diocese of fort worth curriculum development process professional development evaluation report
DESCRIPTION
Diocese of Fort Worth Curriculum Development Process Professional Development Evaluation Report. EDU: 8315-40 Dr. Ballenger Authors: Pamela Cooper, Charlene Hymel, Kary Johnson, Michael Wright. Executive Summary. Evaluation Questions EQ1: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Diocese of Fort WorthCurriculum Development Process
Professional DevelopmentEvaluation Report
Diocese of Fort WorthCurriculum Development Process
Professional DevelopmentEvaluation Report
EDU: 8315-40Dr. Ballenger
Authors:Pamela Cooper, Charlene Hymel,
Kary Johnson, Michael Wright
EDU: 8315-40Dr. Ballenger
Authors:Pamela Cooper, Charlene Hymel,
Kary Johnson, Michael Wright
Executive SummaryEvaluation Questions
EQ1:
To what extent are teachers implementing the new standards-based curriculum?
EQ2:
What impact did the Curriculum Initiative staff development have on your design & implementation of the Year-Long Plan
(YLP)?
EQ3:
What changes have you seen in teachers’ lesson planning based on implementation of Year-Long Plans and the Curriculum
Initiative?
Executive Summary
Summary of FindingsIn general, the Curriculum Initiative staff development program has been successful in providing more opportunities for teachers to plan together leading to a more organized and detailed way to design lesson plans which tended to affect positive changes in student learning.
Executive Summary
Implications
No response from mission/urban schools. Possible causes: lack of time for teachers, or disparity of resource allocation between socio-economic areas
Executive Summary
RecommendationsIt is advisable that future training sessions occur on individual campuses in an effort to target implementation strategies and to affect change in teacher behavior by grade level-grouped campuses, such as by all elementary schools or by all middle or high schools.
IntroductionPurpose of the evaluation is threefold:
to review the extent to which teachers are implementing the new standard-based curriculum;
to measure the impact of the Curriculum Initiative staff development on design and
implementation of the Year-Long Plan (YLP); and,
to validate changes in teacher lesson-planning based implementation of YLPs and the Curriculum
Initiative.
Introduction
Goal of the evaluation:
to evaluate whether grade level teachers have implemented a Year-
Long Plan (YLP).
Introduction
Evaluation QuestionsEQ1:
To what extent are teachers implementing the new standards-based curriculum?
EQ2:
What impact did the Curriculum Initiative staff development have on your design & implementation of the Year-Long Plan?
EQ3:
What changes have you seen in teachers’ lesson planning based on implementation of Year-Long Plans and the Curriculum
Initiative?
Overview of the Program
Program description: The Diocesan Curriculum Development Process Staff Development Program moves teachers from check-off curriculum lists to standards-based curriculum. Drs. Ozar and Mia conducted staff development on year-long plans, essential learning, backwards design lessons, formative and summative evaluation, and instructional strategies over a three year period.
Content: Following a book study, staff development included whole group sessions, clustered school sessions, and sessions for the curriculum learning team members. Teacher learning teams were formed at each school to help facilitate continuous implementation and learning.
Overview of the Program
Program goal: implement standards-based curriculum, outcomes-based instruction to facilitate an academic program distinguished by rigor and continuous, sustained growth for students and teachers.
Objectives: (1) enable teachers to translate standards into school level curriculum (2) improve classroom instruction, and (3) increase student and teacher learning
Activities: identify essential learning, make year-long plan, match assessments to essential learning, select instructional strategies, design lessons in backward design to support instructional units, use learning results to inform instruction, and engage in PLC process
Overview of the Program
Resources: Hartford Curriculum Guides
Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills
Dr. Lorraine Ozar
Dr. Michelle Lia
A+ Educators
Notebooks & Handouts
Curriculum Learning Team Members
Diocesan Office
Overview of the Program
Stakeholders: Pastors, School Advisory Councils, Administrators, Teachers, Parents, Students
Participants: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, School Administrators, Teachers
Evaluation Design
MethodsMixed-Methods:
Quantitative and Qualitative methods used in the form of surveys, focus-group interviews, and one-on-one interviews.
Evaluation Design
Data Collection - TriangulatedSurveys
Focus-Group Interviews
One-on-One Interviews
Evaluation Design
Data Sources
Survey responses from K-8 Teachers on YLP Checklist
Focus-Group Interviews with teachers
One-on-One Interviews with administrators
Evaluation Design
Data Analysis Quantitative Analysis:
Descriptive statistics: conducted on (N=132) responses to 13 question YLP checklist survey
Inferential statistics:
4 separate ANOVAs conducted
4 independent variables: endurance, leverage, readiness, combined (e+l+r)
3 existing groups/subject variables: grade level, subject, school
Evaluation Design
Data Analysis
Qualitative Analysis:
Interview responses were studied for patterns. Once patterns were found in the responses, commonalities were extrapolated and through analysis, formed a “picture” of program success.
Evaluation Design Data Analysis
Descriptive Data (Means/SD):
response rate:
38% of total K-8 faculty
40% of total schools
Data analyzed by:
school (6),
grade (elementary or middle),
subject (ELA, math, science, SS, religion, specials, foreign language)
Full survey: 83 % “yes” elementary & 84% “yes” middle
See table 1 for more info on descriptive trends
Evaluation Design Data Analysis continued
Quantitative Variable 1: full survey
No significant differences between school, grade level or subject
All groups reporting endurance scores of 89-100% (table 1)
See table 2 for more information
Evaluation Design Data Analysis continued
Quantitative Variable 2: endurance
No significant differences between schools, grade levels or subjects
All groups reporting endurance scores of 89-100% (table 1)
See table 2 for more information
Evaluation Design Data Analysis continued
Quantitative Variable 3: leverage
No significant differences between schools or grade levels
Significant difference (p=.015) between subjects – issue with specials (79%) /foreign language (50%) as compared to core subjects (84-100%)
See table 3 for more information
Evaluation Design Data Analysis continued
Quantitative Variable 4: readiness
No significant differences between school, grade level or subject
All groups reporting endurance scores of 84-100% (table 1)
See table 4 for more information
Evaluation Design Data Analysis continued
Quantitative Data Set 5: combined (e+l+r)
*only summative/outcome portion
set level of response 66.66% (by Dr. Ozar)
all stakeholder responses between 83-100%
significant differences between responses when analyzed by subject (p=.015) & school (p=.004)
See Table 5 for more info
Findings
Qualitative Interpretations:
Broad themes emerged in the data
“Organization” which led to more detailed plans
“Collaboration” which led to the development of PLCs.
Findings Quantitative/Qualitative
Interpretations Standard Based Curriculum Implementation is
Occurring (EQ1, EQ3)
Continued Inconsistencies among Schools/Populations (EQ1, EQ2)
Non-Core Educators (EQ1)
Professional Learning Community Creation (EQ1, EQ2)
Improved Professional Development Delivery (EQ2, EQ3)
Findings
Delimitations
YLP checklist tool
Group (school, subject) size inconsistency
FindingsLimitations
Lack of diversity among reporting schools
Lack of diversity among teacher subject-areas Lack of consistency among information disseminated during training sessions
Findings
Implications:
lack of teacher response from mission schools
Possible reasons
lack of time
lack of resources
RecommendationsFuture Actions
Continue Alignment Process
Promote alignment of Programming (school buy-in)
Reorganize delivery method of staff development (PLCS within schools)
Target-train based on grade level-grouped needs
Target Diversity/Mission Schools
References
• See original report
• Upon request