1. Improving Teacher Quality Grants, Cycle 5: External Evaluation Report December 8 th, 2008 University of Missouri Evaluation Team

2. Principal Investigators Sandra Abell Fran Arbaugh Mark Ehlert John Lannin Rose Marra Graduate Research Assistants Kristen Hutchins Ya-Wen Cheng Michele Lee Dominike Merle S. Rená Smith

3. Context of the Evaluation Improving Teacher Quality Grant program, Cycle 5, 2007-2008 –Focus on high-need schools (Title II) –6 funded professional development projects –Science and mathematics, grades 4-8 –Formative and summative evaluation

4. Funded Projects Project Title Higher Education Institution; Principal Investigator Grade Level; Content Focus Project Year Making Science Accessible to 4-8 Grade Students though Inquiry and Literacy Lincoln University; Dr. SahaGrades 4-9; Science1 of 1 Stimulating Inquiry in Math and Science: Developing a Math/Science Community Missouri Southern; Dr. Messick Grades 4-8; Mathematics and Science 3 of 3 Science and Mathematics Achievement from Rural Teachers Missouri State; Dr. Plymate Grades 4-8; Mathematics and Science 2 of 3 Physics for Elementary and Middle School Teachers: Constructing an Understanding of Physics Rockhurst; Dr. Hegarty Grades 4-8; Science and Mathematics 2 of 3 Scaffolding Authentic Learning by Inquiry: A Field- Based Project for Middle School University of Central Missouri; Dr. Sarkar Grades 6-8; Science3 of 3 Science Education and Quantitative Literacy: An Integrated, Inquiry-Based Approach University of Missouri-Rolla; Dr. Samaranayake Grades 7-8; Mathematics and Science 3 of 3

5. Participant Summary 170 participants: 155 teachers, 6 pre-service teachers, 1 paraprofessional, and 8 administrators; More taught mathematics and/or science at the end of Cycle 5 than at the beginning; Only 17.9% were new to the ITQG program; Taught in 64 different Missouri school districts, and 4 private schools; Directly impacted 13,282 students in the 2007-2008 school year.

6. Percentage of Participants from High-Need Districts

7. Model of PD Evaluation

8. ITQG Objectives Improve teacher pedagogical knowledge and practices in inquiry-based instruction Enhance teacher use of assessment Increase teacher content knowledge Improve student achievement Impact pre-service teacher education in higher education institutions

9. Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry From the Cycle 5 RFP: Improve teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices that utilize scientifically-based research findings and best practices in inquiry- based instruction.

10. Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry

12. Models for Inquiry Learning Cycle (Lincoln) Curriculum Specific (Rockhurst) 3 Principles of Learning (MSSU)

13. Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry What aspects of instructional practice were emphasized in your project? What other aspects of instructional practice should be considered?

14. Teacher Assessment Knowledge From the Cycle 5 RFP: Enhance teachers’ use of assessment to monitor the effectiveness of their instruction

15. Teacher Assessment Knowledge

16. What aspects assessment practices were emphasized in your project? What other aspects of assessment should be emphasized?

17. Teacher Content Knowledge  Content Knowledge Test Results  Survey Items Level of Knowledge in Targeted Topics Relevance of Growth in Content Knowledge Confidence in Content Knowledge

18. Results of Teacher Knowledge Tests

19. Teachers ’ Ratings of Growth in Content Knowledge

20. Ratings of Relevance in Gains in Content Knowledge

21. Teacher Ratings of Confidence in Content Knowledge

22.  Teacher ratings of PD influence on student learning  Teacher developed and administered pre- and post-tests  MAP exam results Science Levels Math Levels Math Gains Student Achievement

23. Perceptions of How Change in Practice from PD Improved Student Learning

24. Average Student Performance on Tested Science and Math Content

25. Percent Proficient on MAP Science Exams

26. Percent Proficient on MAP Math Exams

27. Changes in MAP Math Proficiency for Same Student Cohorts

28. Impact on Higher Education Inclusion of pre-service teachers in PD (e.g., Rockhurst) Development of new courses for pre-service teachers (e.g., MSU) Changes to current curriculum and instruction (e.g., MSSU) Plans to develop a university Science Education Center (e.g., Lincoln) Renewed partnerships with K-12 (e.g., Rockhurst NSF grant proposal)

29. Cycle 7 Evaluation—Next Steps? What is missing in the evaluation? What else should we ask? What other suggestions for the evaluation do you have?

30. Questions Copies of the Cycle 5 Report and Executive Summary available at: www.pdeval.missouri.edu