Professional Development in Challenged Environments A Model for Effective PD.

of 22 /22
Professional Professional Development in Development in Challenged Challenged Environments Environments A Model for Effective PD A Model for Effective PD

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Professional Development in Challenged Environments A Model for Effective PD.

  • Professional Development in Challenged EnvironmentsA Model for Effective PD

  • The DistrictsDistrict A3 elementary schools1 middle school1 high school62% primary language not EnglishDistrict B3 elementary schools1 middle school (closed)1 high school1 career/alternative high school2 homeless shelters

    90%+ socio-economically disadvantaged student body

  • Year 1 Math InstituteClosed middle schoolNovember re-organization, layoffs4 New PrincipalsSubstitutes in many classrooms

  • Year 2 Math Institute4 New principalsDistrict starts school for 300 ELL studentsJanuary school closingSuperintendent leavesCurriculum director leaves

  • Year 3 Math Institute2 New principalsClose school disperse ELL studentsReorganize from 1-5, 6-8 to 1-6, 7-8Pink slip teachers

  • Year 4 Math Institute

    4 New principalsCurriculum director leavesSuperintendent leavesTake in 300 students from alternative discipline charter high school

  • Results: ImplementationEffect Size

    Culture 0.80Implementation 1.62Content 1.95Overall 1.79

    Chart6

    3.55.3

    3.75.5

    45.5

    4.25.8

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Total Score (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results (n=28)

    Sheet1

    lmt

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    41.457.1

    mttc

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Statistics and Probability46.246.2

    Geometry56.760

    Algebra40.845.8

    Total45.851.5

    lmt

    needs checking

    PretestPosttest

    Institute Teachers13.318.3

    Comparison Group16.617.8

    mttc and comparison group

    growth scores

    ComparisonPM3

    Statistics and Probability00.06

    Geometry0.3440.23

    Algebra-0.1560.74

    Total0.3131.5

    sampi resuls

    Fall 2004

    Overall Rating3.5Spring 2006

    Content3.75.3

    Implementation45.5

    Culture4.25.5

    5.8

    hamtramck sampi

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Overall Rating3.45.3

    Content3.65.3

    Implementation45.4

    Culture4.15.6

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics4.66

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.65.7

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.34.8

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute3.65.6high park

    3.Students show respect for each other45.6

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas4.36.1Fall 2004Spring 2006

    1.Active participation of all students4.46Overall Rating3.55.8

    Content3.95.8

    Implementation45.7

    Culture4.36.2

    Content sampi

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    8.Teacher incorporates abstractions2.9

    7.Lesson used real-world applications3.15.3

    6.Teacher connected this lesson to other areas2.84.7

    5.Teacher connected this lesson to previous lessons3.35.1

    4.Teacher understood content of the lesson4.35.2

    3.Math portrayed as dynamic body of knowledge2.85.8

    2.Students intellectually engaged with important ideas3.55.3

    1.Mathematics content was important & worthwhile4.55.7

    6.2

    Implementation

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7. Adequate time for wrap-up and closure3.25

    6. Adequate time for reflection3.45.2

    5.Student-student interactions productive3.44.8

    4.Appropriate pace3.75.7

    3.Teacher has effective management style4.15.7

    2.Student-teacher interactions probing & substantive3.25.6

    1.Teacher appears confident4.36.2

    star math

    lmt

    ComparisonPM3

    Pre-test55.147.8

    Post-test57.158.2

    STUDENT MOTIVATION

    These are for WISD. PM3 in another file

    Fall 2005 (n=106)Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Usefulness4.34.5

    Confidence4.24.3

    Motivation3.83.7

    meap

    percent met or exceeded

    all students

    All Students (n=429)Non-Special Ed (n=367)

    Total Math4854Special Ed (n=62)

    15

    by strand all students

    points

    2005 (n=429)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.22003

    Numerical Operations2.5

    Number Sense2.5

    Data Analysis7.1

    Geometry & Measurement3.5

    Patterns & Functions5.2

    non special education

    2005 (n=367)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.42003

    Numerical Operations2.6

    Number Sense2.6

    Data Analysis7.3

    Geometry & Measurement3.6

    Patterns & Functions5.4

    special education

    2005 (n=62)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math1.32003

    Numerical Operations1.8

    Number Sense1.9

    Data Analysis5.7

    Geometry & Measurement2.9

    Patterns & Functions3.8

    MEAP trends

    Percent met or exceeded

    whole grade

    200520042003

    Pct met or exceeded48.350.740.3

    SEC page 4

    Moderate or Considerable

    Time longitudinal groupdone

    20042006

    25.Watch teacher demonstrate how to solve a problem7110

    26.Read about math in books, magazines, articles1065

    27.Take notes from lectures or the textbook2142

    28.Do computations on a worksheet or from textbook6723

    29.Present or demo problem solutions to whole class487

    30.Use manipulatives or equipment643

    31.Work individually on math problems6413

    32.Work in pairs on math problems593

    33.Do a math activity outside classroom761

    34.Use computers, calculators, other technology4319

    35.Maintain a math portfolio of their own work1861

    36.Take a quiz or test5510

    SEC page 5

    Re individual work longitudinal group

    20042006

    37.Solve word problems from text or worksheet4852

    38.Solve non-routine math problems3026

    39.Explain their reasoning or thinking3036

    40.Apply math to real-world concepts4348

    41.Make estimates, predictions, hypotheses3645

    42.Analyze data to make inferences or conclusion3039

    213

    44.Complete proofs or demos of their reasoning1419

    SEC page 3 bottom half

    homework

    Moderate or Considerable defined as 26 percent or more of homework for yeardone

    20042006

    18.Do computational exercise from text/worksheet6655

    19.Solve word problems from text/worksheet4658

    20.Explaining reasoning in solving a problem3429

    21.Work on a demonstration/proof of their math work2726

    22.Collect data as part of math homework1623

    23.Work on a project taking more than 1 week to do1423

    24.Solve novel or non-routine math problems713

    SEC page 6

    pairs or small groups

    20042006

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet3445

    46.Solve non-routine math problems2336

    47.Talk about math reasoning363

    48.Apply math to real-word problems3210

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses2723

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions3032

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve1258

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning2052

    SEC page 7 top half

    hands-on materials

    20042006

    53.Work with manipulatives4877

    54.Measure objects using tools such as rulers4868

    55.Build models or charts3455

    56.Collect data by counting, observing, surveying3442

    57.Present information using manipulatives3658

    SEC page 7 bottom half

    CALCULATORS, COMPUTERS

    20042006

    58.Learn facts4132

    59.Practice procedures4539

    60.Use sensors and probes06

    61.Retrieve or exchange data, information716

    62.Display and analyze data3026

    63.Develop geometric concepts2024

    SEC page 8 top; do a table

    SEC page 8 bottom

    Influences: somewhat positive or strong positive influence

    20042006

    72.Your state's curriculum framework8994

    73.Your district's curriculum framework/guidelines6662

    74.Textbook/instructional materials7771

    75.State tests or results6890

    76.District tests or results5568

    77.National math education standards5765

    78.Your experience in pre-service preparation5771

    79.Students' special needs7781

    80.Parents/community2523

    81.Preparation of students for the next grade7394

    pag3 9 top

    prep: well prepared or very well prepared

    20042006

    82.Teach math at your assigned level66.692

    83.Integrate math with other subjects33.464

    84.Provide math instruction by content standards5087

    85.Use a variety of assessment strategies41.687

    86.Teach problem-solving strategies41.684

    87.Teach math with manipulatives5094

    88.Teach students with physical disabilities66.739

    89.Teach classes with students of diverse abilities83.374

    90.Teach math to students from different backgrounds58.348

    91.Teach math to ELL students8.381

    page9 bottom

    teacher opinions: Agree or Strongly Agree

    20042006

    92.Students learn math best when asking questions8081

    93.It's important for students to learn basics before solving problems6171

    94.I am supported by colleagues to try out new ideas6681

    95.I am required to follow rules that conflict with my judgment3029

    96.Math teachers here regularly observe each other713

    97.Math teachers here trust each other5055

    98.It's OK here to discuss feelings with other math teachers5971

    99.Math teachers respect other teachers who take the lead5265

    100.It's okay here to discuss feelings with the principal3452

    101.The principal takes personal interest in the PD of teachers4142

    SEC page 10

    PD Activities in math ed

    do a table

    SEC page 11 top

    PD ed sometimes or often

    20042006

    112.Observed demonstrations of teaching3461

    113.Led group discussions2542

    114.Developed curricula or lessons plans with review3955

    115.Reviewed student work or scored assessments5981

    116.Developed assessments or tasks as part of PD3071

    117.Practiced what you learned and received feedback as PD3871

    118.Received coaching/mentoring in the classroom1861

    119.Given a lecture or presentation to colleagues1829

    SEC page 11 bottom

    PD last year: Sometimes or Often

    20042006

    120.Supported the SI plan adopted by your school2558

    121.Consistent with your math department/grade level plan5581

    122.Consistent with your own goals for PD5790

    123.Based explicitly on earlier learning4581

    124.Based on what you had learned in earlier PD4387

    SEC top page 12

    How PD Yes answers

    20042006

    125.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my school5742

    126.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my grade/dept6887

    127.I participated in PD NOT attended by other staff at my school5545

    128.I discussed my learning with others NOT attending the activity5271

    SEC page 12 bottom

    Combine moderate and great

    treatmt

    20042006

    129.State math content standards6171

    130.Alignment of math instruction to curriculum6888

    131.Instructional approaches6490

    132.In-depth study of math or concepts within math5794

    133.Study of how children learn certain math topics4577

    134.Individual differences in student learning3971

    135.Meeting learning needs of special student populations3637

    136.Classroom math assessment5058

    137.State/district math assessment5761

    138.Interpretation of assessment data for use in instruction4165

    139.Technology to support student learning in math3474

    LMT Subtest Scores

    number correct

    20042005

    Numbers and Operations56.965

    Algebra6778.7

    Geometry7282.7

    NOTE: Number of items in each subscale: Numbers and Operations 26, Algebra 30, and Geometry 15. Pretest and posttest n=12.

    mttc with comparison group

    Pre-testPost-test

    Treatment Teachers22

    Comparison Teachers100100

    MEAP

    HP

    Percent met or exceeded: Math0

    District

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 421.635.246.7

    Grade 85.722.819

    Ham overall math

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Kosciuszko Middle17.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 442.760.751.2

    Grade 817.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Dickinson East45.25745.8

    Dickinson West39.14340.3

    Holbrook40.352.287.8

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Barber11.527.634.1

    Cortland16.345.860

    Ford Academy31.441.434.4

    Liberty Focus7.17.1

    Sheet1

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Percent

    Michigan Teacher Certification Test Adapted Form: Pre and Post Program Results

    Sheet2

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Total Score (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results (n=28)

    Sheet3

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Content of the Lesson

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Implementation of the Lesson

    0

    0

    0

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    2005 MEAP Mathematics Performance: Comparison of School Groups

    0

    0

    0

    Pct met or exceeded

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    Lincoln Middle SchoolMEAP Mathematics Three-Year Trends

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Total Instructional Time Students Spend 2004 -2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    2004

    2006

    Time Involved in Activities Assigned for Outside of Class 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Work in Pairs or Small Groups2004-2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Use Hands-on Materials2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Are Using Technology: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Instructional Influences on Mathematics Teaching:2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Agree or Strongly Agree. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Opinions About Mathematics 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Frequency of Professional Development Activities: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Yes, they did participate. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Participation in Professional Development in Mathematics: 2004-2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate or Great. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Emphasis of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44;posttest = 31.

    2004

    2006

    Characteristics of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2005-2006

    00

    00

    00

    Items in Numbers and Operations = 26, Algebra = 30. Geometry = 15.

    2004

    2005

    Learning for Mathematics Teaching Subtest Scales Percent Correct (n=12): 2004-2005

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Treatment and Comparison Groups N's =12

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    Total MTTC Treatment and Comparison Teachers:Pre- and Post-Test Percent Correct

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest = 11.

    Fall 2005 (n=106)

    Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Mean Score (Scale 1-5, 5 High)

    Adapted Fenema-Sherman Mathematics Scales for Students: Fall 2005 - Spring 2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2004

    2006

    Percent of teachers responding from 25 - 50% of instructional time for the year

    Mathematics Instructional Time When Students Work Individually2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    2004

    2006

    Adequacy of Instructional Preparation 2004-2006

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Rating on Scale 1 = low to 7 = high

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Culture Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    * Number correct on 32-item test

    Institute Teachers

    Comparison Group

    Number Correct

    LMT Pre-Post Test Performance with Comparison Group*

    Comparison

    PM3

    Number of Items

    MTTC Mean Pre-Posttest Change PM3 and Comparison Group

    Percent Correct

    PM3 Teacher Percent Improvement in Performance on the LMT: Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Scale (1=low, 7 = high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Hamtramck (n=18)

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Scale (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Highland Park (n=10)

    00

    00

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    LMT Pre- and Post-Test Performance: PM3 and Comparison Group

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003 - Winter 2005 Highland Park Schools

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003-Winter 2005 Hamtramck School District

    000

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Hamtramck Elementary Schools

    000

    000

    000

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Highland Park Schools

  • Results: Math PedagogyEffect Size = 0.75

    Chart3

    41.4

    57.1

    Percent Correct

    PM3 Teacher Percent Improvement in Performance on the LMT: Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    Sheet1

    lmt

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    41.457.1

    mttc

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Statistics and Probability46.246.2

    Geometry56.760

    Algebra40.845.8

    Total45.851.5

    lmt

    needs checking

    PretestPosttest

    Institute Teachers13.318.3

    Comparison Group16.617.8

    mttc and comparison group

    growth scores

    ComparisonPM3

    Statistics and Probability00.06

    Geometry0.3440.23

    Algebra-0.1560.74

    Total0.3131.5

    sampi resuls

    Fall 2004

    Overall Rating3.5Spring 2006

    Content3.75.3

    Implementation45.5

    Culture4.25.5

    5.8

    hamtramck sampi

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Overall Rating3.45.3

    Content3.65.3

    Implementation45.4

    Culture4.15.6

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics4.66

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.65.7

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.34.8

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute3.65.6high park

    3.Students show respect for each other45.6

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas4.36.1Fall 2004Spring 2006

    1.Active participation of all students4.46Overall Rating3.55.8

    Content3.95.8

    Implementation45.7

    Culture4.36.2

    Content sampi

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    8.Teacher incorporates abstractions2.9

    7.Lesson used real-world applications3.15.3

    6.Teacher connected this lesson to other areas2.84.7

    5.Teacher connected this lesson to previous lessons3.35.1

    4.Teacher understood content of the lesson4.35.2

    3.Math portrayed as dynamic body of knowledge2.85.8

    2.Students intellectually engaged with important ideas3.55.3

    1.Mathematics content was important & worthwhile4.55.7

    6.2

    Implementation

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7. Adequate time for wrap-up and closure3.25

    6. Adequate time for reflection3.45.2

    5.Student-student interactions productive3.44.8

    4.Appropriate pace3.75.7

    3.Teacher has effective management style4.15.7

    2.Student-teacher interactions probing & substantive3.25.6

    1.Teacher appears confident4.36.2

    star math

    lmt

    ComparisonPM3

    Pre-test55.147.8

    Post-test57.158.2

    STUDENT MOTIVATION

    These are for WISD. PM3 in another file

    Fall 2005 (n=106)Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Usefulness4.34.5

    Confidence4.24.3

    Motivation3.83.7

    meap

    percent met or exceeded

    all students

    All Students (n=429)Non-Special Ed (n=367)

    Total Math4854Special Ed (n=62)

    15

    by strand all students

    points

    2005 (n=429)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.22003

    Numerical Operations2.5

    Number Sense2.5

    Data Analysis7.1

    Geometry & Measurement3.5

    Patterns & Functions5.2

    non special education

    2005 (n=367)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.42003

    Numerical Operations2.6

    Number Sense2.6

    Data Analysis7.3

    Geometry & Measurement3.6

    Patterns & Functions5.4

    special education

    2005 (n=62)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math1.32003

    Numerical Operations1.8

    Number Sense1.9

    Data Analysis5.7

    Geometry & Measurement2.9

    Patterns & Functions3.8

    MEAP trends

    Percent met or exceeded

    whole grade

    200520042003

    Pct met or exceeded48.350.740.3

    SEC page 4

    Moderate or Considerable

    Time longitudinal groupdone

    20042006

    25.Watch teacher demonstrate how to solve a problem7110

    26.Read about math in books, magazines, articles1065

    27.Take notes from lectures or the textbook2142

    28.Do computations on a worksheet or from textbook6723

    29.Present or demo problem solutions to whole class487

    30.Use manipulatives or equipment643

    31.Work individually on math problems6413

    32.Work in pairs on math problems593

    33.Do a math activity outside classroom761

    34.Use computers, calculators, other technology4319

    35.Maintain a math portfolio of their own work1861

    36.Take a quiz or test5510

    SEC page 5

    Re individual work longitudinal group

    20042006

    37.Solve word problems from text or worksheet4852

    38.Solve non-routine math problems3026

    39.Explain their reasoning or thinking3036

    40.Apply math to real-world concepts4348

    41.Make estimates, predictions, hypotheses3645

    42.Analyze data to make inferences or conclusion3039

    213

    44.Complete proofs or demos of their reasoning1419

    SEC page 3 bottom half

    homework

    Moderate or Considerable defined as 26 percent or more of homework for yeardone

    20042006

    18.Do computational exercise from text/worksheet6655

    19.Solve word problems from text/worksheet4658

    20.Explaining reasoning in solving a problem3429

    21.Work on a demonstration/proof of their math work2726

    22.Collect data as part of math homework1623

    23.Work on a project taking more than 1 week to do1423

    24.Solve novel or non-routine math problems713

    SEC page 6

    pairs or small groups

    20042006

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet3445

    46.Solve non-routine math problems2336

    47.Talk about math reasoning363

    48.Apply math to real-word problems3210

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses2723

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions3032

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve1258

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning2052

    SEC page 7 top half

    hands-on materials

    20042006

    53.Work with manipulatives4877

    54.Measure objects using tools such as rulers4868

    55.Build models or charts3455

    56.Collect data by counting, observing, surveying3442

    57.Present information using manipulatives3658

    SEC page 7 bottom half

    CALCULATORS, COMPUTERS

    20042006

    58.Learn facts4132

    59.Practice procedures4539

    60.Use sensors and probes06

    61.Retrieve or exchange data, information716

    62.Display and analyze data3026

    63.Develop geometric concepts2024

    SEC page 8 top; do a table

    SEC page 8 bottom

    Influences: somewhat positive or strong positive influence

    20042006

    72.Your state's curriculum framework8994

    73.Your district's curriculum framework/guidelines6662

    74.Textbook/instructional materials7771

    75.State tests or results6890

    76.District tests or results5568

    77.National math education standards5765

    78.Your experience in pre-service preparation5771

    79.Students' special needs7781

    80.Parents/community2523

    81.Preparation of students for the next grade7394

    pag3 9 top

    prep: well prepared or very well prepared

    20042006

    82.Teach math at your assigned level66.692

    83.Integrate math with other subjects33.464

    84.Provide math instruction by content standards5087

    85.Use a variety of assessment strategies41.687

    86.Teach problem-solving strategies41.684

    87.Teach math with manipulatives5094

    88.Teach students with physical disabilities66.739

    89.Teach classes with students of diverse abilities83.374

    90.Teach math to students from different backgrounds58.348

    91.Teach math to ELL students8.381

    page9 bottom

    teacher opinions: Agree or Strongly Agree

    20042006

    92.Students learn math best when asking questions8081

    93.It's important for students to learn basics before solving problems6171

    94.I am supported by colleagues to try out new ideas6681

    95.I am required to follow rules that conflict with my judgment3029

    96.Math teachers here regularly observe each other713

    97.Math teachers here trust each other5055

    98.It's OK here to discuss feelings with other math teachers5971

    99.Math teachers respect other teachers who take the lead5265

    100.It's okay here to discuss feelings with the principal3452

    101.The principal takes personal interest in the PD of teachers4142

    SEC page 10

    PD Activities in math ed

    do a table

    SEC page 11 top

    PD ed sometimes or often

    20042006

    112.Observed demonstrations of teaching3461

    113.Led group discussions2542

    114.Developed curricula or lessons plans with review3955

    115.Reviewed student work or scored assessments5981

    116.Developed assessments or tasks as part of PD3071

    117.Practiced what you learned and received feedback as PD3871

    118.Received coaching/mentoring in the classroom1861

    119.Given a lecture or presentation to colleagues1829

    SEC page 11 bottom

    PD last year: Sometimes or Often

    20042006

    120.Supported the SI plan adopted by your school2558

    121.Consistent with your math department/grade level plan5581

    122.Consistent with your own goals for PD5790

    123.Based explicitly on earlier learning4581

    124.Based on what you had learned in earlier PD4387

    SEC top page 12

    How PD Yes answers

    20042006

    125.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my school5742

    126.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my grade/dept6887

    127.I participated in PD NOT attended by other staff at my school5545

    128.I discussed my learning with others NOT attending the activity5271

    SEC page 12 bottom

    Combine moderate and great

    treatmt

    20042006

    129.State math content standards6171

    130.Alignment of math instruction to curriculum6888

    131.Instructional approaches6490

    132.In-depth study of math or concepts within math5794

    133.Study of how children learn certain math topics4577

    134.Individual differences in student learning3971

    135.Meeting learning needs of special student populations3637

    136.Classroom math assessment5058

    137.State/district math assessment5761

    138.Interpretation of assessment data for use in instruction4165

    139.Technology to support student learning in math3474

    LMT Subtest Scores

    number correct

    20042005

    Numbers and Operations56.965

    Algebra6778.7

    Geometry7282.7

    NOTE: Number of items in each subscale: Numbers and Operations 26, Algebra 30, and Geometry 15. Pretest and posttest n=12.

    mttc with comparison group

    Pre-testPost-test

    Treatment Teachers22

    Comparison Teachers100100

    MEAP

    HP

    Percent met or exceeded: Math0

    District

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 421.635.246.7

    Grade 85.722.819

    Ham overall math

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Kosciuszko Middle17.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 442.760.751.2

    Grade 817.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Dickinson East45.25745.8

    Dickinson West39.14340.3

    Holbrook40.352.287.8

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Barber11.527.634.1

    Cortland16.345.860

    Ford Academy31.441.434.4

    Liberty Focus7.17.1

    Sheet1

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Percent

    Michigan Teacher Certification Test Adapted Form: Pre and Post Program Results

    Sheet2

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Total Score (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results (n=28)

    Sheet3

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Content of the Lesson

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Implementation of the Lesson

    0

    0

    0

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    2005 MEAP Mathematics Performance: Comparison of School Groups

    0

    0

    0

    Pct met or exceeded

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    Lincoln Middle SchoolMEAP Mathematics Three-Year Trends

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Total Instructional Time Students Spend 2004 -2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    2004

    2006

    Time Involved in Activities Assigned for Outside of Class 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Work in Pairs or Small Groups2004-2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Use Hands-on Materials2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Are Using Technology: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Instructional Influences on Mathematics Teaching:2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Agree or Strongly Agree. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Opinions About Mathematics 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Frequency of Professional Development Activities: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Yes, they did participate. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Participation in Professional Development in Mathematics: 2004-2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate or Great. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Emphasis of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44;posttest = 31.

    2004

    2006

    Characteristics of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2005-2006

    00

    00

    00

    Items in Numbers and Operations = 26, Algebra = 30. Geometry = 15.

    2004

    2005

    Learning for Mathematics Teaching Subtest Scales Percent Correct (n=12): 2004-2005

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Treatment and Comparison Groups N's =12

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    Total MTTC Treatment and Comparison Teachers:Pre- and Post-Test Percent Correct

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest = 11.

    Fall 2005 (n=106)

    Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Mean Score (Scale 1-5, 5 High)

    Adapted Fenema-Sherman Mathematics Scales for Students: Fall 2005 - Spring 2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2004

    2006

    Percent of teachers responding from 25 - 50% of instructional time for the year

    Mathematics Instructional Time When Students Work Individually2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    2004

    2006

    Adequacy of Instructional Preparation 2004-2006

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Rating on Scale 1 = low to 7 = high

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Culture Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    * Number correct on 32-item test

    Institute Teachers

    Comparison Group

    Number Correct

    LMT Pre-Post Test Performance with Comparison Group*

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Comparison

    PM3

    Number of Items

    MTTC Mean Pre-Posttest Change PM3 and Comparison Group

    Percent Correct

    PM3 Teacher Percent Improvement in Performance on the LMT: Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Scale (1=low, 7 = high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Hamtramck (n=18)

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Scale (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Highland Park (n=10)

    00

    00

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    LMT Pre- and Post-Test Performance: PM3 and Comparison Group

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003 - Winter 2005 Highland Park Schools

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003-Winter 2005 Hamtramck School District

    000

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Hamtramck Elementary Schools

    000

    000

    000

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Highland Park Schools

  • Results: Growth in Math PedagogyEffect Size: Math Institute = 0.75 Comparison = 0.13

    Chart1

    13.316.6

    18.317.8

    * Number correct on 32-item test

    Institute Teachers

    Comparison Group

    Number Correct

    LMT Pre-Post Test Performance with Comparison Group*

    Sheet1

    lmt

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    41.457.1

    mttc

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Statistics and Probability46.246.2

    Geometry56.760

    Algebra40.845.8

    Total45.851.5

    lmt

    needs checking

    PretestPosttest

    Institute Teachers13.318.3

    Comparison Group16.617.8

    mttc and comparison group

    growth scores

    ComparisonPM3

    Statistics and Probability00.06

    Geometry0.3440.23

    Algebra-0.1560.74

    Total0.3131.5

    sampi resuls

    Fall 2004

    Overall Rating3.5Spring 2006

    Content3.75.3

    Implementation45.5

    Culture4.25.5

    5.8

    hamtramck sampi

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Overall Rating3.45.3

    Content3.65.3

    Implementation45.4

    Culture4.15.6

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics4.66

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.65.7

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.34.8

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute3.65.6high park

    3.Students show respect for each other45.6

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas4.36.1Fall 2004Spring 2006

    1.Active participation of all students4.46Overall Rating3.55.8

    Content3.95.8

    Implementation45.7

    Culture4.36.2

    Content sampi

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    8.Teacher incorporates abstractions2.9

    7.Lesson used real-world applications3.15.3

    6.Teacher connected this lesson to other areas2.84.7

    5.Teacher connected this lesson to previous lessons3.35.1

    4.Teacher understood content of the lesson4.35.2

    3.Math portrayed as dynamic body of knowledge2.85.8

    2.Students intellectually engaged with important ideas3.55.3

    1.Mathematics content was important & worthwhile4.55.7

    6.2

    Implementation

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7. Adequate time for wrap-up and closure3.25

    6. Adequate time for reflection3.45.2

    5.Student-student interactions productive3.44.8

    4.Appropriate pace3.75.7

    3.Teacher has effective management style4.15.7

    2.Student-teacher interactions probing & substantive3.25.6

    1.Teacher appears confident4.36.2

    star math

    lmt

    ComparisonPM3

    Pre-test55.147.8

    Post-test57.158.2

    STUDENT MOTIVATION

    These are for WISD. PM3 in another file

    Fall 2005 (n=106)Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Usefulness4.34.5

    Confidence4.24.3

    Motivation3.83.7

    meap

    percent met or exceeded

    all students

    All Students (n=429)Non-Special Ed (n=367)

    Total Math4854Special Ed (n=62)

    15

    by strand all students

    points

    2005 (n=429)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.22003

    Numerical Operations2.5

    Number Sense2.5

    Data Analysis7.1

    Geometry & Measurement3.5

    Patterns & Functions5.2

    non special education

    2005 (n=367)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.42003

    Numerical Operations2.6

    Number Sense2.6

    Data Analysis7.3

    Geometry & Measurement3.6

    Patterns & Functions5.4

    special education

    2005 (n=62)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math1.32003

    Numerical Operations1.8

    Number Sense1.9

    Data Analysis5.7

    Geometry & Measurement2.9

    Patterns & Functions3.8

    MEAP trends

    Percent met or exceeded

    whole grade

    200520042003

    Pct met or exceeded48.350.740.3

    SEC page 4

    Moderate or Considerable

    Time longitudinal groupdone

    20042006

    25.Watch teacher demonstrate how to solve a problem7110

    26.Read about math in books, magazines, articles1065

    27.Take notes from lectures or the textbook2142

    28.Do computations on a worksheet or from textbook6723

    29.Present or demo problem solutions to whole class487

    30.Use manipulatives or equipment643

    31.Work individually on math problems6413

    32.Work in pairs on math problems593

    33.Do a math activity outside classroom761

    34.Use computers, calculators, other technology4319

    35.Maintain a math portfolio of their own work1861

    36.Take a quiz or test5510

    SEC page 5

    Re individual work longitudinal group

    20042006

    37.Solve word problems from text or worksheet4852

    38.Solve non-routine math problems3026

    39.Explain their reasoning or thinking3036

    40.Apply math to real-world concepts4348

    41.Make estimates, predictions, hypotheses3645

    42.Analyze data to make inferences or conclusion3039

    213

    44.Complete proofs or demos of their reasoning1419

    SEC page 3 bottom half

    homework

    Moderate or Considerable defined as 26 percent or more of homework for yeardone

    20042006

    18.Do computational exercise from text/worksheet6655

    19.Solve word problems from text/worksheet4658

    20.Explaining reasoning in solving a problem3429

    21.Work on a demonstration/proof of their math work2726

    22.Collect data as part of math homework1623

    23.Work on a project taking more than 1 week to do1423

    24.Solve novel or non-routine math problems713

    SEC page 6

    pairs or small groups

    20042006

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet3445

    46.Solve non-routine math problems2336

    47.Talk about math reasoning363

    48.Apply math to real-word problems3210

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses2723

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions3032

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve1258

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning2052

    SEC page 7 top half

    hands-on materials

    20042006

    53.Work with manipulatives4877

    54.Measure objects using tools such as rulers4868

    55.Build models or charts3455

    56.Collect data by counting, observing, surveying3442

    57.Present information using manipulatives3658

    SEC page 7 bottom half

    CALCULATORS, COMPUTERS

    20042006

    58.Learn facts4132

    59.Practice procedures4539

    60.Use sensors and probes06

    61.Retrieve or exchange data, information716

    62.Display and analyze data3026

    63.Develop geometric concepts2024

    SEC page 8 top; do a table

    SEC page 8 bottom

    Influences: somewhat positive or strong positive influence

    20042006

    72.Your state's curriculum framework8994

    73.Your district's curriculum framework/guidelines6662

    74.Textbook/instructional materials7771

    75.State tests or results6890

    76.District tests or results5568

    77.National math education standards5765

    78.Your experience in pre-service preparation5771

    79.Students' special needs7781

    80.Parents/community2523

    81.Preparation of students for the next grade7394

    pag3 9 top

    prep: well prepared or very well prepared

    20042006

    82.Teach math at your assigned level66.692

    83.Integrate math with other subjects33.464

    84.Provide math instruction by content standards5087

    85.Use a variety of assessment strategies41.687

    86.Teach problem-solving strategies41.684

    87.Teach math with manipulatives5094

    88.Teach students with physical disabilities66.739

    89.Teach classes with students of diverse abilities83.374

    90.Teach math to students from different backgrounds58.348

    91.Teach math to ELL students8.381

    page9 bottom

    teacher opinions: Agree or Strongly Agree

    20042006

    92.Students learn math best when asking questions8081

    93.It's important for students to learn basics before solving problems6171

    94.I am supported by colleagues to try out new ideas6681

    95.I am required to follow rules that conflict with my judgment3029

    96.Math teachers here regularly observe each other713

    97.Math teachers here trust each other5055

    98.It's OK here to discuss feelings with other math teachers5971

    99.Math teachers respect other teachers who take the lead5265

    100.It's okay here to discuss feelings with the principal3452

    101.The principal takes personal interest in the PD of teachers4142

    SEC page 10

    PD Activities in math ed

    do a table

    SEC page 11 top

    PD ed sometimes or often

    20042006

    112.Observed demonstrations of teaching3461

    113.Led group discussions2542

    114.Developed curricula or lessons plans with review3955

    115.Reviewed student work or scored assessments5981

    116.Developed assessments or tasks as part of PD3071

    117.Practiced what you learned and received feedback as PD3871

    118.Received coaching/mentoring in the classroom1861

    119.Given a lecture or presentation to colleagues1829

    SEC page 11 bottom

    PD last year: Sometimes or Often

    20042006

    120.Supported the SI plan adopted by your school2558

    121.Consistent with your math department/grade level plan5581

    122.Consistent with your own goals for PD5790

    123.Based explicitly on earlier learning4581

    124.Based on what you had learned in earlier PD4387

    SEC top page 12

    How PD Yes answers

    20042006

    125.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my school5742

    126.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my grade/dept6887

    127.I participated in PD NOT attended by other staff at my school5545

    128.I discussed my learning with others NOT attending the activity5271

    SEC page 12 bottom

    Combine moderate and great

    treatmt

    20042006

    129.State math content standards6171

    130.Alignment of math instruction to curriculum6888

    131.Instructional approaches6490

    132.In-depth study of math or concepts within math5794

    133.Study of how children learn certain math topics4577

    134.Individual differences in student learning3971

    135.Meeting learning needs of special student populations3637

    136.Classroom math assessment5058

    137.State/district math assessment5761

    138.Interpretation of assessment data for use in instruction4165

    139.Technology to support student learning in math3474

    LMT Subtest Scores

    number correct

    20042005

    Numbers and Operations56.965

    Algebra6778.7

    Geometry7282.7

    NOTE: Number of items in each subscale: Numbers and Operations 26, Algebra 30, and Geometry 15. Pretest and posttest n=12.

    mttc with comparison group

    Pre-testPost-test

    Treatment Teachers22

    Comparison Teachers100100

    MEAP

    HP

    Percent met or exceeded: Math0

    District

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 421.635.246.7

    Grade 85.722.819

    Ham overall math

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Kosciuszko Middle17.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 442.760.751.2

    Grade 817.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Dickinson East45.25745.8

    Dickinson West39.14340.3

    Holbrook40.352.287.8

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Barber11.527.634.1

    Cortland16.345.860

    Ford Academy31.441.434.4

    Liberty Focus7.17.1

    Sheet1

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Percent

    Michigan Teacher Certification Test Adapted Form: Pre and Post Program Results

    Sheet2

    3.55.3

    3.75.5

    45.5

    4.25.8

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Total Score (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results (n=28)

    Sheet3

    2.95.3

    3.14.7

    2.85.1

    3.35.2

    4.35.8

    2.85.3

    3.55.7

    4.56.2

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Content of the Lesson

    3.25

    3.45.2

    3.44.8

    3.75.7

    4.15.7

    3.25.6

    4.36.2

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Implementation of the Lesson

    48

    54

    15

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    2005 MEAP Mathematics Performance: Comparison of School Groups

    48.3

    50.7

    40.3

    Pct met or exceeded

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    Lincoln Middle SchoolMEAP Mathematics Three-Year Trends

    7110

    1065

    2142

    6723

    487

    643

    6413

    593

    761

    4319

    1861

    5510

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Total Instructional Time Students Spend 2004 -2006

    6655

    4658

    3429

    2726

    1623

    1423

    713

    2004

    2006

    Time Involved in Activities Assigned for Outside of Class 2004-2006

    4877

    4868

    3455

    3442

    3658

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Work in Pairs or Small Groups2004-2006

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet

    46.Solve non-routine math problems

    46.Solve non-routine math problems

    47.Talk about math reasoning

    47.Talk about math reasoning

    48.Apply math to real-word problems

    48.Apply math to real-word problems

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning

    34

    45

    23

    36

    36

    3

    32

    10

    27

    23

    30

    32

    12

    58

    20

    52

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Use Hands-on Materials2004-2006

    4132

    4539

    06

    716

    3026

    2024

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Are Using Technology: 2004-2006

    8994

    6662

    7771

    6890

    5568

    5765

    5771

    7781

    2523

    7394

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Instructional Influences on Mathematics Teaching:2004-2006

    8081

    6171

    6681

    3029

    713

    5055

    5971

    5265

    3452

    4142

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Agree or Strongly Agree. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Opinions About Mathematics 2004-2006

    3461

    2542

    3955

    5981

    3071

    3871

    1861

    1829

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Frequency of Professional Development Activities: 2004-2006

    6171

    6888

    6490

    5794

    4577

    3971

    3637

    5058

    5761

    4165

    3474

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Yes, they did participate. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Participation in Professional Development in Mathematics: 2004-2006

    125.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my school

    125.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my school

    126.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my grade/dept

    126.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my grade/dept

    127.I participated in PD NOT attended by other staff at my school

    127.I participated in PD NOT attended by other staff at my school

    128.I discussed my learning with others NOT attending the activity

    128.I discussed my learning with others NOT attending the activity

    57

    42

    68

    87

    55

    45

    52

    71

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate or Great. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Emphasis of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2004-2006

    2558

    5581

    5790

    4581

    4387

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44;posttest = 31.

    2004

    2006

    Characteristics of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2005-2006

    56.965

    6778.7

    7282.7

    Items in Numbers and Operations = 26, Algebra = 30. Geometry = 15.

    2004

    2005

    Learning for Mathematics Teaching Subtest Scales Percent Correct (n=12): 2004-2005

    4852

    3026

    3036

    4348

    3645

    3039

    213

    1419

    NOTE: Treatment and Comparison Groups N's =12

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    Total MTTC Treatment and Comparison Teachers:Pre- and Post-Test Percent Correct

    Treatment Teachers

    Treatment Teachers

    Comparison Teachers

    Comparison Teachers

    2

    2

    100

    100

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest = 11.

    Fall 2005 (n=106)

    Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Mean Score (Scale 1-5, 5 High)

    Adapted Fenema-Sherman Mathematics Scales for Students: Fall 2005 - Spring 2006

    Usefulness

    Usefulness

    Confidence

    Confidence

    Motivation

    Motivation

    4.3

    4.5

    4.2

    4.3

    3.8

    3.7

    2004

    2006

    Percent of teachers responding from 25 - 50% of instructional time for the year

    Mathematics Instructional Time When Students Work Individually2004-2006

    66.692

    33.464

    5087

    41.687

    41.684

    5094

    66.739

    83.374

    58.348

    8.381

    2004

    2006

    Adequacy of Instructional Preparation 2004-2006

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Rating on Scale 1 = low to 7 = high

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Culture Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute

    3.Students show respect for each other

    3.Students show respect for each other

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas

    1.Active participation of all students

    1.Active participation of all students

    4.6

    6

    3.6

    5.7

    3.3

    4.8

    3.6

    5.6

    4

    5.6

    4.3

    6.1

    4.4

    6

    * Number correct on 32-item test

    Institute Teachers

    Comparison Group

    Number Correct

    LMT Pre-Post Test Performance with Comparison Group*

    Comparison

    PM3

    Number of Items

    MTTC Mean Pre-Posttest Change PM3 and Comparison Group

    Percent Correct

    PM3 Teacher Percent Improvement in Performance on the LMT: Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    3.45.3

    3.65.3

    45.4

    4.15.6

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Scale (1=low, 7 = high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Hamtramck (n=18)

    3.55.8

    3.95.8

    45.7

    4.36.2

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Scale (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Highland Park (n=10)

    55.157.1

    47.858.2

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    LMT Pre- and Post-Test Performance: PM3 and Comparison Group

    21.635.246.7

    5.722.819

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003 - Winter 2005 Highland Park Schools

    42.760.751.2

    17.739.545.5

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003-Winter 2005 Hamtramck School District

    45.25745.8

    39.14340.3

    40.352.287.8

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Hamtramck Elementary Schools

    11.527.634.1

    16.345.860

    31.441.434.4

    Liberty Focus7.17.1

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Highland Park Schools

  • Results: Math Content KnowledgeEffect Size:Total = 0.75Algebra = 0.32Geometry = 0.13Stats/Prob = 0.0

    Chart4

    46.246.2

    56.760

    40.845.8

    45.851.5

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Percent

    Michigan Teacher Certification Test Adapted Form: Pre and Post Program Results

    Sheet1

    lmt

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    41.457.1

    mttc

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Statistics and Probability46.246.2

    Geometry56.760

    Algebra40.845.8

    Total45.851.5

    lmt

    needs checking

    PretestPosttest

    Institute Teachers13.318.3

    Comparison Group16.617.8

    mttc and comparison group

    growth scores

    ComparisonPM3

    Statistics and Probability00.06

    Geometry0.3440.23

    Algebra-0.1560.74

    Total0.3131.5

    sampi resuls

    Fall 2004

    Overall Rating3.5Spring 2006

    Content3.75.3

    Implementation45.5

    Culture4.25.5

    5.8

    hamtramck sampi

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Overall Rating3.45.3

    Content3.65.3

    Implementation45.4

    Culture4.15.6

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics4.66

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.65.7

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.34.8

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute3.65.6high park

    3.Students show respect for each other45.6

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas4.36.1Fall 2004Spring 2006

    1.Active participation of all students4.46Overall Rating3.55.8

    Content3.95.8

    Implementation45.7

    Culture4.36.2

    Content sampi

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    8.Teacher incorporates abstractions2.9

    7.Lesson used real-world applications3.15.3

    6.Teacher connected this lesson to other areas2.84.7

    5.Teacher connected this lesson to previous lessons3.35.1

    4.Teacher understood content of the lesson4.35.2

    3.Math portrayed as dynamic body of knowledge2.85.8

    2.Students intellectually engaged with important ideas3.55.3

    1.Mathematics content was important & worthwhile4.55.7

    6.2

    Implementation

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7. Adequate time for wrap-up and closure3.25

    6. Adequate time for reflection3.45.2

    5.Student-student interactions productive3.44.8

    4.Appropriate pace3.75.7

    3.Teacher has effective management style4.15.7

    2.Student-teacher interactions probing & substantive3.25.6

    1.Teacher appears confident4.36.2

    star math

    lmt

    ComparisonPM3

    Pre-test55.147.8

    Post-test57.158.2

    STUDENT MOTIVATION

    These are for WISD. PM3 in another file

    Fall 2005 (n=106)Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Usefulness4.34.5

    Confidence4.24.3

    Motivation3.83.7

    meap

    percent met or exceeded

    all students

    All Students (n=429)Non-Special Ed (n=367)

    Total Math4854Special Ed (n=62)

    15

    by strand all students

    points

    2005 (n=429)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.22003

    Numerical Operations2.5

    Number Sense2.5

    Data Analysis7.1

    Geometry & Measurement3.5

    Patterns & Functions5.2

    non special education

    2005 (n=367)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.42003

    Numerical Operations2.6

    Number Sense2.6

    Data Analysis7.3

    Geometry & Measurement3.6

    Patterns & Functions5.4

    special education

    2005 (n=62)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math1.32003

    Numerical Operations1.8

    Number Sense1.9

    Data Analysis5.7

    Geometry & Measurement2.9

    Patterns & Functions3.8

    MEAP trends

    Percent met or exceeded

    whole grade

    200520042003

    Pct met or exceeded48.350.740.3

    SEC page 4

    Moderate or Considerable

    Time longitudinal groupdone

    20042006

    25.Watch teacher demonstrate how to solve a problem7110

    26.Read about math in books, magazines, articles1065

    27.Take notes from lectures or the textbook2142

    28.Do computations on a worksheet or from textbook6723

    29.Present or demo problem solutions to whole class487

    30.Use manipulatives or equipment643

    31.Work individually on math problems6413

    32.Work in pairs on math problems593

    33.Do a math activity outside classroom761

    34.Use computers, calculators, other technology4319

    35.Maintain a math portfolio of their own work1861

    36.Take a quiz or test5510

    SEC page 5

    Re individual work longitudinal group

    20042006

    37.Solve word problems from text or worksheet4852

    38.Solve non-routine math problems3026

    39.Explain their reasoning or thinking3036

    40.Apply math to real-world concepts4348

    41.Make estimates, predictions, hypotheses3645

    42.Analyze data to make inferences or conclusion3039

    213

    44.Complete proofs or demos of their reasoning1419

    SEC page 3 bottom half

    homework

    Moderate or Considerable defined as 26 percent or more of homework for yeardone

    20042006

    18.Do computational exercise from text/worksheet6655

    19.Solve word problems from text/worksheet4658

    20.Explaining reasoning in solving a problem3429

    21.Work on a demonstration/proof of their math work2726

    22.Collect data as part of math homework1623

    23.Work on a project taking more than 1 week to do1423

    24.Solve novel or non-routine math problems713

    SEC page 6

    pairs or small groups

    20042006

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet3445

    46.Solve non-routine math problems2336

    47.Talk about math reasoning363

    48.Apply math to real-word problems3210

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses2723

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions3032

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve1258

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning2052

    SEC page 7 top half

    hands-on materials

    20042006

    53.Work with manipulatives4877

    54.Measure objects using tools such as rulers4868

    55.Build models or charts3455

    56.Collect data by counting, observing, surveying3442

    57.Present information using manipulatives3658

    SEC page 7 bottom half

    CALCULATORS, COMPUTERS

    20042006

    58.Learn facts4132

    59.Practice procedures4539

    60.Use sensors and probes06

    61.Retrieve or exchange data, information716

    62.Display and analyze data3026

    63.Develop geometric concepts2024

    SEC page 8 top; do a table

    SEC page 8 bottom

    Influences: somewhat positive or strong positive influence

    20042006

    72.Your state's curriculum framework8994

    73.Your district's curriculum framework/guidelines6662

    74.Textbook/instructional materials7771

    75.State tests or results6890

    76.District tests or results5568

    77.National math education standards5765

    78.Your experience in pre-service preparation5771

    79.Students' special needs7781

    80.Parents/community2523

    81.Preparation of students for the next grade7394

    pag3 9 top

    prep: well prepared or very well prepared

    20042006

    82.Teach math at your assigned level66.692

    83.Integrate math with other subjects33.464

    84.Provide math instruction by content standards5087

    85.Use a variety of assessment strategies41.687

    86.Teach problem-solving strategies41.684

    87.Teach math with manipulatives5094

    88.Teach students with physical disabilities66.739

    89.Teach classes with students of diverse abilities83.374

    90.Teach math to students from different backgrounds58.348

    91.Teach math to ELL students8.381

    page9 bottom

    teacher opinions: Agree or Strongly Agree

    20042006

    92.Students learn math best when asking questions8081

    93.It's important for students to learn basics before solving problems6171

    94.I am supported by colleagues to try out new ideas6681

    95.I am required to follow rules that conflict with my judgment3029

    96.Math teachers here regularly observe each other713

    97.Math teachers here trust each other5055

    98.It's OK here to discuss feelings with other math teachers5971

    99.Math teachers respect other teachers who take the lead5265

    100.It's okay here to discuss feelings with the principal3452

    101.The principal takes personal interest in the PD of teachers4142

    SEC page 10

    PD Activities in math ed

    do a table

    SEC page 11 top

    PD ed sometimes or often

    20042006

    112.Observed demonstrations of teaching3461

    113.Led group discussions2542

    114.Developed curricula or lessons plans with review3955

    115.Reviewed student work or scored assessments5981

    116.Developed assessments or tasks as part of PD3071

    117.Practiced what you learned and received feedback as PD3871

    118.Received coaching/mentoring in the classroom1861

    119.Given a lecture or presentation to colleagues1829

    SEC page 11 bottom

    PD last year: Sometimes or Often

    20042006

    120.Supported the SI plan adopted by your school2558

    121.Consistent with your math department/grade level plan5581

    122.Consistent with your own goals for PD5790

    123.Based explicitly on earlier learning4581

    124.Based on what you had learned in earlier PD4387

    SEC top page 12

    How PD Yes answers

    20042006

    125.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my school5742

    126.I participated in PD with most/all teachers at my grade/dept6887

    127.I participated in PD NOT attended by other staff at my school5545

    128.I discussed my learning with others NOT attending the activity5271

    SEC page 12 bottom

    Combine moderate and great

    treatmt

    20042006

    129.State math content standards6171

    130.Alignment of math instruction to curriculum6888

    131.Instructional approaches6490

    132.In-depth study of math or concepts within math5794

    133.Study of how children learn certain math topics4577

    134.Individual differences in student learning3971

    135.Meeting learning needs of special student populations3637

    136.Classroom math assessment5058

    137.State/district math assessment5761

    138.Interpretation of assessment data for use in instruction4165

    139.Technology to support student learning in math3474

    LMT Subtest Scores

    number correct

    20042005

    Numbers and Operations56.965

    Algebra6778.7

    Geometry7282.7

    NOTE: Number of items in each subscale: Numbers and Operations 26, Algebra 30, and Geometry 15. Pretest and posttest n=12.

    mttc with comparison group

    Pre-testPost-test

    Treatment Teachers22

    Comparison Teachers100100

    MEAP

    HP

    Percent met or exceeded: Math0

    District

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 421.635.246.7

    Grade 85.722.819

    Ham overall math

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Kosciuszko Middle17.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Grade 442.760.751.2

    Grade 817.739.545.5

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Dickinson East45.25745.8

    Dickinson West39.14340.3

    Holbrook40.352.287.8

    Winter 2003Winter 2004Winter 2005

    Barber11.527.634.1

    Cortland16.345.860

    Ford Academy31.441.434.4

    Liberty Focus7.17.1

    Sheet1

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Percent

    Michigan Teacher Certification Test Adapted Form: Pre and Post Program Results

    Sheet2

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Total Score (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results (n=28)

    Sheet3

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Content of the Lesson

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Score

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Implementation of the Lesson

    0

    0

    0

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    2005 MEAP Mathematics Performance: Comparison of School Groups

    0

    0

    0

    Pct met or exceeded

    Percent Met or Exceeded

    Lincoln Middle SchoolMEAP Mathematics Three-Year Trends

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Total Instructional Time Students Spend 2004 -2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    2004

    2006

    Time Involved in Activities Assigned for Outside of Class 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Work in Pairs or Small Groups2004-2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Use Hands-on Materials2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate (20-50% of instructional time for school year) or Considerable (50% or more of instructional time for the school year). Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Amount of Instructional Time When Students Are Using Technology: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Instructional Influences on Mathematics Teaching:2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Agree or Strongly Agree. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Opinions About Mathematics 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Frequency of Professional Development Activities: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Yes, they did participate. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Teacher Participation in Professional Development in Mathematics: 2004-2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Moderate or Great. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31.

    2004

    2006

    Emphasis of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 44;posttest = 31.

    2004

    2006

    Characteristics of Professional Development Activities in Math: 2005-2006

    00

    00

    00

    Items in Numbers and Operations = 26, Algebra = 30. Geometry = 15.

    2004

    2005

    Learning for Mathematics Teaching Subtest Scales Percent Correct (n=12): 2004-2005

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    NOTE: Treatment and Comparison Groups N's =12

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    Total MTTC Treatment and Comparison Teachers:Pre- and Post-Test Percent Correct

    0

    0

    0

    0

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest =11.

    NOTE: Percent of teachers responding Sometimes or Often. Pretest n = 12; posttest = 11.

    Fall 2005 (n=106)

    Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Mean Score (Scale 1-5, 5 High)

    Adapted Fenema-Sherman Mathematics Scales for Students: Fall 2005 - Spring 2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2004

    2006

    Percent of teachers responding from 25 - 50% of instructional time for the year

    Mathematics Instructional Time When Students Work Individually2004-2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    00

    2004

    2006

    Adequacy of Instructional Preparation 2004-2006

    NOTE: Percent teachers indicating a Somewhat Positive or Strong Positive Influence. Pretest n = 44; posttest =31

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Rating on Scale 1 = low to 7 = high

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Culture Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    * Number correct on 32-item test

    Institute Teachers

    Comparison Group

    Number Correct

    LMT Pre-Post Test Performance with Comparison Group*

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Comparison

    PM3

    Number of Items

    MTTC Mean Pre-Posttest Change PM3 and Comparison Group

    Percent Correct

    PM3 Teacher Percent Improvement in Performance on the LMT: Fall 2004 - Spring 2006

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Scale (1=low, 7 = high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Hamtramck (n=18)

    00

    00

    00

    00

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    Mean Scale (1=low; 7=high)

    SAMPI Classroom Observations: Pre and Post Program Results Highland Park (n=10)

    00

    00

    Pre-test

    Post-test

    Percent Correct

    LMT Pre- and Post-Test Performance: PM3 and Comparison Group

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003 - Winter 2005 Highland Park Schools

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    MEAP Math Trends Winter 2003-Winter 2005 Hamtramck School District

    000

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Hamtramck Elementary Schools

    000

    000

    000

    000

    000

    Winter 2003

    Winter 2004

    Winter 2005

    Percent Proficient

    Trends in Grade 4 MEAP Math: Highland Park Schools

  • Results: Math Content KnowledgeNOTE: Comparison group did not grow in Stats/Prob and lost ground in Algebra

    Chart2

    00.06

    0.3440.23

    -0.1560.74

    0.3131.5

    Comparison

    PM3

    Number of Items

    MTTC Mean Pre-Posttest Change PM3 and Comparison Group

    Sheet1

    lmt

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    41.457.1

    mttc

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Statistics and Probability46.246.2

    Geometry56.760

    Algebra40.845.8

    Total45.851.5

    lmt

    needs checking

    PretestPosttest

    Institute Teachers13.318.3

    Comparison Group16.617.8

    mttc and comparison group

    growth scores

    ComparisonPM3

    Statistics and Probability00.06

    Geometry0.3440.23

    Algebra-0.1560.74

    Total0.3131.5

    sampi resuls

    Fall 2004

    Overall Rating3.5Spring 2006

    Content3.75.3

    Implementation45.5

    Culture4.25.5

    5.8

    hamtramck sampi

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    Overall Rating3.45.3

    Content3.65.3

    Implementation45.4

    Culture4.15.6

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7.Teachers shows sensitivity to student demographics4.66

    6.Teacher-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.65.7

    5.Student-student interactions show collaborative relationships3.34.8

    4.Climate encourages all students to contribute3.65.6high park

    3.Students show respect for each other45.6

    2.Teacher shows respect for students & their ideas4.36.1Fall 2004Spring 2006

    1.Active participation of all students4.46Overall Rating3.55.8

    Content3.95.8

    Implementation45.7

    Culture4.36.2

    Content sampi

    Fall 2004

    Spring 2006

    8.Teacher incorporates abstractions2.9

    7.Lesson used real-world applications3.15.3

    6.Teacher connected this lesson to other areas2.84.7

    5.Teacher connected this lesson to previous lessons3.35.1

    4.Teacher understood content of the lesson4.35.2

    3.Math portrayed as dynamic body of knowledge2.85.8

    2.Students intellectually engaged with important ideas3.55.3

    1.Mathematics content was important & worthwhile4.55.7

    6.2

    Implementation

    Fall 2004Spring 2006

    7. Adequate time for wrap-up and closure3.25

    6. Adequate time for reflection3.45.2

    5.Student-student interactions productive3.44.8

    4.Appropriate pace3.75.7

    3.Teacher has effective management style4.15.7

    2.Student-teacher interactions probing & substantive3.25.6

    1.Teacher appears confident4.36.2

    star math

    lmt

    ComparisonPM3

    Pre-test55.147.8

    Post-test57.158.2

    STUDENT MOTIVATION

    These are for WISD. PM3 in another file

    Fall 2005 (n=106)Spring 2006 (n=121)

    Usefulness4.34.5

    Confidence4.24.3

    Motivation3.83.7

    meap

    percent met or exceeded

    all students

    All Students (n=429)Non-Special Ed (n=367)

    Total Math4854Special Ed (n=62)

    15

    by strand all students

    points

    2005 (n=429)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.22003

    Numerical Operations2.5

    Number Sense2.5

    Data Analysis7.1

    Geometry & Measurement3.5

    Patterns & Functions5.2

    non special education

    2005 (n=367)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math2.42003

    Numerical Operations2.6

    Number Sense2.6

    Data Analysis7.3

    Geometry & Measurement3.6

    Patterns & Functions5.4

    special education

    2005 (n=62)2004

    Probability & Discrete Math1.32003

    Numerical Operations1.8

    Number Sense1.9

    Data Analysis5.7

    Geometry & Measurement2.9

    Patterns & Functions3.8

    MEAP trends

    Percent met or exceeded

    whole grade

    200520042003

    Pct met or exceeded48.350.740.3

    SEC page 4

    Moderate or Considerable

    Time longitudinal groupdone

    20042006

    25.Watch teacher demonstrate how to solve a problem7110

    26.Read about math in books, magazines, articles1065

    27.Take notes from lectures or the textbook2142

    28.Do computations on a worksheet or from textbook6723

    29.Present or demo problem solutions to whole class487

    30.Use manipulatives or equipment643

    31.Work individually on math problems6413

    32.Work in pairs on math problems593

    33.Do a math activity outside classroom761

    34.Use computers, calculators, other technology4319

    35.Maintain a math portfolio of their own work1861

    36.Take a quiz or test5510

    SEC page 5

    Re individual work longitudinal group

    20042006

    37.Solve word problems from text or worksheet4852

    38.Solve non-routine math problems3026

    39.Explain their reasoning or thinking3036

    40.Apply math to real-world concepts4348

    41.Make estimates, predictions, hypotheses3645

    42.Analyze data to make inferences or conclusion3039

    213

    44.Complete proofs or demos of their reasoning1419

    SEC page 3 bottom half

    homework

    Moderate or Considerable defined as 26 percent or more of homework for yeardone

    20042006

    18.Do computational exercise from text/worksheet6655

    19.Solve word problems from text/worksheet4658

    20.Explaining reasoning in solving a problem3429

    21.Work on a demonstration/proof of their math work2726

    22.Collect data as part of math homework1623

    23.Work on a project taking more than 1 week to do1423

    24.Solve novel or non-routine math problems713

    SEC page 6

    pairs or small groups

    20042006

    45.Solve word problems from text/worksheet3445

    46.Solve non-routine math problems2336

    47.Talk about math reasoning363

    48.Apply math to real-word problems3210

    49.Make estimates, prediction or hypotheses2723

    50.Analyze data to make inferences, conclusions3032

    51.Work on a problem taking 45 or more to solve1258

    52.Complete proofs/demos of math reasoning2052

    SEC page 7 top half

    hands-on materials

    20042006

    53.Work with manipulatives4877

    54.Measure objects using tools such as rulers4868

    55.Build models or charts3455

    56.Collect data by counting, observing, surveying3442

    57.Present information using manipulatives3658

    SEC page 7 bottom half

    CALCULATORS, COMPUTERS

    20042006

    58.Learn facts4132

    59.Practice procedures4539

    60.Use sensors and probes06

    61.Retrieve or exchange data, information716

    62.Display and analyze data3026

    63.Develop geometric concepts2024

    SEC page 8 top; do a table

    SEC page 8 bottom

    Influences: somewhat positive or strong positive influence

    20042006

    72.Your state's curriculum framework8994

    73.Your district's curriculum framework/guidelines6662

    74.Textbook/instructional materials7771

    75.State tests or results6890

    76.District tests or results5568

    77.National math education standards5765

    78.Your experience in pre-service preparation5771

    79.Students' special needs7781

    80.Parents/community2523

    81.Preparation of students for the next grade7394

    pag3 9 top

    prep: well prepared or very well prepared

    20042006

    82.Teach math at your assigned level66.692

    83.Integrate math with other subjects33.464

    84.Provide math instruction by content standards5087

    85.Use a variety of assessment strategies41.687

    86.Teach problem-solving strategies41.684

    87.Teach math with manipulatives5094

    88.Teach students with physical disabilities66.739

    89.Teach classes with students of diverse abilities83.374

    90.Teach math to students from different backgrounds58.348

    91.Teach math to ELL students8.381

    page9 bottom

    teacher opinions: Agree or Strongly Agree

    20042006

    92.Students learn math best when asking questions8081

    93.It's important for students to learn basics before solving problems6171

    94.I am supported by colleagues to try out new ideas6681

    95.I am required to follow rules that conflict with my judgment3029

    96.Math teachers here regularly observe each other713

    97.Math teachers here trust each other5055

    98.It's OK here to discuss feelings with other math teachers5971

    99.Math teachers respect other teachers who take the lead5265

    100.It's okay here to discuss feelings with the principal3452

    101.The principal takes personal interest in the PD of teachers4142

    SEC page 10

    PD Activities in math ed

    do a table

    SEC page 11 top

    PD ed sometimes or often

    20042006

    112.Observed demonstrations of teaching3461

    113.Led group discussions2542

    114.Developed curricula or