© 2006 teachers development group 1 building k-12 math leaders: “walking the walk” means...

© 2006 Teachers Development Group 1

Building K-12 Math Leaders: “Walking the Walk”

MEANS“Talking the Talk”

Tom Dick, Oregon State UniversityLinda Foreman, Teachers Development Group

NCSM ConferenceApril 2008, Salt Lake City

RMC Research Corporation 2© 2006 Teachers Development Group 2

OMLI: Oregon Mathematics Leadership Institute

Partners Oregon State University Portland State University Teachers Development Group (TDG) 10 Oregon School Districts RMC Research Corporation

OMLI is in Year 4


OMLI Objective

Build a cadre of school- and district-based intellectual leaders and master mathematics teachers through: 3 summer institutes (2007 was the last institute)

2 of 6 content courses each summer 1 collegial leadership course each summer

Pedagogy and leadership Follow-up academic year professional

development 4 site visits by TDG staff


School Leadership Teams (SLT) 82 K-12 schools from 10 school districts Each school has a SLT composed of:

2 teacher leaders Attend 3 weeks of all 3 summer institutes Participates in school year activities

1 Administrator Attends 1 week of all 3 summer institutes Participates in school year activities


OMLI Research Logic Model

Summer Institute

• Math Content

• Leadership

TDG Site Visits4 Each

School Year

Action PlanSchool Leadership

Teams

Follow-up PD• School-Based• Implementation

of Action Plan• Increase Student

Discourse

IncreasedStudent

DiscourseClasses of

Teacher LeadersAnd Later inClasses of theOther Math

Teachers

Improved Teaching and Learning in

Mathematics

ImprovedStudent

Achievement


Data Sources

Classroom observation dataStudent achievement dataProfessional development

participation data


Random Sampling

School Sampling 25 school out of 86 Stratified by grade level Sample demographically representative

Teacher Sampling 1 of the 2 teacher leader 1 other teacher of mathematics at similar

grade level


Classroom Observation Protocols

Must be about mathematics Among students not the teacher Lesson episodes Attributes of discourse

Mode Type Tools


Discourse Mode

Who the Student AddressesTeacher (even if public)StudentGroup (small group or the class)Individual


Discourse Type

Represents continuum of cognitive demand Answering Stating/ sharing Explaining Questioning Challenging Relating Predicting/Conjecturing Justifying Generalizing

Low Cognitive Demand

High Cognitive Demand


Discourse Tools

Verbal Gesturing/Acting Written Graphs, Charts, Sketches Manipulative Symbolization Notation Computers/Calculators Others

A Typical Recording Sheet


Classroom Parallel: Student Discourse Observation

Scribing verbatim student discourse

Characterizing discourse types: Procedures and Facts Justification Generalization


Procedures and Facts

Short answer to a direct question Restating facts/statements made by others Showing work/methods to others Explaining what and how Questioning to clarify Making observations/connections


Justification

Explaining why by providing mathematical reasoning

Challenging the validity of an idea by providing mathematical reasoning

Giving mathematical defense for an idea that was challenged


Generalization

Using mathematical relationships as the

basis for: Making conjectures/predictions about what

might happen in the general case or different contexts

Explaining and justifying what will happen in the general case.

Student Discourse Observation Tool


OMLI Work in Schools

To accomplish the OMLI objectives … All OMLI School Leadership Teams collaborate to

create sustainable and effective school-based professional learning communities whose work centers on improving mathematics instruction.

All OMLI schools institutionalize ongoing, high-quality, practice-based professional learning characterized by protocol-based dialogue and inquiry about mathematics content, students’ mathematical thinking, and effective instruction.


School Leadership Team Obligations

Design and implement a School Action Plan to improve mathematics learning and teaching school-wide

Facilitate a minimum of 2 hours of mathematics PD per month for building colleagues

Utilize OMLI-defined Professional Learning Tasks (PLTs) during their building-based PD


Professional Learning Tasks (PLT)

Student Discourse Observations Case Discussions* Mathematics Tasks Framework & Task Analysis Guide* Data Snaps* Examining Student Work*

Analyzing Trends Artifacts of Student Thinking

Lesson Planning Framework* PLT Planning Framework*


*Keeping Our Eye on the Prize: Student Thinking/Discourse

Developing generative learners (teachers, administrators, and students) through a relentless focus on students’ mathematical thinking, cognitive demand, and sociomathematical norms

Explicit focus in each PLT on sensemaking about students’ mathematical thinking through analyses of student discourse


Training the Professional Eye:Student Discourse Observation Protocol

Phase 1 Predictions – Framing the Observations

Phase 2 Observations – Collecting and Classifying the Data

Phase 3 Inferences – Inquiry Dialogue and Action Steps


Why the Protocol?

Besides supporting sensemaking about the discourse types, this process supports deprivatization of practice professional community sensemaking about mathematical ideas and

their trajectory inquiry-based stance towards one’s practice


Professional Learning Tasks (PLT)

Student Discourse Observations Case Discussions* Mathematics Tasks Framework & Task

Analysis Guide* Data Snaps* Examining Student Work*

Analyzing Trends Artifacts of Student Thinking

Lesson Planning Framework* PLT Planning Framework*


One of the Research Questions

Has the OMLI project increased the percentage of students who demonstrate proficiency on the Oregon State Mathematics Assessments for Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in all participating K–12 schools?


About the Research Data

The school is the unit of change for the OMLI project

Data available form the Oregon Department of Education website

School-level aggregate data School demographic data


Initial Results Were Discouraging and Inconclusive


Taking Note of Implementation Fidelity

Project staff reported that some schools are not implementing their action plans as well as others

Re-examining project impact on student achievement Collect level of implementation data through the

Teachers Development Group (TDG) site team staff Using a standard rubric developed in partnership

with the TDG staff Explore relationship between student achievement

and level of implementation.

OMLI 13 Trait Implementation Rubric


Revising the Evaluation Question

Do students in schools that do a better job of implementing the practices promoted through the OMLI project show higher performance on the state assessments compared to students in school that do a poorer job of implementing those practices?


Traits Measured

Quality of the Action Plan Implementation of the Action Plan Teacher Leadership Teacher 1 & 2 School Administrator Leadership & Engagement District Leadership Team (DLT) School/District Policies and Practices Stability of the School Leadership Team (SLT) School Priority of Mathematics Professional Development (PD) Responsibilities Scope of Professional Development (PD) Use of Professional Learning Tasks (PLTs) &

Protocols Evidence of Impact


Secondary School Results

5 implementation traits were positively correlated with student achievement in secondary schools Quality of the school action plan Implementation of the action plan Regular school-based professional development Scope of school-based professional development Use of well-defined professional learning tasks and

protocols during school-based professional development

Secondary Implementation Scale (SIS)


Analysis of Grade 10 Student Achievement


Means Weighted By Number of Students Assessed


Conclusion for Secondary Schools

The degree to which schools implement the practices promoted by the OMLI project is a significant positive predictor of student performance above and beyond what can be explained by the socioeconomic factor as indicated by the percent of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch program.

This relationship is particularly acute at the Grade 10 (R2=.738, Beta=.320) and Grade 8 (R2=.524, Beta=.197).


Secondary Implementation Scale Quality of the school action plan Implementation of the action plan Regular school-based professional

development Scope of school-based professional

development Use of well-defined professional learning

tasks and protocols during school-based professional development (discourse)


Elementary School Results

5 different traits were positively correlated with student achievement Leadership qualities of the teachers on the School

Leadership Team Whether the School Leadership Team had a second

teacher participating Supportive school and district policies and practices The degree to which mathematics is a priority for the

school Use of well-defined professional learning tasks and

protocols during school-based professional development (discourse)

Elementary Implementation Scale (EIS)


Conclusion for Elementary Schools

The degree to which schools implement the practices promoted by the OMLI project and socioeconomic factors are predictors of student performance, but

The regression model does not account for enough of the variance in student achievement

There are other factors at play in elementary schools that are not accounted for by the traits measured by the implementation rubrics and socioeconomics


Back to the Evaluation Question

Question: Has the OMLI project increased the

percentage of students who demonstrate proficiency on the Oregon State Mathematics Assessments for Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in all participating K–12 schools?

Answer: Yes for those schools that effectively

implemented the project as intended.


Evaluation Plans for 2008

School level analysis Add traits to implementation rubrics that may

explain other factors influencing student achievement at the elementary level

Rate school again in June 2008 Repeat the analysis using 2008 student

assessment data Obtain student level data from state ???

Analyze student achievement of student of SLT teachers compared to that of non-SLT teachers

Questions and Thank You!

Tom Dick, OMLI Principal InvestigatorMathematics Department, Oregon State University

[email protected]

Linda Foreman, OMLI Co-PI & Project DirectorTeachers Development [email protected]

www.teachersdg.org

Dave Weaver, OMLI EvaluatorRMC Research

[email protected]

http://omli.org

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.teachersdg.org/


© 2006 teachers development group 1 building k-12 math leaders: “walking the walk” means...

Documents