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