Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Studying the Impact of Model Teaching: Examining Teachers' Practice to Determine the Effectiveness of Professional Learning Tasks
Kristie J. Newton, Temple UniversityJon R. Star, Harvard University
Determining the Impact of a Professional Development
Experience
We would like your ideas here – what do you look for to determine if a professional development experience was effective?
In particular, when examining teachers’ practices for evidence that they are using new knowledge and skills, what do you look for?
5 Levels for Evaluating Professional Development
(Guskey, 2000)
Level 1: Participants' reactions
Level 2: Participants' learning
Level 3: Organization support and change
Level 4: Participants' use of new knowledge and skills
Level 5: Student learning outcomes
Level 4: Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skills
Did participants effectively apply new knowledge and skills?
Examined through questionnaires, interviews, direct observation, video
The Professional Development Experience
Goals of the Professional Development
Introduce teachers to comparison as a tool for fostering algebraic understanding and flexibility
Train teachers to use curriculum materials designed to help them include comparisons
Assist teachers in finding ways that the materials could be easily implemented in their classrooms
The Curriculum Materials Worked Example Pairs
• Side-by-side presentation• Topics covering Algebra I
Three Phase Model• Understand• Compare• Make Connections
Nature of the Professional Development
Practice-based PD - an approach that aims to situate mathematics teacher learning within the profession of teaching (Silver, 2009; Smith, 2001)
Professional Learning Tasks - tasks that utilize artifacts of teaching to engage teachers in aspects of their work
Example Tasks Solve and discuss mathematical problems
Watch and discuss videos
Model Teaching Activity• Write a lesson plan• Teach the lesson to a "class" of fellow teachers• Discuss the demonstration lesson as a group
Analysis of Teacher Practice
Impact on Practices Silver (2009) noted that empirical
evidence is lacking for many theoretical claims about the effectiveness of PLTs. In particular, there is a critical need to better understand how learning from PLTs might transfer to the classroom.
Goals Today We seek feedback on our
framework.
We are interested in participants' ideas for alternative frameworks.
We aim to have a discussion about alternative PLTs and ways that their effectiveness can be (or has been) explored in teachers' practices.
Challenges for Level 4 (Guskey, 2000)
Identify accurate, appropriate, and sufficient indicators of use.
Specify dimensions of quantity and quality.
Determine if adequate time has been allowed for relevant use to occur.
Allow for sufficient flexibility for contextual adaptations.
Indicators of Use Quantity
• Worked Example Pairs (WEPs)
Quality• Order of Three Phase Model• Integrity of Three Phase Model• Clear takeaway• Classroom discourse
Worked Example Pairs Usually: Use of one or more WEPs
constitutes the majority of the lesson.
Sometimes: A substantial amount of time is devoted to the WEPs, but they constitute the minority of the lesson.
Rarely: Little or no class time is spent using the WEPs.
Order of Three Phase Model
Ideal: The teacher used all three phases and they were used in the proper order.
Acceptable: Only two phases were addressed, but these phases are used in the correct order.
Unacceptable: The teacher did only one phase, or the teacher did the phases out of order, such as “Compare” before “Understand.”
Integrity of Three Phase Model
Ideal: The teacher asks relevant, additional follow-up or probing questions that substantially build on the questions provided in the WEP.
Acceptable: The teacher touches on the instructional aim of all three phases.
Unacceptable: The teacher skips a phase or fails to touch on the instructional aim of all three phases.
Clear Takeaway Ideal: The takeaway is clear and written down or
presented visually for the students.
Acceptable: At the end of the WEP portion of the class, there is a clear, explicit statement of the main takeaway(s) of the WEP.
Unacceptable: A partial summary statement is given, with the omitted parts constituting an important part of the rationale of the WEP; a summary statement is absent; the summary statement captures a takeaway that is different from the intended takeaway.
Classroom Discourse
Ideal: The teacher and students are engaged in mathematical conversation during multiple phases, including the Make Connections phase.
Acceptable: The teacher and students are engaged in mathematical conversation only during the Make Connections phase.
Unacceptable: Discussion does not involve both teacher and students, does not occur during Make Connections, or involves students in minimal ways (e.g., with “yes” or “no” answers).
Discussion
Recap Indicators of Use
• Worked Example Pairs (WEPs)• Order of Three Phase Model• Integrity of Three Phase Model• Clear takeaway• Classroom discourse
Goal for discussion• Feedback on framework• Alternative frameworks• Other PLTs, explorations of their effectiveness
