Professional Development in Challenged Environments A Model for Effective PD.
of 22
/22
-
Author
milo-porter -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
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
