Transcript FOCUSED RECRUITING

Mid-State
Mathematics
Partnership
Excellence in Teaching and
Learning in Middle Schools
Dovie Kimmins, Ed.D.
E. Ray Phillips, Ph.D.
Tennessee Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education Center
Project Directors



Mary B. Martin, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics
Dovie L. Kimmins, Ed.D., Associate Professor of
Mathematics
E. Ray Phillips, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics and
Director of TMSTEC
Middle Tennessee State University
Project Funded by TN Department of Education
(Scott Eddins, Ed.D., TN Mathematics
Coordinator)
LEA Partners

Partners: Grundy,
Cannon, Coffee,
Hamilton, Lebanon City,
Marshall, Murfreesboro
City, Tullahoma City,
Rutherford, Williamson
(180 teachers over 3
years)
Session Overview



Project Development
Project Implementation
Project Evaluation
Theoretical Design of PD
Guided the development, implementation and
evaluation of the pd
Theoretical Design of PD






Enhanced math content knowledge
Enhanced skills in teaching math
Enhanced confidence in the ability to teach math
to all students
LEADS TO
Enhanced instructional effectiveness
Enhanced student interest and motivation
Enhanced student learning in mathematics
Overriding Principle
Overall PD content, specific objectives for
each session, and the instructional
strategies utilized were designed to give
middle school teachers a more meaningful
understanding of the mathematics they are
teaching.
Format of the PD


Intensive residential two week summer
institute (one or two per summer)
Integrated follow-up during the following
academic year
Math Content Knowledge

Rigorous content based upon:
State and national standards
 Praxis exam middle school math objectives
 Needs assessment
 Research available


Integration of content and pedagogy
MSP Summer Institute
Instructional Strategies
Based upon
 Adult learning theory (Knowles, 1984; Brookfield,
1986; Kidd, 1983)
 National Staff Development Standards (NSDC,
2001)
 NCTM Professional Teaching and Curriculum
Standards (NCTM 1991, 2000)
 Research on best practices for prof dev (LoucksHorsley, 2003; Mewborn, 2003; Yeager, 2002;
Stein et al. 2000; Posamentier, 1998; Hilliard,
1997; Corcoran, 1995; Taylor, 1986)
Instructors…
Listen
Question
Demonstrate/illustrate
Communicate
Participate
Engage
Motivate
Support
Encourage
Observe
Clarify
Participants learn by
engaging in…
Hands-on Activities
Doing
Questioning
Discovering
Applying
Collaborating
Modeling
Problem Solving
Investigating
Testing/Verifying
Clarifying Misconceptions
Support During and Following
Institute









Tutorial
Technology (and stipend)
Collaborative work sessions
Instructional materials & overhead graphing calculator
Commitment from school districts
E-membership to NCTM
Consultation from TMSTEC and MSP workshop leaders
Preparation for middle school mathematics Praxis exam
Seminars on state curriculum & testing, using test results
to enhance instruction, best practices for helping
underrepresented groups to achieve their potential in
mathematics
Evaluation of the PD
Research Questions
•Did participation in the program enhance teachers’ content
knowledge?
•Did participation in the program enhance teachers’
teaching skills?
•Did teachers’ enhanced content knowledge and teaching
skills result in enhanced learning of their students?
Hypothesized Relationship Between PD and Student Learning
Enhanced Content
Knowledge

Utilized DTAMS (Diagnostic Teacher
Assessments in Math and Science) Tests


Developed and graded by the University of
Louisville Center for Research in Mathematics
and Science Teacher Development
Results show statistically significant increases
(alpha = .05) of overall test mean from pre to
post for all four summer institutes in 2006 and
2007 including

Statistically significant increases on the pedagogical
content knowledge subscore.
Probability/Statistics Summer 2006 Institute
DTAMS Middle School Probability and Statistics Test
N = 26
*Average Pre-test Score: 15.9 of 40
Average Post-test Score: 22.8 of 40
Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type:
*I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge
*II: Conceptual Understanding
*III: Reasoning/Problem Solving
*IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Breakdown of Above by Subject Type:
*Statistics
*Probability
Pre
5.7 of 10
5.1 of 10
2.8 of 10
2.3 of 10
Post____
7.4 of 10
7.2 of 10
4.5 of 10
3.8 of 10
9.1 of 20 11.7 of 20
6.8 of 20 11.2 of 20
*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test
Algebra Summer 2006 Institute
DTAMS Middle School Algebraic Ideas Test
N = 24
*Average Pre-test Score: 15.9 of 40
Average Post-test Score: 23.3 of 40
Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type:
*I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge
*II: Conceptual Understanding
*III: Reasoning/Problem Solving
*IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Breakdown of Above by Subject Type:
*Patterns/Functions/Relations:
*Expressions/Polynomials:
*Equations/Inequalities:
Pre
4.8 of 10
4.8 of 10
4.2 of 10
2.0 of 10
Post _
6.5 of 10
7.0 of 10
5.5 of 10
4.2 of 10
7.8 of 20 12.0 of 20
4.0 of 9 5.4 of 9
4.2 of 11 6.0 of 11
*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test
Geometry Summer 2007 Institute
DTAMS Middle School Geometry and Measurement Test
N = 29
*Average Pre-test Score: 16.6 of 40
Average Post-test Score: 22.0 of 40
Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type:
*I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge
*II: Conceptual Understanding
*III: Reasoning/Problem Solving
*IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Breakdown of Above by Subject Type:
*Two-Dimensional Geometry
* Three-Dimensional Geometry
Transformational Geometry
*Measurement
Pre
5.2 of 10
4.6 of 10
3.2 of 10
3.7 of 10
Post___
6.3 of 10
6.1 of 10
3.5 of 10
6.2 of 10
3.6 of 11
5.4 of 11
4.0 of 9
3.7 of 9
5.9 of 11
5.6 of 11
5.4 of 9
5.2 of 9
*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test
Probability/Statistics Summer 2007 Institute
DTAMS Middle School Probability and Statistics Test
N = 19
*Average Pre-test Score: 17.3 of 40
Average Post-test Score: 21.1 of 40
Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type:
I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge
II: Conceptual Understanding
III: Reasoning/Problem Solving
*IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Breakdown of Above by Subject Type:
Statistics
*Probability
Pre
6.6 of 10
5.1 of 10
2.9 of 10
2.7 of 10
Post___
7.2 of 10
5.5 of 10
3.8 of 10
4.5 of 10
7.6 of 20 8.7 of 20
9.7 of 20 12.4 of 20
*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test
Key:
Measuring Effect of PD on Student
Achievement
Before PD
After PD
20052006
2004-2005
NCE
Diff
20062007
20052006
Scores of
students in
participating
teachers’
current
classes
Previous years
scores for
these students
B NCEij  B PNCEij
Scores of
students in
participating
teachers’
current
classes
Previous years
scores for
these students
NCE11
BNCE12
.
.
.
NCE
B
21
.
.
.
BNCE31
.
.
.
NCE
B
20N
PNCE11
BPNCE12
.
.
.
PNCE
B
21
.
.
.
BPNCE31
.
.
.
PNCE
B
20N
B
NCE11
ANCE12
.
.
.
ANCE21
.
.
.
ANCE31
.
.
.
ANCE20M
B
A
xB
NCE
Diff
A
NCE ij  A PNCE
PNCE11
APNCE12
.
.
.
APNCE21
.
.
.
APNCE31
.
.
.
APNCE20M
A
xA
ij
*NCEij = NCE of
jth student in
teacher i’s class
*BNCE = NCE for
students in teachers
current classes
before pd
*BPNCE = the
previous year’s NCE
for these students
*ANCE = NCE for
students in teachers
current classes after
pd
*APNCE = the
previous years NCE
for these students
The instructional practices
and assessments discussed
or shown in this presentation
is not intended as an
endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Education.