21st Century Teaching and Learning Evaluation Project 2011

Embed Size (px)

Text of 21st Century Teaching and Learning Evaluation Project 2011

  • 1. CFF21st CTL Evaluation ResultsChanges in Teaching PracticesJeanne Vilberg & Robin ClausenPenn State University 1

2. What is CFF21st CTL?2 3. 21st CTL EvaluationSince March 2007, the 21st CTLEvaluation Project has collected: 5,500 21st CTL Classroom Observations 55,000 Teacher Surveys 650,000 Student Surveys 18,000 PATI Surveys (InstructionalPhase)3 4. AnalysisStart of Program Spring 2010(Fall 2007/2008) The same 21st CTL teachers compared atdifferent points in time. Data collection periods (fall/spring 2007 -2010) Cohorts (teachers with different number ofyears in program) 4 5. Instruments Observations Teacher/Student SurveysPATI (Instructional Phase) 5 6. Findings 6 7. Has 21st CTL Changed... complexity of class content relevance of class content instructional style 7 8. OverallComplexity ofBasicHigher OrderContentSkillsRelevance ofArticial Real WorldContentInstructionalDidacticConstructivistStyle 8 9. Change in the Complexity of Content21st CTL teachers now focus moreon higher order topics than they didat the beginning of the program. 9 10. Complexity of ContentDescribe the content your class is designed to convey. (Almost All Higher Order Skills / More Higher Order Skillsthan Content Knowledge Combined) 22%Teacher 19%Survey Cohort 1 16% Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Differences 13% 5.89% 6.85% 4.65% 10%Start of ProgramSpring 2010 10 11. Complexity of ContentPercent of Time Spent in Really Complex Thinking / Problem Solving (Quite a Lot / Almost All the Time) 43%Student 41%Survey Cohort 1 39% Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Differences 37% 2.52% 2.00% 1.74% 35%Start of ProgramSpring 2010 11 12. Complexity of ContentOverall Comparison by Class Period - Basic - Higher Order(Ratings of 5, 6, and 7 Combined) 70% 66% Observations 62%First ThirdMiddle ThirdLast Third 58%Differences9.12% 54%8.35%4.06% 50%Start of Program Spring 2010 12 13. Classroom Content is More Authentic21st CTL teachers report studentsuse technology to solve real worldproblems more often than non-21stCTL teachers. 13 14. Relevance of ContentArticial - Real World How would you describe the work that students do? Cohort 1Cohort 2Cohort 3 4 Years 3 Years 2 Years Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2008 Spring 10 Exercises &17.48% 12.45% 19.71% 12.36% 16.67% 12.04% AssignmentsBlend First / Last 42.48% 35.65% 45.98% 39.61% 47.97% 42.95% Even Balance 30.22% 35.29% 25.59% 35.76% 28.73% 34.61%Blend First / Last 7.40% 13.31% 7.40% 10.04% 6.10% 8.21% Projects and2.43% 3.30% 1.32% 2.23% 0.54% 1.65%ProductsFewer Exercises Fewer Exercises Fewer Exercises More Even Balance More Even Balance More Even Balance More Projects More Projects More Projects Teacher Survey 14 15. Relevance of ContentArticial - Real World How often do students use technology to solve real-world problems?DailyPATI Survey(InstructionalWeeklyPhase)Cohort 1 - 4 Years in 21st CTLCohort 2 - 3 Years in 21st CTLCohort 3 - 2 Years in 21st CTLNon-21st CTLMonthly0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 15 16. Relevance of Content Articial - Real WorldDoes the Lesson have a Real World Context (authenticity)?(More real world, rating of 5, 6, or 7 combined)Cohort 3 (2 Years in 21st CTL) Start of Program 32.52% First Third of the Spring 201065.18% Class Difference 32.67% Start of Program 36.45%Middle Third of the Spring 201070.15% Class Difference 33.70% Start of Program 35.47% Final Third of the Spring 201070.16% Class Difference 34.68%Articial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Real WorldObservation 16 17. Instructional Style isChanging21st CTL has changed the way manyteachers teach; increasingpercentages of teachers identifytheir style as constructivist.17 18. Instructional Style Didactic - ConstructivistHow would you describe your teaching style? Cohort 1Cohort 2Cohort 3 4 Years 3 Years 2 Years Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2008 Spring 10Didactic 29.63% 26.34% 33.15% 26.21% 34.01% 29.68%Even Balance 47.64% 52.93% 48.53% 51.83% 50.41% 52.39%Constructivist 22.73% 20.73% 18.32% 21.96% 15.58% 17.92% Less Didactic Less Didactic Less Didactic More Even Balance More Even Balance More Even Balance Less Constructivist More Constructivist More Constructivist Teacher Survey 18 19. Instructional Style Didactic - Constructivist Class Period TermMeanDifferenceFall 09 3.951First ThirdSpring 10 4.365 0.414Fall 09 4.372 Middle ThirdSpring 10 4.801 0.429Fall 09 4.489 Last ThirdSpring 10 4.854 0.365Didactic 12 3 4 567 Constructivist Observation (Overall) 19 20. Instructional StyleDidactic - ConstructivistWho makes decisions about... (Teacher Completely / Teacher Mostly)100%75%StudentSurvey50% Spring 2010How Assignments GradedTopics Studied25% Topics of Papers or AssignmentsWay Topics StudiedWorking Together or AloneCohort 1 0%Cohort 2Cohort 320 21. Instructional Strategies What instructional strategies are being used? 21 22. Instructional StrategiesTeaching Strategies (Valuable / Very valuable)Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3Teacher Teacher Led Discussion - High 111Survey Problem-based Learning243 91-97%Authentic Learning 324Teacher Lecture432 Teacher Led Discussion - Low level566 Multi-modal Teaching655 80-90%Project-based Learning 777Collaborative Learning - informal888 Peer Teaching 999 68-78% Collaborative Learning - formal10 10 10WebQuests 11 11 11 42-45% Learning Centers 12 12 12 33-38%22 23. Instructional StrategiesTeaching Strategies (Valuable / Very valuable)97%95%92% Teacher90% Survey 87%Spring 2010 85%Cohort 1Cohort 2Cohort 3Teacher Led Discussion - High Level Outcomes Problem Based LearningAuthentic Learning Teacher Lecture23 24. Use of Strategies Rate the Level of Your Current Use of the Strategy (High)50%40%30% PATI Survey20% (InstructionalPhase)10%Spring 20100%Cohort 1 Cohort 2Cohort 3 Non-21st CTL Collaborative Learning Differentiation of Learning Interactive InstructionIndependent Study 24 25. Use of Strategies Rate the Level of Your Current Use of the Strategy (High) 60% 45% PATI 30%Survey (Instructional Phase) 15% Spring 2010 0%Cohort 1Cohort 2Cohort 3Non-21st CTL Direct Instruction Mediating Student Thinking InquiryExperiential Learning25 26. What has been the impact of 21st CTL / CFF onteaching in your school?26 27. What impact do these changing teaching practiceshave on student outcomes? 27 28. Questions Jeanne Vilberg, jav6@psu.eduRobin Clausen, rlc237@psu.eduCFF 21st CTL Evaluationhttp://cff.psu.edu/y4report28 29. Thank you. 29