Surrounds students with a mathematical concept Allows them to encounter ideas in multiple contexts Students choose who to work with or to work alone Students choose how long to work on a task Meets a range of learner needs Includes core tasks and dessert tasks Menu is a classroom management structure wherein students work on a: Bullets…

Menu Cowpens and Bullpens Tile Stacks #2 Polygon Perimeters
Increasing Pattern #1 Increasing Pattern #2 Increasing Pattern #3 Increasing Pattern #4 Increasing Pattern #5 Robbie the Robot So, after the some introductory work on linear patterns, such as Tile Stacks, student might work on menu of problems consisting of the tasks listed here that are non-hierarchical and non-sequential. We’ll take a look a a couple of them here, but won’t have time to actually do them – you do have them in your handout and we encourage you to give them a try later.

Cowpens The High Mountain Fencing Company is in the business of building cow pens. The company ships cow pens to all parts of the United States. To cut costs they have found a way to build pens using fencing sections. How many sections of fence would it take to hold 100 cows? 1,000? Any number? Depending on the group, we often have students begin this task in their Groups of 4, partially for support and partially for the opportunity to see the solution in more than one way, then move onto the menu in the fashion of their choice.

Bullpens The High Mountain Fencing Company is also in the business of building bull pens. However pens to hold more than one bull are constructed differently than cow pens. After they have completed Cowpens and are comfortable that they will be able to share their thinking with the class, they are introduced to Bullpens, which extends the Cowpens problem, is a bit more challenging and they are able to choose at that point to continue with their group or move on independently or with a partner. How many sections of fence would it take to hold 100 bulls? 1,000? Any number?

Tile Stacks #2 You can see that this task is similar to the one we worked on together, but is asking students to push themselves to show geometrically how their rule is working in the actual tiles. Build two more structures. How many cubes will each take? How many cubes for the 10th structure? Write an algebraic rule to find the number for any stage of growth. Define your variables. Show geometrically why your rule makes sense.

Polygon Perimeters If you lined up 100 triangles like this, what would the perimeter be? Assume that the length of one side of a triangle equals 1 unit. If you did the same for 100 squares, what would the perimeter be? For n squares? What about 100 hexagons lined up? What about n hexagons? Challenge: Can you find and describe the pattern (or function) for any regular polygon? What were we going to push on here????

Multiple Representations
Eventually, as participants become more comfortable with the notion of functional relationships, we work to help them understand the various ways which these relationships can be represented and to begin to move more fluidly between these relationships.

Group Tasks Leverage the value of social interaction (Piaget)
Are carefully selected to be worth working on collaboratively (filters) Participants follow “Groups of Four Rules” Example: Cuisenaire Rod Trains Benefits of ‘talking math’, sharing ideas, pushing on understandings, multiple ways of seeing the problems Is the task worthy of a being done in a group: shared labor, social interaction, robust/challenging enough that it would be difficult for many students to tackle alone or where the solution path is not obvious -Group of 4 Rules: Each member takes responsibility for his/her own learning Each member of the group is willing to help every other group member who asks for help Groups may only ask the teacher for help when all group members have the same question

Cuisenaire Rod Trains A train is any collection of Cuisenaire rods placed end to end: Any train that looks different is different: Task: As a group, pick three rods and make all of the possible trains that are the length of each rod. Record your results on chart paper or newsprint. *Can you find a way to determine all the possible trains for a rod of any length “n”? Again – you won’t have the chance to work on this now, but if and when you do sit down to tackle it, do realize that as it is a group task, it is a fairly robust task.

Portfolios Participant-selected pieces Instructor-selected pieces
Reflective writing Pre- and post-assessment tasks We want the courses to fully model assessment practices that we want to see in classrooms, so in addition to formative and summative assessments, participants assemble a course portfolio that includes… Pieces that they choose based on what they identify as most important to them with cover sheets explaining why; a selection the instructor chooses based on what best captures the big mathematical ideas in the course, reflective writing that addresses their experiences as learners, implications for classroom practice and goals for the coming school year assessment pieces

Challenging Mathematics Courses
Big mathematics ideas Productive disposition Inquiry and reflection Communication This is the slide where Patty wraps up and Bernie takes over. CCC serves to recap the discussion that Patty has led and also introduce all the assessment tools since they are all based on or chosen in light of CCC.

Repeated Observations of Participants
Center for Educational Accountability developed observation protocol based on challenging courses dimensions Patterns (N = 30) Day 1 Day 4 Day 8 Understanding of Mathematical Ideas uses variables to describe unknowns 13% 40% 97% explains why equations make sense geometrically 7% 30% 77% represents linear and quadratic equations in variety of ways 0% 17% 63% Productive Disposition persists when answer is not known 43% 93% asks for guidance but not answers 10% 87% tries variety of strategies for approaching problem 67% This is updated data from the annual report.

Repeated Observations of Participants
Patterns (N = 30) Day 1 Day 4 Day 8 Inquiry and Reflection makes extensions, connections beyond immediate problem 0% 17% 73% explores why it works and whether it will always work 7% 53% confusion and mistakes lead to further exploration 20% 67% 100% Communication explains reasoning fluently 80% asks probing questions 37% 93% shares ideas with class 40% 57% 97% This is updated data from the annual report.

Participant Surveys This course improved my mathematical skills and understanding. 88% strongly agree; 11% agree “I have been teaching public school for 25 consecutive years now. Taking the GBMP/MEC classes has completely changed for the better my own conceptual mathematical abilities and these courses have completely transformed how I teach math to my students. I am so much more of a confident, knowledgeable, and effective problem solver and teacher now than I have ever been before in my life!” “These courses are incredibly important! They provide me and other teachers with a way of deepening true understanding of mathematics, developing a positive disposition toward mathematical learning, and creating networks of support that will help as we begin to implement changes in instruction during the next school year.” Most teachers find that experiencing a challenging inquiry-based learning environment first-hand to be a transformational experience and report the desire to radically change their own classrooms to provide this type of experience for their students.

Portfolios: Patterns Participant-selected pieces, instructor-selected pieces, reflective writing Scored with CEA-developed rubric (based on CCC) Three raters; consensus-reaching Patterns (N = 20) Median Score Incomplete Score = 1 Emerging Score = 2 Proficient Score = 3 Expert Score = 4 Problem Translation 3 1 12 7 Mathematical Procedures 13 6 Productive Disposition 11 8 Inquiry and Reflection 2 Justification and Communication This is most recent data. It is from the annual report.

Performance Assessment: Patterns
MEC-developed assessment pre- and post- Scored with OR Department of Education Rubric Two raters; high inter-rater reliability A Wilcoxon signed ranked test showed statistically significant improvement This is the most recent data. It is from the annual report. Subsequent reports say a random sample was consistent. The descriptors for performance at the 2.0 level included underdeveloped, sketchy, ineffective, and unclear. Descriptors for performance at the 4.0 level included complete, adequate, relevant, explained, and supporting the solution. Inter-rater reliability over .7 on each dimension. Patterns N = 70 Conceptual Understanding Processes and Strategies Communication Accuracy Pre Post Median 2.0 4.0 5.0

Objective Test of Content Knowledge
Content Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics (CKTM) Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project (MI), Ball, et. al. Added items developed by Nanette Seago 31 items pre and post Pre-Post Results for Patterns (N = 314) 3-point increase in mean Effect size = .484; medium effect Longitudinal Results for Patterns (N = 35) Gains maintained and even increased over time The N, mean increase, effect size and longitudinal N are from the report. Effect size = (post score mean – pre score mean) / (standard deviation of pre scores) The upper half of the post-test score population exceeds 70% of the pre-test score population Bernie...I think we should be careful about saying we saw statistically significant improvement on the CKTM. We had an effect size that showed "medium" effects (according to a well respected statistics source...Cohen)—from Rachel. We use the 2005 CKMT items. Although the LMT items are grouped into scales according to the areas listed above, each of which has been extensively analyzed, the LMT project permits use of selected items to build scales better suited to particular circumstances. They do recommend, however, that when building the scales, attention be paid to the amount of test information provided by the scale. It was recommended that any scale developed achieve a test information value of at least 2 for ability levels between -2 and 2 to ensure that the scale has reasonable reliability. The 36- item scale developed jointly by MEC and the evaluation staff met this criterion and was, therefore, considered reliable enough to be used in the evaluation. For further evidence of reliability, a Cronbach alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency of the 36-item test. The test showed good internal consistency (alpha = .82).

Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol
Lesson Design and Implementation The instructional strategies and activities respected students’ prior knowledge and the preconceptions inherent therein This lesson encouraged students to seek and value alternative modes of investigation or of problem solving Propositional Knowledge The lesson involved fundamental concepts of the subject The lesson promoted strongly coherent conceptual understanding

Procedural Knowledge Students used a variety of mean to represent phenomena Students made predictions, estimations and/or hypotheses and devised means for testing them Students were actively engaged in thought-provoking activity that often involved the critical assessment of procedures Students were reflective about their learning Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism, and the challenging of ideas were valued

Communicative Interactions Students were involved in the communication of their ideas to others using a variety of means and media The teacher’s questions triggered divergent modes of thinking Student/Teacher Relationships The teacher acted as a resource person, working to support and enhance student investigations The metaphor “teacher as listener” was very characteristic of this classroom

RTOP Subscales (maximum of 20; two raters; N = 265) Courses Median Lesson Design and Implementation 1 2 3+ 8 12.5 8.75 Propositional Knowledge 9.75 13 11 Procedural Knowledge 0.5 8.25 12 Communicative Interaction 7 11.75 Student/Teacher Relationships 13.75 9 This is the most recent data. It is taken from the annual report. The number of courses taken is a statistically significant predictor of RTOP score. Sample (n=265): • No courses (n=53) • One course (n=66) • Two courses (n=78) • Three or more courses (n=68)

Student Achievement by Implementation Level 2006-2007
High Implementation: 100% participation at a grade level (at least one summer course by every teacher); we've observed 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored at least a 12.5 on each section of the RTOP (out of 20 possible, which translates to about 2.5 per item) Low Implementation: no participation; or participation and we've seen 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored 5 or below on each section of the RTOP Medium Implementation: everybody else 6 Systems using 2 methods for analysis (1) Repeated Measures ANOVA and (2) Calculation of Difference Score and a Univariate Analysis; both significant at p < .05 An estimated marginal mean (for the SAT-10 NCE) refers to a type of unweighted mean. When the sample sizes are not similar (like our high implementing group and our low implementing group), SPSS does a statistical adjustment that allows us to still compare them with fidelity...the mean is taken into consideration in relation to sample size, then they're all compared as if sample sizes were equal. Implementation Level 2006 Mean Std Dev 2007 Mean N High 57.0 21.4 60.3 22.2 1097 Moderate 55.4 21.2 56.4 21.6 6704 Low 56.6 20.8 55.0 21.3 15022 Total 56.2 20.9 55.7 22823

High Implementation: 100% participation at a grade level (at least one summer course by every teacher); we've observed 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored at least a 12.5 on each section of the RTOP (out of 20 possible, which translates to about 2.5 per item) Low Implementation: no participation; or participation and we've seen 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored 5 or below on each section of the RTOP Medium Implementation: everybody else 6 Systems using 2 methods for analysis (1) Repeated Measures ANOVA and (2) Calculation of Difference Score and a Univariate Analysis; both significant at p < .05 An estimated marginal mean (for the SAT-10 NCE) refers to a type of unweighted mean. When the sample sizes are not similar (like our high implementing group and our low implementing group), SPSS does a statistical adjustment that allows us to still compare them with fidelity...the mean is taken into consideration in relation to sample size, then they're all compared as if sample sizes were equal. Implementation Level 2007 Mean Std Dev 2008 Mean N High 57.1 21.1 60.0 21.0 3305 Moderate 55.1 20.8 20.9 6215 Low 57.8 56.4 14506 Total 57.0 56.5 24026

Student Achievement w/o High SES
High Implementation: 100% participation at a grade level (at least one summer course by every teacher); we've observed 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored at least a 12.5 on each section of the RTOP (out of 20 possible, which translates to about 2.5 per item) Low Implementation: no participation; or participation and we've seen 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored 5 or below on each section of the RTOP Medium Implementation: everybody else 6 Systems using 2 methods for analysis (1) Repeated Measures ANOVA and (2) Calculation of Difference Score and a Univariate Analysis; both significant at p < .05 An estimated marginal mean (for the SAT-10 NCE) refers to a type of unweighted mean. When the sample sizes are not similar (like our high implementing group and our low implementing group), SPSS does a statistical adjustment that allows us to still compare them with fidelity...the mean is taken into consideration in relation to sample size, then they're all compared as if sample sizes were equal. Implementation Level 2007 Mean Std Dev 2008 Mean N High 54.4 20.4 57.1 20.2 2886 Moderate 54.5 20.6 6070 Low 56.6 55.2 13811 Total 55.8 20.5 55.3 22767

High Implementation: 100% participation at a grade level (at least one summer course by every teacher); we've observed 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored at least a 12.5 on each section of the RTOP (out of 20 possible, which translates to about 2.5 per item) Low Implementation: no participation; or participation and we've seen 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored 5 or below on each section of the RTOP Medium Implementation: everybody else 6 Systems using 2 methods for analysis (1) Repeated Measures ANOVA and (2) Calculation of Difference Score and a Univariate Analysis; both significant at p < .05 An estimated marginal mean (for the SAT-10 NCE) refers to a type of unweighted mean. When the sample sizes are not similar (like our high implementing group and our low implementing group), SPSS does a statistical adjustment that allows us to still compare them with fidelity...the mean is taken into consideration in relation to sample size, then they're all compared as if sample sizes were equal. Implementation Level 2008 Mean Std Dev 2009 Mean N High 59.5 20.7 61.6 21.3 3620 Moderate 54.6 20.2 54.8 20.4 7217 Low 57.7 57.1 8537 Total 20.5 20.8 24872

Phase II Student Achievement by Implementation Level 2009-2010
High Implementation: 100% participation at a grade level (at least one summer course by every teacher); we've observed 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored at least a 12.5 on each section of the RTOP (out of 20 possible, which translates to about 2.5 per item) Low Implementation: no participation; or participation and we've seen 30% of teachers at a grade level, and they scored 5 or below on each section of the RTOP Medium Implementation: everybody else 6 Systems using 2 methods for analysis (1) Repeated Measures ANOVA and (2) Calculation of Difference Score and a Univariate Analysis; both significant at p < .05 An estimated marginal mean (for the SAT-10 NCE) refers to a type of unweighted mean. When the sample sizes are not similar (like our high implementing group and our low implementing group), SPSS does a statistical adjustment that allows us to still compare them with fidelity...the mean is taken into consideration in relation to sample size, then they're all compared as if sample sizes were equal. Implementation Level 2009 Mean Std Dev 2010 Mean N High 53.8 19.6 56.9 19.9 1221 Moderate 58.5 20.9 58.7 21.1 2441 Low 57.7 20.4 56.7 20.2 4255 Total 57.3 20.5 57.4 7917

Contact Information Greater Birmingham Mathematics Partnership Patty Lofgren Bernadette Mullins

THE IMPACT OF TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Patty Lofgren, Mathematics Education Collaborative, Bernadette Mullins, Birmingham-Southern College, Rachel Cochran, Center for Educational Accountability Jason Fulmore, Center for Educational Accountability John Mayer, University of Alabama at Birmingham The Greater Birmingham Mathematics Partnership is funded by NSF awards DUE and DUE The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the NSF.

NSF funded teachers of Grade 5-8

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NSF funded teachers of Grade 5-8"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

NSF funded teachers of Grade 5-8

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NSF funded teachers of Grade 5-8"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback