Mid-State Mid-State Mathematics Mathematics PartnershipPartnership

Excellence in Teaching and Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Middle SchoolsLearning in Middle Schools

Dovie Kimmins, Ed.D.Dovie Kimmins, Ed.D.E. Ray Phillips, Ph.D.E. Ray Phillips, Ph.D.

Tennessee Mathematics, Science Tennessee Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Centerand Technology Education Center

Project DirectorsProject Directors Mary B. Martin, Ph.D., Professor of MathematicsMary B. Martin, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics Dovie L. Kimmins, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Dovie L. Kimmins, Ed.D., Associate Professor of

Mathematics Mathematics E. Ray Phillips, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics E. Ray Phillips, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics

and Director of TMSTECand Director of TMSTEC

Middle Tennessee State UniversityMiddle Tennessee State University

Project Funded by TN Department of Project Funded by TN Department of Education (Scott Eddins, Ed.D., TN Education (Scott Eddins, Ed.D., TN Mathematics Coordinator)Mathematics Coordinator)

LEA PartnersLEA Partners Partners: Grundy, Partners: Grundy,

Cannon, Coffee, Cannon, Coffee, Hamilton, Lebanon Hamilton, Lebanon City, Marshall, City, Marshall, Murfreesboro City, Murfreesboro City, Tullahoma City, Tullahoma City, Rutherford, Rutherford, Williamson (180 Williamson (180 teachers over 3 teachers over 3 years)years)

Session OverviewSession Overview

Project DevelopmentProject Development Project ImplementationProject Implementation Project EvaluationProject Evaluation

Theoretical Design of PDTheoretical Design of PD

Guided the development, implementation and evaluation of the pd

Theoretical Design of PDTheoretical Design of PD

Enhanced math content knowledgeEnhanced math content knowledge Enhanced skills in teaching math Enhanced skills in teaching math Enhanced confidence in the ability to Enhanced confidence in the ability to

teach math to all studentsteach math to all students

LEADS TOLEADS TO Enhanced instructional effectivenessEnhanced instructional effectiveness Enhanced student interest and motivationEnhanced student interest and motivation Enhanced student learning in mathematicsEnhanced student learning in mathematics

Overriding PrincipleOverriding Principle

Overall PD content, specific objectives Overall PD content, specific objectives for each session, and the for each session, and the instructional strategies utilized were instructional strategies utilized were designed to give middle school designed to give middle school teachers a more meaningful teachers a more meaningful understanding of the mathematics understanding of the mathematics they are teaching.they are teaching.

Format of the PDFormat of the PD

Intensive residential two week Intensive residential two week summer institute (one or two per summer institute (one or two per summer)summer)

Integrated follow-up during the Integrated follow-up during the following academic yearfollowing academic year

Math Content KnowledgeMath Content Knowledge

Rigorous content based upon:Rigorous content based upon: State and national standardsState and national standards Praxis exam middle school math Praxis exam middle school math

objectivesobjectives Needs assessmentNeeds assessment Research availableResearch available

Integration of content and pedagogyIntegration of content and pedagogy

MSP Summer InstituteMSP Summer InstituteInstructional StrategiesInstructional Strategies

Based upon Based upon Adult learning theory (Knowles, 1984; Adult learning theory (Knowles, 1984;

Brookfield, 1986; Kidd, 1983)Brookfield, 1986; Kidd, 1983) National Staff Development Standards National Staff Development Standards

(NSDC, 2001) (NSDC, 2001) NCTM Professional Teaching and NCTM Professional Teaching and

Curriculum Standards (NCTM 1991, 2000)Curriculum Standards (NCTM 1991, 2000) Research on best practices for prof dev Research on best practices for prof dev

(Loucks-Horsley, 2003; Mewborn, 2003; (Loucks-Horsley, 2003; Mewborn, 2003; Yeager, 2002; Stein et al. 2000; Yeager, 2002; Stein et al. 2000; Posamentier, 1998; Hilliard, 1997; Posamentier, 1998; Hilliard, 1997; Corcoran, 1995; Taylor, 1986)Corcoran, 1995; Taylor, 1986)

Instructors…Instructors…

ListenListen

QuestionQuestion

Demonstrate/illustrateDemonstrate/illustrate

CommunicateCommunicate

ParticipateParticipate

EngageEngage

MotivateMotivate

SupportSupport

EncourageEncourage

ObserveObserve

ClarifyClarify

Participants learn Participants learn by engaging in…by engaging in…

Hands-on ActivitiesHands-on Activities

DoingDoing

QuestioningQuestioning

DiscoveringDiscovering

ApplyingApplying

CollaboratingCollaborating

ModelingModeling

Problem SolvingProblem Solving

InvestigatingInvestigating

Testing/VerifyingTesting/Verifying

Clarifying Clarifying MisconceptionsMisconceptions

Support During and Support During and Following InstituteFollowing Institute

Tutorial Tutorial Technology (and stipend)Technology (and stipend) Collaborative work sessions Collaborative work sessions Instructional materials & overhead graphing calculatorInstructional materials & overhead graphing calculator Commitment from school districtsCommitment from school districts E-membership to NCTME-membership to NCTM Consultation from TMSTEC and MSP workshop leadersConsultation from TMSTEC and MSP workshop leaders Preparation for middle school mathematics Praxis examPreparation for middle school mathematics Praxis exam Seminars on state curriculum & testing, using test Seminars on state curriculum & testing, using test

results to enhance instruction, best practices for results to enhance instruction, best practices for helping underrepresented groups to achieve their helping underrepresented groups to achieve their potential in mathematicspotential in mathematics

Evaluation of the Evaluation of the PDPD

Research QuestionsResearch Questions•Did participation in the program enhance teachers’ Did participation in the program enhance teachers’ content knowledge? content knowledge? •Did participation in the program enhance teachers’ Did participation in the program enhance teachers’ teaching skills?teaching skills?•Did teachers’ enhanced content knowledge and Did teachers’ enhanced content knowledge and teaching skills result in enhanced learning of their teaching skills result in enhanced learning of their students?students?

Hypothesized Relationship Between PD and Student Learning

Enhanced Content Enhanced Content KnowledgeKnowledge

Utilized Utilized DTAMS (Diagnostic Teacher DTAMS (Diagnostic Teacher Assessments in Math and Science)Assessments in Math and Science) Tests Tests Developed and graded by the University of Developed and graded by the University of

Louisville Center for Research in Louisville Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Teacher Mathematics and Science Teacher DevelopmentDevelopment

Results show statistically significant Results show statistically significant increases (alpha = .05) of overall test mean increases (alpha = .05) of overall test mean from pre to post for all four summer from pre to post for all four summer institutes in 2006 and 2007 including institutes in 2006 and 2007 including Statistically significant increases on the Statistically significant increases on the

pedagogical content knowledge subscore.pedagogical content knowledge subscore.

Probability/Statistics Summer 2006 InstituteProbability/Statistics Summer 2006 InstituteDTAMS Middle School Probability and Statistics TestDTAMS Middle School Probability and Statistics Test

N = 26 *Average Pre-test Score: 15.9 of 40 Average Post-test Score: 22.8 of 40 Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type: Pre Post____

*I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge 5.7 of 10 7.4 of 10 *II: Conceptual Understanding 5.1 of 10 7.2 of 10 *III: Reasoning/Problem Solving 2.8 of 10 4.5 of 10 *IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge 2.3 of 10 3.8 of 10

Breakdown of Above by Subject Type: *Statistics 9.1 of 20 11.7 of 20 *Probability 6.8 of 20 11.2 of 20

*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test

Algebra Summer 2006 InstituteAlgebra Summer 2006 InstituteDTAMS Middle School Algebraic Ideas TestDTAMS Middle School Algebraic Ideas Test

N = 24 *Average Pre-test Score: 15.9 of 40 Average Post-test Score: 23.3 of 40 Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type: Pre Post _

*I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge 4.8 of 10 6.5 of 10 *II: Conceptual Understanding 4.8 of 10 7.0 of 10 *III: Reasoning/Problem Solving 4.2 of 10 5.5 of 10 *IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge 2.0 of 10 4.2 of 10

Breakdown of Above by Subject Type: *Patterns/Functions/Relations: 7.8 of 20 12.0 of 20 *Expressions/Polynomials: 4.0 of 9 5.4 of 9 *Equations/Inequalities: 4.2 of 11 6.0 of 11

*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test

Geometry Summer 2007 InstituteGeometry Summer 2007 InstituteDTAMS Middle School Geometry and Measurement TestDTAMS Middle School Geometry and Measurement Test

N = 29 *Average Pre-test Score: 16.6 of 40 Average Post-test Score: 22.0 of 40 Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type: Pre Post___

*I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge 5.2 of 10 6.3 of 10 *II: Conceptual Understanding 4.6 of 10 6.1 of 10 *III: Reasoning/Problem Solving 3.2 of 10 3.5 of 10 *IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge 3.7 of 10 6.2 of 10

Breakdown of Above by Subject Type: *Two-Dimensional Geometry 3.6 of 11 5.9 of 11 * Three-Dimensional Geometry 5.4 of 11 5.6 of 11 Transformational Geometry 4.0 of 9 5.4 of 9 *Measurement 3.7 of 9 5.2 of 9

*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test

Probability/Statistics Summer 2007 InstituteProbability/Statistics Summer 2007 InstituteDTAMS Middle School Probability and Statistics TestDTAMS Middle School Probability and Statistics Test

N = 19 *Average Pre-test Score: 17.3 of 40 Average Post-test Score: 21.1 of 40 Breakdown of Above by Knowledge Type: Pre Post___

I: Memorized/Factual Knowledge 6.6 of 10 7.2 of 10 II: Conceptual Understanding 5.1 of 10 5.5 of 10 III: Reasoning/Problem Solving 2.9 of 10 3.8 of 10 *IV: Pedagogical Content Knowledge 2.7 of 10 4.5 of 10

Breakdown of Above by Subject Type: Statistics 7.6 of 20 8.7 of 20 *Probability 9.7 of 20 12.4 of 20

*Statistically significant at alpha = .05 using two-tailed t-test

2005- 2006

Scores of students in participating teachers’ current classes

2004-2005

Previous years scores for

these students

NCE Diff

ijBij PNCENCE B

BNCE11

BPNCE11

BNCE12 BPNCE12 . . .

.

.

.

BNCE21 BPNCE21 . . .

.

.

.

BNCE31 BPNCE31 . . .

.

.

.

BNCE20N BPNCE20N

Bx

2006- 2007

Scores of students in participating teachers’ current classes

2005- 2006

Previous years

scores for these students

NCE Diff

ijAijA PNCENCE

ANCE11

APNCE11

ANCE12 APNCE12 . . .

.

.

.

ANCE21 APNCE21 . . .

.

.

.

ANCE31 APNCE31 . . .

.

.

.

ANCE20M APNCE20M

Ax

Key:

*NCEij = NCE of jth student in teacher i’s class*BNCE = NCE for students in teachers current classes before pd *BPNCE = the previous year’s NCE for these students*ANCE = NCE for students in teachers current classes after pd*APNCE = the previous years NCE for these students

Before PD After PD

Measuring Effect of PD on Student Achievement

The instructional practices and

assessments discussed or shown in this

presentation is not intended as an

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.