Promoting Learning & Understanding for Students

MSP project meeting January 9, 2014

MathPLUS 1 and 2

MathPLUS 1 and 2

• Funded through the Math/Science Partnership program (KDE through the USDE)

• Grant cycle: July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013• Professional learning for high school teachers of

mathematics, principals and instructional supervisors

The GRREC Team

George Wilson, Executive Director Sandra Baker, Associate Executive Director Kim Estes, Math Consultant Johna Rodgers, Grant Writer

WKU Partners

• Dr. Hope Marchionda, Asst. Professor, Mathematics• Dr. Ric Keaster, Professor, Ed. Leadership• Dr. Gary Houchens, Assoc. Professor, Ed. Leadership

Participating Districts

MathPLUS 1• Allen County-Scottsville• Campbellsville Independent• Hart County• LaRue County• Monroe County

MathPLUS 2• Butler County• Logan County• Russellville Independent• Taylor County• Union County

Project Goals

#1 Create model classrooms of student-centered learning in mathematics•Increase in teacher content knowledge•Measurable shift in classroom practice from mostly teacher-centered to more student-centered•Measurable shift in teacher beliefs related to teaching and learning in mathematics

Project Goals

#2 Increase academic success for high school students in mathematics•An overall increase in student achievement as measured by the state assessment in mathematics (EOC); ACT and PLAN scores as well as school-level benchmark assessments

Project Goals

#3 Improve leader capacity to support instruction in mathematics•Principals and instructional supervisors will know what good mathematics education looks like and will have the capacity and knowledge to support good mathematics teaching and learning within their buildings.

Project Design

Content PD through the new Common Core State Standards for MathematicsMathPLUS staff helped teachers deconstruct

the standards then embed the targets in intentional lessons focused on thinking strategies and student-centered problem solving.

Project Design

National math trainer and educator, Amy Jones-Lewis, along with Dr. Hope Marchionda - †modeled for teachers within a student-centered environment†moved teachers toward a deeper conceptual understanding of mathematics †demonstrated good instruction incorporating strategies teachers could utilize with students†increased teacher content knowledge

Project Design

Authentic, guided learning communities

Resources: Secondary Lenses on Learning: Team Leadership for Mathematics in Middle and High School (Grant, 2009) and PRIME Framework (capacity building to support mathematics

instruction)

Dr. Gary Houchens, Sandra Baker and Kim Estes worked with teacher leaders and administrators through problem-solving tasks, research articles and case studies. The work transferred to school-level PLCs and helped teams create a mathematics improvement plan for their school.

Project Design

Thinking strategies in mathematicsProvided direct training and modeling of the thinking/literacy strategies for mathematics

CoachingOn-site visits were made by project coordinator

to plan, observe and reflect with teachers on lessons. Teachers were also coached through collegial observations and hosting of

demonstration lessons.

Project Design

Creation of demonstration high schools to showcase student-centered learning in mathematics - teachers created and used intentional, well-planned lessons with student friendly learning targets, formative assessment, and embedded thinking strategies

Professional Learning Strategies

Content academies and face-to-face professional development throughout the project focused on Stretch learning in mathematicsEmbedding Thinking Strategies for mathematics literacyStudent-centered problem solvingLenses on Learning guided PLC workCognitive CoachingDemonstration lessons

Data Collection

• Praxis II (PRE/POST) required of all participants Fall of 2010 and Spring of 2013

• Pre/post observations using multivariate rubric designed around INTASC Standard 1 (Instructional Strategies Continuum, University of North Carolina, 2001)

• Project-created Coaching Instrument completed by program personnel following coaching sessions (components based on Thinking Strategies and Cognitive Coaching®)

Data Collection

• Project-created Program Goals Instrument (“Before and After” Perceptions) – End of program reflection assessment

• Self-Evaluation Rubric for PRIME Equity Leadership - participants estimate where they lie regarding their capacity to influence the quality of instruction and learning that goes on in their schools

• PD evaluations (quantitative and qualitative)

Data Collection

• Beliefs about Mathematics Teaching and Learning Instrument

• Baseline data from benchmark assessments • EOC, ACT, PLAN data – – Individual Teacher Data – Students’ Scores of participating teachers– Participant schools and comparison schools

Evaluation Methods

• PRAXIS -Means from PRE and POST compared (including subscales); T tests run for test of significant difference gains

• Coaching instrument - Individual results and group means from Session 1 and Session 2 compared; T tests run for test of significant difference (gains)

• PRIME - Results were assessed based on movement (PRE/POST) from lower to higher numbers or understanding/actions regarding two activities

Evaluation Methods

o PD Evaluations - Means from Year 1 compared to Year 2 and Year 3 on questions concerning math content

o INTASC – movement to right of continuum from year 1 to year 3 with participants classified (Basic, Emerging, Proficient or Master)

o Before/After assessments - T tests run for test of significant difference (gains)

Evaluation Methods

o EOC - (Years 1 through 3) data comparison to measure stated goal increases in % of students achieving Proficient/Distinguished

o ACT and PLAN – (Years 1 through 3) data comparison to measure stated goal increases in % of students scoring benchmark

o Beliefs - Results analyzed by examining movement of group means toward program goal-preferred responses

Challenges

• Change in state assessment during the project • Teachers more focused on new content standards

and less focused on standards for mathematical practice

• Minimal understanding of the Thinking Strategies and metacognition for students

• Busy schedule of administrators resulted in low attendance by full leadership teams throughout the project

Lessons Learned

• Due to administrators’ busy schedules, we are now taking the PLC work of the new grants into the schools; making site visits along with WKU partners; limiting the number of events that take teachers and administrators away from the school

• Need for thinking strategies to be modeled within a lesson; intentional transfer to students selecting and using the appropriate thinking strategy during the learning process

Successes

Demonstration Lessons – Value of protocol (prebrief, look fors; observation, noticings; debrief, take aways)

In-house collegial observationsRegional networkingBuilding capacity within the schoolsSustainability