CCMS
Professional Development for Professional Development for Teaching in Connected Classrooms Teaching in Connected Classrooms Classroom Connectivity in Promoting Mathematics and Classroom Connectivity in Promoting Mathematics and
Science AchievementScience AchievementCCMS ProjectCCMS Project
Douglas T. Owens1, Karen E. Irving1, Stephen J. Pape2,Vehbi A. Sanalan3, Sharilyn K. Owens4, Louis Abrahamson5
1The Ohio State University2University of Florida, 3Erzincan University, Turkey4Applachian State University5Better Education Foundation
CCMS
Additional Research Team
Frank Demana, Co-PI, The Ohio State University
Joan Herman, David Silver, Christy Boscardin,UCLA, CRESST
Sukru Kaya, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
Sedat Ucar, Cukurova University, Turkey
Clare Bell, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Melissa Shirley, University of Louisville
Jonathan Bostic, University of Florida
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.
TI Navigator slides adapted from. a presentation by Eileen Shihadeh, Texas Instruments.
CCMS
CCMS Project Overview
• Professional development and research project
• Algebra I and Physical Science
• Classroom connectivity technology
• Summer Institute – training
• T3 conference follow-up, annually
CCMS
The TI-Navigator™ Connected Classroom
The TI-Navigator The TI-Navigator System allows the System allows the
teacher to:teacher to: Create a
collaborative learning environment
Engage in formative assessment by way of immediate feedback
Enhance classroom management of TI graphing technology
CCMS
TI Navigator Components
• Quick Poll (QP) – primarily formative assessment
• Learning Check and Class Analysis (LC & CA) – generally formative or summative assessment
• Activity Center (AC) – principally for concept development
• Screen Capture (SC) – may be used for formative assessment or concept development
CCMS
Theoretical Framework
• Classroom environments that support achievement and self-efficacy
• Social-constructivist models of teaching and learning
• Classroom discourse processes
• HPL Classroom environment centeredness constructs: learner, knowledge, assessment, and community centeredness
CCMS
Components of Classroom Connectivity Technology
• Interactive instruction
• Positive motivational climate
• Technology-assisted formative assessment
• Increased feedback to students and teacher
• Access to multiple representations of mathematics concepts
• Higher demands for participation
CCMS
Research Design
• Year 1 (2005-2006) – Algebra I
• Randomized assignment to treatment or delayed treatment group
• Cross-over design – control group received delayed treatment
• Mixed methodology
CCMS
Intervention• Teachers
– One-week summer training institute– PD training on technology and pedagogical implications
(brief lectures)– T-cubed International Conference (winter)– Listserv– On-line courses
• Students– Use of connectivity technology with graphing calculator–
CCMS
Professional Development
• PD has taken place in isolation and has been dependent on input from outside experts (Sandholtz, 1999)
• Typically “fragmented, intellectually superficial” seminars (Borko, 2004, p.4)
• Do not provide ongoing guidance for teachers as they attempt to learn and change their practices (Barnett, 2002)
CCMS
Characteristics of Effective PD
• Commitment to a vision and standards• Analysis of student learning• Goal setting• In the context of classrooms:
– Planning– Execution – Evaluation
• Consider teacher knowledge and beliefs
Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003
CCMS
Ten Research Based Principles of PD1. Determine teacher interest in professional
development and provide individual choice;
2. Develop working groups within schools with community and administrative support;
3. Identify and manage possible classroom, school, and district level barriers;
4. Model classroom approaches to help teachers develop better understanding change;
5. Request teacher commitment to active and sustained participation;
CCMS
Ten Research Based Principles of PD
6. Acknowledge the importance of practice on teacher beliefs by validating their classroom practices;
7. Provide time for reflection and opportunities for group discussion and feedback;
8. Allow teachers to develop ownership by encouraging the development of their professional judgment;
9. Acknowledge the slow and incremental process of change and celebrate small successes;
10. Encourage goal setting for continued professional development. Clarke, 1994
CCMS
Effective Technology-Focused PD• Attend to teacher’s varying levels of proficiency
(Holland, 2001)
• Student gains found when classroom response systems support formative assessment within a constructivist-oriented classroom (Judson & Sawada, 2002)
• “Literature points to the pedagogical practices of the instructor, not the incorporation of the technology as being key to student comprehension” (Judson & Sawada, 2002, p. 167)
CCMS
CCMS Professional Development
• Week-long summer institute
• Follow-up workshops at T3 Conferences
• Web-based training
• Project listserv
CCMS
T3 Model of PD• Teachers teaching other teachers—“You have
to walk the walk to talk the talk”
• Experienced teacher-instructors who use technology in their own classrooms teach from their experience
• Assistants also experienced T3 instructors to aid in practice sessions
• Daily debriefing sessions
CCMS
Summer Institute Components
• Curriculum-specific applications: Algebra I
• Technology-focused hands-on instruction and practice in “student” and “teacher” roles
• Faculty lectures infused theoretical and pedagogical focus
• Differentiation based on technology ability level
• Lesson projects and presentations
CCMS
Pedagogical Components
• Productive classroom discourse
• Formative assessment
• Teacher’s role in supporting self-regulation
• Student self-regulated learning strategies
• Learning environments - How People Learn (NRC)
CCMS
Research Design - PD
• Mixed methodology
• Treatment group in 2005 (N=62); control group in 2006 (N=55)
• Five days - 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
• Participant feedback shared with instructors during planning session prior to year 2 summer institute
CCMS
Participants• Teacher Characteristics (treatment and control,
respectively)– 70% female– 88.2% and 82.3% white – 67.6% and 79.4% math majors– 13.18% (SD=7.19) and 14.79 (SD=10.66) years
teaching experience– 87 (76%) teachers remained at the end of year 1
• Instructors – 3 instructors each week (4 total year 1; 3 total year 2); each >20 years teaching experience; T3 instructors
CCMS
Data Collection
Measures: Demographic survey Technology Use and Professional
Development survey Institute Evaluation form
Audio-taped planning session Videotaped summer institute sessions Teacher telephone interviews Classroom observations
CCMS
Data Analyses
• Descriptive statistics of Likert-type questionnaires
• Grounded analysis of open-ended responses on institute surveys, telephone interviews, and classroom observations
CCMS
Results• Year 2 videotapes provide evidence of teacher-
instructors incorporating pedagogy. For example:
• In discussion of indicating correct answer for a SC, instructor discussed potential for increased argumentation if correct answer is not indicated– Before I show it to the class, I could group all the
“good” wrong answers to the top. I could ask “How did someone get such and such. I could have kids defend. Why is 3 the correct answer? Have them tell why do you think it is. Why is it not? Having kids starting to talk mathematics. [July 31, 2006; year 2, day 1]
CCMS
Results• I can capture this entire [class] snapshot to
look at later during my conference period.
• Also, in addition to [disciplinary acts], saving a [SC] picture is crucial for us deciding which kids need remediation, which kids need intervention, who do I need to focus on, all this educational stuff we have to be concerned about. We can save it to look back at later. In the heat of the battle of the classroom we might not be able to address every single misconception. [July 31, 2006; year 2, day 1]
CCMS
Results• Teacher –instructor (I 1) reinforced pedagogical
strategies of speaking mathematically in class discussion, classroom discourse, and engagement:
Participant 1 (P 1): We have to reset our window.
I 1: Ahh – This is a great discussion because I would hope the kids would say our window is not right now. What do we need to change our window to?
P 1: Something above 84.
I 1: So we have students in the calculator change the window to something above 84. Now we have a discussion. I want to pause for a second. [continued]
CCMS
• I 1: Why do you think it might be more powerful to have every student look at this graph versus the teacher standing up here just graphing “watch [me].”
• P 2: Ask them what they thought.• P 3: And you could do a Quick Poll of what they
thought. • P 4: That way you would have everybody engaged.• I 1: You said the magic word, engaged! They are
taking active participation in the activity. . . • I 1: (summarizing a few seconds later) Obviously we
are talking about discourse, and this is great discussion. In the Navigator world this is what should be going on. . . . So we get engagement. [August 2, 2006; Year 2; Day 3; PM]
CCMS
Results• In discussion a participant asked about indicating the
correct answer for a Quick Poll. Another instructor discussed the potential for increased argumentation if the correct answer is not indicated: – I 2: When it comes to your presentations on Friday, .
. . use all of this technology in a pedagogically sound way.
– [After a brief exchange I 2 continued] That’s the discourse; when we get to the point where we can talk about mathematics and talk about error analysis and get kids to revise their incorrect thinking and get their incorrect thinking to be correct. [continued]
CCMS
• I 2: I use a little trick: I say give me a good case for why we choose ‘false;’ or make a good case for choice ‘c.’
• P 5: If they saw the correct answer [bar] in green, there would be no discussion. If you set the system so the correct answer is not indicated we can go back later to see the correct answer.
• I 3: Certainly there is tremendous discussion without knowing the correct answer, because the kids argue more vehemently. Sometimes, I seed my questions so the [apparently] obvious answer is the wrong one. [August 1, 2006; Year 2; Day 2; PM]
CCMS
Institute Evaluation Survey Results
• Administered at the end of each summer institute
• Likert-type scale 1 (low) to 5 (high)
• Overall, participants rated the Summer Institute very highly
CCMS
Institute Evaluation Survey Results
Table 1
Construct
Cohort 1 (N=60) Cohort 2 (N=47)
Mean* SD Mean SD
Appropriateness of institute content (5 items; see Table 2)
4.54 .70 4.76 .54
Perceived pedagogical usefulness (8 items; see Table 3)
4.10 .85 4.08 .81
Perceived self-confidence in components (15 items)
4.09 1.18 4.10 1.02
*Note: 1 – strongly disagree; 5 – strongly agree
CCMS
Appropriateness of Institute Content Table 2
Statement: single item
Cohort 1% somewhat
agree or strongly agree
Cohort 2% somewhat
agree or strongly agree
The content of this institute was at the appropriate level 90 93
The institute materials were useful and helped me learn how to teach more effectively with the TI-Navigator 98 98
The institute helped make me feel more comfortable about using this TI-Navigator technology in my classroom 95 98
The discussions about how and why to teach with the TI-Navigator (i.e. pedagogy) were valuable to my everyday teaching 87 98
As a result of this institute. I will be able to use TI-Navigator technology in my teaching 98 98
CCMS
Understanding Specific Pedagogies Table 3
As a results of this institute, I have a better understanding of the following pedagogies:
Cohort 1% somewhat
agree or strongly
agree
Cohort 2% somewhat
agree or strongly
agree
Classroom discourse to reveal student strategies 83 89
Formative assessment 74 68
Strategies to support developing self-regulated learning
83 77
Questioning strategies 77 83
CCMS
Understanding Specific Pedagogies
Table 3 (Continued)
As a results of this institute, I have a better understanding of the following pedagogies:
Cohort 1% somewhat
agree or strongly agree
Cohort 2% somewhat
agree or strongly agree
Critical junctures when I might use the TI Navigator
82 96
Classroom norms that foster understanding and development of strategic behavior
77 80
Mathematical explanations and justifications 85 74
Uptake of correct and incorrect student responses 90 89
CCMS
Participant Discussion
• How might we strike a balance between technology-focused and pedagogy-focused PD?
• What are the roles of university faculty members and classroom teacher instructors?
• How do we make pedagogy explicit while embedding within technology training?
CCMS
Thank You!
Copies of this presentation will be
available at the “project publications” link on our
project website http://www.ccms.osu.edu
Top Related