Download - Improving Teacher Quality Grants, Cycle 6: External Evaluation Report Highlights and Spotlights
Improving Teacher Quality Grants, Cycle 6:
External Evaluation ReportHighlights and Spotlights
December 3rd, 2009University of Missouri
Evaluation Team
Evaluation Team
Principal InvestigatorsSandra AbellFran ArbaughMark EhlertJohn LanninRose Marra
Graduate Research Assistants
Ya-Wen ChengMark GagnonMichele LeeDominike MerleS. Rená Smith
Context of the Evaluation
• Improving Teacher Quality Grant program, Cycle 6, 2008-2009– Required 50% or more participants from high-need
schools – Funded 8 professional development projects (2
from previous cycle)– Science and mathematics, grades K-12– Formative and summative evaluation
Funded ProjectsProject Title Higher Education Institution;
Principal InvestigatorGrade Level;
Content FocusProject
Year
Professional Development for Enduring Understanding of Science via Inquiry & Literacy
Lincoln University ; Gouranga Saha Grades K-9; Science 1 of 3
Science Education and Quantitative Literacy: An Inquiry-Based Approach
Missouri University of Science and Technology; V.A. Samaranayake
Grades 2-7; Mathematics and Science
1 of 3
Science and Mathematics Achievement from Rural Teachers
Missouri State University; Lynda Plymate
Grades 4-10; Mathematics and Science
3 of 3
Quality Elementary Science Teaching University of Missouri; Deborah Hanuscin Grades K-6; Science 1 of 3
Physics for Elementary and Middle School Teachers: Constructing an Understanding of Physics
Rockhurst University; Robert Hegarty Grades 4-8; Science 3 of 3
Connect 9 Math Three Rivers Community College; Mary Lou Brown
Grades 3-8; Mathematics 1 of 3
gecKo mathematicsFoundation for Mathematical Proficiency Truman State University; Janice
Grow-MaienzaGrades K-6; Mathematics 1 of 1
Teacher Enhancement for Active Middle School Science in Kansas City
University of Missouri-Kansas City: Jerzy Wrobel Grades 6-8; Science 1 of 1
Participant Summary• 264 participants: 252 teachers, 8 pre-service teachers,
and 4 administrators; • More taught science at the end of Cycle 6 than at the
beginning;• Most were elementary or middle level teachers;• 58.7% were new to the ITQG program;• Taught in 61 different Missouri school districts, and 6
private schools; • Directly impacted 15,523 students in the 2008-2009
school year.
Percentage of Participants from High-Need Districts
59.5%
40.5%
% participants from high-need districts % participants from non high-need districts
• 5 projects met or exceeded 50% goal
• 3 projects involved fewer than 50% (2 funded in Cycle 4)
• Overall greater % than in Cycles 3, 4, or 5
ITQG Objectives– Improve student achievement in mathematics
and/or science– Increase teachers’ knowledge and
understanding of key mathematics and/or science concepts
– Improve teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices in inquiry-based instruction
– Enhance teachers’ use of assessment to monitor effectiveness of instruction
– Impact the preparation of pre-service teachers
Teacher Content Knowledge Pre- and Posttests Show Gains
23
3846
24
49
79
35
53 56
72
87 89
41
89
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Project 1 -Science
Project 3 -Math
Project 3 -Science
Project 4 -Science
Project 5 -Science
Project 6 -Math
% C
orre
ct
Pretest Posttest Posttest #2
Curriculum Design and Content Knowledge: Teachers as Learners
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
All Projects MU QUEST Rockhurst
Improved Confidence in Content Knowledge from PD
End of Summer End of Project
Self rated Improvement in Content Knowledge Confidence 1 = A Little to 3 = Very Much
Curriculum Design and Content Knowledge: Teachers as Learners
7.57.67.77.87.9
88.18.28.38.4
Overall Rockhurst MU QUEST
Contribution of Content Knowledge Component to Professional Growth
Self rated Contributionof Content Knowledge to Professional Growth 0 = None to 10 = Very Much
Student Achievement
42 39 49 53
31 37
64 72 76 77 75
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Project 1 -Science
Project 2 -Math
Project 2 -Science
Project 3 -Math/Science
Project 5 -Science
Project 6 -Math
% C
orre
ct
Pretest Posttest
Student Achievement
8.7
8.3
-4.5
-3.0
11.0
5.5
-0.3
-0.4
2.7
-1.3
5.3
4.8
-1.1
-0.9
2.9
0.3
16.3
1.8
-0.1
-1.3
0.7 0.7 4.
4
2.4
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
3 4 5 6 7 8
Inde
x P
oint
s
Grade
Changes in MAP Mathematics Index Scores
HN - PD Partic. HN - Not PD Not HN - PD Partic. Not HN - Not PD
5.7
5.3
-2.2
-1.5
4.1
3.8
0.5
-0.3
1.9
-1.6
2.4 2.9
0.1 0.
8 3.3
2.1
8.4
3.0
0.1
-0.8
0.9
-0.2
1.9
1.6
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
3 4 5 6 7 8
% P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Grade
Change in MAP Mathematics Proficiency Rates
HN - PD Partic. HN - Not PD Not HN - PD Partic. Not HN - Not PD
Student Achievement
-5.9 -2.8 -2.6
4.6
-10.3
3.5
0.0
2.1
-13.0
-8.0
-3.0
2.0
7.0
12.0
5 8
Inde
x P
oint
s
Grade
Changes in MAP Science Index Scores
HN - PD Partic. HN - Not PD Not HN - PD Partic. Not HN - Not PD
|------------ Grade 5 ---------------| |------------ Grade 8 ----------------|
-2.7 -2.4 -1.3
1.5
-7.6
1.5
0.0
1.1
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
% P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Grade
Changes in MAP Science Proficiency Levels
HN - PD Partic. HN - Not PD Not HN - PD Partic. Not HN - Not PD
|------------- Grade 5 ------------| |------------ Grade 8 ---------------|
Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry
Objective 3 from the Cycle 6 RFP:
“To improve teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices that utilize scientifically-based research findings and best practices in inquiry-based instruction.”
Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry
Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry
Teacher Assessment Knowledge
Objective 4 from the Cycle 6 RFP:
“To enhance teachers’ use of assessment data to monitor the effectiveness of their instruction.”
Teacher Assessment Knowledge
Impact on Higher Education• Objective 5 from the Cycle 6 RFP:
“Impact the preparation of pre-service teachers through improvement to existing coursework or the design of new mathematics and/or science content and/or pedagogy courses.”
• Outcomes:– 2 projects included preservice teachers– 2 new graduate content courses– New program of study—minor in physics– Changes to existing courses
Spotlight on Best Practices
– Related to Higher Ed/K-12 Collaboration– Related to views of teaching and learning– Related to design features
Spotlight on Collaboration
Effective PD “links with other parts of the education system” (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003, p. 44)
– UMKC and Kansas City Schools
Spotlight on Collaboration
The summer institute/PD project was relevant to my teaching assignment (for the coming school year)
End of Summer Mean
All Projects 2.7/3.0
UMKC 3.0
Spotlight on Views of Teaching and Learning
“effective PD is driven by a well-defined image of effective classroom learning and teaching” (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003, p. 44)
• Learning cycle: Rockhurst and UMKC• 5E: Lincoln and MU• Seamless assessment and universal design: MU
Spotlight on Views of Teaching and Learning
Teacher Satisfaction with Projects: “Instructors modeled good practice”
Project End of Summer Mean
End of Project Mean
All Projects 3.6/4.0 3.7/4.0
Lincoln 3.9 4.0
Rockhurst 3.9 3.9
MU 4.0 4.0
UMKC 3.8 3.7
Spotlight on Design Features– TRCC math coach in schools / classrooms
– MU science camp for children and opportunity for teachers to plan, deliver, and review lessons with kids (mean value on contribution of Summer Institute = 10.0)
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
Summer institute School-year call backs Other school-based activities
Contribution of PD Components to Professional Growth
All TRCCSelf rated Contribution of PD Components to Professional Growth 0 = None to 10 = Very Much
Questions/Comment
Copies of the Cycle 6 Report and Executive Summary available at:
www.pdeval.missouri.edu